From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:05:28 GMT

From article <1993Jan5.050150.1685@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <C0Cypv.6qF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>Pacheco has stated that he viewed observation as the lesser of 
>>the evils when he was confronted with the conditions in Taub's 
>>lab.  When Hoskins asked me if your ideas were analogous, it 
>>wasn't at all clear if you see anything evil whatsoever when it 
>>comes to animal use.  
> 
> Well, now you know that there are intances when I find animal use unethical.
> BTW, what happened to *misuse*?

No, I don't know that there are instances in which you would consider
animal (mis)use to be unethical.   For example, would you say that it's 
unethical to:

--- kill four dozen mink to make a fur coat for a socialite in Miami?
--- kill animals for amusement and "sport"?
--- kill animals for food when non-sentient food sources are both plentiful
    and far less costly in terms of human resources?

>>Yes, yes.  We realize that you "need" animals in order to pursue
>>your research.  It's unclear, however, how/why you consider your
>>research to be a necessity.
> 
> I never stated that my research was a necessity!  Strike two!  You have
> twice claimed that I stated my research is a necessity, when I have made
> no such claim.  I'm not saying my research is not a necessity either. 
> But, you are assuming this is my belief.  My Dad always told me when you
> assume, you make an ass of yourself.  I guess he was right.
> 
> Again, if you want me to state "for the record" whether or not I believe my
> research to be a necessity, ask me?  Unlike others (well, one other) in this
> group, I answer questions posed to me.
> Oh yeah, if you do ask me, please define what you mean by necessity
> (e.g. ethically, medically etc...).
> 
> I am not going into detail on the type of research I am involved in, here.
>  It would probably bore most of the readers.  If you are interested in
> details of of my work let me know.(I don't know if I'll do anthing about
> it.  But, let me know. Kind of like a cat shooting experiment I heard about
> once, huh?)

Again, let's go back to James Hoskins query:

=======================================================================
jh> b)  In allowing the monkeys to suffer, in awaiting opportunities to
jh> photograph them suffering, was not Alex in effect allowing these
jh> individuals to suffer (unlawfully) so that other monkeys and lab animals
jh> in the future would not have to be subjected to similar conditions.
jh> Contrast and compare this manner of thinking to that of a medical researcher
jh> like Greg Popken who says, "I need to (lawfully) sacrifice these mice now,
jh> until we get to a point that we will not have to sacrifice any mice."
=======================================================================

Please reread the last sentence very carefully:

   "Contrast and compare this manner of thinking to that 
    of a medical researcher like Greg Popken who says, 'I 
    need to (lawfully) sacrifice these mice now, until we 
    get to a point that we will not have to sacrifice any 
    mice.'" 

I'm sure that Mr. Hoskins wasn't trying to offend you if he
misquoted you here.  To the contrary, I think he was hoping
to defend your position.

As I stated previously, I don't see how your actions can be 
compared with Pacheco's unless you consider your use of animals 
to be a "lesser evil".  Frankly, you've given me the distinct 
impression that you don't see anything wrong at all with using 
animals, provided that the uses fit within the normative 
guidelines established by your prior conventions.  I'll leave it 
to you to make your views known, if you choose to do so.  If you 
don't wish to, it's fine with me.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves