From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Russell's unanswered questions
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:11:36 GMT

In article <C07BCL.EA1@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> > How would you modify the _status quo_ to simultaneously protect the
> > interests of human and non-human animals?
> 
> I can't think of a single thread of discussion in tpa that hasn't 
> addressed this question in some small way.  Rather than expect me 
> to post an encyclopedia of my views, I'd recommend that you 
> address the issues (the uses of animals in research, agriculture, 
> entertainment, hunting, etc) one thread at a time and/or consult 
> some of the texts published by authorities like Singer and Regan.  

I do not expect "an encyclopedia" of your views, just a couple of brief
statements.  I am still waiting.  The answer that I am seeking pertains
exclusively to animals in research.  That was the topic of the thread when
you first evaded the question.

> > Would failing to perform a critical experiment be worse than performing one
> > that proved trivial?
> > 
> > Justification:  By posting two examples of approved animal experiments
> > described as "useless," Russell suggests that there are problems with
> > current procedures for the approval of animal experiments.  I am curious
> > how he would change the current procedures to prevent the approval of "bad"
> > experiments, although I do not yet accept that the two examples that he
> > gave are "bad."
> 
> I've answered this question previously.  As I recall, I pointed out
> that your question presumed omniscience on the part of the respondent.  

No it doesn't.  It simply requires an imagination that you apparently lack.
 I am referring to a hypothetical situation here.  Try again.

> And, I also pointed out that ethical decisions ought to be based on 
> probable good and bad outcomes... given the facts and reasons at our 
> disposal.  

Agreed, but what if some important "facts" are not available?  Would you
require an investigator to prove an experiment's worth prior to approval? 
If so, how could this be done?

> For someone to argue that a given experiment might have some 
> unknown, unpredictable benefit is an appeal to ignorance.

Are you saying that all arguments in favor of basic research, where the
immediate benefits are unclear, are "appeals to ignorance?"

>We 
> could just as reasonably argue that rape might be a good thing if 
> it could result in a pregnancy that might give us another George
> Bernard Shaw or Mohandas Gandhi or Albert Schweitzer.

Do you truly believe that animal experimentation is analogous to rape?  If
so, why?
 
> One of the examples of experiments that I consider "useless" involved
> the LSU cat shooting project, which was *not* subject to the 
> provisions of the AWA.

Why have you previously neglected to mention this fact?

>When the project came under attack, the 
> principle investigator presented his principle findings, but critical 
> observers pointed out that those "findings" were hardly new and had been 
> previously published in the early 1890's.  In fact, those "findings"
> had already been incorporated in the standard methods for treating
> gunshot wounds to the head.  

We are all still waiting for you to provide proof of these claims.  To what
"critical observers" do you refer?  To what "findings" do you refer?  Where
were these "findings" published?

I am still waiting for you to provide evidence for the chronological claim
regarding the "beagle-drowning" experiment that you criticized.

> Had the experiment continued, is it possible that the experiments 
> would have saved a few lives?  It's possible, but it's far more 
> likely that the investment of two million dollars, not to mention 
> the suffering, would have saved more lives had it been devoted to 
> projects with a predictable benefit.  

Who should we choose to predict these benefits?  PETA?  PCRM?  You?
 
> > Question 3:
> > 
> > Do you propose that Christian Scientists refuse medical care because they
> > believe the information is tainted?
> > 
> > Justification:  When I previously suggested that antivivisectionists should
> > refuse medical treatments developed using animals, Russell pointed out that
> > information cannot be "tainted" by its method of acquisition.  I wonder if
> > Russell believes that a person could have any other reason for refusing
> > such treatment.
> 
> Why would you wonder such a thing?  I've made it clear to you on many
> occasions that it's rather foolish for us to presume that the motivations
> of another individual must conform to some simplistic scheme.

If this is so "clear" to you, why do you repeatedly suggest that people who
would refuse medical treatment would do so because the information is
"tainted."  Is this not also a "simplistic scheme?" 

> I can think of many reasons why a person who happens to be an animal
> rights advocate might reasonably refuse a given program of medical
> care.  For example, the program might be risky and unproven; it might
> be expensive;  it might involve some heroic committment; etc, etc.

My question above did not pertain to animal "rights" activists.  Care to
try again?

> However, the notion that an AR activist has an obligation to refuse
> care because it's tainted by the prior use of animals in research
> doesn't make much sense to me.

I have never made such a claim.  You have repeatedly and falsely insisted
that I have.
 
[...]
 
> > Question 4:
> > 
> > Would you, for some period, allow heart patients to die for their
> > "stupidity" rather than sacrifice a few pigs or dogs to develop a new heart
> > valve, etc?
> >
> > Justification:  Russell pointed out that much human disease is due to human
> > stupidity.  I wonder if he believes that such "stupid" humans should be
> > allowed to die in order to save non-human animals.
> 
> Again, this sounds like another one of your "curiosity" questions.   It
> seems to me that you lack the intelligence to grasp the fact that I'm
> not an absolutist vis-a-vis medical research.

Regardless, of what the question "sounds like," why don't you answer it?  I
have the intelligence, as do others, to recognize that you continue to
evade my question.  Please answer the question.

> > Question 5:
> > 
> > What do you feel to be the relative intrinsic value of a dog as compared to
> > a human?
> > 
> > Justification:  This is an admittedly tough question that has no correct
> > quantitative answer.  It does, however, relate to the use of canines in
> > medical research to save humans.  Knowing how much Russell loves dogs, I am
> > curious whether he would sacrifice his dogs, in a hypothetical situation,
> > to save a human.
> 
> Possibly.  It's also possible that I might sacrifice a human to save a
> dog.  In making such a decision, I would be choosing between the lesser
> of the evils.

Under precisely what circumstances would you regard sacrificing the life of
a human to save a dog to be the "lesser of the evils?"  Do you feel that,
under these circumstances, that the life of a dog is worth more than that
of a human?
 
> > Questions 6 & 7:
> > 
> > What if the "alternative" tests fail to detect a hazardous physical
> > irritant in your toothpaste?  Wouldn't this result in human suffering?
> 
> Possibly.  What if the flaws in draize testing resulted in false
> confidence in a new product, thereby causing human suffering?

No test is perfect.  That is why I would recommend continued usage of all
available tests.  That way, we can minimize the possibility of human
suffering.  By using your so-called "alternatives" as a primary screen, and
performing the Draize test only on compounds that pass these primary
screens, we can, IMO, maximize product safety while minimizing the use of
animals in product safety testing.

> > How do you propose that the Ames test of bacterial mutagenicity can serve
> > as a test for ocular irritancy?
> > 
> > Justification:  Russell previously claimed that so-called "alternatives" to
> > the Draize test of ocular irritancy provided good prediction of chemical
> > irritancies.  I pointed out that chemical irritancy was not the whole
> > story, but physical irritancies, and interactions between physcial and
> > chemical irritancies are also possible.
> 
> And I pointed out that rabbit eyes are substantially different from
> human eyes, and hence, that extrapolations between rabbits and humans
> might be risky.

Is a human eye "substantially different" from a culture of bacteria?  Is a
human eye "substantially different" from an allantoic membrane of a chicken
egg?  Is a rabbit's eye more similar to a human's eye than the two above? 
Do you suppose that extrapolations between bacterial cultures and egg
membranes and the human eye might be riskier?"

>Question:  Does thalidomide cause pregnancy in rabbits
> when administered in small doses?

No.  Only rabbit sperm can do that.
 
> > Question 8:
> > 
> > Have you considered the suffering of the mouse or rabbit that is ground up
> > by the thresher that harvests your wheat?
> > 
> > Justification:  Russell claimed that because he ate fruit and bread rather
> > than eggs and bacon for breakfast, his dietary regimen did not promote
> > animal suffering.  In fact, all agriculture results in the suffering of
> > organisms from both kingdoms.
> 
> I answered this question previously.  As I recall,  I pointed out that
> it would be stupid to argue that AR advocates are promoting suffering
> when they mail letters... simply because mail trucks occasionally hit
> stray dogs.  
> 
> Be that as it may, let's suppose that harvesting equipment will kill 
> one mouse for every 10,000 pounds of grain.  In view of the fact that
> it takes 6.9 pounds of grain to produce a single pound of edible
> pork and 2.6 pounds of grain to produce a pound of eggs [mileage will
> vary outside the United States], it seems logical to conclude that
> folks who consume eggs and pork sausage for breakfast will cause the
> death of more mice than folks who consume grains directly.

Your conclusion is "logical" only if we consider the by-products obtained
from pork and egg production to be of no value.

How would the "logic" of your scenario be affected if you didn't assume
that the hogs were domesticated and the chickens weren't free-ranging?
 
> > Questions 9 & 10:
> > 
> > If a product's raw materials are tested on animals, and, if animal tests
> > are cruel, how can the resultant product be called "cruelty-free?"
> >
> > When purchasing cosmetics, should people care more about their eyes than
> > those of a rabbit?
> > 
> > Justification:  Russell claimed that cosmetics manufactured by Revlon &
> > Avon are "cruelty free."  I am curious just what he means by that term, and
> > whether human injury resulting from the use of such "alternatives" would
> > also be considered cruelty.  
> 
> I've addressed these questions before, Martin.   It seems to me that
> you're incapable of learning from the discussion.

Your notion of "addressing" questions is not the same as other people's
notion of "answering" questions.  Remember Rich Young's "pagan dancer"
epithet.  If you previously *answered*, rather than evaded or "addressed,"
this question, please re-post your answer.  

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals