From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Marty Hulsey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:20:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Distribution: usa
Organization: FDN;FCS;UGA

In <bazz02B52au601@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted
Robinson) writes...

[Yes folks, I have finally learned how to correctly attribute posts!]

>[...]
>1. I agree with the statement that medical progress would be measurably 
>slowed if the use of animals in research were halted.

Thank you.  I hope your buddies are reading this.  In formulating your
"universal ethic", don't forget that we are here trading human lives for
the lives of other species.  This is exactly what most, if not all, species
do. 

>2. I believe that the research community greatly overstates the effect
>of such a ban.

True perhaps, but I would not let one human die to save a non-human animal.
 Your side tends to underestimate the effect of a ban.  Worse yet, they
suggest that we would be better off without animal research and testing
based on a few isolated examples, and ignoring the overwhelming multitude
of positive examples.

>For example, I find claims of 20+ years of life expectancy due to 
>animal research to be preposterous.

You might be right.  I, too, would like to see how the Dept. HHS arrived at
these particular numbers.  I think that we could agree that medical
research _in toto_ has increased longevity in this century.  A significant,
though undetermined, portion of this is directly attributable to research
using animals.  In their zeal to combat the misinformation of
antivivisectionists, HHS might be guilty here of overlooking the
contributions of research that did not use non-human animals.  I have
consistently opposed this practice.

>In particular, the research community seems to overlook the >institutional inertia present in its own system. Like 
>any group of people, scientists will continue doing things as they've >always been done.

If this were true, there would be no scientific progress.  Scientists are
continually looking for more effective ways to answer questions.  It is
harder than you realize.

>Being forced down a new path is an effective way of breaking 
>habits and fostering creativity. If tomorrow all uses of animals in >research were banned, one of the results would be a sharp increase in >creativity leading to a flurry of new ideas and approaches. With time, >of course, this benefit would die out.

Being forced toward any path will stifle rather than foster creativity. 
This is akin to arguing that artists would improve their creativity if
forced to abandon their most effective medium.

Many humans would die unnecessarily as a result of this interim period that
you propose.  There are some animal methods, such as I have mentioned, that
will never be replaced.  That is not to say that our knowledge will not
someday be complete in areas such as neuroscience.  I support the *GRADUAL*
replacement of animals in research & testing, but not at the expense of
humans.  Animals advocates are so anxious to reduce the *perceived*
suffering of animals in research (an attitude encouraged by PETA and PCRM)
that they overlook the human consequences of a ban or accelerated
reductions.  Perhaps the leadership of these organizations are not fully
aware of these consequences themselves.

>3. I don't remember seeing any PETA or PCRM claims that a ban on vivisection 
>would have no impact on medical progress. However, I agree that AR orgs in 
>general understate the benefit of animal based research. 
>
>4. I view the hyperbole from both sides of this issue as being a natural 
>political phenomenon. I tend to ignore it when it's sourced from the AR side, 
>but jump on it when it comes from the research side. This is due to 2 things:  
>
> 1. Greater tolerance for those I basically agree with than for those I don't.
> 2. In portraying political opinions as science, scientists breach a public  
>    trust.   

My support for animal research, and subsequent opposition to those in the
animal "rights" movement is in no way a political opinion.  My opinions are
based solely on the effectiveness of animal paradigms, and limitations of
so-called "alternative" techniques.

As an animal researcher, I have tried to avoid a dogmatic view.  I have
investigated and published in the area of mathematical modeling, though I
do not consider myself a major contributor in this field.  Application of
the models that Dr. James Hargrove and I developed with other colleagues
could contribute to a reduction, but not a replacement, of animals in
investigations of gene expression.  At the 1990 meeting of the Association
of Biochemists and Molecular Biologists in New Orleans, where we
demonstrated the software, it was enthusiastically received.  My
experiences do not confirm your implication that scientists are unwilling
to accept new ideas.

I investigated (though unsuccessfully) conditioned cell culture media as an
alternative source of a putative satiety factor that I am studying from
adipose tissue.  I extracted fat from pigs slaughtered at the UGA abattoir,
and was only marginally successful.  I have driven as far as Philadelphia,
New Orleans, and Gainesville, Fla. to obtain tissues from animals already
scheduled for sacrifice so that I could avoid sacrificing others. 
Admittedly, this was also done to save money.  Animal research is
dreadfully expensive, and it infuriates me for you folks to imply that we
intentionally perform trivial experiments.  Funding is so hard to come by
these days, I doubt if any genuinely worthless experiments are performed
today.  Of course, we can never determine in advance if we will be
successful.  If we could, our experiments would truly be worthless.

If you perceive any portion of my posts as "hyperbolic," let us please
discuss these specific passages further rather than ignore them, as you
have done here ostensibly to save bandwidth.  I have tried to avoid
exaggeration, but I am, after all, human.  I did admit to Russell that I
was incorrect to state that PCRM wanted to eliminate *ALL* animal research
today, but I am still concerned that they want to eliminate most, and
thereby endanger human lives.  Note that Russell was unable to refute my
contention in the case of PETA.

>[...]
>Imagine a group of mountain climbers that reach the peak via route A. Just 
>because they got there via that route doesn't mean it's the only route in 
>existence. In particular, once they reach the summit they might spy a second 
>route that looks possible. They won't know for sure until they try it, but in 
>the meantime they would scarcely claim that route A was the only one 
>possible. In the insulin case, though, we only get one crack at it. 

Yes, but we must consider what was feasible rather than what was possible. 
Your analogy illustrates my point.  Only from the top is it easy to see
alternative paths.  In your analogy, animal activists would insist that we
look only on one side of the mountain (and the steepest one at that) for
our initial ascent.  In your analogy, Ted's article is analogous to
standing on top of a frequently-climbed mountain, and criticizing those
who, years ago, took a different path on first ascent.

> In article <1992Nov9.223404.10402@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
>hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>> 
>> Don't forget that your animal-free scenario *also* depends on Collip 
>> being able to purify insulin from human tissues.  If you can you give me 
>> *any* contemporary example where a previously unknown endocrine factor 
>> was isolated from human organs, I might be more likely to believe you.
>
>As I understand it the insulin  example has 2 animal components. One was the 
>dogs during the initial research, and the other is the slaughtered cows used 
>ultimately for the extract. I view Ted Altar's article as focusing on this 
>first case.

What justification do either of you have for ignoring or denying the second
case?

>That is, could we have spared the dogs? From the Dec. 16, 1922 
>issue of the British Medical Journal:
>
>     Production of insulin, which is not a cure for
>     diabetes, involved extraordinary suffering.  Dr.
>     Banting, who, with a confederate, admits picking up
>     dogs in the streets of Toronto at night, has recorded
>     such things as operating on a dog, and pouring boiling
>     water into the pancreatic arteries of a dog till it
>     fainted from pain. 
>
>Was this all necessary?

Remember that Banting & Best's research was self-financed.  Remember that
there was no commercial source for dogs as research subjects in 1922.

With regard to the failure to use anesthetic, you might have a point.  We
must assume that the account you cited is true, and we must also assume
that B&B had no reason to believe that use of such anesthetic would
interfere with the results of the experiment.  Frankly, I don't recall
reading this "boiling water" technique in Banting & Best's 1922
publication.  They instead tied off the pancreatic ducts, and allowed the
exocrine pancreas to atrophy.

If it is true that B&B failed to use anesthetic in a particular instance
where they should have, it in no way indicates that dogs were not necessary
to obtain their results.  Note also that such an oversight is prohibited
today under the AWA.

>As to the second component - needing an animal source for the insulin - you'd 
>probably know better than I why human organs weren't used. Is it because not 
>enough people die every day to meet the demand, or is it because our customs 
>on dealing with death interfere with effectively using human organs. If it's 
>the former then this is a good example of a case where animals are needed to 
>help keep people alive. (Of course, in this particular case the beings were 
>already killed for other reasons.)  If the latter, I'd suggest that perhaps 
>modifying our customs would be preferable to killing other beings. 

Plenty of people die every day, but we can't always be there with our ice
bucket to gather the tissues.  The Judeo-Christian reluctance to desecrate
the body which will supposedly be used in the afterlife also plays a part
here.  Even if we could overcome people's attitudes about this, we would be
faced with the former problem.  Today, the possibility of materials
infected with HIV or hepatitis further precludes such use of human tissue.

><Martin asked a bunch of specific questions about trading animal lives versus 
>human lives>
>
>I can't answer your questions yet. I've been working on formulating a 
>methodical and consistent approach to the concept of animal rights. The 
>basics of it are contained in the Universal Ethic series. Except for the case 
>of vivisection, I think that about all other AR goals can be derived from 
>this ethic WITHOUT having to confront the nasty question of trading off 2 
>conflicting ethics. In the case of vivisection, however, such a tradeoff is 
>necessary. I haven't figured out yet exactly where I'd draw the line, but I'm 
>sure I'd draw it in a very different place than where it currently is. I hope 
>to address this more in a later thread (Universal Ethic and Vivisection - 
>stay tuned).

Before formulating a universal ethic for animal "rights," you should
demonstrate that non-human animals may possess rights.  I haven't seen
anyone argue this convincingly.  I understand that even Singer, the "Pied
Piper" of the animal movement, rejects this notion.

Before you can answer my questions that you avoided, you shouldn't be so
smug about opposing animal research.  

At any rate, I'm looking forward to this.  I think that the basic question
will center on the relative intrinsic value of human and non-human animals,
and the true human cost of replacing animals in research.

><Much discussion back and forth about whether or not anti-vivisectionists 
>should forego certain medical treatments> 
>
>Rather than perpetuate past misunderstandings on this, how about starting 
>over. Assuming you're willing, can you make a crisp statement on this subject 
>that you'd be willing to defend? Then we can take it from there. 

You could instead use the statement from my last post which you ignored.  I
do not imply some moral imperative for anti-vivisectionists to refuse
medical research.  I do care for humans who oppose animal research as well
as those who support it.  I merely want antivivisectionists to
realistically consider the consequences of that for which they are arguing.

>[...]
>My analogy was right on. In your original statment you suggested that to save 
>animals from testing, we should develop a replacement for them. In the slave 
>case, then, we'd save the slaves by developing a replacement for them - a 
>robot.  If your original statement had been that we should ourselves take the 
>animal's place in the tests, then picking cotton ourselves would've been the 
>correct analog. 

Yes.  I see your point.  You are correct here.

>> all humans are speciesist
>
>All humans inflict pain. Should we not bother avoiding doing so?

By not refuting my statement about humans being speciesist, may I infer
that you do not disagree? 

I do not recall that the concept of speciesism addresses whether or not the
species involved inflict pain.  You might have a reference from Ryder or
Singer that suggests otherwise.

With respect to animal research, the law mandates that we always avoid
inflicting pain unless we are studying pain, or if alleviating pain would
otherwise render the results of the experiment invalid.

With respect to eating meat, we should inflict no unnecessary pain on the
animals we kill for food.  Human hunters value a quick kill, which
minimizes the pain of their prey.  Human hunters are likely the only ones
who give this any consideration.  In contrast, I have seen some species,
such as the domestic cat, prolong such pain as a form of play.

Vegans, of course, argue that it is not necessary to kill animals for food.
 I disagree (but note the exception below), and would point to the evidence
I gave previously suggesting that humans are omnivores rather than
herbivores or carnivores.  It seems far-fetched for anyone to argue that
killing animals for food is unethical when so many species do it.  It also
seems silly to me to suggest, based simply on the ability to perceive pain,
that killing plants for food is more ethical than killing animals.  All
living beings have an equal capacity to suffer death.

One could argue that it is also unnecessary to kill plants for food.  There
are nutritionally complete dietary regimens such as lactofruitarianism,
that do not result in the death of any organism for sustenance (though some
exploitation is inevitable involved).  Those who wish to deny their
predatory instincts, and advocate a truly "non-violent" lifestyle, should
consider these options instead of vegan ones that are fundamentally
deficient in nutrients, and require supplementation.  At the least, vegans
should not argue that their dietary regimens are superior.

>> If people are looking for an excuse not to "listen" to your arguments, 
>> they wouldn't read your posts.
>
>Surely you're not that naive!?

It do not think that I am naive, nor did I intend to appear so.  Couldn't a
person filter out your posts with the "kill file?"

>> Why don't we instead focus on the politics of animals as the name of 
>> this newsgroup implies?  If you want to "focus on logic" shouldn't you 
>> try sci.logic?
>
>Thank you for mucho insight into your approach to issues. Much is >explained and confirmed.

Then why don't you explain it to me?  I am a relative newcomer here.  I
still cannot figure out, for example, why the newsgroup rec.food.veg
contains so many posts regarding the alleged negative implications of
eating meat.  Isn't this simply preaching to the converted?  I would like
to read these, but don't care to sift through the vegetarian recipes that,
I suspect, DO belong there.

[Please don't ask me to use my "n" key.  I download all posts in TPA & SMN
without first reading them.  I then read & formulate responses off-line.]

How did you obtain insight as to my "approach to issues" from the above
statement?  I hope that you are not inferring that I do not value logical
arguments, for I am not implying such.  I simply question why the "focus"
should be on logic in this newsgroup.  If I am wrong, please tell me why.

>> Where else, if not here, would the "upside" be greater than the 
>> "downside?" 
>
>In a situation where existing prejudices against PETA and PCRM were less.  That is, everywhere in my life besides t.p.a.

If this is true, it is only because the public does not know the true goals
of these organizations.

>>If the "downside" of admitting PETA & PCRM membership is 
>> greater than the "upside," why are you a member? 
> 
>Believe it or not, I have a life outside this newsgroup. 

I believe it, but I also believe that you would be no more likely to admit
your PETA membership there.  If PETA's support for ALF terrorism doesn't
cease, members will ultimately need to resort to wearing hoods like the
KKK.

>> What advantage would I gain by pissing you off?  
>
>You'd get me to answer a challenge which I would otherwise dismiss as 
>irrelevent. Why you issued the challenge in the first place, I don't >know.  Like I said, I viewed it as irrelevent. 

I see your point, but that wasn't my original intention.  I've been pretty
pissed off here myself.  At this point, I don't even remember what my
original challenge was that pissed you off.

>> I submit that you would prefer to neglect indicating that you are a 
>> member of PETA and PCRM so that you won't have to continuously avoid 
>> embarrassing questions about their misanthropic positions.

>Yes, you've hit the nail right on the head, Martin. I should've known >you'd see right through my flimsy camouflage. Damn! 

IMO, your sarcasm here attempts to camouflage the truth of my statement. 
If the goals of PETA were in concert with the implication of their namesake
acronym, I might support them myself.  Because humans are also animals, I
submit that they do not truly support ethical treatment of ALL animals, but
would instead sacrifice human animals for the benefit of non-human ones. 
The notion of giving "rights" to animals is maladaptive for humans. 

--
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