From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:07:56 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

I'm going to try to condense things a bit in the hope that the result is of a 
little more workable size. (Now that I'm done and it's still quite long all I 
can say is that I tried :-))

First, I should probably clarify my position on some things.

1. I agree with the statement that medical progress would be measurably 
slowed if the use of animals in research were halted.

2. I believe that the research community greatly overstates the effect of 
such a ban. For example, I find claims of 20+ years of life expectancy due to 
animal research to be preposterous. In particular, the research community 
seems to overlook the institutional inertia present in its own system. Like 
any group of people, scientists will continue doing things as they've always 
been done. Being forced down a new path is an effective way of breaking 
habits and fostering creativity. If tomorrow all uses of animals in research 
were banned, one of the results would be a sharp increase in creativity 
leading to a flurry of new ideas and approaches. With time, of course, this 
benefit would die out.  

3. I don't remember seeing any PETA or PCRM claims that a ban on vivisection 
would have no impact on medical progress. However, I agree that AR orgs in 
general understate the benefit of animal based research. 

4. I view the hyperbole from both sides of this issue as being a natural 
political phenomenon. I tend to ignore it when it's sourced from the AR side, 
but jump on it when it comes from the research side. This is due to 2 things:  

 1. Greater tolerance for those I basically agree with than for those I don't.
 2. In portraying political opinions as science, scientists breach a public  
    trust.   

5. As for the insulin example, my conclusion is that the results are mixed. 
Ted Altar's article didn't prove that the research on dogs was unnecessary, 
merely that it reasonably MAY have been unnecessary. 

Imagine a group of mountain climbers that reach the peak via route A. Just 
because they got there via that route doesn't mean it's the only route in 
existence. In particular, once they reach the summit they might spy a second 
route that looks possible. They won't know for sure until they try it, but in 
the meantime they would scarcely claim that route A was the only one 
possible. In the insulin case, though, we only get one crack at it. 


 In article <1992Nov9.223404.10402@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> 
> Don't forget that your animal-free scenario *also* depends on Collip 
> being able to purify insulin from human tissues.  If you can you give me 
> *any* contemporary example where a previously unknown endocrine factor 
> was isolated from human organs, I might be more likely to believe you.

As I understand it the insulin  example has 2 animal components. One was the 
dogs during the initial research, and the other is the slaughtered cows used 
ultimately for the extract. I view Ted Altar's article as focusing on this 
first case. That is, could we have spared the dogs? From the Dec. 16, 1922 
issue of the British Medical Journal:

     Production of insulin, which is not a cure for
     diabetes, involved extraordinary suffering.  Dr.
     Banting, who, with a confederate, admits picking up
     dogs in the streets of Toronto at night, has recorded
     such things as operating on a dog, and pouring boiling
     water into the pancreatic arteries of a dog till it
     fainted from pain. 

Was this all necessary?

As to the second component - needing an animal source for the insulin - you'd 
probably know better than I why human organs weren't used. Is it because not 
enough people die every day to meet the demand, or is it because our customs 
on dealing with death interfere with effectively using human organs. If it's 
the former then this is a good example of a case where animals are needed to 
help keep people alive. (Of course, in this particular case the beings were 
already killed for other reasons.)  If the latter, I'd suggest that perhaps 
modifying our customs would be preferable to killing other beings. 

<Martin asked a bunch of specific questions about trading animal lives versus 
human lives>

I can't answer your questions yet. I've been working on formulating a 
methodical and consistent approach to the concept of animal rights. The 
basics of it are contained in the Universal Ethic series. Except for the case 
of vivisection, I think that about all other AR goals can be derived from 
this ethic WITHOUT having to confront the nasty question of trading off 2 
conflicting ethics. In the case of vivisection, however, such a tradeoff is 
necessary. I haven't figured out yet exactly where I'd draw the line, but I'm 
sure I'd draw it in a very different place than where it currently is. I hope 
to address this more in a later thread (Universal Ethic and Vivisection - 
stay tuned). 
 

<Much discussion back and forth about whether or not anti-vivisectionists 
should forego certain medical treatments> 

Rather than perpetuate past misunderstandings on this, how about starting 
over. Assuming you're willing, can you make a crisp statement on this subject 
that you'd be willing to defend? Then we can take it from there. 


>>> If you regard the animal models that have been developed to tackle 
these
>>> problems as unnecessary and unethical, then you antivivisectionists 
out
>>> there need to quit whining and start exploring alternative ideas.  
Get
>>> your butts into the lab like we do, and work long hours testing your
>>> ideas.  May the best idea win.
 
>>
>>150 years ago you might've said: if you think slavery is unethical and 
>>unnecessary, get out there and invent a robot to replace them. And 
>>until you do, we're not changing things.
> 
> Your analogy is poor.  More appropriately, in this analogy, I might have 
> said, get out there and pick the cotton yourself. 

My analogy was right on. In your original statment you suggested that to save 
animals from testing, we should develop a replacement for them. In the slave 
case, then, we'd save the slaves by developing a replacement for them - a 
robot.  If your original statement had been that we should ourselves take the 
animal's place in the tests, then picking cotton ourselves would've been the 
correct analog. 

 
> all humans are speciesist

All humans inflict pain. Should we not bother avoiding doing so?  

> 
> If people are looking for an excuse not to "listen" to your arguments, 
> they wouldn't read your posts.

Surely you're not that naive!?

> Why don't we instead focus on the politics of animals as the name of 
> this newsgroup implies?  If you want to "focus on logic" shouldn't you 
> try sci.logic?

Thank you for mucho insight into your approach to issues. Much is explained 
and confirmed.

> 
> Where else, if not here, would the "upside" be greater than the 
> "downside?" 

In a situation where existing prejudices against PETA and PCRM were less. 
That is, everywhere in my life besides t.p.a.

>If the "downside" of admitting PETA & PCRM membership is 
> greater than the "upside," why are you a member? 
 
Believe it or not, I have a life outside this newsgroup. 
 

>>Similarly, this newsgroup is plagued by ad hominem arguments. I'd 
>prefer to 
>>let my words stand on their own. By including affiliations, I'd be 
implicitly 
>>agreeing that the person behind the words is important, thereby 
furthering 
>>the ad hominem orientation of this newsgroup. This was why I was 
reluctanct 
>>to respond to your challenge, but finally I got pissed off enough 
(which I'm 
>>sure was your goal) that I said something.


> 
> What advantage would I gain by pissing you off?  

You'd get me to answer a challenge which I would otherwise dismiss as 
irrelevent. Why you issued the challenge in the first place, I don't know. 
Like I said, I viewed it as irrelevent. 

> 
> I submit that you would prefer to neglect indicating that you are a 
> member of PETA and PCRM so that you won't have to continuously avoid 
> embarrassing questions about their misanthropic positions.

Yes, you've hit the nail right on the head, Martin. I should've known you'd 
see right through my flimsy camouflage. Damn! 

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