From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:23:43 GMT


In article <1993Jan26.173127.12639@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (R
obert Black (x37236)) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.215302.17064@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>>In article <C1FB0G.DK3@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>I know little about Carey's research.  Do you have some special
>>knowledge that would shed light on its legitimacy?
>
>Here's a copy of Barnard's letter to Wallace which appeared on AREN
>this morning:
[...]
>---
>Robert Black       |  Replies may be slow.
>black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
>These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.

Gee Bob, your posting of Barnard's letter destroyed the blissful
sense I had for the past 60 times 48 minutes that there weren't
two sides to every story.  Also, I cannot unquestioningly accept
everything I see on TV as truth?  (smiley face)

Thanks for posting his letter.

Here's my reaction that I hope is responsive to a question Russell
asked me.

First, I would have liked to have read in Barnard's letter strong
condemnation of the death threats received by Carey and his wife.
I know animal research is an emotionally charged issue for some; my
feeling is that no responsible researcher's wife or husband should
receive a newspaper photograph of his/her spouse with an inked-in skull
and the word "DEATH" printed across it.  The death threats were central
in the 60 minutes story (a critic might say one of the sensationalistic
aspects of the story).  Barnard's silence on the issue troubles
me.  A statement addressing the death threat issue would have been
welcome confirmation that one could reasonably be offended by both
Carey's research and the threats upon his life.

I wonder what Alka would say about the propriety of death threats as
an animal rights advocacy behavior?

Greg mentioned that the goal of Carey's research was to study post head
trauma recovery.  If so, the 66% of the cats that died immediately were
of no further use in this research.  The issue then becomes for me
weighing the post-injury pain and suffering felt by the research cats who
survived the head trauma against possible human benefits.  I have
considerable trouble accepting research where "excruciating" pain is
inflicted upon research subjects, whether they be rats, dogs, pigs or
cats...  However, I do not absolutely reject such research.

I have seen much animal pain, suffering and death.  That said, I
have to state that the considerable human suffering I have witnessed
has had greater emotional impact on me.  Get out into the world and
FEEL the real suffering of the 3 billion "Third Worlders" Tom Regan
condescendingly "forgives" in the final chapter of his book The
Thee Generation.

I've seen many people suffer from or suffer and die from malaria,
including a friend struck down in the prime of his life.  I have seen
people die from an array of other parasitic diseases.  I have observed
the psychic trauma of a neighbor who was paralyzed in an accident;
another family acquaintance who was paralyzed in a swimming accident
ultimately took his own life.  My grandfather lost his mental acuity at
age 90 from Alzheimer's and spent the last 10 years of his life in a
vegetative state.  My experiences are far from unique.  Observing someone
experience severe head trauma and its consequences must be devastating for
other people.  Carey had ample opportunity to witness head trauma
while in Vietnam.

I resent the cynical and facile interpretation portraying animal
reasearchers as unfeeling, inanimalane torturers.

I totally accept that humans kill mosquitoes in the search for a cure for
malaria.  And if indeed we use other non-human animals as host-vectors and
they suffer and are in pain (as I was when I had malaria) I cannot wish-away
or minimize the extent of the torture they must feel.  I have to face their
pain as a consequence of animal research.

According to my personal ethical belief system I feel animal research
which inflicts pain and suffering must be seriously and soberly weighed.

It should only be permitted:

1)  To be conducted by researchers of established reputation whose peers
    can certify merit to the approach, along with great potential for
    positive outcomes.

2)  Under carefully specified standards of conduct within a closely
    supervised framework of doing everything possible to minimize pain
    and suffering felt by the research animals.  (ie., let "Russell
    Lawrence" into the lab to observe and inspect)

3)  After an evaluation of the efficacy of alternative research methods.
    Thus, in the Carey example, if, as Barnard claims, clinical approaches
    are the way to go with head injuries I would place a heavy burden
    of proof on alternative approachs such as Carey's.  In other words,
    just because Carey might claim his approach as novel, hypothetically
    promising and so forth, because his research involves pain and
    suffering the standard of approval he must meet must be high.


Maybe an ensuing discussion will establish whether Carey and his program
met my personal standards.





:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals