Science, magic and political action: a response to the antivivisection movement.

The debate in which we now partake--over the use of animals in medical research--is one of the less remarkable of the social debates of this century. It is not distinguished by its intellectual strength, by its pragmatism, by its achievements, nor by its promise. Its two remarkable features are its longevity and its obstinate sterility. To antivivisectionists it has been a century-long struggle against blind evil; to scientists a century-long struggle against blind ignorance. Why has this debate remained unresolved while much greater debates, over universal franchise and education, over child labour, workers' rights, individual rights, and women's rights have arisen, been brought into the mainstream of social thought and resolved? While successive legislative measures for the protection of farm animals and pets, for the preservation of wild animals and of their habitats have been brought forward, introduced and enforced? Why does the debate over the use of animals in medical research remain bitter, violent and unresolved? The answer lies, I will suggest, in the history of the debate, and I will spend a little time in this paper on that history, hoping to draw out both understanding, and political guidance.