Biology and ethics

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

I renamed my subject line here because the question currently
being discussed concerns other branches of biology besides
systematics; indeed, other branches may well be more directly
associated with the type of research being discussed.

A few points:

1) The Navajo extend the reverence for life to plants as well
as animals. This does not mean they refrain from killing them,
but it does mean that they pray to the soul of a medicinal
plant, asking its beneficence, before pulling it up. They
never take more than they need.

2) PETA literature states flatly that no good has ever come
from animal-based research and none ever can. This is
balderdash. The question here is not one of ethical PETAists
vs evil scientists. There is a tradeoff involved. Killing
animals in a lab is an unpleasant necessity. Anyone who
enjoys it should not be allowed anywhere near a science
laboratory. The question is which is worse: killing animals
in a lab or allowing sick children to die of potentially
curable diseases. Society has chosen the latter; PETA prefers
the former as the worse of the two evils. I have no problem
with their different set of values. What I object to is their
denial that the choice exists, their refusal to acknowledge
that some good does indeed come from animal research.
I respect other people's right to their own opinions
provided they get their facts straight. PETA fails that test.

--
"There are two secrets to success. The first is not telling
everything you know."

Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere