From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:13:49 GMT

From article <1992Dec30.233605.20882@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
> I am interested in your reactions to three questions I have.
> 
> 1)  You've stated in the past that under certain circumstances you
> support the use of animals in medical research.  I am unfamiliar
> with the objective of Taub's research.  Given what you perceive to
> have been his goals, had his animals been kept in conditions up to
> standards necessary for the animals research you would support, what
> is your evaluation of the merit of what he was trying to accomplish?
> In short, assuming ideal conditions, and given the power to make the
> decision, would you have supported the sacrifice of the monkey's to meet
> Taub's research objectives?

Perhaps.   Here are a few of the questions that I would have raised about
the Silver Spring Monkey case:

-- Was the project truly intended to promote the public good?  Or, was
   it primarily intended to serve some private purpose: funding,
   fame, patent acquisitions, etc? If the research is intended to promote 
   the public good, then the researcher(s) should have no objection to 
   regulations that would require full disclosure of their methods, 
   findings, etc.  

-- How does the cost of the research compare with other methods of
   accomplishing similar goals.  To illustrate, the AMA staunchly 
   defended Taub's research because it could have allegedly helped 
   stroke victims, yet the AMA has historically opposed (relatively
   cheap) government education programs designed to enlighten consumers 
   about the dietary factors contributing to hypertension and stroke.   

-- Is there a relationship between the conventions that tolerate
   the (mis)treatment of animals in research and the conventions 
   that condone or tolerate the mistreatment of humans.  As an
   example, consider the real-life case of a prominent medical
   researcher who supports the use of dogs in extremely painful, 
   long-term experiments aimed at the development of a (lucrative) method 
   of treating hopeless endodontic cases.   Yet, this same researcher 
   also condones the widespread use of the dubious Sargenti endo method 
   which is more or less guaranteed to cause tooth loss, if not 
   a host of facial pain problems.  It seems clear to me that self-
   interest, rather than altruistic motives, explains his apparent 
   ambivalence.  And it also seems clear that his (mis)use of dogs 
   may have produced mental callouses that have desensitized his 
   feelings about fellow human beings.
   
> 2)  If a scientist cannot show an immediate and clear medical research
> justification for use of research animals, but can persuasively demonstrate
> to you that the sacrifice of the animals furthers his/her goal of answering
> unanswered, significant basic scientific question would there ever be cases
> where you would approve of such research?

Perhaps.  As I've stated many times, I'm not an absolutist.

> 3)  As I understand what Alex of PETA did, he went into Taub's lab and
> worked there for four months.  His court testimony indicates his belief
> that from day one he observed monkeys living in substandard and unlawful
> conditions.  He persisted and used this four month period to build a
> public relations case when his own statements indicate his immediate
> observation of allegedly unlawful conditions under which the animals were 
> living.  Thus, presumably and evidently Alex allowed the monkeys to suffer
> under unlawful conditions during his tenure at the lab.
> 
> a)  According to your understanding of the facts of this case, why didn't
> Alex notify authorities at the first moment (ie., his first day on the job)
> he observed the substandard and unlawful conditions?

As I recall, the account published by Pacheco (Singer, ed, _In Defense 
of Animals_) stated that he was forced to choose between the lesser of 
the evils.  I'd suggest that you read his account directly rather
than look forward to a lengthy rendition by me.

> b)  In allowing the monkeys to suffer, in awaiting opportunities to
> photograph them suffering, was not Alex in effect allowing these
> individuals to suffer (unlawfully) so that other monkeys and lab animals
> in the future would not have to be subjected to similar conditions.
> Contrast and compare this manner of thinking to that of a medical researcher
> like Greg Popken who says, "I need to (lawfully) sacrifice these mice now,
> until we get to a point that we will not have to sacrifice any mice."

Does Greg Popken view the misuse of animals as the lesser of the evils?
Or, does he simply dismiss the misuse of animals altogether?   What
exactly are the "needs" that motivate his use of mice?

> Finally, the statistics I posted a couple days ago came from the the
> Agricultural Statistics Board, National Agricultural Statistics
> Service, United States Department of Agriculture.  NASS statistics
> as well as reports and publications from the USDA's ERS are recommended.
> I would also recommend the Census Bureau's _Census of Agriculture_ and
> the numerous periodic updates to the Cesus.

Thanks.  As I mentioned previously, one of the principal players in
the "Beyond Beef" campaign is a beef-eating cattleman who's advanced
strong arguments to support his view that the popularity of
beef in the US has been disastrous for small farmers.  Your stats
support his allegations, once we take into account the fact that
the beef processing industry is dominated by a small handful of
big-time players.

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