HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:21:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.174728.12414@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg
 Popken) writes:
>
>RE: "needs" that motivate my use of mice.
>   Since the begining of time (no I don't have a ref.) health problems
>have plaqued (no pun intented) man.  I feel that preventing the suffering
>of Humans is one of the highest ethical responsibilities of all persons.
>In addition, I have an ability, a knack, a disposition (whatever you wish
>to call it) for scientific investigation of biological phenomena.  My
>motivation for doing scientific research is a combination of those two
>ideas.  My motivation for using mice is simply that it is the most
>reliable model, I can find, that will alow me to complete the task at hand.
>
>                                       GREG
>

Here's your statement.  Here's a question I asked Russell and his reply.

In article <C03yJ5.KqJ@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <1992Dec30.233605.20882@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@m
agnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>
>> 2)  If a scientist cannot show an immediate and clear medical research
>> justification for use of research animals, but can persuasively demonstrate
>> to you that the sacrifice of the animals furthers his/her goal of answering
>> unanswered, significant basic scientific question would there ever be cases
>> where you would approve of such research?
>
>Perhaps.  As I've stated many times, I'm not an absolutist.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


What's your position on this?  The question of basic scientific research
employing research animals.

Here's my answer--I don't want to be the question man.  Remember, we're
not talking explicit medical research here.

I'd permit non-invasive primate research under strict review guidelines;
I'd buy into what Russell says about the need to popularize other forms
of research, other models, and scrutinize carefully whether the primate
model is necessary to answer a specific question or just being utilized
for high visibility or to stroke a researcher's ego.

Invasive primate research.  Much stricter control.  Factoring in suffering,
pain.  Without a direct link to human or other animal well-being I'd
disallow.

Dogs and cats. About same as above, again emphasis on scrutinizing pain/
suffering.

Mice.  Permit.  If animals are thought to suffer, this suffering should
be factored against the basic scientific merit of the project.  Where
animals suffer, advocate use of alternative models or change protocols.

People.  Permit.  Factor in suffering.  Work to advance models using
dead subjects or in-vitro techniques.



:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Date: 29 Dec 1992 19:09:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BzzqrM.q1@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec28.202235.18123@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>> If I may add my 2 cents. I've never met a farmer/rancher who didn't have 
>> a genuine love and concern for the welfare of his/her animals. Without it,
>> they wouldn't tolerate the long hours and hard work for little pay. It's a
>> 24 hour a day, 7 day a week job, and damn near any good trade will make 
>> you a better living with a lot smaller investment and a lot less risk. Maybe
>> you can get a summer job on a farm, if you're lucky. It would probably be
>> a real eye opener for you.

>75% of the food consumed in the US is produced by 3% of the farms/ranches.
>Do you think the large operations have a genuine love and concern for 
>animals --- hidden away somewhere between the mail room and the executive
>boardroom perhaps?


You have a point.  I'm sure executives have a great deal of power over how
a farm/ranch will be run and how much money is allocated for the living
conditions of the livestock.  However, those who actually "run" the show
hands-on probably have at least as much if not more power in determining
how the livestock is treated.  It isn't hard to understand how those who
are farm/ranch managers would be hired to do a job and are given what they
need to get the job done.  The millionaire corporation executives who may
own farms/ranchs may not know nearly as much about running the operations
and therefore hire managers who do know.  


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hypothetical Situation
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:02:09 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

James Hoskins writes:

>Will you please vote now, I have been away from my family, my research
>and my ground hogs for one month now.


So much for basing a decision exclusively on ethical considerations. All my 
new found knowledge is of a political ilk, as will be my vote.
 
First, let me thank the moderator for the excellent history lesson. I think 
the convoluted nature of events leading up to this vote helps illustrate my 
earlier point - that participation in the journey, which then establishes the 
proper context, is an essential prerequisite to making an educated decision.  

Indeed, normally I'd still decline to vote, on the grounds that a 10 minute 
summary (oral, not writing, time) is scarcely a substitute for living through 
the process; but one item in particular caught my interest - the LRB has 
*never* turned down a proposal. Obviously, the current review process is 
dysfunctional and a YES vote would only serve to perpetuate this status quo. 
While the political effects of a NO vote are hard to predict, they can't be 
any worse than the status quo. Therefore, I vote NO.
 
Note that in doing so I reject the thesis that the public can only focus on 
one animal issue at a time. Vivisection and factory farming are not 
competitors for the public's attention. Quite the contrary, these issues are 
synergistic. Once again the WSJ has got it all wrong.
 
So I guess we can all go home now. Merry Christmas. 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:34:57 GMT

From article <mhulsey-311292113957@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <1992Dec30.184017.21455@clpd.kodak.com>,
> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:
>> > 
>> This is not a question of credentials.  Gerone's role as head of the
>> Delta Regional Primate Center permitted him to actually spend time with
>> the monkeys, since they were in his possession for a while.  And in no
>> sense can Gerone be perceived as an apologist for PETA. 
> 
> Gerone's "hands on" experience with these monkeys months after the Taub
> incident has absolutely no bearing on whether Taub treated his monkeys in a
> cruel fashion.  Gerone's assessment of Taub is an opinion that is obviously
> not based on the legal record.  He is, in this instance, acting as an
> apologist for PETA.  

You're jumping to conclusions here -- bigtime.  

> Despite being targeted and set up by Pacheco, Taub was
> fully exhonorated of all cruelty charges.  THAT is what Gerone should say.

Thanks for telling us what people ought to think and say, Martin.  

Most of the animal researchers whom I know personally seem to 
think that the conditions of animals in laboratories have 
improved substantially over the last decade, largely because of 
the Silver Spring Monkey case.  Are they "apologists" for PETA, 
Martin?

>>[...]
>> > The _Washington Post_ apparently relied on PETA for information rather than
>> > reading the opinion of the Appeals Court.  As I have said, the
>> > "jurisdictional technicality" was not the whole story.  My claim is
>> > corroborated by the reference that I gave.  Check it out.
>> 
>> Are you talking about the CFAAR reference?  What was the source for CFAAR's
>> information?
> 
> The CFAAR article was written by Taub.  In this instance, he refers to the
> written opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals.  I have not yet obtained
> this document.  If your buddies at PETA can send it to you, we might all
> know the truth unless you do an unequitable job of citing that document
> also.

I'm critical of everything that I read, Martin... including materials
published by PETA.  Yet you've cited the CFAAR article as a reliable
source on many occasions without bothering to mention that it was
written by Taub himself?  Why not?  Was the authorship an unimportant
detail?

BTW, the Washington Post article that I cited was written by a WP 
reporter, Peter Carlson, and not by Alex Pacheco.

> --
> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
> Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO

Nice signature, Martin.  Why don't you tell us again about your
efforts to have your usenet postings subjected to "peer-review"?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:43:09 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <mhulsey-141292153059@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

>in court.  Taub's subsequent exhoneration by the Maryland court of appeals
>was considered less newsworthy.
>

He wasn't "exhonerated" : he got off on a technicality about the jurisdiction
of the court. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:59:52 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> ....some christians are capable of respecting the golden rule...
rl> thereby refuting Rich's claim that all behavior is selfish.

From article <1992Dec28.235414.16537@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> The "Golden Rule":
ry> 
ry> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
ry> 
ry> You wanna re-think your "refutation," Russell?

Not really, unless there's some reason for us to believe that altruism
and selfishness are equivalent concepts.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Friday, 1 Jan 1993 01:51:09 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger

 Accidental injury and death can affect people in many ways.  Those personaly
 involved in the trajedy appreciate all the help afforded by family and friends
 .

 Perhaps someone in Mr. Elliott's local can post a reference list of support
 groups.

 In the last 10 years, the percentage of hunters sustaining accidents has been
 reduced dramatically.  Special thanks to the Game and Fish Departments and
 the National Rifle Association for the education responsible for these results.
 .

 Follow-up postings should probably be addressed to the rec.hunting bbs.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: The Power of Your Plate (was Re: animals in research)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:31:38 GMT

From article <viking.725009969@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>>Let me get this straight: You previously claimed that Barnard's 
>>credentials must be non-existent --- otherwise he would have 
>>mentioned them in _The_Power_of_Your_Plate_.  Yet, now you're 
>>telling us that your information about this book came from 
>>second-hand opinions (ie book reviews).  
> 
> 	In case you missed it, Russ, he said he glanced at it.  This can
> easily be construed as perusing the intro, perhaps a chapter, the
> bibliography and index, and perhaps the blurb on the author.

Yet, he says he relied on a book review to figure out that the 
text format was based on interviews with various researchers.  
Has it occurred to you that the format of the book is a veritable 
"mountain", compared to the molehill of the author's credentials?  
And how did Martin learn about this "mountain"?  By reading a book
review, rather than the book.

Martin's fairly sure that the "molehill", so to speak, doesn't 
exist...  simply because he missed it and/or the reviewer failed 
to delve into credentials.  

>>I don't agree with your assumption that a writer would 
>>necessarily list his own credentials in books and press conferences. 
> 
> 	It's fairly common for an author to place his own credentials
> on the book when they are relevant and only then.  Since Barnard didn't
> seem to think them applicable, why should anybody else?

Is there a universal rule that all authors must cite their own 
credentials?  Is there a universal rule that reviewers of books must
cite an author's credentials for the sake of book "glancers" like
our friend Martin?   If not, then Martin's claim is unfounded.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:36:05 GMT

In article <C03BxC.H6w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <mhulsey-301292105232@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.
uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>-

[...]


-
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

Martin returns.
Let the games begin!



Russell,



I am interested in your reactions to three questions I have.

1)  You've stated in the past that under certain circumstances you
support the use of animals in medical research.  I am unfamiliar
with the objective of Taub's research.  Given what you perceive to
have been his goals, had his animals been kept in conditions up to
standards necessary for the animals research you would support, what
is your evaluation of the merit of what he was trying to accomplish?
In short, assuming ideal conditions, and given the power to make the
decision, would you have supported the sacrifice of the monkey's to meet
Taub's research objectives?

2)  If a scientist cannot show an immediate and clear medical research
justification for use of research animals, but can persuasively demonstrate
to you that the sacrifice of the animals furthers his/her goal of answering
unanswered, significant basic scientific question would there ever be cases
where you would approve of such research?

3)  As I understand what Alex of PETA did, he went into Taub's lab and
worked there for four months.  His court testimony indicates his belief
that from day one he observed monkeys living in substandard and unlawful
conditions.  He persisted and used this four month period to build a
public relations case when his own statements indicate his immediate
observation of allegedly unlawful conditions under which the animals were 
living.  Thus, presumably and evidently Alex allowed the monkeys to suffer
under unlawful conditions during his tenure at the lab.

a)  According to your understanding of the facts of this case, why didn't
Alex notify authorities at the first moment (ie., his first day on the job)
he observed the substandard and unlawful conditions?

b)  In allowing the monkeys to suffer, in awaiting opportunities to
photograph them suffering, was not Alex in effect allowing these
individuals to suffer (unlawfully) so that other monkeys and lab animals
in the future would not have to be subjected to similar conditions.
Contrast and compare this manner of thinking to that of a medical researcher
like Greg Popken who says, "I need to (lawfully) sacrifice these mice now,
until we get to a point that we will not have to sacrifice any mice."



Finally, the statistics I posted a couple days ago came from the the
Agricultural Statistics Board, National Agricultural Statistics
Service, United States Department of Agriculture.  NASS statistics
as well as reports and publications from the USDA's ERS are recommended.
I would also recommend the Census Bureau's _Census of Agriculture_ and
the numerous periodic updates to the Cesus.


:
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A real head-scratcher (was Re: News Blurbs 8)
Date: 4 Jan 93 05:24:54 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

>> In article <1992Dec30.162825.3901@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
FW >+ Investigators report the vehicles General Motors used in
FW >crash tests performed to obtain federal certification may have
FW >been equipped differently than the millions of pickup trucks
FW >actually sold to the public.  The National Highway Traffic
FW >Safety Administration also states General Motors may not have
FW >disclosed information pertaining to fuel tank leakage
FW >resulting from crash tests.  A consumer safety group claims
FW >fuel-fed fires in certain GM truck models have led to the
FW >deaths of at least 300 people and is urging a recall.

>From article <C09B56.ALn@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
>> What is the relevance of this to t.p.a. ?

In article <C09MBI.A06@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
RL >This wouldn't be much of a "head-scratcher" if you were more 
RL >familiar with the ongoing squabbles between GM, on the one hand,
RL >and consumer advocates and animal rights groups on the other.  :-) 

  What I know of the controversy comes from following t.p.a., which I
have done for some time. With that as a background, it wasn't obvious
how animals would be employed in determining the crash-worthiness
of fuel tanks. I could think of several ways to determine whether a fuel
tank had been compromised, and none of them would involve animals.
   The lead-in for the story above, that GM crash-tested vehicles that
are not standard-issue, didn't have an obvious connection to GM's
reported animal testing.
  Therefore, it would seem the previous article is relevant to t.p.a.
only if one assumed (1) that animals are used by GM to determine whether
fuel tanks rupture and ignite during collisions, and (2) animal testing
was involved when GM decided how to equip vehicles that it would
crash-test, and how it would equip vehicles it would sell to the public.
   The alternate hypothesis is that the news item has nothing whatsoever
to do with GM's use of animals in product testing.
   Have I missed something?

RL >GM has persistently maintained that the use of animals in crash tests
RL >is essential to automotive safety engineering, but for some reason
RL >many of GM's cars and trucks haven't been fairing too well in the 
RL >safety stats for quite some time... perhaps because GM's "safety" 
RL >programs are cosmetic, rather than practical. 

RL >Here's a real head-scratcher:

RL >Does it take an animal crash-and-burn test to figure out that the 
RL >gas tank in a pickup truck belongs on the inside of the frame?

(1) What kind of animal tests does GM use in determining crash-worthiness of
    fuel tanks?
(2) Are live animals involved in 'crash-and-burn test[s]' by GM?

Bob Straubinger
Pharmaceutics
SUNY/Buffalo      "I have nothing whatsoever to do with GM"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Communitarians = Anti-Libertarians (was Re: Communitarianism & Body)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:38:50 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
| ...
| I ran across a book entitled "Communitarianism and Liberalism" which
| consisted of communitarian critiques of liberalism.  In the preface,
| the editor wrote (paraphrased from memory), "Communitarian criticisms
| of liberalism are actually criticisms of libertarianism.
| Communitarians share with liberals a belief in egalitarianism, but
| criticize liberals for allowing excessive concern for individual
| freedom to interfere with their egalitarian goals.  This is the
| opposite of the libertarian critique of liberalism, which criticizes
| liberalism for allowing egalitarianism to infringe upon individual
| freedom."

Curious.  I've seen very little Communitarian material which
looks egalitarian.  The egalitarian aspects of liberalism have
to do precisely with freeing individuals from coercion by
those who happen to be more powerful -- which, in the forma-
tive years of liberalism, were the very aristocrats which
the rising bourgeoisie wanted to weaken.  This program was
so successful that in the modern era, liberalism has become
embroiled in attempting to balance demands for freedom and
equality against one another.

Communitarianism, in its concern for the organic nature of 
society, seems to me very much like classical conservatism, 
with one exception: the classical conservatives were open 
about power, whereas the Communitarian literature I have seen 
thus far avoids describing how the laws and customs they seek
are to be enacted and enforced.  It is one of the more
unpleasant aspects of the movement, or whatever it is, since
one assumes that they have a good reason for concealing it.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Subject: Death of America stuff.....
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 11:11:37 GMT

   I'm pretty new to this sort of discussion, so expect
me to say something naive.

   I'm currently exploring the comparisons between 
pre-fall Rome and the US.  Not theoretical comparisons,
mind you... I'm more interested in actual events or
changes in the societies.  One example:  Conditions for
the poor in Rome became so bad that people started selling
their infants into slavery.  I heard today that something
comparable is happening today.  Some couples are selling
their children.... not simply "giving them up" to adoption
agents, but selling them --- the difference being in the
motivation:  the inability to care for the child, or that
coupled with financial need.

    Email, posts, both, neither, whatever...

Rod
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of America 2
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 16:10:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.165519.22844@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>I'm the starter of this thread.
>
>It looks like I've missed many articles in this thread since
>my news server went down for a while.  All I see is that people suddenly
>start discussing Canada.

i am at least partially responsible for that, for which i apologize. it
started out on the wrong track but got out of control. it is time that
we discussed the situation in the US and what, if anything, we can do about
it.

--
charles
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5564 talk.politics.misc:65562 alt.conspiracy:13515