From: hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:32:22 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:

>[...]
>I was immediately successful, however, in making contact with Joel 
>Newman at PCRM who made the following statement:
>
>    PCRM promotes alternatives to animal research and encourages
>    higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in animal 
>    research.  We also oppose unethical use of humans in medical
>    research.
>
>This reconfirms the prior statements made by Ted Robinson and Bob
>Black, and negates the claim made previously by Martin Hulsey.

With respect to PCRM's *present* position, I stand corrected.

Recall what Bob Black quoted from a PCRM pamphlet...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>Here's some text extracted from the PCRM's Declaration of Concern and
>Support:
>
>"We support:    effective, humane research methods which reduce or 
replace
>                the use of animals in research, including 
epidemiological
>                research, clinical studies, cellular research, and
>                computer models.
>
>"We support:    improved legal protection for all animals in 
laboratories.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By advocating "replacement" of "inhumane" and "ineffective" animal 
paradigms, PCRM opposed animal research then.  By "promoting 
alternatives" to animal paradigms (as though they existed), and implying 
that existing standards of ethics and effectiveness are unsatisfactory, 
PCRM opposes animal research now.

How much of the research that PCRM (and PETA) opposes today might save 
human lives tomorrow?  A couple of celebrated examples suggest an
answer:

Opposition to Ed Taub's research is a matter of record, but he has
already been vindicated. In 1983, he won a Guggenheim fellowship based
in part on his work in Silver Spring.  He has successfully applied the
data he obtained using monkeys (but not the data that Pacheco falsified)
to enrich the lives of human stroke victims.

When I exchanged "letters to the editor" with Barnard in our local 
newspaper (The Athens Observer 4/2/92), he said that John Orem's 
research had "nothing of clinical value," and was "macabre and useless."  
I replied (ibid., 4/16/92) that Barnard was not qualified to make such 
judgements against Orem, because his publication record (two papers in 
Medline since 1986 when I last checked) would not qualify him for a 
position at a second-rate university, much less at UGA.  I never heard 
back from him or PCRM's lawyer.  What I said was true, and therefore not 
libelous.

Orem has not yet found a cure for SIDS and sleep apnea, but, if the ALF 
will not trash his lab again, he just might.  Using ten cats per year to 
seek a cure for a disease that kills 8,000 infants per year sounds like 
a wise investment to me.  Barnard apparently disagrees.  Is this an 
example of PCRM's lofty ethics with regard to animal research?

Orem's work involves the neural regulation of breathing during sleep.  
There is absolutely no way that this problem, or any other problem 
regarding neural pathways can be investigated without using intact 
animals.  I would truly like to see the Bambiphilic revisionists tackle 
this claim.

I sincerely hope that you & your fax will ensure that our writings 
continue to preoccupy executives at PETA and PCRM.  Perhaps we will 
subsequently have fewer press releases justifying laboratory invasions 
or misrepresenting the alleged "hazards" of milk consumption.  I also 
hope that my "enemies" file at these organizations becomes the very 
thickest. That will cost them plenty so that they will have less money 
to provide legal defense and pay fines for terrorists from the ALF.

I already told you what sort of research I would allow.  Why can't you 
return the favor?  All you have indicated was that you would like to 
review proposed experiments on a case-by-case basis.  Did you mean that 
you wanted to review every experiment personally, or did you just want 
them reviewed by someone?  How would you modify the _status quo_ to 
simultaneously protect the interests of human and non-human animals?  
Would failing to perform a critical experiment be worse than performing 
one that proved trivial?  How do we determine, in advance, which 
experiments are critical and which are trivial?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity