From: hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animals in Research
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:27:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


Steve Pope writes...

>> [ something about me having read too many PETA brochures ]
>
>Martin, I have *never* read any PETA brochures.  Why do you 
>continue to make wild assumptions about what I think or what
>I've done?  
>
>[yet another asinine and irrelevant comment about the quality of 
>Hulsey's research]

I have to make assumptions about what you believe because you have not 
said anything of substance in this exchange.  If I guess incorrectly 
about your position, then, according to you, _I_ must be a poor 
scientist. 

I began with a ~620 word post describing why animal research is so 
important and why we should ignore activists like you, who are opposed 
to it.

You could not and can not offer any rebuttal to that post except for the 
LAST paragraph.  You replied that this is why we cannot trust animal 
researchers.  The bulk of your statements are merely personal attacks on 
me and my colleagues.  Your arguments underwhelm me.

>Um, did you READ the words I wrote above before babbling off
>this response?  I did not say you must have an "immediate practicle"
>need for an experiment to be scientific.  I said a "need
>however broad or subjective".  
>
>>For example, a person with consistently strict utilitarian standards 
>>might also suggest that astronomy and particle physics are "make-work" 
>>disciplines because they have little immediate practical purpose.
>
>Again did you read what I wrote before spewing??  I cited an
>example from astronomy / cosmology (researching the Big Bang...),
>which obviously has "little immediate practical purpose".

This aspect of our exchange began when I suggested that you were judging 
animal research by strict utilitarian standards.

You replied that I should not "poke fun" at strict utilitarian 
standards.  By this, I ASSUMED that you would apply these standards to 
all research.

Do you believe that the merit of ALL science should be judged by strict 
utilitarian standards?  If so, would you abolish ALL research in 
Astronomy and particle physics as well as all basic animal research?

If not, would you RETRACT your support for strict utilitarian standards, 
and admit that basic research has value even if it uses animals?

>>You cannot find fault with any but the last paragraph of my original 
post, 
>>but proceed to regurgitate false charges EXACTLY as I outlined in the 
>>earlier paragraphs of that same post.
>>You throw out a lot of unsupported charges, and when I rebut them, you 
>>ignore my responses.  
>
>No, actually, I was in the process of editing a response to the
>rest of your last post and you will see it below.  I found
>PLENTY of fault in it.

I was not referring to my penultimate post, but to my ORIGINAL post.  
This is the post that you would obviously like to forget.  If you have 
accidentally "misplaced" it, I can send you another copy.

>>In Lawrencian fashion (sorry Russell), you now 
>>attempt to shift from the original topic to a philosophical argument 
>>about what constitutes science.  
>
>[yet another childish comment about Hulsey as a scientist]

Let us please stick to the subject.  You stated that animal researchers 
cannot be trusted.  I'm still waiting for evidence to support your 
claim.

>>For example, if the field of computer science were regulated as mine, 
>>programmers would tediously prepare an application describing in 
detail 
>>every routine in every computer program they proposed to develop.  
>
>This is done in practice.  It's called MIL-STD-2167A in the
>defense world.  There are equivalents in the commercial world.

What about the part you deleted?  This "military standard" is not 
*really* a counterpart to AWA regulations.  There is no layperson on the 
committee that approves such development.  There is no requirement to 
prove that similar work has not been done before. The proposals are not 
made public under FOIA.

There is NO equivalent to the red tape animal researchers must undergo 
in the commercial or military world.  Activities there are held in 
confidence, and not subject to review and modification by members of the 
public.

>>Your opinions are incorrect.  You will someday eat your Bambiphilic 
>>words when you become ill or injured.
>
>Don't be so crass. 

This is an example of your double standard.  It's OK for you to curse, 
call me names, and disparage my profession but when I reply in kind, I'm 
being "crass."

>>You are "depressed" about the alleged suffering and death of 
>>research animals, 
>
>"alleged"?  Surely you're not saying research animals
>are NOT suffering and dying?  And I suppose the holocaust
>never happened either....

You make the assumption that animal experimentation and animal suffering 
are synonymous.  This is one of the greatest lies of the animal "rights" 
movement.  Are you SURE that you haven't been sneaking a peek at those 
PETA pamphlets?

Of course, some with extreme views would argue that merely *holding 
animals captive* makes them suffer.  I recall that Ingrid Newkirk 
touched on this point when she compared pet ownership to slavery (I 
don't recall the exact quote).

The AWA categorizes animal experiments according to the degree of pain 
or discomfort that subjects experience.

Any procedure that might produce pain or discomfort is usually performed 
under anesthesia.  The ONLY exception allowed is when attempts to 
relieve pain would interfere with the goals of the experiment.  An 
example would be when pain was the object of study, as when developing 
pain-relieving drugs.

Death is usually an endpoint for research animals.  In many cases, this 
death is to prevent the animal from suffering.  You know, like when PETA 
killed the animals in its shelter or when millions of animals are 
euthanized yearly in animal shelters.

Death is not an endpoint in my experiments.  The death of animals in my 
studies is MANDATED by the AWA.  I MUST specify how I will kill them 
when I am finished before my experiments are approved.  Otherwise, I 
could donate my animals to another investigator and save her/him having 
to obtain others.  Although I support the AWA, it does unfortunately 
result in the death of additional animals.

>> but completely disregard the suffering and death of 
>>your fellow human.  
>
>Just because I want to cut back on testing, does not mean
>I "completely disregard the suffuring and death of your
>fellow human".  This is pure hyperbole.

I was under the impression that you are opposed animal testing.  That 
WAS your stated position before you waffled.  Now you say that you 
merely want to "cut back."  Make up your mind.

>>You have absolutely no knowledge about animal research, but only 
>>opinions and "fears."  Before you express critical opinions about 
animal 
>>research and testing, I suggest that you learn something about them to 
>>make your opinions credible.
>
>[ yet another criticism of Hulsey's ethics and ability as a scientist]

All that you can do is criticize me and my colleagues.  You cannot 
provide ANY evidence to support your ever-changing position against the 
general practices of animal testing and research.

>hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (a worried Martin Hulsey) writes:

Rebutting your pathetic responses is child's play, even for a dumb ol' 
animal investigator like me.

>[...]
>But you, on
>the other hand, refer to those who support animal welfare as
>"Bambiphiles", which is profane in a sense.  It certainly
>exposes your lack of seriousness about animal welfare...

Yes, your seriousness about animal welfare greatly exceeds mine.  My 
interest in animal welfare stops precisely where my interest in human 
welfare begins.  

I see no evidence that you are the least bit concerned with human 
welfare.  You would, in perpetuity, deny humans with poor vision a 
radial keratotomy simply to save a few animals.

I coined the term "Bambiphile" in 1988 so that I would not need to 
continually repeat "animal activist who cares more for animals than 
humans" when describing persons such as yourself.

No offense is intended with the epithet beyond that signified by the 
longer alternative phrase.  If it offends you, you should reconsider 
your position.  I consider the term "Bambiphile" analogous to those such 
as "vivisector" that are correctly applied to me. 

>Despite my Berkeley login address, I too believe in the democratic 
>rule of the majority.  But I also believe in informing the public
>so that the majority opinion is based on reality.  Whereas
>you believe in whitewashing and glossing over the facts.

All you can do is keep on repeating the same old crap, and you NEVER 
provide evidence for ANYTHING you say.  I heard that animal activists in 
Berkeley were ferocious.

If you are representative, I'm not at all impressed with the animal 
activists from Berkeley.  Athens, Ga. locals give me a MUCH better run 
for my money.  Unlike you, they aren't afraid to say where they stand.

(Kate, if you are lurking out there, Steve REALLY needs your help.)

You would prefer to keep your opinions confidential so that when someone 
like me makes an incorrect assumption, you can criticize them.

>A large fraction of those who have taken the time to inform themselves
>about the realities of using animals in research...

No one can accuse you of being one of those people.

>[...]
>But don't pretend that opposition isn't widespread.

I don't have to pretend; it isn't.  A Gallup poll conducted in 1986 (if 
I recall correctly)  Showed that a majority of Americans are concerned 
about how animals are treated in research, but felt that animal research 
should continue.

>I will concede that the majority of the
>public at large is fairly uninformed, and is willing to accept the 
>actions of those involved in research/testing -- a case of 
>"out of sight, out of mind".

I see.  If people oppose animal research, it is because they are "well-
informed" (as suggested above). If they accept animal research, they 
must be uninformed (as suggested here).

>it is so important to counter the disinformation issued by people
>like Martin.

If what I say is disinformation, why don't you tell us why?  I am 
referring to my original post that you continue to ignore.  If anyone 
can *prove* my information to be incorrect, I will retract it.

>Again, you groundlessly make assumptions about what I believe.   
>First you assumed I believe in animal "rights", which I do not.  
>Now you assume I want to "abolish" animal research/testing, which
>is also untrue.

You are waffling here Steve.  You previously stated that you are opposed 
to animal testing.  At that time, you gave no qualifications to this 
opposition, so I assumed none.

>>If you are opposed to animal testing, you should simply refuse to buy 
>>any product that was tested using animals.  This would include the 
>>pharmaceuticals that might be employed to save your life.
>>As I told Russell Lawrence earlier, if you cannot give something up, 
>>then you look extremely silly arguing to have it abolished.  
>
>Well, I do tend away from products developed using testing.
>There may be some political value in this if enough people
>do it.  It may have a deterrent value against future testing.
>[...]

I genuinely support the actions of you and your followers.  If enough 
people like yourself forsake life-saving products and procedures because 
they were tested or developed with animals, then humankind's problem 
with animal activists will solve itself through natural selection.

>>Assuming that you are arguing here to abolish animal testing, would 
you 
>>pledge to forsake ALL products that are tested using animals? 
>
>Again, I'm not arguing for abolishing *all* animal testing,
>only much of it.

Then you are not really OPPOSED to animal testing as you previously 
stated.  I knew that you would back off from your original position when 
you fully understood the implications.

Just so I don't make any more of those terrible assumptions, why don't 
you tell me precisely what sort of research/testing you are NOW opposed 
to?  You might also indicate what qualifies you to make these 
distinctions.

>And personally, I'd be content to live without the future benefit of 
>additional testing on the advancement of medical science, if testing 
>for that purpose were halted.  The same logic applies to product 
>safety for me.  For some reason the anti-animal faction attacks such 
>a view as "silly".  I guess they don't have a good enough argument 
>against it....

Wrong.  If they wheel you into the trauma center with severe injuries, 
you will completely forget about your opposition to animal testing and 
research.  You will moan and whimper just like everybody else until they 
ease your pain and put you back together.  If you think that this 
account is inaccurate, go talk to the staff of your local hospital's 
emergency room.

There has been no recorded instance where an animal activist refused a 
life-saving medical treatment that was developed, partially or wholly, 
using animals.  As I stated earlier, animal activists like yourself 
criticize animal research/testing while enjoying its benefits.  It's 
akin to biting the hand that feeds you.

>> [ discussion of in-vitro testing and computer modeling ]
>
>Myself I haven't pointed to these techniques as a rationale
>for curtailing testing.  From my perspective you're bringing
>up a strawman here.

I guess this was another one of my assumptions.  Silly me.  If you do 
not advocate these so-called alternatives, what techniques, if any,  
would you suggest to replace the animal paradigms you would abolish?  Be 
specific.

>> Are you *ashamed* of being labeled an animal activist?
>
>Of course not.

Then why did you complain so vigorously in other posts when I labeled 
you as such?  You, zig-zag Pope, are waffling again.

>The animals used to develop the radial keratotomy procedure
>are a good example.  All this research was approved by committee.  Do
>you dispute this?  Radial keratotomy has not and will not prevent
>any human suffering/death, and this fact was known when the animals
>were used, and it was surely known to whatever committees approved
>the experiments.  Them's the facts....

I'm not convinced that people with poor eyesight do not suffer.  Again, 
you are overly concerned with the few animals required to develop such a 
technique, but don't care about the larger number of humans who will 
benefit from this technique now and forever.

>>>Suppose, hypothetically, that the majority of the community
>>>is opposed to, say, using laboratory animals to research,
>>>say, a baldness cure or something else of only cosmetic
>>>value.  Try to give me a plausible description as to how the 
>>>AWA and its enforcement mechanisms would stop the experiments.  
>>>And if you *can't* describe how this would happen
>>>you oughta re-think your theory that the public's interests
>>>in animal welfare are being carried out.
>>
>>If you can demonstrate that a majority of Americans is opposed to 
>>cosmetically oriented research using animals, then you MIGHT have a 
>>point.  
>
>Well thank you for granting me this much.  In fact, you sidestepped
>answering my hypothetical question entirely.  Thus essentially proving
>my point: that the safeguards are merely procedural, and do not 
>balance the public's interest in animal welfare against the supposed 
>necessity of the research.

I don't see how ANY of your points has been proven, or how I side-
stepped your question.  Let's not waste too much time with your 
hypothetical questions.  Stick to reality if you can.

>Also note that you assume "Americans" as the correct constituency,
>but it seems to me that a state-wide or local constituency
>might be appropriate.  Most laws governing humane treatment
>of animals are state and local.

Our discussion was about the AWA, a federal law.  If some state or  
community, passed an ordinance outlawing animal research, then it would 
be fair to argue that their interests are not served by the AWA.  This 
has not happened, so your example is purely hypothetical.

When properly done under the aegis of the AWA, animal research is 
consistent with any reasonable ordinance regarding humane treatment of 
animals.  Of course, this does not satisfy the handful of radicals like 
yourself.

>[ UCB underreporting animal usage ]
>
>>>> Then again, based on what 
>>>> Bambiphiles did at UCD a few years ago, I can understand their lack 
>>>> of cooperation.
>>
>>>You're talking about the torching of an uncompleted animal torture 
>>>facility there, I presume?
>>
>>I presume, based on your syntax, that you support such actions.  
>
>No, I do not support such actions.  No way.  You *continue* to
>make assumptions as to what I believe, based on your phony
>concept of who animal advocates are.  Get real, Martin.

Why don't you show some gonads for a change?  If you are capable, 
submit a post analogous to mine that DEFINES your position.  Then, no 
one will have to make any more assumptions about where you stand.  
Unfortunately, it will then be more difficult for you to alter your 
position _in_media_res_, as you have clearly done in two cases:

The first was your initial objection to the term "animal activist" that 
you now accept.  The second was your unqualified "opposition" to animal 
testing that has now become a desire to simply "cut back" on testing.

Martin G. Hulsey (mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu)
Dept. Foods & Nutrition          Support animal research.
University of Georgia            Your life may depend on it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals