From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:34:43 GMT

Whoops, I just accidentally sent my  James Hoskins response when replying to
Jack Poller.  That reply is still valid; it just has the wrong attributions
and references.  Here's the reply to Jack's comments.

In article <1993Jan20.214317.7099@novell.com> jpoller@novell.com (Contents may have settled during Shipping) writes:
>(Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
Martin Hulsey wrote:
>=> >I resent your implication that Taub's experiments were "of questionable
>=> >value."  Their human benefit has been demonstrated. 
>=> 
>=> So far this has been stated but not proven.  If the experiments were so
>=> valuable, the NIH would have re-instated the funding.  There was talk of
>=> doing this through the late 1980s and a feeble attempt to write up a
>=> protocol was made.  But these efforts appear to have been primarily a
>=> face-saving attempt by the NIH and not a serious attempt to resurrect
>=> the Taub research. 
>
>If you really think that the only criteria NIH or any other Federal
>Agency uses to determine its disbursement of funds is the valuability
>of a project, you have a gaping hole in your head, [... blather etc...]

The claim was made that this research could help tens of thousands of
stroke victims.  If you really think this research was that valuable,
then you should have been burning up the phone lines to your congressman
to get the funding restored. 

>
>=> >Pacheco's actions during Taub's absence was reprehensible.  He was more
>=> >concerned with fabricating evidence against Taub than he was concerned
>=> >about the monkey's welfare.  Taub's actions were identical to option 3 of
>=> >the water dish analogy.  That is:
>=> 
>=> This is a tactic you've used alot.  Somehow you've gotten inside
>=> Pacheco's head and figured out what he was thinking (ie "more concerned
>=> with").  You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you keep stating
>=> it as fact.  *Opinion* does not equal *fact*.
>
>The court, along with most rational logical human beings, use the
>supplied evidence to determine intent.  
>
>The evidence states that while Pacheco was horrified with the
>conditions, he chose to promote the status quo in order to obtain
>evidence for his use.

Not exactly.  Let's re-phrase your statement replacing a couple of your
words with those used by Pacheco:  Pacheco was "astonished" about the
conditions and "agonized" over what he could and should do. 

This is not just a semantic exercise.  You've subtly altered and slanted
the "evidence" by your own selection and use of words. 

>
>This leads to the inescapable conclusion that Pacheco was interested
>more in his cause than in the monkeys.

That may be the conclusion you've arrived at, but it's by no means 
inescapable.

>
>A more viable alternative would have been to simoultaneously call all
>local and national press, and both Federal and local police to rectify
>the situation.  ...

Remember, Pacheco worked for two months before he even had an inkling
that unlawful conduct might be occurring.  During this period, a call to
the local police may well have been counter-productive, achieving
nothing while tipping off Taub.  What would you have him say to the
authorities? "Hello officer, I'd like to report a non-crime." 

However he did consider it.  In his own words, "...knew I must document
everything carefully and that months would have to elapse to show the
consistent pattern of neglect that I was witnessing.  If I blew the
whistle now or after a few weeks, it would be too easy for Taub to
discredit me."

In the second two month period, Pacheco was acting under the assumption
that unlawful behavior was occurring.  Again let's look at his own
words: "I began to prepare my criminal case against Taub.  One of the
first things I had to do was to stop giving the monkeys the fresh fruit
I was smuggling in for them.  ...I realized that Taub would use any
improvement in their health brought about by my independent feeding of
them to defend his treatment of the animals."

You may not believe or agree with Pacheco, but he is on record as
claiming to have done what he thought best.  Your only believable
charge against him at this point is that he made mistakes.

>As it was, Pacheco committed felonies at a local,
>state, and federal level.
>
>Pacheco committed Breaking and Entering, Robbery, Transportation of
>stolen goods across state lines, and actions that could be construed,
>under the RICO act, as racketeering.

Then you must know more about this than I do.  Please fill me in.  What
did Pacheco break into and enter?  What did he rob?  The transportation
across state lines is apparently a reference to the removal of the
monkeys from Lori Lehner's house.  Did Pacheco do this or conspire to do
it?  What evidence do you have?

>
>It is easy to infer from Pacheco's actions that he felt that the
>ends, promoting the cause of PETA, justified the means, the committing
>of felonies.

Sheer opinion on your part.  

BTW are you under the impression that Pacheco and his associates broke
into the lab and clandestinely removed the monkeys?  Some of your
statements suggest this. 

>
>=> Pacheco has stated that the conditions were obvious and that Taub was
>=> present there in the lab, able to see for himself.  Apparently, it was
>=> business as usual for Taub.  It's not hard to suspect that any
>=> complaints by Pacheco could easily have led to his dismissal, thus
>=> ending any further realistic opportunity to effect improvements. 
>
>If, as you claim, all of Taub's actions were illegal, Pacheco could
>have taken protection under the Federal Whistle Blower's Act.  He had
>no reason to fear for his career.  Indeed, an Anonymous phone call
>would have been sufficient.

Where did I claim that "all of Taub's actions were illegal?"  

Pacheco himself didn't realize that ANY of Taub's actions were illegal
until he'd worked at the lab for two months.  And even today, 12 years
later, there are those who claim that Taub's actions were exempted from
anti-cruelty charges and therefore were not illegal.  

Once informed that Taub was in fact apparently violating the
anti-cruelty statute, then Pacheco still believed it was necessary to
demonstrate a consistent and ongoing pattern - i.e. something more than
what could be dismissed as isolated incidents. 

>
>=> your claim.  If Pacheco really believed that speaking out would have
>=> ruined all chances to bring about improvement, then it seems to me that
>=> he was acting reasonably. 
>
>The nuts and bolts!
>
>Was Pacheco really trying to bring improvement, or help the
>'suffering' animals, or both?

IMO both.  (Note the O in IMO; I'm not trying to pass my opinion off
as fact.)

>
>It is very easy to see that Pacheco had many courses of action
>available to him.  He choose one that did not, in the short or long
>term, help the monkeys.

If you're correct here, then all you've shown is that Pacheco may be 
guilty of making an error.  Who among us has never made an error?

But why are you so certain that the monkeys would have been better
off remaining in Taub's lab?

---
Robert Black 		|  Replies may be slow.
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals