tific experimentation further justify the use of animals in such activities on the ground that the use of human beings for such purposes is unthinkable (Orlans, 1995). The former justification for the use of animals in medical and other scientific experiments is based on a utilitarian philosophy that in effect holds that the ends justify the means. The latter justification is a reflection of a specie centric outlook based on Judeo-Christian religious beliefs that facilitate the acceptance of the utilitarian justification for the use of animals in medical and other scientific experiments (Loeb, Hendee, Smith, & Schwartz, 1989).
According to a leading American business publication, the animal rights movement in the United States is made up of people who "worship animals," and whose actions pose "a clear and present danger to the à health and welfare" of American society ("Animal Worship," 1989, p. 11). The ludicrous statement and conclusion would be laughable, if they were not accepted by an influential segment of American society. As it is, such statements and conclusions make it more difficult than it would be in any event to develop any sort of consensus on the proper treatment of animals generally in American society and especially the use of animals in medical and other scientific experimentation. Strong emotions are present on each side of the issue. Further complicating the development of a consensus on the proper treatment of animals are the facts that (1) the animal rights movement in the United States is not cohesive with respect to either composition or goals, and (2) the use (or abuse) of animals is not restricted to activities with lofty goals, nor is such use characterized by universal or even similar standards of treatment (Rowan, 1997).
In order to understand the concept of animal rights and animal welfare and the controversy surrounding the use of animals in medical and other scientific experimentation, it ...