HIV research would be more useful if it were carried out on brain-damaged humans rather than chimps, controversial philosopher, Peter Singer, tells Katrina Fox.

He's routinely attacked for what some people claim are outlandish ideas, but those purporting pioneering thoughts are not always praised during their lifetime (think Galileo, Darwin). Peter Singer, born in 1946 in Melbourne, is the author of several books on ethics and globalisation, including the seminal work Animal Liberation in 1972, an expos? of factory-farming which is credited with having kick-started the international animal rights movement and led thousands to become vegetarians.

Having held senior academic positions in Australian universities and being labelled, among other things, 'Professor Death' for his pro-euthanasia views, he relocated to the US in 1999 after being appointed to the position of Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University - a move which gave rise to student demonstrations both for and against Singer's appointment and with Singer subsequently being given a scanner to check his mail for bombs. He now divides his time between the US and Australia, where he is part-time Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne's Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics.

At the core of his thinking is the notion that speciesism is morally wrong - the fact that an animal is not a member of your species is not more morally relevant than the fact that a human being is not a member of your race, sex or sexuality. As such, the parallels between animal liberation and gay liberation are clear, Singer believes. "In both these cases you've got a situation where one group has the power for various reasons and has used that power to assert that everything of value is part of beings like you and anything outside that circle count less, and that's a pattern we've seen in so many different areas - we've seen it with regard to race, sex, sexuality, and we see it in regard to species," he says from his home in Melbourne prior to his appearance at the Sydney Writers' Festival this weekend to promote his new book, The Ethics of What We Eat.

Major religions, particularly Judeo-Christianity in the West, are responsible for society's mistaken belief in the sanctity of human life and that the life of all humans should be considered as superior to that of any animal, Singer, an atheist, says. "The major religions are an obstacle because they teach that humans alone are made in the image of God, humans alone have an immortal soul, God gave us dominion over the animals, and those ideas are an obstacle to treating the animals as we may treat humans. We have to try and hope that people look at evidence and test their beliefs and reasons for their positions, and religious faith doesn't provide that - it's basically saying, 'I'm going to continue to believe this even though there is no evidence for it'."

Instead of being blinded by religious doctrine, we should open our minds to the facts, Singer believes. In his book Writings on an Ethical Life, he says: "The more intellectually sophisticated non-human animals have a mental and emotional life that in every significant respect equals or surpasses that of some of the most profoundly intellectually disabled human beings. This is not my subjective value judgement. It is a statement of fact that can be tested and verified over and over again. Only human arrogance can prevent us from seeing it."

When put like this, the concept of using brain-damaged humans in HIV research makes sense, not only from a scientific standpoint, but also from an ethical one. "HIV research using chimps has not been very helpful as they don't seem to get the disease in the same way humans do," Singer explains. "So I don't think it's right and it's causing a lot of suffering and distress to beings who are sensitive animals - social animals who should be living in social groups and who suffer being in isolation and confined and that's wrong. If we need beings very like us to do this on, we should perhaps [turn to] the families of people who tragically have been brain-damaged and have no hope of recovery from persistent vegetative state who are totally beyond suffering because they are beyond consciousness. Often the families say, 'we don't want them kept alive,' so what you could say is we agree they shouldn't be kept alive indefinitely but since you've made the decision that it's better that they have fluids and food withdrawn so they die, maybe we could keep them alive for another month or two to do some research that could save millions of lives potentially, and then allow them to die."

If you identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or intersex and are balking at Singer's views, maybe it's worth considering that it's unethical to support and take part in the oppression of other groups. "I certainly do think that when you've been a victim of the power of a dominant group, you should be able to see in a clearer way what it's like for other victims," Singer asserts. "If we close off compassion for any sentient beings, we're not necessarily going to feel it for all humans; we'll regard some categories of humans as beyond the pale as well."

SX News is one of Australia's leading gay and lesbian arts, entertainment, news and culture magazines For more information visit the magazine's website at www.sxnews.com.au