Americans tend to think animals should have at least some of the same rights as people, according to a recent Gallup survey. And yet, we do not practice what we preach. There are currently no non-human animals that have the right to bodily freedom, to protection under the law, or any of the other rights that are bestowed upon us by way of being the self-proclaimed greatest of the great apes. Over the past few years, cases have reached upper courts arguing that our close evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees, at least deserve some rights. None of these cases has resulted in the outcome that animal activists wanted. Now there is a new case in the courts that may get closer than any before it.
Tomorrow, Justice Barbara Jaffe of the New York State Supreme Court will issue a final ruling on whether two chimpanzees in a research lab at Stony Brook University are the property of the school or if they have some rights to personhood, like you or me. The case is being championed by the Non Human Rights group.
We asked Natalie Prosin, a lawyer for the Non Human Rights Watch, to lay out the case for chimpanzee personhood directly. To explain the context around this possibly historic ruling, noted ethicist Peter Singer weighs in to describe what is at stake in this debate. To further the conversation, John M. Marzluff, Professor of Forest Sciences at the University of Washington, offers the perspective of an animal research scientist.
Be the first to like.
Wired
