From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animals in research
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:44:39 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Sep28.123816.1383@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

> I was speaking as a citizen as well as a scientist.  I am sure that a 
> TINY segment of the population might want to abolish animal research, 
> but what about the interests of the majority?   

What percentage of the public believes that MANY (not all) animal based 
experiments should be eliminated as unjustified? You seem to have cited the 
extreme position - complete abolition - to try to place yourself in an 
overwhelming majority. Obviously, you're speaking as an opinionated citizen, 
NOT a scientist. If you were wearing a "scientist" hat you'd never do such 
violence to simple logic. 

> 
> If you are opposed to animal testing, you should simply refuse to buy 
> any product that was tested using animals.   

Again I ask you to eplain your conclusion here. Is it based on ethics? If so, 
what's you're reasoning? You ignored my question previously, can you answer 
it this time?

> In this exchange, you have made two serious charges:
> 
> 1. Animal research/testing amounts to "animal torture" performed without
> regard for the public interest.
> 
> 2. Animal researchers attempt to cover up their use of animals for fear 
> that someone might shut them down.
> 
> If you can provide some documentable evidence that these two charges are 
> the rule rather than isolated, unique exceptions, then you will have 
> a valid argument against the general practices of animal research and 
> testing.

Answering either of these would require a comprehensive, nation-wide analysis 
involving significant resources. To my knowledge, no such survey has been 
done by either side, though I've heard of a random sampling that supported 
claim 1.  Clearly, though, there is a fairly substantial case to be made that 
the research community does, indeed, actively resist the flow of information 
regarding the use of animals in research. This case is substantial enough 
that the ball is in the research community's court just as much as it is in 
the AR court. That is, you need to prove that it isn't a rule, just as I'd 
need to prove that it is.

Note that if the second item - resistance to information flow - is true, then 
the first item becomes impossible to prove one way or the other. 

Why do I think researchers resist information flow? 

First, the AWA makes it illegal for AWA Committee members to reveal the 
contents of the meetings.  

Second, there are about 5 or 6 lawsuits currently active nationwide seeking 
to gain access to AWA Committe meetings in some form. In one recent case, the 
animal people had to go back to court to enforce an earlier decision. In 
another case it took legal action just to get information regarding the use 
of animals in EDUCATION. This information was obviously not covered by patent 
concerns - why was it withheld? I have personal knowledge of this case, it's 
not a rumor or hearsay.  

Third, let me ask you some test questions: How open is your AWA committee to 
the idea of attendance by the public? How about letting people in for the 
discussion of education uses and basic science protocols, to eliminate the 
concerns for patent protection. Do you know of any committees that will do 
this? I'm sure that, with the approval of the institution, the legal 
injuction against information transfer wouldn't be an issue. 

Pending the answers to these questions, I can guess that they support my 
contention that the research community resists the flow of information re. 
animal usage.
 
> 
> If you can only document isolated, infrequent exceptions, then we must 
> condemn these exceptions rather than the practices in general.

Put your "scientist" hat back on! You assume YOUR theory (that these are 
exceptions) to be true WITHOUT proof, while demanding that opposing theories 
provide proof. Is this typical of your scientific approach?

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals