From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:43:13 GMT

In article <C0Irr9.M5o@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-070193161112@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> >>When
> >> do you think you'll get around to posting some references, apart from
> >> Taub's own claims published in an opinionated newsletter, to support your 
> >> claims in the Silver Spring Monkey business?
> > 
> > What you call "Taub's own claims published in an opinionated newsletter"
> > referenced verifiable court testimony.  Your source, a newspaper article,
> > gave no references for verification.  Do you seriously believe that your
> > reference is more credible than mine?
> 
> This doesn't make much sense.   Would the statement of the WP reporter
> have been more credible to you if he had provided his readers with a 
> pointer to the published statement of the court... concerning the 
> court's judgment that Maryland state laws didn't apply to federally
> funded research? [ie a technicality]

First, you avoided my question above:

Do you seriously believe that your reference is more credible than mine?

Second, the "jurisdictional technicality" was an issue in the Appeals Court
Opinion, but it was not the entire issue.  Although the court noted that
Taub was already covered by Federal regulation, it also noted that Taub's
research fell under "certain human activities" which are exempt from
Article 59, the Maryland Anti-Cruelty statute.  Thus, the animal research
of Taub or anyone else would be exempt from this law *regardless* of the
source of funding.  This is *not* a "jurisdictional technicality."  This
was an important legal precedent.  In addition, the Appeals Court Opinion
duly noted the potential value of Taub's research in treating human victims
of stroke.

Therefore PETA's claim that Taub's conviction was overturned on a
technicality that did not address the cruelty charges against Taub is a
distortion of the truth that is typical of the animal "rights" movement. 
This is simply a case of PETA trying to turn a resounding legal defeat into
a PR victory.  That otherwise
critical thinkers such as yourself continue to parrot this distortion of
the truth is a testament to the influence of PETA's PR machine. 
 
>[...]
> > BTW, you agreed in a previous post that military research was worthy of
> > secrecy to protect national security.  Have you changed your mind?
> 
> Here's the precise text of our exchange:
> 
> ======================================================================
> You wrote:
> mh> I see no reason
> mh> why military researchers should not also be obliged to justify their
> mh> projects to a review committee composed of military researchers, although I
> mh> could see reasons for keeping the information therein from the press &
> mh> public (for some time) for the sake of national security.
> 
> I wrote:
> rl> I can understand this argument, but it falls apart when the 
> rl> researcher turns around and argues that his work is driven, not 
> rl> by military objectives, but altruistic ones.  
> 
> You wrote:
> mh> Did the PI in the cat-shooting experiemnt make altruistic claims about
> mh> his/her objectives?
> 
> I wrote:
> rl> Yes.
> ======================================================================
> 
> I haven't changed my mind.

OK.  When you wrote "I can understand this argument,"  I interpreted it to
mean that you would *support* keeping the information in military research
projects from the press & public (for some time) for the sake of national
security.  This would *not* constitute "same requirements that presently
apply to research funded by HHS."

Would you care to clarify your position Re: military research?  Do you or
do you not support keeping the information in military research projects
from the press & public (for some time) for the sake of national security?

> >>[...]
> >> > Did the PI in the cat-shooting experiemnt make altruistic claims about
> >> > his/her objectives?
> >> 
> >> Yes.
> > 
> > What were they?
> 
> He and his supporters claimed that the research would help physicians
> treat gunshot trauma.

You may have a valid point about this experiment, but it would be nice to
see some more references that disprove the PI's claim. 

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