Blind Hostility: A Response to Russell and Nicoll

P. Singer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3181/00379727-211-43958B

1996-02-01

Abstract:Introduction: An Allegation Withdrawn A revealing episode occurred as I was drafting my response to Russell and Nicoll. Their paper had been sent to me by the editor of PSEBM on March 1, 1994, with an invitation to respond. On reading the paper I immediately found several false and misleading claims, which were naturally of concern to me. But there was one that was especially outrageous. In Animal Liberation I quoted Elizabeth Whelan, executive director of the American Council on Science and Health, as saying that “our regulators are beginning to take note of the scientific literature rejecting the infallibility of the laboratory animal test” (1, p58). Russell and Nicoll said that I appeared to have “fabricated” this quotation. They made the allegation prominently, not only in the text of their article, but also specifically emphasized it in their abstract. In support of their claim, they wrote: First, we doubt that a knowledgeable person such as Dr. Whelan would refer to any laboratory procedure or test (animal or otherwise) as being “infallible.” Second, the source of this quote is a [s]yndicated article appearing in West County Times (California), January 17, 1988” (4, Note number 62, p276.) This is a local newspaper with a limited distribution. If an authoritative figure such as Dr. Whelan had been quoted in a syndicated article as having made such a statement, it surely would have appeared in major newspapers that would be easier to check. By coincidence, the West County Times is published in our area of residence and copies are kept on microfilm in a local library. Thus it was as easy matter for us (but not for someone living outside the immediate area) to check the authenticity of the quote.