From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animals in Research
Date: 30 Sep 1992 22:47:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

We may have about beat this one to death, Martin, but
I will answer a few more of your points:

> [ spp said ] I should not "poke fun" at strict utilitarian 
>standards.  By this, I ASSUMED that you would apply these standards to 
>all research.

No, not true.

>If not, would you RETRACT your support for strict utilitarian standards, 
>and admit that basic research has value even if it uses animals?

I will state that I do not believe "strict utilitarian standards" apply
to all research.  But I will restate that research must have a CLEAR
purpose, even if that purpose is broad or subjective in nature.

I disagree with the claim "basic research has value" as a blanket 
truism -- only some basic research has value.

I will also state that research using animals has a very high 
cost assoiated with it in terms of animals suffering and dying.
Since value is equal to benefit minus cost, it is in unlikely
that much basic research using animals has value.  Therefore:
shutdown research facilities, lay off researchers, send money
back to the treasury, etc.

>... I can send you another copy.

Yes, email me any post you feel I haven't diligently answered --
I did not anticipate this lengthy an exchange when I first
responded, and may have skimmed over some of what you wrote earlier.

>>[yet another childish comment about Hulsey as a scientist]
>
>Let us please stick to the subject.  

Okay, fine.  I retract any "childish" statements I've made about
you as a scientist, etc.  I obviously have no basis for
assessing the quality of your research in particular, other than
my intense irritation with you.

[ red tape dicsussion ]

>What about the part you deleted?  This "military standard" is not 
>*really* a counterpart to AWA regulations.  

>There is no layperson on the committee that approves such development.

True.

> There is no requirement to 
> prove that similar work has not been done before. 

False, mostly.  THe Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) have
a number of provisions aimed at preventing duplicate work.
How well they work in practice is another question, but that
question applies to the field you're in as well.

> The proposals are not made public under FOIA.

False, proposals for government prime contracts can be obtained under
FOIA.

>There is NO equivalent to the red tape animal researchers must undergo 
>in the commercial or military world. 

Well, I haven't worked in your field, but then you probably haven't
worked for NASA either...if there's somebody out there who's
worked in BOTH, maybe they can comment as to who has the worse red tape!

>>Just because I want to cut back on testing, does not mean
>>I "completely disregard the suffuring and death of your
>>fellow human".  This is pure hyperbole.
>
>I was under the impression that you are opposed animal testing.  That 
>WAS your stated position before you waffled.  Now you say that you 
>merely want to "cut back."  Make up your mind.

My statements have been consistent, in this and other threads,
but I'll summarize.  I favor a two-year moratorium of all animal
testing; followed by a complete reorganization of the review
procedures and associated bureaucracies, with a heightened value being
placed on animal welfare, and a reduced value being place on the
much-ballyhooed benefits of "basic research"; followed by a resumption 
of animal testing on a MUCH smaller scale -- limited primarily to 
infectious disease control and other areas that have a DIRECT, 
SIGNIFICANT benefit to public health.  Spending priorities should
be rearranged so that ALL Americans have access to basic
healthcare before ANY money is spent on research using animals.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals