From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hypothetical Situation
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:16:22 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

James Hoskins writes:

>Moderator:  Dr. Sun, prior to today's meeting you indicated that you
>had a few questions for Mr. Robinson.
>
>Dr. Sun:  Mr Robinson, your ethical treatise was fascinating, I simply
>can't recommend it too highly and will make sure my colleagues read
>and study it.

>What I got out of your writing was that you might deny my research if your
>NO vote is perceived by you to "send a message" against using animals
>in basic scientific research.  Is this correct?

Only partially. What I said was that *if* I chose to factor political 
concerns into the equation, then I'd need to examine what message my vote 
would send, given the current political context. I then gave one example of 
how this consideration would weigh in favor of a YES vote, and one example 
that would weigh in favor of a NO vote. Furthermore, I then indicated that 
the balance of my analysis would *ignore* such political considerations. 

Frankly, Dr. Sun, I find your summary of my treatise quite unbalanced and 
misleading. I trust the same is not true of the proposal you've submitted to 
this committee.  

>Were you aware that in Walden, Henry David Thoreau talks of his fondness
>for ground hog and even offers advise for their proper culinary preparation?

No, I haven't read Walden. I hope that your remaining questions will be more 
relevent. 

>Are you aware that if I own land I can shoot a ground hog and kill it,
>and that day consume it for dinner?

Of course I'm not aware of this. As you well know, I was placed in suspended 
animation in December of 1992, revived 4 years later, then immediately placed 
on this committee. Apparently our society has undergone significant political 
changes, a "journey" that I was not privy to.  As a result, I am at a 
complete loss for context. 

Judging from your data, this "journey" appears to have been quite unusual. A 
research protocol that 4 years earlier might've been regarded as quite benign 
is now subject to refusal, yet the airport is still unilaterally killing 
ground hogs. I find it quite hard to visualize the socio-political path that 
got us here, further undermining my confidence in my own grasp of the current 
context. In fact, I'm more than a little worried that I've awoken in an 
alternate universe, one with entirely different patterns of socio-political 
development than the one I left.  

>Are you aware that even though Steve from Berkeley voted against my
>research he publicly went on record stating where public health concerns
>were operative he had no problem with using painful death causing poisons
>against vermin such as rats?  

No, I haven't followed all of Steve's articles. 

>Do you equate my research with rat poison?

No, they are obviously different. By the way, are you somehow suggesting that 
I'm to be bound by Steve's opinions? In its wisdom the Lawrence Amdendment 
requires citizen review boards to have more than 1 voting member, so that a 
variety of viewpoints and opinions can be represented.

>Setting aside the fact that you may use your NO vote to make your political
>statement, how do you in your mind justify sacrificing my eight years of
>research given the fact that the courts have upheld the right of the airport
>to kill the groundhogs?  What I am telling you is that they are going to
>die anyway.  Explain your thinking that I could kill a ground hog on the
>way home tonight and cook it for dinner, that the airport legally kills
>them, but that I somehow sit here before you with you as the final arbiter
>of my scientific future?

Why are you asking *me* these questions? The legal structure (wherein the 
airport can kill groundhogs, you can kill and eat them at home, yet I can 
prohibit their use in research) was set up by our society while I slept. You 
should probably ask those who set up this structure. 

>Were you forgetful of the fact that I employ road-kill ground hogs
>and correlate in-vitro enzymatic activity with that of the in-vivo
>tissue specimens.  Where does your potential NO vote place that
>research focus?

I don't understand the question.  

>Mr. Robinson,  I'll play this game for you as long as you wish--I have no
>choice.  Now, my question to you is what questions do you have of me?

My first group of questions was contained in my original "treatise"; none 
have been answered to date.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals