From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:08:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.183816.4107@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com
(Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:

>>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.  
>
>This isn't logical.  Obviously the sooner Gerone could have seen the
>monkeys after their release from Taub's lab, the better able he would be
>to pass a judgment.  But to say that Gerone's experience "has absolutely
>no bearing on" the issue sounds like just speculation.

You and Russell are appealing to Gerone's authority in an area (husbandry
conditions in Taub's lab) where he has none.

You are forgetting that the monkeys were "stolen" and transported over 2000
miles by truck AFTER they were removed from Taub's care.  Let us not also
forget the stress the monkeys were subjected to in having dozens of
unfamiliar handlers during this period.

What "logic" would you and Russell employ to prove that Gerone's "hands-on"
assessment of the monkeys, months after these demonstrably stressful
events, could have any bearing on their husbandry conditions while under
Taub's jurisdiction?

With respect to the treatment and care of monkeys with deafferented limbs,
how would Gerone's experience compare to the 25 years of experience that
Taub possesses?

>>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.  Despite being targeted and set up by Pacheco, Taub was
>>fully exhonorated of all cruelty charges.  THAT is what Gerone should say.
>
>Do you always assume that if two agents arrive at a similar conclusion,
>then one must be an apologist for the other?

No.

>Isn't it possible for different individuals to arrive independently at the >same conclusion?

Yes, but what "evidence" did Gerone utilize to arrive at his "independent"
conclusion?  I submit that Gerone has no direct evidence that would lead to
any negative conclusion about Taub's methods of animal care.  Whether or
not you consider him "an apologist" for PETA, he is simply regurgitating
the PETA "party line," which is false in this instance.

>[... Pacheco testimony deleted for space reasons ...]
>
>>Since you apparently have the trial's transcript and I do not, why don't
>>you be an agent of truth and fairness rather than acting as a shill for
>>PETA?
>
>I don't have the trial transcript.  As you know, it's too large to
>feasibly ship copies around.  I do have some pages of it, which were
>sent to me by PETA after I asked them to support some of the Pacheco
>claims which you and others have disputed.

Did you presume that there was no information in the trial transcript that
would refute, rather than support, Pacheco's testimony?

>>Rather than selectively quoting Pacheco's testimony, why don't you *also*
>>cite the segment where the caretaker's employment records are admitted into
>>evidence?  Why don't you cite the sworn testimony of Schwartz and Osborn
>>*themselves* where they testified that they had been absent from work one
>>day out of 14 months prior to Taub's vacation?
>
>I don't have their testimony.  You seem to always assume the worst
>motivation whenever you're disagreeing with someone.  I presented in
>writing some very specific questions to PETA.

Why should you (and PETA?) presume that Pacheco's testimony regarding the
caretakers work habits would be more credible than the testimony of the
caretakers themselves?

Let's stop kidding ourselves.  You are trying to prove Pacheco's case and I
am arguing for Taub.  You asked specifically for information that would
support Pacheco's account.  Your motivations are not "worst," but as anyone
would expect in an adversarial context.

>They responded with pages
>from the trial transcript that included some testimony from Pacheco,
>Taub, Perry, and Beery.  If I didn't get all the right material, then
>it's due to my failure to ask the right questions, despite my best
>efforts.  The PETA reps have been very cooperative and forthright. 

Why didn't you also post Perry's testimony?  It is in direct opposition to
Pacheco's.

>>> [...]
>>> Pacheco's testimony supports the view that the caretakers were not doing
>>> their job right along and that there was absolutely no reason for Taub
>>> not to notice it. 
>>
>>Not only did Taub "not notice it," but he denies that it happened while he
>>was there.  Pacheco's assessment of conditions in the lab during this
>>period is refuted by the sworn testimony of *seven* others, which you have
>>so conveniently omitted here.  Nobody ever saw conditions resembling those
>>on Pacheco's photographs.  Most notable of these is Dr. A. G. Perry, a USDA
>>veterinarian who made an official *unannounced* inspection of Taub's lab
>>during the time Pacheco was there.
>
>I do not see that the Perry testimony which I have is as supportive of
>Taub's position as you seem to think.

What portion of Perry's testimony do you have?  Perhaps PETA faithfully
responded to your request for material that would support Pacheco.  Sounds
like you got exactly what you asked for.

>As for the seven others, you're forgetting evidence from these experts
>which supports the Pacheco view:
>
>        Dr. Geza Teleki (ethologist with expertise in primatology).
>        Dr. Michael Fox (veterinarian and ethologist).
>        Dr. Ronnie Hawkins (physician with laboratory primate experience).
>        Dr. John McArdle (primate anatomist and former primate researcher).
>        Donald Barnes (psychologist with 17 years experience working with
>                        monkeys in military research).
>
>These five men had all been in the lab and later presented signed
>affidavits documenting their conclusions.

These five people were not included in the "seven others" to which I refer.

I probably wouldn't dispute their testimony.  You are conveniently
overlooking that these individuals were secreted into Taub's lab at night
(at Pacheco's convenience) during Taub's vacation, and after *both*
caretakers stopped coming to work for several days.  On the other hand,
Perry made an *unannounced* visit during Pacheco's tenure when Taub and the
caretakers were at work.

>And the NIH investigating committee report mentions examinations by two
>veterinarians (Dr. Ott of Chicago's Brookfield Zoo and Dr. Robinson of
>the San Diego Zoo).  Both men believed that "the veterinary care given to
>animals sustaining injuries to deafferented limbs was not sufficient to
>meet their medical needs and that the medical care in general provided
>for this colony was inadequate."

There is disagreement regarding the optimal care of the deafferented limbs
of monkeys.  See below.

>[...]
>Please go back and check my answer.  I said that in general I would
>offer water to a thirsty dog.  I did not say what I would have done had
>I been in Pacheco's position.  The analogy is too imperfect for you to
>accurately apply my water dish answer to the IBR situation. 

In what respect does Pacheco's actions in Taub's lab differ from option 3
of my analogy?  Why is my analogy suddenly "too imperfect" weeks after it
was first posed?  How would you modify my analogy to make it more
"perfect?"
 
>[...]
>>Again, Pacheco clearly cared more about gathering evidence against Taub
>>than about the welfare of the monkeys.  I don't see how you or anyone else
>>who claims to care about the welfare of animals can defend Pacheco's
>>actions.  Would you mind explaining this to me?  If you would select
>>options 1 or 2 from my analogy, how can you defend Pacheco, whose actions
>>are analogous to option 3?
>
>No they're not sufficiently analogous.

How so?  Please be more specific.

>>If Pacheco cares so much for animals why did he not do more than take notes
>>in his journal when he noticed that the monkeys had not been fed?  In your
>>opinion, does the fact that it was not his "regular duty" provide a valid
>>excuse?
>
>I've addressed this previously and nothing has been said to undermine my
>previous statements.

That is your opinion.  It is clear to me that animal "rights" activists
don't mind sacrificing the welfare of animals to advance their cause.  In
the case of ALF arsonists, this includes sacrificing the welfare of human
animals.

>Pacheco walked a fine line.  He tried to help the
>monkeys in small ways without destroying the case.

If he were more concerned with the monkeys than with "destroying the case,"
 he could have *immediately* helped the monkeys in more than "small ways"
with a mere phone call to Taub or any other responsible authority as soon
as he noted a lapse of husbandry conditions.  Instead, he waited until
husbandry conditions became abysmal, then brought in his "experts."

Do you also believe that "the case" was more important than the welfare of
the monkeys?  Why?

>As you know, there
>are those who believe that long run improvements and greater awareness
>resulted from this case.  That was Pacheco's hope: that the long term
>changes would offset the short term exigencies.  From that standpoint,
>it would appear that he chose a reasonable path.

The path was not reasonable because Pacheco's "short term exigencies"
compromised the welfare of the very animals that he claimed to be
protecting.

The fact that Taub was fully exhonorated indicates that the "case" Pacheco
prepared, at the monkey's great expense, was a failure.

That PETA subsequently abandoned this tactic in favor of support for the
ALF's numerous laboratory invasions also suggests that the tactic was
considered less than effective.

>[...]
>>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.
>
>What "buddies" are those?

Those who gave you the information.

>[...]
>This bit of testimony explains why Pacheco felt it unnecessary to
>bring to Taub's attention the conditions in the lab.  Taub was right
>there - present on the scene - able to see for himself.

This is a lame argument.  If Pacheco had some valid reason to believe that
Taub would not act immediately to correct matters, he could have contacted
someone else as soon as he had evidence of improper animal care.  Clearly,
the "case" against Taub had priority rather than the monkeys' welfare.

>[..]
>I didn't find the Perry testimony which I read to be that conclusive.

That is perhaps because PETA sent you what you asked for.  The excerpt you
should examine is where Perry was shown Pacheco's photographs and asked if
he ever saw conditions in Taub's laboratory that resembled those depicted. 
The answer was "no."

>[...]
>>Because neither you nor I were there, our opinions count for little. 
>>Unless you have some experience in animal care that I do not know about,
>>your opinion about "reasonable standards" is questionable.
>
>Well what sort of experience in animal care would you deem relevant here?  

The kind of experience in *laboratory* animal care possessed by Drs. Perry
& Taub (extensive) as opposed to the kind possessed by Pacheco (none).

>Could you please supply a brief review of all you know about my
>background and indicate which aspects would be relevant and which would
>not be?

I admitted above that I was uncertain if you had any experience in these
matters.  Do you have any experience in laboratory animal care that would
render you qualified to comment about "reasonable standards?"

>[...]
>We also have the five affidavits signed by "experts" who clearly possess
>more expertise in this area than Dr. Perry.  (See above).

I do not accept that these five "experts" have more experience assessing
husbandry conditions at laboratories than Perry.  Their affidavits, based
on chaperoned "inspections" made at Pacheco's convenience after he ensured
that husbandry conditions had reached their nadir, don't carry as much
weight as the unannounced USDA inspection made by Perry.

If these affidavits were so convincing, as you suggest, why were all
charges related to sanitary conditions in Taub's lab dismissed at the first
trial?

>And we have
>the statements made by two zoo vets which were included in the NIH
>investigation report.  (See above). 

I would expect that "zoo vets" had little or no experience caring for
monkeys with deafferented limbs.  In particular, there is disagreement
whether bandages should be applied to the monkey's wounds on the anesthetic
limb.  The unseasoned observer would conclude that bandages should always
be applied to their wounds, but the experience of Taub and others indicated
that application of bandages would, in some instances, lead to increased
self-mutilation, and did not promote wound healing.

>>Taub's SOLE convictions involved an alleged case of osteomyelitis in one
>>monkey.  The monkey's arm was needlessly amputated.  Pathology reports made
>>on the arm after amputation indicated that there was no such infection, but
>>this evidence was withheld by the prosecuting attorney Roger Galvin.
>
>If valid information were really withheld, wouldn't this be an actionable
>omission which could get Galvin into big legal trouble?

Apparently not.

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