Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation (review)

Ethics and the Environment, 4(1): 115-121 © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. ISSN: 1085-6633 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks BOOK REVIEW Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation London and New York: Routledge. 1996. Pp. xii + 286. (cloth) $65.00. ISBN 0-41513113 -8; (paper) $19.95. ISBN 0-415-13114-6. Reviewed by: Keith Burgess-Jackson, The University of Texas at Arlington. Review, v.L To set your wisdom (holding not a doubt of it, Although in truth there's neither bone nor skin to it) At work upon a book, and so read out of it The qualities that you have first read into it. —Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911 May I gush? This book by Messrs LaFollette and Shanks (hereafter "L&S") is everything a philosophical tome should be: timely, important, factually informed, responsive to the scholarly literature, analytical, scrupulously fair, and rigorously, vigorously argued. It is, if I may say so, a model specimen of practical ethics. Books such as this are tangible rebuttals of the notion, which is widely and scurrilously disseminated in our practical-minded, science-and-technology-worshiping culture, that philosophers , qua philosophers, have nothing to contribute to the understanding or resolution of moral, political, and legal controversies. Not only is it false that philosophers have nothing to contribute to these controversies ; there are reasons for thinking that they have more than others to contribute. Who else (with the possible exception of lawyers) is trained in the niceties of argumentation and argument evaluation? Who cares as much about the nuances of meanDirect all correspondence to: Keith Burgess-Jackson, Department of Philosophy and Humanities, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76019-0527; Fax: (817) 272-5807; E-mail: kbj® uta.edu 115 116 ETHICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT Vol. 4, No. 1,1999 ing, about the scope and limits of knowledge, about methodology, and about the relation between logic (what one says) and rhetoric (how one says it)? Who understands, and pays attention to, the differences between (and among) statements of fact, expressions of value, and the concepts, categories, and frameworks with(in) which we conduct our thinking? Philosophers should not apologize for bringing their expertise to bear on the issues of the day. In my opinion, the most pressing contemporary issue, taking into account both the number of beings affected and the magnitude of their maltreatment, is the use and abuse of nonhuman animals (hereafter "animals") by human beings, many of whom, sadly, treat animals as resources. L&S, who teach philosophy at East Tennessee State University, focus on one particularly disturbing human institution, that of animal experimentation (hereafter "AE"). Is AE justified? If so, on what grounds? If not, why not? Unfortunately, the debate as we know it is mean-spirited, polarized, stale, and largely counterproductive because of an inability or unwillingness of the protagonists to take seriously the arguments of their opponents. Views tend to be dogmatically held and shrilly expressed. Charity and sympathetic understanding are in short supply. Weaknesses in one's position remain unacknowledged and unexamined. Some of the people involved literally do not know what they are talking about. It is not, all things considered , a pretty picture. Indeed, it is downright ugly. Nor is it conducive to the sort of rational dialogue that philosophers value and that might lead to constructive social change.1 The thesis of Brute Science, simply stated, is that AE is bad. It is bad in two ways: scientifically and morally. These are different claims, of course, although they are often conflated (always to bad effect). It could be that AE is good science even though it is morally unacceptable; and it could be morally acceptable but scientifically fruitless. L&S think that AE is defective on both counts. That is to say, even if AE raised no moral issues whatsoever (which it does), standards internal to science would dictate its modification, if not its abolition. To show this, they have mastered (not just perused ) the scientific literature. Part I of the book sets out the framework of the debate ("both sides offer arguments worthy of consideration" [p. 18]), paying special attention to the biological paradigm within...