After a month of negotiating with the owner, Animals Lebanon was finally able to close down one of the worst zoos in Lebanon and give the animals the care they so desperately need. On Friday, 13 February, we rescued nearly 40 animals. We need your help now to care for these animals. They all need a place to live – whether in a sanctuary, rehabilitated and returned to nature, or adopted into homes – vet care and proper food.
Go here to help.
Peter Singer’s new book, The Life You Can Save, triggers a profile in The Observer.
To avoid ethical problems, this genome would be inserted not into a human cell but into a chimpanzee cell. The chimp cell would be reprogrammed to embryonic state and used to generate, in a chimpanzee’s womb, a mutant chimp embryo that was a Neanderthal in many or most of its features.
Check out my thoughts on the worship of prophets and the pursuit of profits at the Animals and Society Institute.
But while we live on Hamlet’s “mortal coil,” are we not surely obligated to maximize the amount of pleasure and happiness and minimize the amount of pain and suffering for all those who are capable of experiencing them? Are there not rights to protect you and me? Are there others who have yet to enjoy the protection of rights?
In an article in the London Times Colin Blakemore wrote
On the 200th anniversary of the birth of the most famous naturalist in history everyone wants to claim a piece of Darwin. Not just scientists, but humanists, atheists, philosophers, sociologists and economists vie for a pound of the great man’s flesh. Above all he is embraced by those who argue for the kinship of humans and other animals, and who demand a revolution in the approach to animal welfare.
All well and good, you may think; but this is Colin Blakemore, Professor of Neuroscience at the universities of Oxford and Warwick and a former chief executive of the Medical Research Council. He is also an outspoken proponent of animal research. He claims Darwin for the pro-vivisection team (wasn’t he grumbling about people grabbing Darwin for their political agendas?) and uses the article to repeat the polarised vivisection debate while simultaneously claiming the middle ground and offering nothing new.
Further, he excoriates the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and the National Anti-Vivisection Society for a 19th century mentality in denying the benefits of animal research and condemning its inevitable cruelty. Take a look at their Web sites to see legitimate issues raised and undercover exposes revealing disturbing practices. Does Blakemore not find at least something there that gives him some pause for concern?
Sadly, Blakemore is guilty of failing to use this opportunity to contribute substantially to the animal research debate and move a complex public policy issue forward in any meaningful way. He chose to grandstand on Darwin’s shoulders while simultaneously calling for a nuanced debate and failing to do so.
