From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:00:26 GMT

In article <Bzn9Bw.IDB@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> If your question about my presence in Athens, Georgia, was unrelated
> to our exchange here, why was it included on your list of "pertinent"
> questions?

If this particular question was impertinent, why did it receive the most
prompt and straightforward answer ever recorded from you on Usenet?  Other
participants in addition to myself marveled at the timely and non-evasive
response.
 
> >>If you want to engage in flights of
> >> fancy, go ahead, but I'm under no obligation to confirm or deny
> >> your pretentious suppositions.
> > 
> > If my question about your presence in Athens was "sheer stupidity,"  why
> > did you so quickly offer a straighforward answer?  Why do you continue to
> > avoid my other questions?  As James suggested, if you consider these
> > questions to be "stupid," please indicate why.
> 
> You have a habit of jumping to some very dumb conclusions.  As an
> example, you've claimed that the person whom you met in Athens must
> have used the same sources that I used re: thalidomide... namely
> some "pamphlets".  Why would a "scientist" make such a silly claim?

Please answer my question.

> Most of what I know about thalidomide was gleaned from several 
> nights of _historical_ research at the LSU Dental School 
> library...  going through old issues of Goodman and Gillman, JAMA, 
> Science, and the Journal of Dental Research.  I don't believe 
> I've ever come across any "pamphlets" concerning thalidomide.  

Don't get too preoccupied about "pamphlets."  I indicated other sources of
information as well.

You have severely and repeatedly criticized me for citing an endocrine
journal with respect to nazi animal protection.  Why do you simultaneously
feel comfortable citing a dental journal with respect to the thalidomide
incident?  Is this yet another of your many double standards?

>[...]
> > At least I was able to determine which one supports animal "rights" and
> > which one does not.  You were unable to ascertain this, as evidence by
> > another post.
> 
> Not exactly.  

This is another example of your waffling prevarication.  You claimed that
Singer supported animal "rights."  I refuted your claim with a reference,
so now you try to wiggle out of your embarrassing position.  Why don't you
simply admit that you are wrong?
 
>[...]
> 
> Your seem to think that your conjectures ought to be accepted 
> at face value until they're "soundly disproven".   Why?

I never said or implied such.

>[...]
> 
> Perhaps you could spare yourself some additional embarrassment if you'd
> avoid asking "pertinent" questions that fall into the "least relevant"
> category, such as whether or not I was in Athens on such-and-such a
> date.

You are claiming that you will not answer my questions because they are
irrelevant.  However, the question that YOU consider MOST irrelevant got
the most prompt and straightforward answer.  Why?  If you are a "critical
thinker" rather than a willful procrastinator, can't you see the
inconsistency here?

>[...]
> 
> It sounds to me like you're describing your list of "unanswered 
> questions".  Such a strategy is only effective if ones opponent 
> chooses to either waste his time or abandon the debate.  I'd prefer
> to stick around, and of course, point out from time to time that
> many of your questions and assumptions are incredibly silly.

Russell, I did not compile my list of questions as a tactic to consume your
time.  It takes me more time to compile and post them than it takes for you
to snip and ignore them.  I would be very happy if I were to obtain one
answer per day or week as required to keep these questions from piling up. 
If you had answered them rather than evaded them when they were first
asked, there would be nothing to compile.

I sincerely hope that you do "stick around," but I hope that you will do a
better job of addressing issues, and spend less time evading them.

I find your complaints about not having enough time ridiculous considering
that you were the one who, at last determination, submitted ~33% of all
posts on TPA.

Enough "blathering."  Can we get back to some "animal" issues?

++++++++++++   end of blathering    +++++++++++

++++++++++++  begin animal issues   +++++++++++

These issues were derived from my list of Russell's unanswered questions. 
Although they are addressed to Russell, I invite comments on these issues
from anyone, because Russell has evaded these issues for a long time now. 
Are you there?  Bob????  Rosemary?  Ted?  Steve?  Anyone?

Issue 1:  "errors" in the approval process

You have indicated that you are not opposed to animal research, but would
like to consider experiments on a "case-by-case" basis.  You've pointed to
a couple of experiments such as the "cat-shooting" and "beagle-drowning"
ones as examples of "worthless" animal experimentation.  You have not yet
provided evidence, as requested, to prove your claim that these experiments
are questionable, but let us assume that they are for a moment.

If these two experiments represent a failure of the system, how would you
modify the _status quo_ in order to protect the interests of human and
non-human animals?  If you and others cannot suggest effective changes to
the present system, would you agree that it is the best we can do?

I designing procedures for the approval of animal experiments, we could be
stringent or lax.  If we are stringent, we would prevent needless animal
exploitation, but we might disapprove an experiment that could save many
human lives.  If we are lax, humans are well-protected, but more "bad"
experiments, such as the examples above, would be approved.  Obviously, we
need a happy medium that provides reasonable protection for human and
non-human animals.  As a proponent of animal "rights," what do you feel
would constitute reasonable protection for both?

Out of the thousands of animals experiments proposed and performed every
year, how many "bad" ones should we expect or tolerate?  Would failing to
perform an experiment critical for human health be worse than performing an
animal experiment that later proved unnecessary?

If "errors" in any approval process are inevitable, what purpose does it
serve to point out a couple of "bad" experiments while ignoring the
thousands of "good" ones?  Would you have us increase the stringency of the
approval process so that the potential for animal suffering is decreased at
the expense of human suffering?

Issue 2:  Prevention versus treatment

You previously, and correctly, pointed out that much human disease results
from our own stupidity, e.g. from smoking, poor diets or environmental
contamination.

Are you suggesting that we should not try to save the lives of people who
are "stupid?"  Would you, for example, allow heart patients to die for
their
"stupidity" rather than sacrifice a few pigs or dogs to develop a new heart
valve, etc?

Would you consider animal research aimed at diseases that are not
"stupidity"-related to be justified?

Issue 3:  "Tainted" information

I previously suggested that antivivisectionists should eschew medical
treatments, that were developed using animals.  You responded that
information cannot be "tainted" by its method of acquisition.  Do you
presume that there is no other reason that a person would refuse medical
care?  For example, do you propose that Christian Scientists refuse medical
care because they believe the information is tainted?

Issue 4: Public input to the approval process

James Hoskins recently created a hypothetical scenario whereby usenet
participants sat on a "Lawrence Review Board" to consider a hypothetical
experiment.  After several weeks, the LRB has been unable render a decision
on ONE experiment.  Considering this example, and considering that ACUC
committees often consider DOZENS of proposals at one sitting, do you agree
that greater input from the public on ACUC panels might result in
unnecessary delays in the approval process?  Would it serve any purpose,
other than an obstructive one, to have animal "rights" activists on such
committees?

Issue 5: Relative intrinsic value

What do you feel to be the relative intrinsic value of a dog as compared to
a human?  Do you feel that your own species deserves *any* special
protection?  In a hypothetical scenario, would you sacrifice the life of a
dog to save a human life?

--
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