From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:08:54 GMT

In Message-ID: <1992Nov9.223222.10233@athena.cs.uga.edu>, Martin Hulsey wrote:
> 
> Russell Lawrence writes:
> 
> >[...]
> >I was immediately successful, however, in making contact with Joel 
> >Newman at PCRM who made the following statement:
> >
> >    PCRM promotes alternatives to animal research and encourages
> >    higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in animal 
> >    research.  We also oppose unethical use of humans in medical
> >    research.
> >
> >This reconfirms the prior statements made by Ted Robinson and Bob
> >Black, and negates the claim made previously by Martin Hulsey.
> 
> With respect to PCRM's *present* position, I stand corrected.
> 
> Recall what Bob Black quoted from a PCRM pamphlet...

Actually it was taken from a letter which PCRM sent me.

[...]

> By advocating "replacement" of "inhumane" and "ineffective" animal 
> paradigms, PCRM opposed animal research then.  By "promoting 
> alternatives" to animal paradigms (as though they existed), and implying 
> that existing standards of ethics and effectiveness are unsatisfactory, 
> PCRM opposes animal research now.

The PCRM statement does not say that PCRM opposes all animal research
now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Message-ID: <1992Nov9.223404.10402@athena.cs.uga.edu>

> Ted Robinson writes....
> 
> >Ted Robinson (quoting Ted Altar) writes:

[...]

MH> Don't forget that your animal-free scenario *also* depends on Collip 
> being able to purify insulin from human tissues.  ...

What would be the added difficulty of isolating it from humans organs
rather than from animal organs (assuming availability of the needed
human organs)?

MH> It was absolutely imperative to first show that such extracts could be 
> used to actually *save* lives.  Before B&B, *all* attempts with humans 
> and animals were unsuccessful.  You have no evidence that, without the 
> promising dog work by Banting & Best, Collip or anyone else would have  
> pursued such work.  ...

There was an already established linkage between pancreas and diabetes. 
This is enough to encourage further investigation, except perhaps to
those who felt there was insufficient reason to pursue the matter until
animal studies suggested it.  From this viewpoint, the animal research
helped convince disbelievers and skeptics to continue on.  For those 
less amenable to the doctrine that until you've demonstrated
something in animals you can't continue, the encouragement was already
there. 

MH> Agreed.  The best that you folks can do is "conjecture" about what might 
> have happened if the problem was not solved *first* using animals.  This 
> sort of argument does not lend ANY support to PCRM's claim that non-
> animal "alternatives" are "effective."  If the "alternatives" are so 
> effective, wouldn't they have been used to find such answers *first*?

... because the prevailing thinking at the time was strongly slanted
toward animal research and there was no AR movement to raise sticky
ethical questions.  And also perhaps because fewer people (including
researchers) appreciated the ethically relevant similarities common to
human and non-human animals. 

MH> There are few examples in medicine where animal techniques have been 
> replaced by effective non-animal alternatives.  In those few cases that 
> exist (e.g., the HCG assay for pregnancy rather than the "rabbit test"), 
> animals were often required to *develop* the alternative.

Yes, I've read this example too in Dr. Goldberg's newsletter.  It didn't
greatly impress me then and it doesn't now.  Here you're not even
talking directly about sacrificing animal lives in return for saving
human lives; you're talking about sacrificing animal lives to ascertain
the pregnancy status of humans and that's generally not a life and
death matter.  

MH> Please remember that my original claim was that animals were required to 
> cure diabetes (though you were correct to suggest that a treatment was 
> instead obtained).  Even if I concede your laughable claim that the B&B 
> "dog" advances were not required, you are left in the untenable position 
> of proving that Collip could have obtained sufficient human pancreata to 
> extract.  The decision to obtain therapeutic insulin from animals 
> instead of humans, despite severe side effects for some patients, 
> further weakens the likelihood of your scenario.

I really haven't understood your reasons for claiming why human organs
could not have been used.  Isn't it likely that if we had concentrated
earlier on the human approach, decades of unpleasant allergic and side
effects, attributable to the use of animal insulin, could have been avoided.

MH> If X people were dying per year of diabetes, and if avoiding the 
> sacrifice of 400 dogs would delay the discovery of insulin by "only" Y 
> years, how can you justify letting (X * Y) humans die in the interim 
> period?  Is this what you and PCRM would call a "humane" alternative?

This is a complicated ethical question.  If you were a utilitarian
thinker and had sufficient information, you could run a calculation
and draw a conclusion from it.  Since I'm not a utilitarian, I'll
leave that to you.

But the fact is that you've constructed the type of situation which 
never occurs in real life.  If you could humanely sacrifice 400 dogs
and GUARANTEE that it would save many human lives, I would certainly
have to consider it.

[...]

MH> I suppose my opinion on this carries no more weight than yours.  After 
> all, I only have TEN YEARS experience in animal research.  We could 
> consult those with far more credibility in this matter than either of 
> us.

Your opinion and experience carry a lot of weight.  But your experience
also channels you (potentially) into a certain mindset, which may act to
close off certain competing ideas or encourage casual dismissal of
alternative considerations. 

[...]

MH> "An integrated approach of clinical, whole animal and _in vitro_ studies 
> is currently the best approach to advance science, develop new products 
> and drugs, and treat, cure and prevent disease." - Dr. Alan M. Goldberg,  
> Director,  Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, Johns Hopkins 
> University.
> 
> If you cannot trust the opinion of a person who has dedicated his life 
> to finding alternatives to animal testing, who can you trust?  A 
> psychiatrist?  A philosopher?  A historian?

Thank you for quoting Dr.  Goldberg, who has devoted 10 years (I don't
know about his "life") to finding alternatives.  He is someone I can
respect, although he seems overly cautious and conservative to me.  That
may be why he has some credibility with moderates on both sides.  If you
consider yourself a follower of him and CAAT, then I can certainly
respect that.  It gives me a little confidence that you really have some
interest in the reduction of animal suffering, rather than just in
bashing AR people. 

> >Martin writes (to Ted Robinson):
> >> Would you care to make 
> >> a similar attempt for the other 55 Nobel prize winning experiments in 
> >> Physiology and Medicine that also involved the use of animals? 
> >
> >Not really. Sounds like a lot of work and it would probably lead to the 
> >same argument over and over.
> 
> Yes, and you would lose the argument over and over.  Forget the 55 
> examples.  Why don't you instead consider any of the last 9 Nobel prizes 
> in physiology or medicine since 1984, ALL of which required the use of 
> animals?  Please note that the proportion of Nobel-winning research 
> using animals is not decreasing despite the existence of so-called 
> "effective alternatives."  Again, is PCRM more qualified than the Nobel 
> committee to determine which research is most "effective?"

I would be interested in knowing more about this, but it doesn't
surprise me because that's where the funds (NIH) have been concentrated. 
If large amounts of funding are devoted to, say, the humane genome
project at the expense at animal research, then I expect to see a
concentration of Nobel prizes in that area.  Breakthroughs will tend to
occur where the effort is focused.

It's interesting to note that a 1982 NIH study ("NIH Grant Applications:
Reasons for Disapproval") attempted to determine why 256 grant
applications from clinical investigators were rejected or given very low
scores.  The study concluded that the primary reason was the use of
human instead of animal subjects.  As Brandon Reines put it (in ISAR
Report, Summer 1992), "Based on NIH's own study of peer review, it is
apparent that the funding machinery of the NIH research system has been
all but taken over by Ph. D. animal researchers."

Also I'd like to know more about the backgrounds of the selection
committee members.  Is it composed more of animal researchers or of
clinical investigators.  I'm not questioning their knowledge or
sincerity - just suggesting they would tend to value the type of work
compatible with their own experiences. 

[...]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >In article <1992Nov2.152851.20701@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
> >hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> >> Despite a couple of challenges, no one has disputed my claim that 
> there 
> >> is no (non-extinct) species that would sacrifice its own members to 
> save 
> >> members of another species.  Anyone who knows about ecosystems knows 
> >> that species are instead likely to exploit or compete with one 
> another 
> >> in manifold ways to optimize their own survival (for examples look 
> for 
> >> "food-web" in primary ecological literature, or the works of Eugene 
> >> Odum and other bona fide ecologists).  I therefore contend that all
> >> successful species are "speciesist."
> >
> >What's your point? 
> 
> animals advancing their species at the expense of others are speciesist
>
> all animals advance their species at the expense of other species
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> all animals are speciesist
> 
> all animals are speciesist
> humans are animals
> --------------------------
> all humans are speciesist
> 

The problem with this is that it's not a species-specific claim.  You
could replace "species" with family or pack or other sub-groups or
cross-groups, and make all the same statements.  You're merely saying
here that humans tend to give preference to those closest to them. 

Also, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in claims like these,
if your intention is to cite animal behavior as a justification for
human behavior.  If non-human animals are so worthy as to serve as
ethical and behavioral guides for humans, then why is it right for
humans to kill them for our own purposes?  OTOH if animals are not, then
why are you suggesting that we pattern ourselves after them?

[...]

> --
> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
> Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
> Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
> University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity

---
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