From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animals in research
Date: 30 Sep 1992 00:13:30 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

> [ something about me having read too many PETA brochures ]

Martin, I have *never* read any PETA brochures.  Why do you 
continue to make wild assumptions about what I think or what
I've done?  

Are you as prone to making assumptions in your research work?
I can just see a Martin Hulsey technical paper: "Although I made
no measurements on Rabbit no. 47 at the end of the trial,
I can just assume from looking at him that tumor growth has
receded."

>(Steve Pope) writes:
>
>>People who babble on about the virtues of pure research, disconnected 
>>from any purpose or direction, are not really scientists.  That is the
>>"pop science" paradigm, and it goes over with the public more
>>than it does with trained scientitsts.  True science fills a need,
>>however broad or subjective.  The purpose of researching
>>the Big-Bang theory, for example, is simply to satisfy 
>>human curiosity about the past.  It's still a purpose, and from 
>>there one follows the scientific method, testing the most likely 
>>hypotheses first, to address that purpose.
>
>Investigators who criticize basic research using animals for having no 
>immediate practical need fail to realize that this criterion might also 
>be applied to their discipline.

Um, did you READ the words I wrote above before babbling off
this response?  I did not say you must have an "immediate practicle"
need for an experiment to be scientific.  I said a "need
however broad or subjective".  

>For example, a person with consistently strict utilitarian standards 
>might also suggest that astronomy and particle physics are "make-work" 
>disciplines because they have little immediate practical purpose.

Again did you read what I wrote before spewing??  I cited an
example from astronomy / cosmology (researching the Big Bang...),
which obviously has "little immediate practical purpose".

>You cannot find fault with any but the last paragraph of my original post, 
>but proceed to regurgitate false charges EXACTLY as I outlined in the 
>earlier paragraphs of that same post.
>You throw out a lot of unsupported charges, and when I rebut them, you 
>ignore my responses.  

No, actually, I was in the process of editing a response to the
rest of your last post and you will see it below.  I found
PLENTY of fault in it.

>In Lawrencian fashion (sorry Russell), you now 
>attempt to shift from the original topic to a philosophical argument 
>about what constitutes science.  

It's not "philosophical" that you're not a qualified scientist, Martin.
It's an indicator of something significant.  That the segment of 
the research community that uses animals in research is the 
butt-end of the scientific world, attracting unqualified flakes 
like yourself.   And it's not "philosophical" to the animals
when you use them in your useless experiments.  Go crawl into
a hole or something.

>> [ dribble about how controlled and regulated animal research is ]


>For example, if the field of computer science were regulated as mine, 
>programmers would tediously prepare an application describing in detail 
>every routine in every computer program they proposed to develop.  

This is done in practice.  It's called MIL-STD-2167A in the
defense world.  There are equivalents in the commercial world.

>Your opinions are incorrect.  You will someday eat your Bambiphilic 
>words when you become ill or injured.

Don't be so crass. 

>You are "depressed" about the alleged suffering and death of 
>research animals, 

"alleged"?  Surely you're not saying research animals
are NOT suffering and dying?  And I suppose the holocaust
never happened either....

> but completely disregard the suffering and death of 
>your fellow human.  

Just because I want to cut back on testing, does not mean
I "completely disregard the suffuring and death of your
fellow human".  This is pure hyperbole.

>You have absolutely no knowledge about animal research, but only 
>opinions and "fears."  Before you express critical opinions about animal 
>research and testing, I suggest that you learn something about them to 
>make your opinions credible.

Well Martin, you've reinforced my opinions substantially.  You
perfectly fit my previously held stereotyped image of an incompetent,
un-scientific, inhumane animal researcher.  

Now here's the balance of my response to your last post:

****************************************************************

hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (a worried Martin Hulsey) writes:

> Your recent use of profane expletives attests to your lack of 
> evidence to support your position.

I don't recall using any "profane expletives" in my posts.  Perhaps I
did so in the heat of the moment and forgot. :)  But you, on
the other hand, refer to those who support animal welfare as
"Bambiphiles", which is profane in a sense.  It certainly
exposes your lack of seriousness about animal welfare...

> I am sure that a TINY segment of the population might want to 
> abolish animal research, but what about the interests of the majority?

Despite my Berkeley login address, I too believe in the democratic 
rule of the majority.  But I also believe in informing the public
so that the majority opinion is based on reality.  Whereas
you believe in whitewashing and glossing over the facts.

A large fraction of those who have taken the time to inform themselves
about the realities of using animals in research have considerable 
misgivings about the extent and propriety of the research presently 
being conducted.  I wouldn't say there's an outright majority opposing 
research, and I also wouldn't say that a majority of those who do
hold some opposition favor a permanent abolition of all research (I
do not, for example.)  But don't pretend that opposition
isn't widespread.  I will concede that the majority of the
public at large is fairly uninformed, and is willing to accept the 
actions of those involved in research/testing -- a case of 
"out of sight, out of mind".  This, in a nutshell, is why
animal activism is primarily an educational effort, and why
it is so important to counter the disinformation issued by people
like Martin.


>I have no need to downplay the concerns of citizens, like yourself, who 
>want to abolish animal research/testing.  

Again, you groundlessly make assumptions about what I believe.   
First you assumed I believe in animal "rights", which I do not.  
Now you assume I want to "abolish" animal research/testing, which
is also untrue.

>If you are opposed to animal testing, you should simply refuse to buy 
>any product that was tested using animals.  This would include the 
>pharmaceuticals that might be employed to save your life.
>As I told Russell Lawrence earlier, if you cannot give something up, 
>then you look extremely silly arguing to have it abolished.  

Well, I do tend away from products developed using testing.
There may be some political value in this if enough people
do it.  It may have a deterrent value against future testing.

But one thing is still true: sunk costs don't affect decision
making.  Not using product X or surgical procedure
Y doesn't help the animals that were consumed in developing
X and Y.

>Assuming that you are arguing here to abolish animal testing, would you 
>pledge to forsake ALL products that are tested using animals? 

Again, I'm not arguing for abolishing *all* animal testing,
only much of it.

And personally, I'd be content to live without the future benefit of 
additional testing on the advancement of medical science, if testing 
for that purpose were halted.  The same logic applies to product 
safety for me.  For some reason the anti-animal faction attacks such 
a view as "silly".  I guess they don't have a good enough argument 
against it....

> [ discussion of in-vitro testing and computer modeling ]

Myself I haven't pointed to these techniques as a rationale
for curtailing testing.  From my perspective you're bringing
up a strawman here.

> Are you *ashamed* of being labeled an animal activist?

Of course not.

>>> > [ committees] approve experiments that result in animal
>>> >suffering / death that have no countervening benefit of saving human
>>> >lives or preventing human suffering.

>You have a right to your beliefs, but in an exchange such as this one, 
>you have some obligation to provide facts to support your positions 
>before they become "factual."  See below.

The animals used to develop the radial keratotomy procedure
are a good example.  All this research was approved by committee.  Do
you dispute this?  Radial keratotomy has not and will not prevent
any human suffering/death, and this fact was known when the animals
were used, and it was surely known to whatever committees approved
the experiments.  Them's the facts....

>>Suppose, hypothetically, that the majority of the community
>>is opposed to, say, using laboratory animals to research,
>>say, a baldness cure or something else of only cosmetic
>>value.  Try to give me a plausible description as to how the 
>>AWA and its enforcement mechanisms would stop the experiments.  
>>And if you *can't* describe how this would happen
>>you oughta re-think your theory that the public's interests
>>in animal welfare are being carried out.
>
>If you can demonstrate that a majority of Americans is opposed to 
>cosmetically oriented research using animals, then you MIGHT have a 
>point.  

Well thank you for granting me this much.  In fact, you sidestepped
answering my hypothetical question entirely.  Thus essentially proving
my point: that the safeguards are merely procedural, and do not 
balance the public's interest in animal welfare against the supposed 
necessity of the research.

Also note that you assume "Americans" as the correct constituency,
but it seems to me that a state-wide or local constituency
might be appropriate.  Most laws governing humane treatment
of animals are state and local.

[ UCB underreporting animal usage ]

>>> Then again, based on what 
>>> Bambiphiles did at UCD a few years ago, I can understand their lack 
>>> of cooperation.
>
>>You're talking about the torching of an uncompleted animal torture 
>>facility there, I presume?
>
>I presume, based on your syntax, that you support such actions.  

No, I do not support such actions.  No way.  You *continue* to
make assumptions as to what I believe, based on your phony
concept of who animal advocates are.  Get real, Martin.

Steve