From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Russell's unanswered questions
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:29:48 GMT

Below is a list of my questions that Russell has repeatedly left
unanswered.  With apologies for the consumption of bandwidth, I repost them
along with a short justification of the relevance of the questions.

Questions 1 & 2:

How would you modify the _status quo_ to simultaneously protect the
interests of human and non-human animals?

Would failing to perform a critical experiment be worse than performing one
that proved trivial?

Justification:  By posting two examples of approved animal experiments
described as "useless," Russell suggests that there are problems with
current procedures for the approval of animal experiments.  I am curious
how he would change the current procedures to prevent the approval of "bad"
experiments, although I do not yet accept that the two examples that he
gave are "bad."

Question 3:

Do you propose that Christian Scientists refuse medical care because they
believe the information is tainted?

Justification:  When I previously suggested that antivivisectionists should
refuse medical treatments developed using animals, Russell pointed out that
information cannot be "tainted" by its method of acquisition.  I wonder if
Russell believes that a person could have any other reason for refusing
such treatment.

Question 4:

Would you, for some period, allow heart patients to die for their
"stupidity" rather than sacrifice a few pigs or dogs to develop a new heart
valve, etc?

Justification:  Russell pointed out that much human disease is due to human
stupidity.  I wonder if he believes that such "stupid" humans should be
allowed to die in order to save non-human animals.

Question 5:

What do you feel to be the relative intrinsic value of a dog as compared to
a human?

Justification:  This is an admittedly tough question that has no correct
quantitative answer.  It does, however, relate to the use of canines in
medical research to save humans.  Knowing how much Russell loves dogs, I am
curious whether he would sacrifice his dogs, in a hypothetical situation,
to save a human.

Questions 6 & 7:

What if the "alternative" tests fail to detect a hazardous physical
irritant in your toothpaste?  Wouldn't this result in human suffering?

How do you propose that the Ames test of bacterial mutagenicity can serve
as a test for ocular irritancy?

Justification:  Russell previously claimed that so-called "alternatives" to
the Draize test of ocular irritancy provided good prediction of chemical
irritancies.  I pointed out that chemical irritancy was not the whole
story, but physical irritancies, and interactions between physcial and
chemical irritancies are also possible.

Question 8:

Have you considered the suffering of the mouse or rabbit that is ground up
by the thresher that harvests your wheat?

Justification:  Russell claimed that because he ate fruit and bread rather
than eggs and bacon for breakfast, his dietary regimen did not promote
animal suffering.  In fact, all agriculture results in the suffering of
organisms from both kingdoms.

Questions 9 & 10:

If a product's raw materials are tested on animals, and, if animal tests
are cruel, how can the resultant product be called "cruelty-free?"

When purchasing cosmetics, should people care more about their eyes than
those of a rabbit?

Justification:  Russell claimed that cosmetics manufactured by Revlon &
Avon are "cruelty free."  I am curious just what he means by that term, and
whether human injury resulting from the use of such "alternatives" would
also be considered cruelty.  

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