- “Most of the harm done to animals – hunting and trapping, factory farming, product testing, animal experimentation, and use of animals for entertainment – is legal...In addition, the powerful institutions of religion, science, and government support the cultural exploitation of animals.” From: Agnew, R. (1998). The causes of animal abuse: A social-psychological analysis. Theoretical Criminology.
- “Perhaps society will eventually reach the conclusion that animal abuse should be censured not because it is similar to abuse of humans but because it is loathsome to animals themselves.” From: Beirne, P. (1999). For a nonspeciesist criminology: Animal abuse as an object of study. Criminology.
- “At the moment, the scientific community justifies invasive animal use by citing the human and/or animal benefits that result from such use. In the current system, the scientific community ultimately judges both cost and benefit; animal care and use committees exist to assure that everything possible that can be done to mitigate suffering is in fact being done. Much research on animals is done with public money. That which is done by private money is still allowed to go forward in the public arena because people implicitly trust the scientific community’s cost/benefit assessment. In the face of these points, it would be reasonable to allow committees to judge whether a given piece of research should be done at all, not just how it should be done. The degree of suffering allowed to be inflicted on other creatures should be judged by society in general, since the question at issue is inherently a matter of social ethical judgment, not merely the judgment of those who have a vested career interest in the outcome.” - Rollin, B. E., 2006. Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics.