From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:20:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.220333.1320@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul
Roberts) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> Well, I am not Bob, but: had he not waited as long as it took to
> build up a body of evidence, then the monkey's suffering would
> have gone on much longer, because the authorities would not have
> shut down Taub's operation.
> 
> I think you are presenting a false choice.
> 
> Paul

You are apparently more concerned about 17 monkeys than you are about
millions of human victims of stroke who have lost the use of their arms. 
How can you justify this?

You and your fellow activists might claim that Taub's monkey research was
"useless," but Taub's subsequent success in rehabilitating human victims of
stroke belie your claim. 

If you consider an analogy that I posed to Bob Black a few months ago, you
might better understand our ethical objections to Pacheco's actions:

Let's say that you were a visitor at Russell's house, and have taken an 
interest in his dogs.  If Russell went on vacation, and you noticed that 
the person taking care of Russell's dogs did not fill their water dish, 
should you:

1) Tell Russell.
2) Fill it yourself.
3) Wait until Russell is scheduled to return from vacation, and call the 
police to report that Russell is mistreating his dogs (who are very 
thirsty by now) by not giving them water.  Photograph Russell's emaciated
dogs
for evidence, then leave the house immediately before the police arrive.

Everyone except Bob Black ignored this analogy.  Bob responded that he
would "give water to a thirsty dog," yet has not yet acknowledged that his
course of action in this analogy differs greatly from the course Pacheco
chose in Taub's lab.

Pacheco did not wander into Taub's lab by chance, and take heroic actions
to relieve the "suffering" that the monkeys endured.  Pacheco targeted
Taub's research for elimination.  Pacheco obtained employment in Taub's
laboratory under false pretenses.  In other words, he lied.  During
Pacheco's five month tenure in Taub's lab, he never once complained to Taub
or any one else about procedures or conditions in the lab.  Yet, he later
testified that the monkeys were "suffering" and "in pain" during this
period.

When *both* of Taub's animal caretakers suddenly and mysteriously stopped
coming into work during Taub's 1981 vacation, he detailed the poor
conditions of animal husbandry, yet did *absolutely nothing* to correct the
conditions himself or notify someone who would.  Pacheco was clearly more
concerned with gathering evidence against Taub than he was concerned about
the monkey's welfare.

I cannot see how anyone who is genuinely concerned with animal welfare can
defend Pacheco's actions, for they clearly resulted in suffering on the
part of the monkeys.

As bizarre as option 3 in my analogy seems, it is analogous to what Pacheco
did.  So, kindly refrain from portraying him as a brave soul, torn by a
moral 
dilemma. What he did was less than exemplary from the standpoint of 
animal welfare.

Furthermore, the fact that escapes you and others is that Taub was
completely exhonorated of all cruelty charges in this matter.  Taub might
not ever had been convicted at all if the Prosecuting Attorney, Roger
Galvin, had not withheld crucial evidence from the court.

A pathology report confirmed Taub's claim that Nero did not suffer from
osteomyelitis.  Note that Nero's arm was needlessly amputated because
Taub's advice was not followed.  Taub had 25 years experience in caring for
deafferented monkeys, and the veterinarians who were employed to care for
Taub's monkeys were often trained by Taub himself.

PETA has used the case of the Silver Spring monkeys as a "cause celebre"
and rallying cry for over a decade.  Anyone who knows the facts surrounding
the case will conclude that Taub was set up.  In no forum has it been
proven that Taub treated his monkeys in a cruel fashion, yet animal
activists such as yourself persist today with this slanderous assertion.

The only documented instance of animal mistreatment in this case was
perpetrated by the antivivisectionists who "stole" the monkeys from Lori
Lehner's basement, and hauled them many miles by truck in an attempt to
prevent their court-ordered return to Taub.

PETA executives denied any knowledge of the persons who "stole" the
animals, yet when Ingrid Newkirk and two others were threatened with
contempt of court charges, $10,000 fines, and jail, the monkeys were
miraculously located and returned.

Upon return of the monkeys, they had elevated white blood cell levels,
indicative of severe stress.

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