From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:09:30 GMT

In Message-ID: <1992Nov2.153101.21232@athena.cs.uga.edu>

[...]

RB> >If you (or others) are interested in reading Pacheco's side, then take 
> >a look at The Silver Spring Monkeys, which forms one chapter in the book
> >IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS edited by Peter Singer.  Even if you distrust
> >Pacheco's account, there are many in the AR community who have read it
> >and evidently believe it.  To understand why many of us have such
> >drastically differing perceptions of PETA and Pacheco, it behooves you
> >to consult this source. 
> 
MH> I think that Pacheco's account has numerous flaws that can be 
> illustrated by examining the transcript of Taub's trial.  That is the 
> document that everyone should read to find the truth about who did what.  
> I have not yet obtained this document myself.
> 
> For example, it seems silly for Pacheco to complain about conditions of 
> animal care when, according to Taub and McCabe, he testified that he 
> *allowed* conditions to deteriorate himself.

This statement by McCabe was retracted.  Pacheco did not testify to this.

> 
> >Last night I dug out my copy of the article and found immense 
> discrepancies
> >between it and the statements you've made.  According to Pacheco:
> >
> >        - He noticed an incredible odor the very first time he entered
> >          the colony room where the monkeys were kept.  He also saw
> >          cages that hadn't been cleaned in months, very unsanitary
> >          conditions, rodent droppings and urine, rotted fragments of
> >          bandages.  
> 
> How was it possible for Pacheco to *immediately* determine, on first 
> sight, that the monkey's cage was not cleaned for months?  I contend 
> that such an evaluation is not possible.

I believe that you're wrong here.  It is possible to make such an estimate.

In Pacheco's words, there was "filth caked on the wires of the cages,
feces piled in the bottom of the cages, urine and rust encrusting every
surface..."  This was at the time of his initial arrival.

>  Personnel records document the 
> fact that, prior to Taub's 1981 vacation, the two gentlemen who were 
> responsible for these duties missed only 1 of 423 workdays.  If these 
> two guys weren't cleaning monkey cages, what were they doing for 422 
> workdays prior to Taub's vacation?
> 
> Taub admits that there was a problem with mice entering the laboratory, 
> which was adjacent to an open field.  He says that he can document
> attempts by a professional exterminator to remedy the problem.
> 
> Again, if Pacheco was so horrified at these conditions, why did he not 
> immediately report these conditions to Taub?  If he had reported such 
> conditions to Taub, and Taub ignored them, then Pacheco would have a 
> valid case against Taub.

I'm not sure if Pacheco did report or did not report the conditions to
Taub.  But Taub was there.  It was HIS lab.  Why would he not have seen
the conditions?

> In the "water dish" analogy that I gave (and that you and everyone else 
> has yet ignored), do you agree that option 3 would exacerbate rather 
> than remedy the "cruelty" against Russell's dogs?  Do you or anyone else 
> dispute that option 3 was analogous to what Pacheco did, and that 
> notifying Taub or, in Taub's absence, some other lab authority would
> have been the correct thing to do from the standpoint of the welfare of
> these monkeys?
> 
> Pacheco was clearly more interested in "collecting evidence" against 
> Taub than he was interested in the welfare of these monkeys.

This is your conjecture and nothing more.  Pacheco did refuse to
participate in the application of pain to the monkeys.  He walked a fine
line between looking after the monkeys' welfare and not destroying
evidence. 

> >        - He saw monkeys suffering from a variety of wounds.  Some had 
> >          discolored exposed muscle tissue on their arms.  Two had 
> bones
> >          protruding through their flesh; several had bitten off their
> >          own fingers and had festering stubs.
> 
> Taub acknowledges that monkeys with deafferented limbs were sometimes 
> self-mutilating.  His funding agency, NIH was aware of this also, and it 
> did not prevent them from funding this work.  After this fiasco, The NIH 
> used this, and other reasons beyond Taub's control (such as the 
> inadequacy of the air-handling equipment in the lab) to withdraw 
> funding.  This was, in my opinion, a political decision, and not 
> indicative of any fault on Taub's part.
> 
> The sole remaining charge, for which Taub was convicted, centered on the 
> advisability of placing bandages on the monkey's self-inflicted wounds.  
> Taub simply followed the advice of the veterinarians that were hired to 
> care for the monkeys.  I don't understand how anyone could construe that 
> as being cruel.  Maybe you or some other paragon of logic could explain 
> this to me.
> 
> If a pediatrician advises me to do something for my son, and it is later 
> considered harmful to him, will I be convicted of child abuse?
> 
> >        - He agonized over what he saw and how best to proceed, finally
> >          deciding that it was best to document everything carefully.
> >          He also knew that months would have to elapse to show a
> >          consistent pattern of behavior and neglect.  Blowing the
> >          whistle too soon would permit Taub to easily discredit him.
> 
> Again, Pacheco's decision to spend five months "gathering 
> evidence" was made at the expense of the monkeys.  His intentions 
> *might* have been honorable, but his decision was decidedly bad.  I 
> don't see how anyone who genuinely cares about animals can justify 
> option 3 of the "water dish" scenario or Pacheco's analogous actions.

If you read Pacheco's account, you will see that he did take measures
in small ways to alleviate the plight of the monkeys, while also
attempting not to destroy the evidence of consistent ongoing cruelty
and neglect.

At one point, he was asked by Taub and Yakalis to withhold food from the
monkeys for three days, and to then show the food, while not allowing
them to eat, and watch their reactions.  He asked three times what the
purpose was and received instructions to watch for something
"interesting" that would help them "get [grant] funding."

> >        - After a month he was placed in charge of the "acute noxious
> >          stimuli test" during which a monkey would be strapped into an
> >          immobilizing chair and subjected to tightly clamped surgical
> >          pliers.  Initially Domitian was selected as the instructional
> >          example.  He was placed into the chair and the pliers were 
> >          applied as tightly as possible around his testicles.  
> >          "Terrified, he thrashed violently and screamed", in Pacheco's
> >          own words.
> 
> I seriously doubt the part about squeezing testicles with pliers.  I 
> would like to see a published reference from Taub or anywhere else where 
> this procedure is described.

This specific incident was used to allow Pacheco to witness a positive
reaction to pain application for the "acute noxious stimuli"
experiments, which used "open flame" and later surgical pliers clamped
to the tightest notch.  Taub's specific protocol supposedly is covered
in Mechanisms Mediating Biofeedback Learning, 1980 - which I have not
seen. 

> The pertinent question is, why did Pacheco not refuse to participate?  
> If he really cared about the monkeys, why did he never, during his 5 
> month tenure, complain about any of the animal care and use procedures 
> in Taub's lab?

Pacheco did refuse to participate in the pain experiments after Domitian
was strapped into the chair.  This was the setting for that famous photo
that we've all seen. 

> 
> >        - Initially Pacheco believed that all animal experimentation
> >          was exempt from anti-cruelty laws, but he still gathered
> >          evidence by taking photographs.  After about 2 months, he
> >          learned that a change in Maryland law had no longer exempted
> >          animal experimenters and he began systematically collecting
> >          evidence for a criminal case against Taub.  He also realized
> >          that any improvements he might effect could later be used by
> >          Taub to defend his treatment of the animals.  This is the
> >          type of dilemma to which I referred in my earlier post.
> 
> This is only a dilemma if you are more concerned with convicting an 
> animal researcher than with the welfare of his subjects.  If the law was 
> changed after two months, why did Pacheco allow an additional three 
> months, during which time *he testified* that the monkeys were 
> "suffering," before filing his charges?

This is a dilemma for someone who finds a pattern of neglect, wishes to
expose the pattern, and needs to accumulate enough evidence to
demonstrate a consistent pattern rather than a set of isolated
incidents.  As I've said before, Pacheco proceeded in the way he best
felt could achieve that objective. 

> A major aspect of Pacheco's charges of cruelty stemmed from inadequate 
> care of the monkeys.  In this instance, Taub was on vacation, and, 
> unbeknownst to Taub, the two gentlemen responsible for cleaning the 
> cages and otherwise caring for the monkeys did not report for work.  The 
> unavoidable fact is that Pacheco is partly RESPONSIBLE for the 
> inadequate care that the monkeys received.

No.  Pacheco was documenting what he found.  His job was not to clean
the cages.  If no one was cleaning them after his arrival and he was not
hired to do it, then it suggests that no one was doing it before his
arrival.  The unsanitary conditions that Pacheco shot were representative
of the state of the lab before Pacheco's arrival.

> The notion that Pacheco was concerned that "improvements he might effect 
> could later be used by Taub to defend his treatment of the animals" is 
> ludicrous.  Nothing would have prevented Pacheco from cleaning the 
> monkey's cages, for their benefit, AFTER pictures were obtained.  Again, 
> he was partially responsible for maintaining the neglectful conditions
> that the monkeys endured.

You're forgetting the affidavits, signed by outside observers, which
attested to the conditions.  Pacheco felt these were necessary.  When he
had these, he then went to the Silver Spring police.

> 
> >        - On several occasions, Pacheco suggested that a veterinarian
> >          be summoned, especially after Billy's arm was broken in two
> >          places.  But the vet call was not made and Billy's extremely
> >          swollen broken arm was left untreated.
> 
> I cannot disprove this, but neither can Pacheco prove it. Why didn't 
> Pacheco phone the vet himself?  We can only rely on the sworn testimony 
> of the veterinarians that Taub hired to care for the monkeys.  Taub says 
> that he has records documenting routine veterinary care of these 
> monkeys.
> 
> The number of veterinary visits that the monkeys received were the basis 
> for the six remaining charges of cruelty after appeal.  I do not know 
> all of the facts here, but I presume that the frequency of visits were 
> agreed upon between Taub and his veterinarians.  If Taub relied upon 
> their advice in this regard, was he being cruel?
> 
> Again, if Taub, was acting so irresponsibly, why didn't Pacheco act 
> immediately?  Evidence that a monkey broke his arm in two places, and 
> Taub's failure to act, should have been sufficient evidence for 
> immediate action.

I doubt that you're right here in saying that a consistent pattern of
cruelty could have been established based on this alone, and that was
also Pacheco's determination.  He went to the police when he felt there
was a sufficient case and when he had the signed affidavits from
qualified professionals.  You can question his judgment here and say
that sooner would have been better.  Others have said he should've
waited longer until the case was more ironclad.  It was a tough call. 

> 
> >        - He also brought five people with expertise in various related
> >          fields to vouch for the conditions he was witnessing.  All of
> >          these are probably known to you by name and all signed
> >          affidavits afterwards to document their professional 
> assessments.
> 
> I don't dispute the testimony of these people with respect to conditions 
> of animal care.  I am sure that Pacheco allowed conditions to get really 
> bad before he brought them in one night after hours.  Taub's 
> veterinarians, who routinely cared for the monkeys during Pacheco's 
> tenure, testified that they never saw conditions remotely resembling 
> those depicted in Pacheco's photographs. 

Did Taub's vets really testify to this?

> >        - On Sept 8, he took his own affidavit and the five signed by
> >          experts to the Silver Spring police.  The first raid of a
> >          US research facility took place on Sept 11 1981.
> >
> >This is an account which stands at great variance from your own 
> statement
> >based on the since retracted Washingtonian article.  For more details,
> >please read the article.
> 
> I hope that I have addressed these variances to your satisfaction.  I 
> will try to read Pacheco's account, and comment further.

You have countered with (1) statements from Taub, which, while
interesting, are certainly not from a disinterested bystander, and (2)
statements from McCabe, who apparently did not read the trial
transcript before writing her article.  I believe that she based her
account of the trial on what she was told by Taub and Taub's lawyers. 
For example, the charge that photos were staged came from Taub's
lawyers, who said that Pacheco had admitted this in court.  After
reading the trial transcript, Ms. McCabe retracted this, stating that
"Mr. Pacheco did not testify or admit that the photos were staged."
Did Taub's lawyers lie to McCabe?

> >I mention all this because this opposing account of what happened in
> >Taub's lab has energized many PETA members and sympathizers.  You can
> >see, I hope, that if one believes the Pacheco statements (as summarized
> >in the book) then one will likely arrive at a radically different
> >endpoint than if one believes the original Washingtonian article and
> >your characterization of the events.  Before we can really argue about
> >the ethics of Taub's conduct, we must first agree on the facts.
> 
> Yes, PETA used the case of the Silver Spring monkeys to "energize" 
> opposition to animal experimentation.  I contend that verifiable facts 
> concerning this case support my contention that Pacheco was at least 
> partly responsible for the conditions that Taub's monkeys endured.  This 
> is particularly true during the final segment of Pachecos five month 
> period of "gathering evidence."  Because he was partly responsible for 
> the conditions that he photographed, it is not irresponsible or 
> inaccurate to say that Pacheco manufactured the evidence that was used 
> to convict Taub.

Wrong again.  It is irresponsible and inaccurate to say that Pacheco
manufactured the evidence.  He was not responsible for the conditions in
the lab.  Taub was.  He was not hired to clean the lab.  That job was
assigned to others.  For more information on how Taub tended to operate,
there is apparently a 1979 USDA inspection report which found dirty
floors "with blood stains all over them." I haven't seen this report. 

> Yes, there were inaccuracies in the Washingtonian article regarding
> irregularities with PETA's finances as well as unsupported allegations
> about links between PETA and the ALF.
> 
> Again, my statements regarding the events of this case were obtained 
> directly from Taub, and not from the Washingtonian article.  Yes, this 
> amounts to heresay evidence.  For those who seek the indisputable truth, 
> read the trial's transcript.  If you find it, *please* give me the 
> reference.
> 
> >After the lab raid, the events are more a matter of public record and
> >therefore easier to sort out: the removal of the monkeys from Taub's 
> lab
> >and subsequent return of them to Taub; the mysterious injury to one and
> >death of another within five days after Taub received them back;
> 
> I am not aware of this aspect of the case.  Were the injuries or death 
> partly attributable to the stress associated with their long journey to 
> Florida and back?  Remember that it wasn't Taub's idea to haul them 
> 3,000 miles in the back of a truck.

The judge didn't believe so, as evidenced by an admission that he had
erred in returning the monkeys to Taub and by his subsequent removal of
the monkeys from Taub's control.

> >Taub was charged with 17 counts (you said 119 but I thought 17 - one 
> for
> >each monkey) of cruelty and defended by two of Washington's most
> >prestigious law firms.  The court ruled that psychological suffering,
> >lack of cage space, and critical sanitation problems would not be
> >considered violations, but Taub was still found guilty on 6 counts.
> 
> The breakdown Taub gave me was 119 to 6 to 1 to 0.
> 
> >Taub appealed.  At the appeal, constraints imposed by the judge ruled
> >out much of the evidence (see page 145).  Eight jurors favored
> >conviction on all six counts, while the remaining four felt the 
> evidence
> >was insufficient to convict without a doubt except on one count.  Later
> >conversations with the jurors indicated how hopelessly constrained they
> >felt. 
> 
> If I had been a juror on this case knowing what I know now, I could have 
> convinced the others to vote "not guilty."  If I had been a juror
> knowing only what I saw in the media, I would have voted to convict.  I 
> cannot say how I would have voted after consideration of *only* the 
> evidence presented in the trial, as would be my duty as a juror.  I 
> admit that PETA's formidible PR machine had me initially convinced of 
> Taub's guilt. 
> 
> >Taub then appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals where it was ruled
> >that animal experimenters who receive federal funding do not have to
> >obey state anti-cruelty laws.  This court never considered whether or
> >not Taub had treated the monkeys cruelly, thus permitting Taub to slip
> >through a crack in the judicial system.  At no time did the court state
> >that Taub was innocent of cruelty; the court merely said it was
> >irrelevant.  That's why I objected to your claim that Taub was 
> exonerated.
> 
> The ones who truly slipped through a crack in the judicial system were 
> the "unknown" antivivisectionists who secreted the monkeys to Florida.  
> They were the only ones who committed incontrovertible acts of cruelty.
> 
> Unless my lawyer friend is mistaken, it is not incorrect to say that 
> Taub was exhonorated of all charges.

I don't claim to know the legal subtleties either way, but logically it
makes no sense to claim a complete exoneration since he was convicted,
and no judge or jury ever subsequently determined that he was innocent. 
Instead the appeals court determined that it was not its business. 

> --
> 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

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals