From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Insulin discovery.  Was Re: animals in research
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:11:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.233932.27373@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

[...]

>Scientific inquiry entails a lot of speculation, therefore it is
>not surprising that supposed contributions of nonhuman animal
>research to human well-being would strike you as speculative.
>Remember: no experiment is ever a complete failure--it can always serve
>as a negative example.
>
>And, as to your subjective impressions that animal research utilitarian
>claims are "unproven," exaggerated," and "misleading" don't forget
>human nature.
>
>Science plods along in harmony with Young's Law: All great discoveries
>are made by mistake, and its important corollary: The greater the funding,
>the longer it takes to make the mistake.
>
>I would like to know what is wrong with peer reviewed animal research.
>I would like to know what--ethically--is so wrong with it that
>you advocate its one-day total elimination?  

Do you have me confused with someone else?  Though I am very skeptical of
the value of most animal research insofar as its ability to produce data
applicable to people, I have taken a basically conservative approach.

Here are two segments from my discussion with Dr. Hulsey, which you may
have missed since it was too lengthy for most people to read:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Message-ID: <1992Oct27.220734.23968@pixel.kodak.com>

I, for one, tend to shy away from extreme approaches, and abolition (at
least immediate abolition) would be an extreme approach.  This is not to
say that extreme views are always wrong (say in the case of slavery),
just that a more moderate approach to any change seems more sensible. 
If the slaves had been freed more gradually, the social disruption may
have been reduced and the long term result may have been less suffering. 
The same is true of animal research.  If it should be abolished, then a
gradual phasing out seems more sensible. 

[...]

...  Existing evils are often dealt with best by a piecemeal
or gradual approach.  This may not be a great consolation to the victims
whose time will run out, but history suggests that evolution rather than
revolution works best in the longer term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

>What is so wrong with it in
>comparison to a system that efficiently, and probably more painfully,
>provides dead animals for something so trivial as nourishment?  Does animal
>research just provide a persuasive platform for advocacy of a millenarianistic
>world-view that holds one great day we awake spiritually to get our food
>out of replicators and watch "from above the fray" while plotting
>additional reform of nonhuman animal brothers and sisters who prey on
>one another, who rip each other limb from limb.

You seem to saying that one should ignore all lesser suffering and focus
entirely on the most egregious example.  Is this your position?  Would it
be better to constantly change the subject to exploitation of farm animals
when the subject under discussion diverged to another area of animal
exploitation?

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals