First, in an attempt to show up animal advocates as hypocrites, Konner wonders whether they take advantage of medical products and procedures that may have developed in association with animal testing. Unsurprisingly, the answer is that some don't and some do. Those who do, however, are not to be labeled hypocritical; sometimes beneficial things come from bad sources, but using those goods - or serving the groups that supply them - does not automatically commit one to praising their causes.
For example, on the 4th of July most of us observed the national day of independence with festively patriotic celebrations of our country and its (form of ) government. We indulged in these festivities, and daily continue to avail ourselves of the rights and privileges of citizenship - despite the great degree to which our nation was established through murderously and abusively exploitive practices and institutions (e.g., genocide of natives and enslavement of foreigners). Should the rockets' red glare embarrass us ethically? Certainly not, if we are solemnly pledged to being critical and constructive in the present and for the future.
Just as in politics, likewise with medicine: reasonable people can coherently utilize the benefits of an establishment - which itself they may uphold - while yet seeking to change some of its methods. The lesson here is that there exists an entire spectrum of critique and reform between the pure positions of total rejection and complete support. Applied to animal research, this means we have more options available than to choose between absolute abstinence/abolition and reactionary conservatism.
Second, Konner charges that "people do not understand the complex meaning and purpose of [animal] research.'' Yet when one does reflect on the pattern of vivisectional protocol and extrapolation, behind the personal anecdotes and promotional bromides, one begins to discern a considerably more questionable enterprise than Konner's simplistically progressive picture would allow.
In fact, it becomes manifest that this sort of biomedical experimentation is caught in a double-bind. To the extent that its organismic models can validly bear cross-species application, its test subjects will be strikingly similar to human beings. Consequently it would reasonable to have ethical reservations about the test's moral permissibility. To the degree that these models cannot validly bear transpecific application, its subjects will be significantly different from human beings, and consequently it would be rational to doubt the studies' scientific intent and methodic merit. In this way, then, it appears that animal research operates on a very dubious scale. Sliding between unethical conduct and improper practice, with no recommendation at the mean, it shows little promise of building confidence of conscience and intellect in tandem.
Third, Konner implies that advocates are inconsistent critics of biologically exploitive business, lacking the integrity to confront the clothing and meat industries in marshaling their social movement. In truth, however, animal protection people do demonstrate on behalf of reforming or replacing these sectors of commerce. Skeptics such as Konner might want to consider at least bearing witness to, if not a banner in, the Fur-Free Friday protests that occur at clothiers in Atlanta and around the country every November just as the holiday shopping season begins.
Of greater relevance to Konner's own emphasis on human health, I invite him and everyone at Emory to participate in the Great American Meat-Out held annually in the month of March (perhaps encouraging campus cafeterias to sponsor the event locally). Certainly, that week of vegetarian diet, would aid his and our families members; in bringing us closer to plant-based consumption, it would promote a nutrition habit that helps keep our bodily systems free from fatty deposits and cholesterol clutter, thus diminishing our risk of heart disease and cancer (still the two leading causes of death).
Environmentally speaking, moreover, eating lower on the food chain is a means of nourishment that enhances ecological efficiency (since it decreases the levels of energy transfer through intermediary organisms between you and the nutrients necessary for life). So even if you are not much concerned about the intense distress and slaughter of factory-farmed animals, there are yet very good reasons to make more like a herbivore at the dining table.
Finally, I find it necessary to register my dismay that someone of Konner's scholastic stature should have recourse to the scare tactics so patently obvious in his endeavor to discredit animal advocacy - a persuasive technique I suspect he would denounce in his opposition. Especially on the campus of a University that seeks to set itself among the elite centers of research and reflection, reasoned debate and dialogue cannot be displaced by inflammatory detractions (even if authority stands behinds those latter). In the interests of rational argument and independent thinking, I recommend that readers disturbed by this controversy engage in further study. An excellent way to start that process would be to consult the volume of articles and essays edited by Gill Langley under the title Animal Experimentation: The Consensus Changes (Routledge, Chapmam & Hall).
Ralph Acampora is academic counselor and instructor of environmental ethics for Emory College.