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
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:57:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.220854.16404@clpd.kodak.com>,
black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:

>In Message-ID: <1992Nov9.223222.10233@athena.cs.uga.edu>, Martin Hulsey wrote:
>> 
>> Russell Lawrence writes:
>> 
>> >[...]
>> >I was immediately successful, however, in making contact with Joel 
>> >Newman at PCRM who made the following statement:
>> >
>> >    PCRM promotes alternatives to animal research and encourages
>> >    higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in animal 
>> >    research.  We also oppose unethical use of humans in medical
>> >    research.
>> >
>> >This reconfirms the prior statements made by Ted Robinson and Bob
>> >Black, and negates the claim made previously by Martin Hulsey.
>> 
>> With respect to PCRM's *present* position, I stand corrected.
>> 
>> Recall what Bob Black quoted from a PCRM pamphlet...
>
>Actually it was taken from a letter which PCRM sent me.

Sorry. I thought that you said pamphlet in an earlier post.  No difference,
eh?

>[...]
>
>> By advocating "replacement" of "inhumane" and "ineffective" animal 
>> paradigms, PCRM opposed animal research then.  By "promoting 
>> alternatives" to animal paradigms (as though they existed), and implying 
>> that existing standards of ethics and effectiveness are unsatisfactory, 
>> PCRM opposes animal research now.
>
>The PCRM statement does not say that PCRM opposes all animal research
>now.

Agreed.  What portion of research that PCRM opposes today could save human
lives tomorrow?  Do you feel, as Russell does, that a psychiatrist with few
scientific publications is qualified to assess the quality of work done by
a neuroscientist?

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In Message-ID: <1992Nov9.223404.10402@athena.cs.uga.edu>
>
>> Ted Robinson writes....
>> 
>> >Ted Robinson (quoting Ted Altar) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>MH> Don't forget that your animal-free scenario *also* depends on Collip 
>> being able to purify insulin from human tissues.  ...
>
>What would be the added difficulty of isolating it from humans organs
>rather than from animal organs (assuming availability of the needed
>human organs)?

There would be no added difficulty today, except for the potential problem
with HIV.  In 1922, the paramount problem would have been availability, and
timely harvest.  I don't recall the precise number of ox pancreata
ultimately used by Collip, but it was considerable.

Note that today, despite the fact that more people are willing to donate
organs, the supply cannot meet the demand.  Sadly, the people who get the
donated hearts & kidneys are those with big bucks.

>MH> It was absolutely imperative to first show that such extracts could be 
>> used to actually *save* lives.  Before B&B, *all* attempts with humans 
>> and animals were unsuccessful.  You have no evidence that, without the 
>> promising dog work by Banting & Best, Collip or anyone else would have  
>> pursued such work.  ...
>
>There was an already established linkage between pancreas and diabetes. 
>This is enough to encourage further investigation, except perhaps to
>those who felt there was insufficient reason to pursue the matter until
>animal studies suggested it.  From this viewpoint, the animal research
>helped convince disbelievers and skeptics to continue on.  For those 
>less amenable to the doctrine that until you've demonstrated
>something in animals you can't continue, the encouragement was already
>there. 

I suppose we can argue forever about this.  We are getting nowhere. I
maintain that the descriptive studies at autopsy did not establish
causality, and it would be a great leap to go from these observations
directly to Collip's work without the intermediate work, unsuccessful and
successful, using dogs. 

>MH> Agreed.  The best that you folks can do is "conjecture" about what might 
>> have happened if the problem was not solved *first* using animals.  This 
>> sort of argument does not lend ANY support to PCRM's claim that non-
>> animal "alternatives" are "effective."  If the "alternatives" are so 
>> effective, wouldn't they have been used to find such answers *first*?
>
>... because the prevailing thinking at the time was strongly slanted
>toward animal research and there was no AR movement to raise sticky
>ethical questions.  And also perhaps because fewer people (including
>researchers) appreciated the ethically relevant similarities common to
>human and non-human animals. 

The anti-vivisection movement was alive and well decades before 1922.  It
had little effect on scientific thinking then, and is having little effect
now.

>MH> There are few examples in medicine where animal techniques have been 
>> replaced by effective non-animal alternatives.  In those few cases that 
>> exist (e.g., the HCG assay for pregnancy rather than the "rabbit test"), 
>> animals were often required to *develop* the alternative.
>
>Yes, I've read this example too in Dr. Goldberg's newsletter.  It didn't
>greatly impress me then and it doesn't now.  Here you're not even
>talking directly about sacrificing animal lives in return for saving
>human lives; you're talking about sacrificing animal lives to ascertain
>the pregnancy status of humans and that's generally not a life and
>death matter.  

What's your point?  The fact remains that alternative techniques *are*
being developed where possible, but animals are required for this as well. 
IMO, this nullifies your claim that scientists aren't willing to look at
new approaches.

>MH> Please remember that my original claim was that animals were required to 
>> cure diabetes (though you were correct to suggest that a treatment was 
>> instead obtained).  Even if I concede your laughable claim that the B&B 
>> "dog" advances were not required, you are left in the untenable position 
>> of proving that Collip could have obtained sufficient human pancreata to 
>> extract.  The decision to obtain therapeutic insulin from animals 
>> instead of humans, despite severe side effects for some patients, 
>> further weakens the likelihood of your scenario.
>
>I really haven't understood your reasons for claiming why human organs
>could not have been used.  Isn't it likely that if we had concentrated
>earlier on the human approach, decades of unpleasant allergic and side
>effects, attributable to the use of animal insulin, could have been avoided.

True.  The primary reasons why Collip did not use human pancreata to purify
insulin are cultural.  Organs from dead animals were and are easier to come
by than those from dead humans.

>MH> If X people were dying per year of diabetes, and if avoiding the 
>> sacrifice of 400 dogs would delay the discovery of insulin by "only" Y 
>> years, how can you justify letting (X * Y) humans die in the interim 
>> period?  Is this what you and PCRM would call a "humane" alternative?
>
>This is a complicated ethical question.  If you were a utilitarian
>thinker and had sufficient information, you could run a calculation
>and draw a conclusion from it.  Since I'm not a utilitarian, I'll
>leave that to you.

Why don't we make it simple, avoiding calculation, and try again.  If
avoiding the sacrifice of ONE dog would cost the life of ONE human, would
you approve?

What about the recent example in Loma Linda where a baboon liver was
utilized in an attempt to save a human life?  We already know that PETA
strongly denounced the practice.

Until you can resolve these questions, it is not reasonable for you to
continue to disparage the Nobel-winning experiment of Banting & Best.

>But the fact is that you've constructed the type of situation which 
>never occurs in real life.  If you could humanely sacrifice 400 dogs
>and GUARANTEE that it would save many human lives, I would certainly
>have to consider it.

Sorry.  There are never any guarantees.  The past success of animal
research is a strong indicator of its future success.  If memory serves,
Pasteur used 200 dogs to develop a vaccine for rabies.  A far greater
number of humans and non-human animals have benefitted in the years
since... Oops! I'm being "illogical" again.  Silly me.

>[...]
>
>MH> I suppose my opinion on this carries no more weight than yours.  After 
>> all, I only have TEN YEARS experience in animal research.  We could 
>> consult those with far more credibility in this matter than either of 
>> us.
>
>Your opinion and experience carry a lot of weight.  But your experience
>also channels you (potentially) into a certain mindset, which may act to
>close off certain competing ideas or encourage casual dismissal of
>alternative considerations. 

I have devoted much of my time to "alternative considerations" such as
mathematical modeling.  My publications in this area exceed the number of
those using animals.  If other people apply these models that I helped to
develop, it will save a far greater number of animals than I could ever use
in my other studies that require animals.  You have no grounds to accuse me
of having a mindset that ignores "competing ideas."

Please see: Hargrove, Hulsey and Hartle, In:  _Methods in Neurosciences_,
Volume 10, chapter 11, Academic Press, 1992.

>[...]
>
>MH> "An integrated approach of clinical, whole animal and _in vitro_ studies 
>> is currently the best approach to advance science, develop new products 
>> and drugs, and treat, cure and prevent disease." - Dr. Alan M. Goldberg,  
>> Director,  Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, Johns Hopkins 
>> University.
>> 
>> If you cannot trust the opinion of a person who has dedicated his life 
>> to finding alternatives to animal testing, who can you trust?  A 
>> psychiatrist?  A philosopher?  A historian?
>
>Thank you for quoting Dr.  Goldberg, who has devoted 10 years (I don't
>know about his "life") to finding alternatives.  He is someone I can
>respect, although he seems overly cautious and conservative to me.  That
>may be why he has some credibility with moderates on both sides.  If you
>consider yourself a follower of him and CAAT, then I can certainly
>respect that.  It gives me a little confidence that you really have some
>interest in the reduction of animal suffering, rather than just in
>bashing AR people. 

Sorry, but most AR people deserve to be bashed when it comes to animal
research.  For example, your sentence above indicates that, thanks to
brainwashing by PCRM and PETA, you cannot separate the concepts of "animal
suffering" and animal research.  By law, any research procedure that might
induce pain or suffering must be performed under anesthesia.  The only
exception is research where pain is the object of study.

If you would consider Goldberg's opinion more valuable than PCRM's, it
gives me confidence that you really have some interest in humans as well as
non-human animals.

I wholeheartedly support the work at CAAT.  I am confident that we will
soon see an elimination or great reduction of the number of animals used
for testing of cosmetics.  I regret that the availability of so-called
"cruelty-free" products has caused much confusion.  I sincerely hope that
the FTC or CPSC will ultimately address this issue.

Testing of pharmaceuticals and vaccines is a more difficult problem, and
will take longer.

The questions to be answered in animal research are much more intricate
than those in animal testing.  This is why I strenuously object when animal
activists (e.g., PCRM) lump the two together, then suggest that "effective
alternatives" are available.  In most cases, this is simply not true.

>[...]
>I would be interested in knowing more about this, but it doesn't
>surprise me because that's where the funds (NIH) have been concentrated. 
>If large amounts of funding are devoted to, say, the humane genome
>project at the expense at animal research, then I expect to see a
>concentration of Nobel prizes in that area.  Breakthroughs will tend to
>occur where the effort is focused.

True, but someone still has to have a novel, testable idea before it can be
funded.

If a Nobel is awarded for work concerning the HGP, it will most likely be
for an advance in sequencing technology.  Other than that, the HGP is
routine stuff that uses well-established methods (if I recall correctly,
Maxam & Gilbert, 1977).

Sequencing the human genome will simply give us a gigabyte or so of "A's,"
"T's," "C's," and "G's."  We will still have to determine what segments
code for what gene product.  I do not oppose the project even if, as you
claim, it will reduce funding for animal research.

The NIH is not the only source of funding in America, not to mention the
many other countries with strong research programs.  You shouldn't,
therefore, assume that they alone drive the direction of research.  Don't
forget the private sector.  You know, those companies that Russell wants to
boycott.

>It's interesting to note that a 1982 NIH study ("NIH Grant Applications:
>Reasons for Disapproval") attempted to determine why 256 grant
>applications from clinical investigators were rejected or given very low
>scores.  The study concluded that the primary reason was the use of
>human instead of animal subjects.  As Brandon Reines put it (in ISAR
>Report, Summer 1992), "Based on NIH's own study of peer review, it is
>apparent that the funding machinery of the NIH research system has been
>all but taken over by Ph. D. animal researchers."

I disagree.  If you look at dollars rather than number of funded proposals,
clinical research gets plenty.  This is particularly true in Obesity
research, an area in which I am familiar.  Human research is even more
costly than animal research.

>Also I'd like to know more about the backgrounds of the selection
>committee members.  Is it composed more of animal researchers or of
>clinical investigators.  I'm not questioning their knowledge or
>sincerity - just suggesting they would tend to value the type of work
>compatible with their own experiences. 

Different study groups have different makeups.  I really cannot see any
evidence that clinical researchers would be less likely to approve animal
studies, or that animal researchers would be less likely to approve
clinical studies.  There are also a large number of researchers who do
both.

>[...]
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >In article <1992Nov2.152851.20701@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
>> >hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>> >> Despite a couple of challenges, no one has disputed my claim that 
>> there 
>> >> is no (non-extinct) species that would sacrifice its own members to 
>> save 
>> >> members of another species.  Anyone who knows about ecosystems knows 
>> >> that species are instead likely to exploit or compete with one 
>> another 
>> >> in manifold ways to optimize their own survival (for examples look 
>> for 
>> >> "food-web" in primary ecological literature, or the works of Eugene 
>> >> Odum and other bona fide ecologists).  I therefore contend that all
>> >> successful species are "speciesist."
>> >
>> >What's your point? 
>> 
>> animals advancing their species at the expense of others are speciesist
>>
>> all animals advance their species at the expense of other species
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> all animals are speciesist
>> 
>> all animals are speciesist
>> humans are animals
>> --------------------------
>> all humans are speciesist
>> 
>
>The problem with this is that it's not a species-specific claim.  You
>could replace "species" with family or pack or other sub-groups or
>cross-groups, and make all the same statements.  You're merely saying
>here that humans tend to give preference to those closest to them.

Yes, as do *all* species.  You are again using *intraspecies* arguments to
rebut my *interspecies* claim.  Think about it.  Does the Venus flytrap
concern itself with the "rights" of flies?  Does the anteater worry about
the fate of ants?  Aren't they being speciesist?

If alternate arguments can be substituted into a syllogism, and it remains
true, does that prove it false using the original arguments?  I think not.

>Also, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in claims like these,
>if your intention is to cite animal behavior as a justification for
>human behavior.  If non-human animals are so worthy as to serve as
>ethical and behavioral guides for humans, then why is it right for
>humans to kill them for our own purposes?  OTOH if animals are not, then
>why are you suggesting that we pattern ourselves after them?

I'm not suggesting such.  I'm merely suggesting that the concept of
speciesism is fallacious. 

The problem with the animal "rights" movement is that they try to have it
both ways.  They claim that we shouldn't exploit animals because they are
"like us" (e.g., Ingrid's rat=pig=dog=boy argument), but simultaneously
argue that we should be "different" (i.e., don't prey upon other *animal*
species) when choosing a diet.  IMO, this reasoning has an inherent
contradiction.

--
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