Defining a middle ground for philosophers and production: bioethics.

From the perspective of most animal scientists and producers, animal agriculture has become increasingly contentious over the last 10 to 20 years. Furthermore, our critics seem to be extremists whose views are biased and unreasonable. But guess what? The critics say the same thing about animal producers and scientists (us). So where is the middle ground and how do we get there? Should we even worry about trying to define the middle ground? Are these contentious issues a fad that will go away? Are these "extremist" critics so far outside reason that they will be ignored by society? Ignoring "them" is not likely to work because we have seen society changing its mind (developing a new social ethic) with regard to farm animals, in part because of what these critics are saying. As a result, it is vitally important for us to know and understand what is happening and why. For example, there isn't just one voice among the critics. There is actually a spectrum of opinion among the group which conventional agriculturalists usually call their critics. The WCC-204 committee generally agrees that the key to finding the middle ground between what is perceived as a polarized set of issues between "us" (animal scientists and producers) and "them" (philosopher critics) is for both sides to learn about the reasons why each side says what they do. Only then can all parties rationally begin to identify where the middle ground lies.