From: hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Animals in research
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:38:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes ...

>hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (who by now is squirming a bit) writes:

Actually, I'm quite comfortable and confident.  Your recent use of 
profane expletives attests to your lack of evidence to support your 
position.

>[...]
>Martin, although I may disagree with some of your supposed points of
>fact in the referenced post, I chose not to quibble with them.
>Is that okay with you?  Call it lame if you wish.  My concern was only 
>with final statement that the interests of a segment of the public 
>should be ignored; and your attempt to downplay the breadth of said 
>interest.  I find such an attitude uncoscionable for somone who
>says they're a scientist.

I was speaking as a citizen as well as a scientist.  I am sure that a 
TINY segment of the population might want to abolish animal research, 
but what about the interests of the majority?  Do I detect a contempt 
for democracy in Berkeley?

I have no need to downplay the concerns of citizens, like yourself, who 
want to abolish animal research/testing.  They have no "breadth." They
are infinetesimal when compared to the concerns of those who recognize
its importance.

>Fine.  My point is that the AWA, and all the various mechanisms
>that govern animal use, do NOT serve to carry out the public's 
>interest.

And my point was that there are democratic mechanisms whereby you and 
those few who think like you may have your concerns addressed.

Steve, it is clear that you are merely presenting opinions here.  I have 
not seen any evidence to support your claim that animal research does 
not serve the public interest.

>[...]
>I have no fight with this, since I completely agree.  As I've said 
>here before in posts that you may not have read, I do not believe 
>in animal "rights" either, and in fact think that the activist 
>focus on "rights" tends to sidetrack more important issues of
>animal welfare.

Although we obviously differ on details, I hope to convince you that I 
too support animal welfare.  MY usage of animals in research is 
responsible, and holds the public's interest in high regard.

>The interesting thing here though is that you PRESUME
>that I believe in "animal rights" just because I have expressed
>opposition to animal testing operations.  It's another
>one of your pathetic attempts to attribute ALL opposition
>to testing to the radical fringe.  Sorry, once again,
>that don't wash.

Sorry, if you oppose animal research/testing, you are the minority if
not the radical fringe.

My post was a defense of animal research, and you repeatedly attempt to 
shift the topic to animal testing.

If you are opposed to animal testing, you should simply refuse to buy 
any product that was tested using animals.  This would include the 
pharmaceuticals that might be employed to save your life.

As I told Russell Lawrence earlier, if you cannot give something up, 
then you look extremely silly arguing to have it abolished.  Russell 
responded that he did not REALLY want to abolish animal research, 
although he could have fooled me.

Assuming that you are arguing here to abolish animal testing, would you 
pledge to forsake ALL products that are tested using animals? 

>>>First, I am not an activist; second, I am not confused although
>>>I may not be using the same set of jargon you are.  What's
>>>you're point?
>>
>>Your "activity" on the net makes you, by definition, an activist.  The 
>>distinction between animal research and animal testing is not simply 
>>one of jargon.  If you do not understand the distinction, you should 
>>not criticize either.

>Now *you're* being lame.  Again, what is your point here?  

Advances are being made with in vitro product testing methodologies.  
These methodologies have already resulted in a great reduction in the 
number of animals required for such testing.  The FDA, the ultimate 
authority on these matters, does not YET regard such methods as 
appropriate substitutes.  With some improvement, this might change.  I 
fully support these developments.

The questions to be answered in animal research are substantially more 
intricate.  I support and participate in the development and application 
of in vitro and computer modeling techniques for biomedical research.  
From this standpoint, I am qualified to suggest that these so-called 
alternatives are NOT going to replace in vivo research paradigms in the 
near future.

I have been flamed elsewhere for calling you an "activist" based on your 
activity on the net.  I do not apply any negative connotation to the 
term "activist" per se.  I would, on the same basis, regard myself as a 
pro-research activist.  What's the problem?  Are you *ashamed* of being 
labeled an animal activist?

>> >Because [ committees] approve experiments that result in animal
>> >suffering / death that have no countervening benefit of saving human
>> >lives or preventing human suffering.
>>
>> The tactic that you employ here is straight from paragraph 8 of my 
>> original post.  

>My above statement is not a "tactic", it is factual.  You asked
>my why I believed review committess were bogus and I told
>you.  

You have a right to your beliefs, but in an exchange such as this one, 
you have some obligation to provide facts to support your positions 
before they become "factual."  See below.

>> If you employ strict utilitarian standards, then, by 
>> definition, ALL basic research is useless.  If you knew more about 
>> science ... 

>If *I* knew more about science??

>Listen jack, I'm not certain of your professional qualifications if
>any, but you're not expressing much of a grasp of science in this
>exchange.  You can poke fun at "Strict Utilitarian Standards", but the
>minute you lose sight of the fact that you're working in a need-filling
>discipline, you are no longer doing science.  You are doing make-work
>experiments that might embody the scientific method, but are not
>science.  

First, my name is not Jack.  Second, this is again one of your 
unsupported opinions.

Whether an experiment is "need-filling" has nothing to do with whether 
it is appropriately called science.  How can you argue that animal
research/testing is simultaneously "need-filling" and worthless?

Your suggestion that animal researchers are simply trying to "make work" 
for themselves indicates your ignorance of the process.  Animal research 
is incredibly expensive, so if I wanted to simply "make-work," I could 
find a *much* cheaper and easier way to do so.

If you deny the relationship between basic and applied research, then 
you do indeed need to learn more about science.

In this exchange, you have made two serious charges:

1. Animal research/testing amounts to "animal torture" performed without
regard for the public interest.

2. Animal researchers attempt to cover up their use of animals for fear 
that someone might shut them down.

If you can provide some documentable evidence that these two charges are 
the rule rather than isolated, unique exceptions, then you will have 
a valid argument against the general practices of animal research and 
testing.

If you can only document isolated, infrequent exceptions, then we must 
condemn these exceptions rather than the practices in general.

It is obvious to everyone that you are only capable of making charges, 
and are incapable of proving them.  Therefore, these are not really as
"factual," as you claim.

>> By adherence to the AWA, the public's interest IS 
>> taken into consideration.

>I can't see how you can say this and still claim to be
>at all knowledgable.

>But I'll give you the chance to try to prove your point.  

>Suppose, hypothetically, that the majority of the community
>is opposed to, say, using laboratory animals to research,
>say, a baldness cure or something else of only cosmetic
>value.  Try to give me a plausible description as to how the 
>AWA and its enforcement mechanisms would stop the experiments.  
>And if you *can't* describe how this would happen
>you oughta re-think your theory that the public's interests
>in animal welfare are being carried out.

If you can demonstrate that a majority of Americans is opposed to 
cosmetically oriented research using animals, then you MIGHT have a 
point.  I would urge caution against applying this logic.  You never 
know when YOU might acquire a cosmetic defect (as, for example, in an 
accident) and require the procedures that were developed with animals.

Another flaw in your approach is that, at any given time, people with 
diseases comprise a minority of our citizens.  Their interests might be 
forsaken for the benefit of yours.  It is important for you to 
demonstrate that a majority of Americans opposes such research, not that 
a majority doesn't require it.

>> If you are unhappy about the scope of the AWA, call your 
>>congressperson.  Don't whine about the activities of those who obey 
>>the law in its present form.

>Sorry, if your actions are unconscionable, they will draw
>my criticism regardless of their legality.  Genocide appears to be 
>presently legal in Yugoslavia.  Is it "whining" to complain about that?

Again, if you believe the actions of researchers are unconscionable,
then complain to the proper authorities.  I caution you in advance that
the authorities will require better evidence and arguments than that
which you provide here.

>> Then again, based on what 
>> Bambiphiles did at UCD a few years ago, I can understand their lack 
>> of cooperation.

>You're talking about the torching of an uncompleted animal torture 
>facility there, I presume?

I presume, based on your syntax, that you support such actions.  This 
particular action cost California taxpayers millions of dollars.  Is 
this your idea of protecting the interests of the public?

>Go back and re-read your last statement.  You are trying to
>justify researchers routinely avoiding their responsibilities
>by sensationalizing the isolated actions of a few extreme radicals.
>And you claim to be a scientist.  Sheesh.  

Re-read it yourself.  I did NOT say that I justified the actions at UCB, 
only that I understood them.  You're really twisting things around in
your failed attempt to poke holes in my statements.  You are trying to 
justify activists routinely criticizing and interfering with animal 
research by sensationalizing the isolated actions of a few researchers 
acting in violation of the AWA.

Martin G. Hulsey (mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu)
Dept. Foods & Nutrition          Support animal research.
University of Georgia            Your life may depend on it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals