Check out my post, Objective Scientific Research or Subjective Scientific Propaganda?, at the Diary of the Animals and Society Institute.
The study assessed 21 books, including Henry Salt’s Animal Rights, Ruth Harrison’s Animal Machines, Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation and Mary Midgley’s Animals and Why They Matter. After analyzing the books’ contents (that’s 4,562 pages) they determined that 56.9 percent (2,598 pages) were “concerned primarily with the ethical/moral questions regarding the use of animals by humans.” No surprises there, then. The authors then went on to consider the 1,680 pages (36.8 percent) that were “critical of the various ways in which we exploit animals.” They found that the majority of these pages focused on animal research. Not that surprising, perhaps, given that animal experimentation is generally recognized as a major area of concern. Then, Nicoll and Russell take us on a scenic route of arbitrary and unrelated issues in order to park their thesis where they want it.
