From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:57:47 GMT

Hi folks!

Despite lugging my modem, computer and AT&T card 1100 miles over the
holidays, I was not able to keep up with things here on TPA.  My newsreader
(athena) has been down since 12/20, and is still down.  I can post from
"fatrat," but I cannot archive articles except by individually cutting and
pasting them.  Yuk!

I am curious whether "Russell Claus" *finally* brought me a set of answers
to my "unanswered questions."  I've been a good boy.  If they were, by some
chance, answered, can someone help me out by reposting or e-mailing them to
me?

Just before departing for the holidays, I placed a phone call to Dr. Edward
Taub.  He is very busy right now, but did speak with me briefly.  I would
like to share his views with you.

The first question that I asked Taub related to a question Russell asked me
previously.  I always do my best to answer, rather than evade, Russell's
questions.  I wish he would do the same for me.

I am unable to repost Russell's question precisely, but it involved the
lawyers that Taub consulted regarding his exhoneration.  Russell wanted to
know about the ten lawyers who, as indicated in the CFAAR reference I gave,
unanimously indicated to Taub that the opinion of the appeals court was
more than a technicality.  Two of these lawyers, Edgar Brenner and James
Miller, were part of his defense team.  The other eight were not.  Taub was
understandably reluctant to release their names without first getting
permission from them.  I'm sure that Russell will object, but that is too
bad.

Whether or not Taub's conviction was overturned on a jurisdictional
technicality is a matter of legal opinion and not fact.  Some lawyers might
disagree on this grey area, but every lawyer that Taub has consulted has
indicated that the opinion of the Maryland Appeals Court is more than a
technicality.  PETA is clearly unjustified in the position they have
maintained as factual.  It is simply a matter of trying to turn a decisive
legal defeat into a PR victory.

[ In February, Gary Francione will come to Athens to give a lecture on
animal "rights"  (yes, Russell, he would leave the quotes off).  Gary
Francione was formerly a lawyer for PETA, but he has since disavowed the
organization.  He has become a prominent critic because of what he regards
as PETA's "three stooges" approach to animal protection.  I hope to get the
opportunity to discuss this and other issues with Mr. Francione.  For
better or worse, I will post his opinion on this and other matters. ]

I next spoke with Taub about the McCabe retraction in the _Washingtonian_. 
Taub indicated that one aspect involved a miscommunication between him &
McCabe.  According to Taub, Pacheco DID testify that he staged photographs,
but not the particular one that McCabe indicated in the article.  McCabe
mistakenly indicated that the picture of Domitian in PETA's "This is
vivisection..." poster was staged.  This photograph was taken
surreptitiously prior to an experiment.

The photographs that were staged were two that depict a monkey reaching
through the bars of his cage into a pan below. These were introduced into
evidence at Taub's trial, and were labeled in such a manner to suggest that
the monkeys routinely reached down in such a fashion to obtain food from
the fecal pans.  In truth, the design of the cages prevents the monkeys
from sliding the pans outward and reaching downward into them.  The pans
can only be released and moved outward by a human.

Finally, I discussed Pacheco's chapter in Peter Singer's (remember,
Russell, Singer is the philosopher who DOES NOT support the inane notion of
animal "rights") "In Defense of Animals."  Taub said that the account was
false.  He was unwilling to take the time to refute every point, but he did
suggest that, if these allegations had any truth to them, why weren't these
points brought out at either of his trials?

I did discuss two specific points from Pacheco's chapter.

The first involved the administration of electric shocks to Taub's monkeys.
 Contrary to Pacheco's account (op cit., p. 141), Taub unequivocally stated
that electric shocks were NEVER employed at his Silver Spring laboratory. 
One photograph, which Pacheco introduced into evidence, that was labeled as
depicting "shock equipment" actually depicted two electric TIMERS, vintage
1975.

The second point involved Pacheco's account of the acute noxious stimulus
test as administered in Taub's Silver Spring laboratory (op cit., p. 138). 
Taub again indicated that Pacheco's description was entirely false.  The
acute noxious stimulus test was used to determine the success of the
deafferentation procedure.  As such, haemostats were applied exclusively to
the monkeys' surgically-treated arms to confirm that they could not feel
any pain there.  Taub unequivocally denies that He, John Kunz or Georgette
Yakalis ever applied, or directed Pacheco to apply, haemostats to any other
part of the monkey's bodies.  In particular, Taub denied that haemostats
were ever applied to a monkey's scrotum or testicles, as suggested by
Pacheco (op cit., p. 139).

I'm sure that participants such as Bob Black will again protest that Taub
is not a disinterested party in this case, but the same is true for
Pacheco.

I am not sure how historians will treat this incident.  The PETA public
relations machine has Taub convicted in the minds of many, even among those
who otherwise support animal research.  We must keep in mind that Taub was
fully exhonorated of all charges.  Despite being targeted and set up by
PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco, it has not been proven in any forum that Dr.
Edward Taub mistreated his monkeys.

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