From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: PCRM. Was Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:12:53 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You're missing the point.

In article <9kh1l2h@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> No, Russell, *you're* missing the point.  You (and most other AR 
jve> folks on the net) profess to us that you are up on the issues and 
jve> want us to believe that we should listen to you about the vast 
jve> atrocities commited by animal researchers (instead of to *them*, 
jve> which implies to me that you think you have sufficient knowledge 
jve> of the problem, to be able to correctly say what is right and 
jve> what is wrong).  Then along comes a harmless old mountain man 
jve> from upstate NY who says "OK, how much of this stuff is really 
jve> bad, and does it warrant my concern?" ...  

In a few days, I'm going to repost some media accounts of LSU's 
infamous cat shooting project, which was cancelled two years ago 
after a congressional inquiry led to cessation of funding.  This 
particular project became the poster child for the AMA's 
promotion of a "no holds barred" stance on animal research.  
After you've had the opportunity to review the evidence, we'll 
see if you agree with the AMA's argument that "scientific" 
projects should be immune from public scrutiny and interference.  

jve> Then you say "well, gee, we have no clue about how much of it is 
jve> bad...  but trust us, a lot of it's bad...  but we don't really 
jve> want to say a lot of it's bad because well, we don't know how 
jve> much is bad...  but trust us, quite a bit of it's bad, but again 
jve> we don't know how much." (note for brain-dead residents of New 
jve> Orleans: this literary device is known as a "paraphrase" please 
jve> go look it up in the dictionary, kiddies).  Do you get my point 
jve> here, Russell?  All I was ever (and still am) looking for was a 
jve> simple "little, some, most, almost all" order-of-magnitude 
jve> answer.  

I understood your question right from the beginning.

What you can't seem to understand is that your question assumes 
omniscience.  I've come across uses of animals in research that 
appear to be blatantly unethical, and I've come across uses of 
animals in research that may be ethically justifiable.  
Unfortunately, it's beyond my ability to say that x% of all 
experiments fall in the first category and y% fall in the later.  
If you want to engage in such speculation, you're free to do so, 
but don't expect me to follow in your footsteps.  

jve> ...
jve> Why do you debate it, if you've no feel for the problem?  You've 
jve> no way out of this, Russell.  Either you have to admit that 
jve> you're basing your opinions on some very rare, isolated, and 
jve> highly publicized cases of abuse, and have no right to assess the 
jve> problem, since you've no feel for it, or else you have to give us 
jve> a term to quantify your assessment when you say that animal 
jve> testing needs reform.  

Not really.  I don't need to quantify a problem in order to 
establish the fact that such problems do, indeed, exist.  If you
truly disagree, perhaps we should re-examine some of your postings
over the past few months in order to pinpoint some of the issues
that you've failed to present in numerical fashion.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ