From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:55:18 GMT

In article <BzACuH.FEx@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-141292153059@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> > Taub was tried and convicted in the public's mind before he ever set foot
> > in court.  Taub's subsequent exhoneration by the Maryland court of appeals
> > was considered less newsworthy.
> 
> Let's clarify the nature of this "exoneration".

Let's clarify your "clarification."

Of 119 charges leveled against Taub, 113 were dismissed immediately.  At
his second trial, Taub was cleared of five of the remaining six charges.

The sole conviction was for an animal whose arm was amputated seven weeks
after the animal left Taub's laboratory because of a *supposed* infection
(osteomyelitis) that was said to date back to inadequate care alledged in
Taub's laboratory.

The court felt that it was incorrect for Taub to treat the deafferented
arms of six of his monkeys rather than bring in veterinarians.  Five
experts with experience in this area (including two veterinarians)
testified that it is extremely rare for veterinarians to have experience
with this type of animal, and that they often make serious errors in
diagnosis and treatment.  This contention was later borne out, as evidenced
below by the needless amputation of one monkey's arm.  In contrast, Taub
had 25 years experience treating such animals, and is a recognized expert
in the field.

A pathology report based on an examination of the arm after amputation
explicitly stated that the animal did not have osteomyelitis.  Roger
Galvin, the Assistant State's Attorney, had a copy of this report
(according to court records), but he withheld it from Taub's attorney, the
judge, and jury.  Instead, in his closing statement, he implied the
existence of osteomyelitis six times.  Taub's sole conviction concerned
"inadequate care" based on an infection that did not exist.
 
>[..]

> Can you point to a particular newspaper or magazine publisher 
> who's misrepresented the facts?

First of all, my claim above suggested bias, rather than misrepresentation
of facts.  Surely you know the difference.  You are, as usual, employing
deceitful tactics.

Taub's final conviction was overturned by the Maryland court of appeals,
and the appeals court also directed the lower court to dismiss all charges
against Taub.

The media then repeatedly reported statements by antivivisectionists that
this decision was based on a technicality that did not address the
"charges" against Taub.  This was a serious distortion.

The Court of Appeals ruled that federally-funded research did not come
under the jurisdiction of the Maryland State Animal Cruelty Statute.  The
reason given was that Taub was already fully regulated by federal codes. 
The Maryland statute was redundant, and added nothing new.  The appeals
court noted the potential value of Taub's research for rehabilitating
movement after stroke in human victims, a potential which Taub has since
fulfilled. The Appeals Court classified Taub's research under the heading
of "certain normal human activities" to which Section 59 of the Maryland
Statute does not apply.

The court's decision addresses issues that support Taub's contention that
he did not treat his animals in a cruel fashion.  The stated bases of the
decision are far from a technicality.

By repeating this lie often enough, PETA was able to turn a legal defeat
into a PR victory thanks to their cozy relationship with the media.

The bias of the media is aptly demonstrated by the actions of the
Washington Post following this event.  The Post published 9 letters to the
editor against Taub, and only 2 in favor.  Taub has courtesy copies of 21
additional supportive letters that were sent to the Post and not published.
 The Post failed to identify Alex, Ingrid and two others who were quoted as
being members of PETA, although the reporter told Taub that he was aware of
their membership.  Little was said about the potential benefits of Taub's
research for humans.

Every year, approximately 500,000 people suffer strokes and survive.  Right
now, there are millions of people impaired from strokes or other damage to
the central nervous system.  Taub's work was intended to reduce their
discomfort and impairment, and is successfully doing so today.

Should we be less concerned with the discomfort and impairment of millions
of people rather than with the discomfort and impairment of 17 monkeys? 
PETA apparently thinks so.  What do you think Russell?  You said that you
wanted to evaluate research on a "case by case" basis.  Will you evade this
question as you have others?

[The reference for this post was the CFAAR newsletter 4(1), winter/spring
1991.]

--
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals