Certain activist lawyers have grabbed headlines recently in their campaign to grant legal rights, first, to chimpanzees and then to other animals. (1) . Proponents of animal rights build their case with these arguments: (1) certain animals share qualities of consciousness that have heretofore been seen as uniquely human; (2) animals are: brutalized in research; (3) research with animals has been made obsolete by computers and other technologies. (2) . Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there is no substitute for animal research to understand biological processes that affect a living organism. Think of it this way: Why use costly animals if equally useful non-animal research tools were available (3) . With every medical breakthrough of the past century the direct result of animal-based research, such research is not only ethical, but is our obligation. (4) . Philosopher Peter Singer first made the argument that some animals ought to count as "persons", whereas mentally defective humans should not and that the lives of healthy animals ought to be weighed equally with human beings. Singer says parents of a newborn with Down’s syndrome would be justified in ending her life to make room in their lives for a baby with normal intelligence. Recall, though, that Nazi Germany used the same kind of personhood criterion to justify killing the physically and mentally handicapped. (5) . Animals are not little persons: The necessity of distinguishing between a person and animal strikes at the heart of the dilemma faced by a scientist who is very fond of animals, yet who uses them in research. I have come to realize the obvious: We decide what animals are to be in relation to us. I adore my cat, Buster, but I also used members of his species in my research for years. A. They believe that these animals deserve legal protection, including an end to their use as subjects of medical research. As a research scientist who for 40 years has used animals in sleep studies, I am deeply concerned. B. We have a great obligation to the animals under our control: We have a moral responsibility to care for animals and should not treat them cruelly. And we scientists are obligated to perform critical experiments as skillfully and humanely as possible. C. All human beings are persons: This is obvious to most—but not to some in the animal rights movement. D. While perhaps superficially credible, these assertions are simplistic and, in my view, simply wrong. First, limited similarities of consciousness are not sufficient grounds to make the important leap of granting legal personhood to animals. Secondly, scientists have every reason to treat animals humanely because good science depends on healthy animals. E. Our first obligation is to our fellow humans: As a biologist, I say that the most powerful imperative for the use of animals in research is that of survival, of protecting kin and, by extension, other persons from conquerable disease and untimely death. Viewed this way, scientists’ work seems no different from a mother eagle’s dismembering prey to feed her babies. F. Granting "personhood" to animal species deemed to share qualities with us, such as cognition, autonomy and self-awareness, is not a benign campaign to protect animals. It is an effort to use the legal system as a tool to enforce a flawed ethic concerning the relationship between humanity and the animal world. G. We would be foolish, at best, to ignore the realities of Nature and the power of natural impulses for survival.