From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:07:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.203115.5085@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Robe
rts) writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.155640.11284@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.a
cs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>
>>                                                          you seem
>>to be saying that the proper end result of Alex's four month stay
>>in Taub's lab was the complete discontinuation of the research program,
>>rather than immediate amelioration of the monkeys' suffering.
>
>From what I have read about the case, I don't believe there was any
>action that Alex could have taken that would have resulted in the
>"immediate amelioration of the monkeys' suffering".

Short of trial transcripts (!) where can I find an account of the Taub/
Alex monkey business.  I hope it's not in Singer's Animal Liberation,
the copies at our library are all "missing," library parlance for
"stolen."

>
>Again, you seem to be implying another false choice; that Alex could
>have acted so as to produce:
>
>(a) complete discontinuation of the research program
>
>or
>
>(b) immediate amelioration of the monkeys' suffering
>
>and chose (a).
>
>His actual choice was:
>
>(1) Stay in place, do his job quietly, gather evidence, and turn
>    that evidence over to the authorities when he had enough.
>
>or
>
>(2) Complain about the animals' condition on day one.
>
>I believe that the consequence of (2) would be that he loses his job,
>and the monkey's condition remains unchanged.
>
>He chose (1), at which point "the authorities" (the courts, the
>administration, the public) gets to choose whether to do (a), or (b)
>or nothing at all.
>
>This still all seems too obvious to need saying.
>
>I am intriuged by the notion which seems to have been presented that,
>had Alex complained on day one, the authorities would have swung into
>action to amelioration the monkeys' suffering. Does anyone really
>believe this?
>
>Paul


Paul, I am particularly dense and stupid.  Sometimes I need to hear
the obvious.

I am open to a number of possibilities, including that Alex is a
modern-day hero for exposing substandard care of these particular
monkeys resulting in improved conditions for the lab animal community
as a whole.

I believe that it is possible that Alex could have worked with Taub
to address his (Alex's) concerns; alternatively, called in authorities
"from day one" who would have taken the accusations of sub-standard
care very seriously.  I realize in this latter case Alex and Taub
would not have been able to continue working together and Alex most
likely would have surrendered his job.

At my university, if radiation safety gets a call indicating misuse
of radioactivity they swarm, immediately, over to the lab.  Same thing
for accusations of animal mistreatment; they've got an office, titles,
everything, staffed by people directed to investigate, report, enforce
and oversee.

Maybe Taub had lax oversight.  Your blanket assumption that authorities
would have done nothing intrigues _me_.

Finally, I asked you, and you edited out, my question of whether
given superstandard lab conditions you would have permitted Taub's
research program to continue.  Care to comment, I am curious.






:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals