From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:42:43 GMT

In <1993Jan20.174618.16080@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com
(Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:

>[...]
>>So why didn't you complain "from the start?"
>
>You asked a question and I supplied an answer.  I was careful to preface
>it with "In general, ..." and thus was making it clear that this was a
>generic answer with no assumptions about the acceptability of the
>analogy. 

The point is that you made no objection regarding the analogy at the time.

>[...]
>>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.

I have discussed the potential beneficiaries of Taub's work.  I have given
a contact "in the trenches" of clinical medicine who is applying the
knowledge Taub gained with the Silver Spring monkeys to benefit humans
today.  I will provide additional information as I obtain it.

If you have some evidence that Taub's work would have no human benefit, as
you seem to imply, let us see it.

>If the experiments were so
>valuable, the NIH would have re-instated the funding.

There is not necessarily a connection here.

The NIH scrutinized Taub's operation, and exculpated the treatment that his
monkeys received.

You claim to have seen excerpts of the NIH's decision, but you obviously
don't have these excerpts:

Page 2:  "What we do not find persuasive are the arguments that the
conditions of the monkeys showed that there had been inadequate veterinary
care.  The record suggests that the animals' condition, pointed to by NIH
as evidence of mistreatment, resulted from the research performed.  The
record shows that the animals' condition largely was unaviodable given the
nature of the experiments."

Page 4:  "Both NIH and the scientific experts who testified on behalf of
the PI (Taub) at the hearing agreed that the studies were important and had
important clinical implications.  Furthermore, the record showed that NIH,
when it awarded the grant, was aware of the nature of the experiments, what
deafferentation entailed and at least to some extent, the physiological
results of the experiments."

All but four of forty original complaints leveled against Taub by the NIH
ad hoc committee were eventually dismissed by the review board.  All
remaining issues were related to the physical facilities, and the number of
veterinary visits scheduled.

>There was talk of
>doing this through the late 1980s and a feeble attempt to write up a
>protocol was made.

You are not purporting your opinion as fact are you Bob?  What basis would
you have to suggest that an attempt to secure funding by Taub would be
"feeble?"

>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. 

I'm not aware of any additional attempts by Taub, other than the NIH
appeal, to reobtain funding for monkey research.  I will ask.

>[...]
>>The analogy concerned Pacheco's actions while Taub was away.  The analogy
>>does not concern how the lab became dirty or who was at fault.  The analogy
>>concerned Pacheco's actions after he became aware of these conditions.  In
>>this regard, the analogy is perfect.
>
>But once you strip the surrounding context from the situation, you're
>changing the nature of the situation itself. 

This is an irrelevant argument.

>>Pacheco's actions during Taub's absence was reprehensible.  He was more
>>concerned with fabricating evidence against Taub than he was concerned
>>about the monkey's welfare.  Taub's actions were identical to option 3 of
>>the water dish analogy.  That is:
>
>This is a tactic you've used alot.  Somehow you've gotten inside
>Pacheco's head and figured out what he was thinking (ie "more concerned
>with").  You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you keep stating
>it as fact.  *Opinion* does not equal *fact*.

You are correct, but it was not a tactic, but a poor choice of words.  Your
objections are easily dismissed when I rephrase:

Pacheco's actions during Taub's absence were reprehensible.  His actions
indicate that he was more preoccupied with fabricating evidence against
Taub than he was preoccupied with the monkey's welfare.  Taub's actions
were identical to option 3 of the water dish analogy...

>[...]
>
>Pacheco testified that Taub was there in the lab when the conditions
>were bad.  Taub didn't need to be told, unless he was blind.

Or unless he was on vacation, maybe?

>[...]
>
>>You see only what you choose to see.  Are you denying that Taub's monkeys
>>would have suffered less if Pacheco had called Taub to inform him that the
>>caretakers were not doing their job, or cared for the monkeys himself?  
>
>I'm denying the ability to say with certainty either way.

Can you say with certainty that the monkeys would have benefitted if
Pacheco had attempted to contact numerous persons until he found SOMEONE
who would remedy the situation created when the caretakers did not come to
work?

>How do I know
>what Taub's reaction would have been? Why would I be a better judge of
>that than Pacheco who was there and was acquainted with the man?
>
>Pacheco has stated that the conditions were obvious and that Taub was
>present there in the lab, able to see for himself.  Apparently, it was
>business as usual for Taub.  It's not hard to suspect that any
>complaints by Pacheco could easily have led to his dismissal, thus
>ending any further realistic opportunity to effect improvements. 

Taub's potential reaction is beside the point.  The point is that Pacheco
was preoccupied with his case against Taub, and had less regard for the
monkeys.  I'll concede that Pacheco was not obligated to care for the
monkeys himself, but, by his inaction, he sacrificed the monkey's welfare
to ensure that conditions of husbandry were abysmal.  The resulting
"evidence" was the five affidavits by "expert" animal activists.

>>Are you denying the ALF incident in Michigan where a lab was deliberately >>set on fire?
>
>I have no intention of being an apologist for the ALF.  I simply don't
>have enough reliable information about the group.  I've read that their
>official policy is to oppose harm to human and non-human animals alike. 
>Due to their apparently decentralized structure, I would guess that
>certain individuals could deviate from this official policy and act in a
>way that is unrepresentative.  But this is sheer speculation on my part.

This is akin to the KKK declaring that their official policy is against
lynching, but, due to their decentralized structure, some individuals may,
from time to time, act in a way that is unrepresentative of that policy.

There is really no need for the ALF to have any "official policy,"  because
there are no officials who will step forward and take responsibility for
that policy.  They might as well wear white sheets.

>Re: the ALF starting the fire.  I don't know for sure.  I've read in
>this newsgroup that they did.  Is that a conclusive piece of evidence?

Was Pacheco's diary a "conclusive piece of evidence" against Taub?  You
seem to have a double standard here.

>[...]
>>Pacheco did nothing to "improve the monkey's welfare."   His inaction
>>during Taub's vacation increased the monkey's suffering.
>
>It's your *opinion* that he "did nothing."  He has stated otherwise.
>He was there; you and I were not.

OK.  I do recall that Pacheco slipped them some fruit.  Big deal.  The main
point, that you seem content to ignore, is that during Taub's vacation, and
after both caretakers stopped coming to work, Pacheco noted the lapse of
husbandry conditions in detail.  Sadly, Pacheco did nothing to contact Taub
or some other responsible individual to correct the situation.  I have yet
to see you or anyone else adequately defend this decision.

>[...]
>Apparently it's no surprise to you.  It is to me because I never heard
>of this group before you mentioned it.  What was Galvin's orientation on
>animal rights before the Taub trial?

Beats me.

>Is it possible that he became converted as a result of the evidence?  

Are you referring to the evidence that Galvin suppressed at Taub's trial,
or the evidence that Pacheco manufactured?

>If Galvin were obviously biased before the trial, then Taub's
>high-priced high-profile lawyers should have discovered this and reacted
>accordingly to protect their client's interests.  In that case, Taub
>should consider suing them for malpractice. 

What if Galvin was not biased in an obvious fashion, but instead in a
surreptitious fashion?

>[...]
>>It's not difficult to understand.  It is very difficult to justify unless
>>one is willing to sacrifice animal welfare for the sake of animal "rights."
>
>Again this is your opinion.

Yep.  Are you now denying that, by his inaction during Taub's vacation, 
Pacheco sacrified the welfare of these monkeys so that some other POTENTIAL
long-term benefit (animal "rights") might be achieved?

>If Pacheco complained early on and found
>himself thrown out of the lab with no further chance to effect change,
>then where would he have been?

At that point, he could call the ALF for a take-out order (pun intended).

>I've said before that reasonable people can disagree on his best course of action, but that in no way proves your claim.

Most people, reasonable or not, reject the notion that animals have
"rights."

Few people who know the facts about this case would support Pacheco's
actions.

>If Pacheco really believed that speaking out would have
>ruined all chances to bring about improvement, then it seems to me that
>he was acting reasonably. 

Again, he was sacrificing short-term welfare for the potential of long-term
benefits.  You laud Pacheco, yet scorn Taub for an similar tradeoff that
would instead potentially benefit humans, OUR SPECIES.  Your position
amounts to misanthropic hypocrisy.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals