From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: PCRM. Was Re: animals in research
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:59:40 GMT

In article <f_c1aqj@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Robert Black writes:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>>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.
>>
>>
>>In the first item, does "reduce or replace" mean abolish?
>
>I realize that you wrote this to Martin, but I'd like to point out
>that if the word "or" is literally interpretted, it does indeed mean
>abolish.  What does the word "replace" mean to you, Bob? 

I don't agree that replace = abolish.

"Replace" means stop doing it and start doing an alternative which
will yield comparable or better results.  

"Abolish" means do away with it completely, regardless of whether you
have another alternative.

The replace option still leaves a way to accomplish your goal.  The
abolish option simply terminates the activity without concern for
whether there's another way to accomplish your goal. 

The replace option can't be exercised until you have an alternative.
The abolish can be exercised anytime.

> Basically,
>I'm curious as to why you asked this question -- or did you parse it
>too quickly yourself and get confused (as was no doubt the intent)?
>
>>In the second item, would "improved legal protection" be necessary if
>>there were no animals in labs?
>
>It strikes me that "improved legal protection" could easily mean
>preventing *any* research on them.

Again I disagree.  In standard usage, this term does not carry the 
connotation you're ascribing to it.

>  The point is that today they are
>still in the labs.  It looks like the goal is to prevent that
>tomorrow, by "improved legal protection" being given today.

Even Dr. Martin Hulsey has said that he favors a phaseout of animal
research, but he wants the timetable to be set by scientists and funding
agencies rather than AR people.  So the issue isn't over WHETHER we
discontinue animal research but WHEN.

>
>>Can we agree that claims stating that PCRM favors immediate abolition of
>>all animal research are FALSE?
>
>No, at least not from what you've quoted above.  I agree that it's not
>likely the PCRM would ever want to display an absolutist stance
>(political suicide, not to mention the fact it leaves no out when a
>member of PCRM gets a fatal disease and needs a little research done
>-- all pigs of course being equal ;-).

How much do you really know about PCRM?  Let me guess that your main
source of (mis)information is t.p.a.? :-)

>
>Having said all this, I'd like to ask you a question, Bob.  Just so I
>can get a better feel for the stance of some of the AR groups, what
>sort of percentage of experiments would be allowed, compared to what
>is currently in existence?  An order-of-magnitude answer is OK,
>although an actual guess is preferred.

Any answer on my part would be a guess, but I think it would be fairly
high based on the lack of confidence I have in the logic typically used,
which goes like this: if we do X to dogs and observe results Y, then we
also stand a good chance of observing Y if we do X to humans.  I have a
very fundamental problem with this type of species-to-species
extrapolation of results.  If you want to learn about a species, then
study THAT species. 

Here are some examples (taken from THE CRUEL DECEPTION by Dr. Robert
Sharpe) of drugs that were cleared for use on humans after passing
animal tests:

     1.	Opren - a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) drug

	- introduced for arthritis in 1980. 
	- safely passed animal tests.  
	- turned out to be highly toxic with over 3500 reports
	  of harmful effects including 61 deaths in Britain alone.
	- withdrawn after 22 months.

    2.	Zomax - another NSAID 

	- introduced into Britain in 1982 after no signs of toxicity in 
	  dogs and monkeys during long term tests.  
	- caused over 200 adverse reactions and 8 deaths.
	- withdrawn after 12 months.

    3.	Osmosin - another arthritis drug

	- caused 40 deaths.
	- withdrawn after 10 months.

    4.	Zelmid

	- introduced in 1982 as an anti-depressant
	- within a year there were over 300 reports of adverse reactions 
	  including convulsions, liver damage, 8 cases of Guillain-Barre 
	  syndrome, and 7 deaths.  
	- the rat and dog tests had shown no evidence of toxicity at 5 
	  times the levels used on humans.
	- withdrawn in 1983, 

    5.	Clioquinol 

	- experiments reported in the Lancet in 1972 revealed no evidence 
	  of neurotoxicity based on tests with rats, cats, beagles and 
	  rabbits.  
	- yet it caused 10,000 to 30,000 cases of SMON (subacute myelo-optic
	  neuropathy whose symptoms include paralysis and blindness.

    6.	Ibufenac - anti-arthritis drug which lasted two years.  

	- caused 12 deaths mainly due to liver damage which animal tests
	  had failed to predict.
	- withdrawn in 1968 

The examples go on and on.  I simply don't have confidence that a
treatment will work on humans until it's been tried on humans.  This
leads me personally to believe that a much higher percentage (than
probably many others would say) of animal research could be safely
dropped.  I will, however, distinguish between truly objective
peer-reviewed university research on the one hand, and DOD research and
product testing on the other hand.  In the latter group (i.e.  DOD
research and product testing), my GUESS might be well above 50% - say
70% to 100%. 

>  I guess what I'm driving at is
>that it seems to me you folks are trying to dupe people with your
>prose about not taking an absolutist stance on the issue.

I have no intention of duping you or anyone else, but neither do I
claim to know everything or to have all the answers.

>  In other
>words, it strikes me that epsilon isn't really that much greater than
>zero, in macroscopic terms.  Any comments?

I believe that epsilon is quite high for these reasons:

    1.	My lack of confidence in the underlying logic and fundamental
premise of the animal research philosophy, which claims that we can,
in many cases, test on one species and then extrapolate the results
directly to other species. 

    2.  Writings of those who have studied the history.  Men like
Reines, Sharpe, Ruesch, Croce, Rollin, Ryder, Rowan and groups like
PCRM, MRMC, CIVIS, DBAE (Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments),
ILDAV (International League of Doctors Against Vivisection). 

    3.  Evaluation of past claims made in support of animal
experimentation.  In another thread, I've given my opinion about the
claim for the discovery of insulin, which is probably the single most
often-cited example used in defense of animal research.  Yet this
example can't withstand close scrutiny.  And even if it could, it was 70
years ago.  You've heard of the "What have you done for us lately"
syndrome? If the best example occurred this long ago and we've spent
huge amounts of money since then, think of all the more productive uses
to which 70 years of money, talent and other resources could have been
applied. 

On a closing note, I'll add this quote from Dr. Pietro Croce M.D. (a
former animal experimenter) taken from the CIVIS International 
Foundation Report Nr. 7, Autumn 1989:

	"We must not be surprised if among the millions of animal
	experiments done, the one or the other has 'subsequently'
	been confirmed by an experiment on man.  Some experiments
	are bound to have the same results on man and animal.  But
	which ones?  This we can never tell beforehand."

Is his statement literally true in all cases?  I'm not sure, but it
makes a lot of sense to me.

>
>John
>
---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals