From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:59:43 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

Ted Robinson writes:

>>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.

Martin Hulsey writes:

>If this were true, there would be no scientific progress.  
 
1. You're taking my statement too absolutely. Obviously there are many 
researchers who continually rethink their approach. Being only human, 
however, most scientists are quite subject to inertia, and many approaches 
are attempted merely because that's the way they were done before.

2. Even if my statement were true, progress wouldn't halt altogether. The old 
ways of doing things would still yield results. 

tr>Being forced down a new path is an effective way of breaking 
tr>habits and fostering creativity. If tomorrow all uses of animals in 
tr>research were banned, one of the results would be a sharp increase in 
tr>creativity leading to a flurry of new ideas and approaches. With time, 
tr>of course, this benefit would die out.

mh>Being forced toward any path will stifle rather than foster creativity. 

Being forced *into* only one path is probably stifling. Being forced *out of* 
an existing path almost always enhances creativity.  

mh>This is akin to arguing that artists would improve their creativity if
mh>forced to abandon their most effective medium.
 
If I suggested that a biologist become a chemist your analogy would work. I'm 
suggesting that if an artist stays in his/her medium of choice, but is denied 
a frequently used tool, that his/her creativity would be enhanced. Many 
artists do this to themselves. 

When I get in a rut playing the piano, the first thing I do is force myself 
to stop using my favorite chords/scales/riffs. Sometimes I switch to an 
electric piano. In either case the result is always greater creativity.

NOTE: by no means do I consider myself an artist, I'm not very good. I merely 
include my personal experience to illustrate my point. 

tr> 4. I view the hyperbole from both sides of this issue as being a natural 
tr >political phenomenon.  

mh> My support for animal research, and subsequent opposition to those in the
mh>animal "rights" movement is in no way a political opinion.  <...>

Actually, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote the above. I frequently find 
your reasoning to be flawed (see below) but don't consider you to be prone to 
exaggeration.

mh>Yes, but we must consider what was feasible rather than what was possible. 
mh>Your analogy illustrates my point.  Only from the top is it easy to see
mh>alternative paths.  In your analogy, animal activists would insist that we
mh>look only on one side of the mountain (and the steepest one at that) for
mh>our initial ascent.  In your analogy, Ted's article is analogous to
mh>standing on top of a frequently-climbed mountain, and criticizing those
mh>who, years ago, took a different path on first ascent.
 
Certainly we need to appreciate the pitfalls of hindsight. Nonetheless, if 
upon reaching the summit of our mountain we spy a better alternate route, one 
which could've been found by a modicum of reconnaisance at the base, then 
surely we would vow to be less impetuous next time out.

tr>As I understand it the insulin  example has 2 animal components. One was 
tr>the dogs during the initial research, and the other is the slaughtered 
tr>cows used ultimately for the extract. I view Ted Altar's article as 
tr>focusing on this first case.

mh>What justification do either of you have for ignoring or denying the second
mh>case?

I don't understand. I neither ignored nor denied the second case. In fact, I 
very clearly acknowledged and addressed it in my next paragraph.

ml>Plenty of people die every day, but we can't always be there with our ice
ml>bucket to gather the tissues.  The Judeo-Christian reluctance to desecrate
ml>the body which will supposedly be used in the afterlife also plays a part
ml>here.  Even if we could overcome people's attitudes about this, we would be
ml>faced with the former problem.  Today, the possibility of materials
ml>infected with HIV or hepatitis further precludes such use of human tissue.

My impression was that many people (if not most) die in or on the way to the 
hospital or nursing home, at least in the U.S. (and presumably Canada). If 
so, the ice bucket and tests for infection could be fairly close at hand. If 
the tissue from all hospital deaths were made available for insulin 
production, could enough safe insulin be manufactured to meet demand? Just 
looking for a guesstimate of orders of magnitude.

ml>I do not imply some moral imperative for anti-vivisectionists to refuse
ml>medical research.  I do care for humans who oppose animal research as well
ml>as those who support it.  I merely want antivivisectionists to
ml>realistically consider the consequences of that for which they are arguing.

How disappointing. Nothing in here to argue with, though it reads rather 
different than your earlier statements. If this is what you've been trying to 
say all along then I have no quarrel.

ml>By not refuting my statement about humans being speciesist, may I infer
ml>that you do not disagree? 

Absolutely. Our speciesist tendencies are at the root of the evils the AR 
movement seeks to eliminate. I was more interested in what point you were 
trying to make. I still haven't figured it out.

ml>It seems far-fetched for anyone to argue that
ml>killing animals for food is unethical when so many species do it.  It also
ml>seems silly to me to suggest, based simply on the ability to perceive pain,
ml>that killing plants for food is more ethical than killing animals.  All
ml>living beings have an equal capacity to suffer death.

This was dealt with on the Universal Ethic and Meating thread. Given only the 
assumption that one of the ethics in our collection is:

  "The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.",

all comers were invited to posit additional ethics which would refute the 
conclusion: 

 Eating meat is less ethical than not eating meat. 
 
I think those that tried to do so found it quite difficult. If you want I can 
e-mail you a copy of the thread so you can reach your own conclusions.

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

tr>>Surely you're not that naive!?

ml>It do not think that I am naive, nor did I intend to appear so.  Couldn't a
ml>person filter out your posts with the "kill file?"

To "listen" to what someone is saying on this newsgroup requires more than 
just reading the words. It means really trying to understand what the author 
is trying to say. Many people read an article only hoping to find something 
to argue with. Often, in their zeal, they "find" something that wasn't there, 
and miss many things that were. Almost all of us are guilty of this. To be 
better listened to I need to do what I can do reduce the zeal with which 
people seek to disagree.  

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

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

ml>How did you obtain insight as to my "approach to issues" from the above
ml>statement?  I hope that you are not inferring that I do not value logical
ml>arguments, for I am not implying such. 

Something like that. I'm inferring that you personally focus more on the 
political aspects of a discussion than on the logical aspects. This is a 
pattern I've seen elsewhere in your writing, making me more confident in my 
inference.    

ml>I simply question why the "focus"
ml>should be on logic in this newsgroup.  If I am wrong, please tell me why.

Unlike you, I'm not suggesting what the focus of the entire group should be. 
I *am* saying that *I* prefer to focus on logic, and will try to do what I 
can to get others that I converse with to do the same.  

tr>>Believe it or not, I have a life outside this newsgroup. 

ml>I believe it, but I also believe that you would be no more likely to admit
ml>your PETA membership there. 
 
I wear t-shirts to work. My favorites are AR shirts, and my PETA shirt is one 
of my favoritest. I sent away for it just so I could wear it to work and let 
everyone know I'm a member. Of course, you've already shown a willingness to 
posit theories about my behavior from long distance, so I guess you can now 
cast me as a compulsive liar.

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

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

ml>IMO, your sarcasm here attempts to camouflage the truth of my statement. 
 
My sarcasm (which I now regret) was borne of frustration caused by:

1. Ever getting into this discussion. Borrowing a page right out of a 
politician's playbook, you've taken an irrelevancy and tried to make it an 
issue in an attempt to divert attention from more substantial concerns. In 
deciding to respond to your original challenge I inadvertently helped 
validate it, thereby falling into the trap. 

2. The insipidity of your last "submission". It was transparently obvious 
long ago that you were trying to infer shame from a reluctance to affiliate. 
I told you once why the inference was dead wrong, at least in my case, yet 
you persist in telling me the motives underlying my own actions. (See above, 
"t-shirts", for your succes rate in this area.) What do I do now, reiterate a 
statement which you refuse to understand or believe?  Perhaps you could just 
post "Are too!" and I could post "Am not!" and we could repeat this ad 
nauseum.  

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