From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:02:56 GMT

In article <BzBnHz.Jp@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>[..]
> You seem to be ignoring the historical facts.  Taub's conviction 
> wasn't overturned on its evidential merits.  It was overturned when 
> the Maryland state appeals court ruled that Maryland's anti-cruelty 
> statutes didn't apply to federally financed animal experiments.  

I am ignoring nothing.  The point, which you have not refuted, was that the
conviction was not overturned on technical grounds unrelated to Taub's
charges, as PETA has claimed for a decade. The appelate court's decision
addressed issues that support Taub's claim that he did not treat his
monkeys in a cruel fashion.
 
> Did HHS ever reinstate Taub's funding?

No, but their failure to reinstate the grant does not indicate wrongdoing
on Taub's part.  Taub appealed the action to the HHS Departmental Grant
Appeals Board.  Its decision contains a clear exhonoration of Taub and of
his treatment of his monkeys.  The Board acted to uphold the NIH's
decision, but only on the basis of one tenth of the NIH's original
criticisms.  These were characterized as "administrative grounds only and
not substantive" (NIH Week, 4(23):1-3; 1984).  The Board found the
following (CFAAR Newsletter 4(1):7;1991):

"What we do not find persuasive are the arguments that the condition of the
monkeys showed that there had been inadequate veterinary care."

"Testimony indicated that the PI was well qualified to treat problems
associated with the deafferentation and the NIH did not rebut this
testimony."

[the record] "..does not support a conclusion" [that] "the condition of the
monkeys showed inadequate veterinary care."

Tab's SOLE conviction was based on the charge of inadequate veterinary care
of ONE monkey which allegedly had osteomyelitis.  Pathology reports,
withheld by Roger Galvin, prove that there was no infection.  Therefore,
there were no grounds to convict Taub *at all*.  If the jury had been privy
to ALL of the evidence, they might not have voted as they did.

It is also noteworthy that Taub was also unanimously exhonorated by the
Ethics Committee of the Americal Physiological Society as well as the
Animal Care Committee of the Society for Neuroscience.

An _ad hoc_ committee of the APS, which thoroughly investigated the
incident, concluded:

"Taub's laboratory was set up for the Sept.11, 1981 police raid and
subsequent events by a conspiracy engineered by Alex Pacheco and well
funded colleagues from the animal rights and antivivisectionist groups
supplemented, through their efforts, by other societal and politically
influential individuals."
 
> rl> Can you point to a particular newspaper or magazine publisher 
> rl> who's misrepresented the facts?
> mh> 
> mh> First of all, my claim above suggested bias, rather than misrepresentation
> mh> of facts.  Surely you know the difference.  You are, as usual, employing
> mh> deceitful tactics.
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion.

This not simply my opinion, these are facts.
 
> You've claimed that the media is "bambiphilic".  Can you point to a 
> particular newspaper or magazine publisher that's misrepresented the 
> facts... apart from the _Washingtonian_ magazine?

Again, one need not "misrepresent facts" in order to have a bias.  You
persist in your deceitful "straw man" argument.

>[...]

>Yet Taub had been tried and convicted under the Maryland statute. 

And he was later *exhonorated* of ALL charges.  By saying that Taub was
convicted and not adding that he was exhonorated, you are slandering Taub.
 
> mh> ...
> mh> The court's decision addresses issues that support Taub's contention that
> mh> he did not treat his animals in a cruel fashion.  The stated bases of the
> mh> decision are far from a technicality.
> 
> Where did you get your law degree, Martin?  It's logically irrelevant, 
> of course, whether you have a law degree or no, but in view of the 
> fact that you're a scientist who respects intellectual honesty, it's 
> only fitting for you to observe the same standards (vis-a-vis 
> credentials) that you expect your opponents to meet.  

I have no law degree, and yes, it is irrelevant.

I don't see why you continue this ridiculous line of argument.  You persist
in suggesting that I am "intellectually dishonest," yet you have no proof. 
If anyone here is intellectually dishonest, it is you.  You continue to
evade my questions.  You expect me to post my credentials, yet refuse to
post yours.
 
> --Footnote--
> 
> One of PETA's most outspoken critics is Peter Gerone, the director of 
> the Delta Regional Primate Center here in Louisiana.  Here's what he 
> told a Washington Post reporter who re-investigated the Silver Spring 
> Monkey case in 1991: 
> 
>     "Today, you'd never see conditions like the Silver 
>     Spring Monkeys because people are more conscious of 
>     this," says Gerone.  "Ten years ago, there was a lot 
>     less consciousness on the part of researchers about how 
>     they cared for animals.  The animal rights movement has 
>     done a great deal to increase the consciousness of 
>     people working with animals." 
> 
> [See Carlson, Peter.  "The Great Silver Spring Monkey Debate".
> The Washington Post, February 24, 1991.]

Gerone apparently accepts Pacheco's account of events.  I do not.  I do
agree that the incident has heightened awareness on both sides of the
issue.

There was a deterioration of animal care in Taub's lab in the three-week
period prior to the police raid, but I question that Taub was at fault.

Two animal caretakers in Taub's lab previously had near perfect work
attendance records.  During Taub's vacation, they each missed 7 of 15
workdays, including three consecutive days before the police raid.  I
cannot claim that someone bribed or otherwise convinced them to forsake
their duties, but it is obvious that their sudden absences did not occur by
chance alone.

When Taub left for a three-week vacation in 1981, he thought that his
laboratory and animals were in good hands.  After all, in addition to the
normal staff of two animal caretakers, there was Alex Pacheco.  Pacheco
falsely represented himself as a person interested in learning about
research.  Taub's only fault was trusting Pacheco.

Pacheco took photographs that purported to show unsanitary conditions at
Taub's laboratory.  However, no visitor of staff member who was in the
laboratory at the time saw any conditions resembling those in the
photographs he took.  Testimony was given under oath to this effect by
seven individuals.  Most notable of these was Dr. A.G. Perry, a USDA
veterinarian who made an UNANNOUNCED inspection of the monkey colony in the
middle of the period when Pacheco was there.

Do you remember the "water dish" analogy that Bob Black and I discussed
previously?  Bob ultimately admitted that he would have cared for your dogs
by giving them water himself if the people who were responsible did not. 
Doing this, or *at least* notifying some other responsible party, is the
only humane option for anyone truly concerned with animal welfare.  This
was not Pacheco's choice.  Pacheco was apparently more concerned with
collecting "evidence" against Taub than he was concerned with the monkey's
welfare.

Despite the fact that Pacheco's normal duties did not include cleaning
cages or feeding monkeys, the fact that he noted the substandard conditions
and, in the absence of Taub and other responsible parties, did *nothing* to
remedy them makes him partly responsible for the conditions that the
monkeys endured.

Consider a quote from Taub (op. cit., p. 7):

"PETA has used and is using the Silver Spring monkey incident as one of
their major fundraising devices.  Their reiterated claim that they exposed
a serious case of cruelty to animals, though false, has been able to
convince many of their sympathizers that their donated money is being used
well.  Each year, they raise millions of dollars."

Given Pacheco's obvious disregard for the welfare of Taub's monkeys during
this period, perhaps this whole fiasco was, as Taub suggests, a fundraising
tool.

Is that your fax that I hear warming up?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals