From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:16:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.214317.7099@novell.com> jpoller@novell.com (Contents may have settled during Shipping) writes:
>(Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>Martin Hulsey wrote:
>>>I resent your implication that Taub's experiments were "of questionable
>>>value."  Their human benefit has been demonstrated.
>>
>>So far this has been stated but not proven.  If the experiments were so
>>valuable, the NIH would have re-instated the funding.  There was talk of
>>doing this through the late 1980s and a feeble attempt to write up a
>>protocol was made.  But these efforts appear to have been primarily a
>>face-saving attempt by the NIH and not a serious attempt to resurrect
>>the Taub research.
> [...]>
>>
>>But once you strip the surrounding context from the situation, you're
>>changing the nature of the situation itself.

[...]

>1)  Your last sentence above is significant to me.  Both you and Russell
>have repeatedly used the argument "if the research was so valuable then
>why wasn't funding reinstituted..." to cast doubt on the initial value
>of what Taub was doing.  Don't misread me; I don't have enough info yet
>one way or another to determine the medical worth of Taub's research.
>However, it's evident that his reputation was tarnished by this incident.
>Given the occurrence of a trial, a controversial, ambiguous verdict, and the
>way the incident provided central focus to PETA's publicity during
>the next decade--these factors create a context in which it is perfectly
>clear to me why Taub was not subsequently funded.  I'm surprised that
>you (maybe not Russell) continue to advance this argument.

It's not perfectly clear to me.  One obvious way to signal an intended
exoneration of Taub might have been to re-institute the funding and 
authorize Taub himself to continue the work.  This didn't happen, even
after the NIH conducted its own investigation.

>
>2)  As you say, we can't know for sure what happened; isn't it possible
>that Alex embellished some of the scenes you described (and he photographed),
>perhaps throwing bandages around...not doing those little things that
>you said he said he did to improve the lot of the monkeys.  You talk about
>the fine line that Alex walked ethically.  I'll say.  If the conditions
>were as bad as the descriptions you provided then I can hear the ethical
>ice cracking under Alex's skates.  Until I can read more accounts of this
>incident I have to hold out the possibility that Alex is a cynical unfeeling
>publicity hound who hypocritically participated in worsening conditions of
>monkeys to launch his animals rights organization and career in the public
>spotlight.  If so, the ultimate irony of PETA is that its very foundation
>is built on active complicity in animal suffering.  You are so very cynical
>about allowing the possibility of those at NIH or in Taub's immediate
>research environment who might have immediately reacted to substandard
>animal treatment; yet hesitate to describe your concerns about Alex's
>activity as anything more than an "ethical fine line."  What gives?

Remember this was 1981 - prior to the advent of many improvements in the
status of lab animals.  Evidence suggests that the sixties and seventies
were bad times for these animals.  Pacheco initially did not believe
that unlawful behavior was occurring, yet he felt that something was
wrong.  Suppose he had prematurely approached the authorities and
blown the entire chance to expose what he felt were instances of
unnecessary and unjustifiable cruelty.

After two months, Pacheco discovered that cruelty in animal research
labs might be covered under Maryland's anti-cruelty statute.  So he
started accumulating evidence.  And rather then merely rely on his own
impressions, he even brought in five professional veterinarians and
primatologists.  As soon as this was done and these five gentlemen had
produced signed affidavits, then Pacheco immediately went to the
authorities. 

>
>3)  Finally, do we know how monkeys react to the presence of their
>own feces?  The part about the overwhelming ammonia smell does sound
>like a threat to the health of the monkeys.  However, the pigs that
>lived with me, and the cows too, used to love to wallow in
>their own feces, the chickens who were my companions loved to scratch
>through it.  I notice how much of the description you provided of the
>horrible conditions focused on dried feces and seemed to assume that the
>condition of living in proximity to defacatory matter equates to
>substandard treatment.  Maybe it does, set me straight if so.  

These monkeys were deafferented, a condition which tends to lead to
injuries, self-mutilation and open wounds.  A number of the monkeys had
bitten off fingers and mutilated their own hands.  The threat of
infection is great in such cases and extra precautions must be taken to
preserve high sanitation standards.  That's why there has been this
focus on the presence of fecal material, which is a good source of
infection. 

>If I
>can conjure up some of my monkey ancestry, I just might prefer a
>cage with a few bent jagged bars and the wonderful aroma and sights
>of my and my companions' shit as opposed to the surgical cleanliness
>you humans value.  I remember once talking with a bemused park ranger
>in Rocky Mountain National Park; it seems that the number one complaint
>they fielded from what he identified as "city folk" who came out to
>commune with nature was revulsion to the burrow and horse shit that was
>deposited on wilderness trails.

The open wilderness can't compare with cages 17 3/4" wide in a 
windowless 15' room.

>
>4)  Anyway, I'm still open on this one, so I appreciate the quality
>of the debate between Martin and yourself.

Martin has done a good job, in his discussions with me, of serving as a
kind of mouthpiece for Taub and presenting the pro-Taub viewpoint
persistently but in a respectful way.  What would be most interesting
would be a debate directly between Taub and Pacheco here.

---
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.