From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:56:18 GMT

From article <1993Jan4.184046.7595@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <C05A0w.3vB@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>In order to analyze a problem critically, I need to understand the
>>underlying assumptions.   In a previous posting, you stated that
>>it's wrong to torture a human, not because torture is thoroughly
>>unpleasant, but because humans have rights.
> 
> You then misunderstand my meaning.  I will be happy to discuss the issue
> as soon as you provide the "alleged" cat shooting experiment ref.( as per
> our deal)

Suit yourself.  James Hoskins posed the original query, and he's the
one who introduced your ideas into the discussion.  Not me.

>>gp> What do you mean by misuse of animals?  You can't be refering to 
>>gp> "lawful" research.  Which is what I am involved in.
>>gp>
>>gp> In the case of valid, accredited research I view the *use* of 
>>gp> animals as a necessity.  I make every attempt to minimize the 
>>gp> number of animals used and the amount of "suffering" they 
>>gp> experience.  In this sense you can can say that I believe the use 
>>gp> animals is the lesser of the "evils".  I don't enjoy the use of 
>>gp> animals.  I derive no perverse pleasure from it.  (I don't like to 
>>gp> go to the denist either.  But I do.) 
>>gp>
>>gp> The *misuse* of animals I do not condone or tolerate.
>>
>>You say that your research is a "necessity", but how do you 
>>define the term?  As an example, would you say that affluent 
>>women "need" to wear fur coats?  Or that human beings "need" to 
>>consume cows and chickens?  Or that hunters "need" to shoot ducks 
>>and deer for sport?  
> 
> I did not say my research is a necessity (I said the use of animals in my
> research is a necessity).  Good god Russell, its right there in front of you
> how can you misread it.
> If you want me to say if my research is a necessity, ask me.  
> What I did say was that the alleviation of human suffering is a ethical
> responsibility.  Animal research is a necessity in fulfilling that
> responsibility.
> Fur coats, carnivorous behavior and hunting have nothing to do with the
> topic of biomedical research!  Which evasive tactic is this. (there so
> many I've lost track.)

Why don't you go back and re-read Hoskin's original post?  Here's 
a fragment:

=======================================================================
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."

rl> Does Greg Popken view the misuse of animals as the lesser of the evils?
rl> Or, does he simply dismiss the misuse of animals altogether?   What
rl> exactly are the "needs" that motivate his use of mice?
=======================================================================

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.  

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.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ