From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Animal Experiments
Followup-To: rec.food.veg
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:56:27 GMT

In article <tara.724426611@starburst.umd.edu>, tara@starburst.umd.edu (Tara
McDermott) wrote:
>[...]
> Not at all!  At least for me this is true.  If I may ask, what am I
> misinformed about when it comes to animal research?   Before you give
> examples of how I am wrong, make sure you think really hard of what
> evidence YOU have.  Where does that evidence come from?  Is it
> knowledge that medical schools and other "health" agencies have
> supplied you with?  These sources are biased towards animal research.

If you are willing to dismiss opinions and evidence from the medical
community as "biased," why are you so willing to accept "evidence" from the
animal "rights" community?  Do you believe that they are not biased?

> It is the way things are done today, and it is common myth that no
> good can come from anything other than animal research (at least thats
> the way I see it).

No one denies the contributions of clinical and epidemiological research. 
You deny the contributions of animal research.  We truly need both
approaches.

>I think it's kindof similar to how until very
> recently most doctors and dieticians thought (though admittedly some
> still do!) that eating meat was an essentil part of proper nutrition.
> You NEED meat and dairy products to stay alive and vibrant and
> healthy.  That is totally untrue.  But where did this misconception
> come from?  Studies done on laboratory rats in the 1950's, and
> information spread by the beef, dairy, and egg councils.  They are the
> ones that supply the information to our schools, teaching first
> graders on up that eating meat and dairy products is totally essential
> for good health.

I don't deny that the beef & dairy industry promote their products.  Would
you expect them to do otherwise?

You should realize that, with few exceptions, information about human
nutritional requirements with respect to vitamins and minerals came from
animal research.  Where would we be today without this information?

I've got some news for you.  A majority of dieticians do not recommend
vegan dietary regimens, although vegetarian regimens are considered OK "if
properly planned."  The ADA does have a "vegetarian practice group" with
over 1,000 members.  This sounds impressive until you consider that the ADA
has over 64,000 members.

There is no question that many people consume too much fat.  Some animal
products are high in fat.  However, if one does not consume a modicum of
animal products, one must supplement one's diet for optimum health.  We
evolved as omnivores.  If a dietary regimen, such as veganism, requires
supplementation to avoid the increased risk for nutrient deficiencies, is
it superior?  I think not.

>Don't you think, if you really examine what you've
> been taught, that you are learning from a totally biased source when
> it comes to animal research? 

Again, you readily accept the notion that I am biased, but deny the
possibility of your own bias.
 
> How can animal research be proper and useful when animals used in
> laboratory experiments, pretty much any animal species, have totally
> different physiological and even psychological patterns?

I'm not sure what you mean by "psychological patterns," but I would argue
that animals are very much like us physiologically.  If you study
biochemistry and physiology, you will learn that non-human animals share
all of the same metabolic pathways as we do.  Likewise for hormones,
receptors, nervous systems, etc.  The similarities are much more profound
than the differences.

Granted, there are some differences, but they do not invalidate the results
of animal research.  Animal are not perfect models of human physiology, but
they are the best ones that we have.  Cell cultures and mathematical models
are also valuable, but they not truly alternatives to _in vivo_ research
models.  Would you argue to perform invasive experiments on humans instead?

>If monkeys
> are so close to us, why, when we try to give them AIDS does it not
> work?  We're not getting anywhere trying to mutate a seriously deadly
> disease (and thus run the risk of making it much MORE dangerous) on a
> different species.

You are off-base here.  No one is attempting to "mutate" the AIDS virus to
create better animal models.  The virus is quite capable of mutation on its
own.  That is part of what makes them so dangerous.  This why we yet have
no cure for the common cold.  This is why we must continually develop novel
vaccines for influenza.  Animals have and will play an important role in
medical research.

>Don't you think the millions of dollars spent on
> trying to make a monkey or any other animal get AIDS could better be
> spent trying to learn from the disease and prevent it, and treat it?  

How do you suggest that we "learn from the disease" without studying its
actions in living beings?  Should we perform vivisection on AIDS patients
in search of a cure?  Without the basic research performed on animal
retroviruses BEFORE the AIDS virus was discovered, we would have absolutely
no idea of how to treat or prevent it.

> Recently, transspecies organ donations (is that the proper term? I
> don't know) have been going on.  Babe Fe was one of the first, and
> just recently, a man died after having a baboon's liver transplanted
> in him.  This kindof experiment does NOT work.  Organs from other
> animal's bodies are just not compatible with the human body.  Our
> bodies try and fight them, and eventually this kills the human guinie
> pig.  I think this is horrible.  Not just putting one life on the
> line, but two.  Medical doctors KNOW that a human can't live with a
> baboon organ in its body, yet we keep trying and we keep killing.
> Baboons, and humans. 

These procedures are experimental, just as heart & kidney transplants were
experimental only a few decades ago.  The early recipients of these
transplanted organs suffered a higher rate of failure than today.  Many
difficulties were, however, worked out in animal models beforehand.

As I understand it, the man suffered liver failure from hepatitis.  He
could not receive a transplanted human liver because the virus would have
simply attacked the transplanted liver.  The human hepatitis virus will not
attack a baboon liver.

Is your opposition to this kind of treatment based on its failure in this
instance?  If the experiment was successful, would you support it?  Do you
consider a baboon's life and a human's life of equal intrinsic value?  If
so, can you justify forcing your opinion on other people?

> Those are just two examples off the top of my head. Let me find some
> information from AAVS or NEAVS and PETA, and then you can tell me what
> is incorrect about my information.

A common practice among people like you is to point to a couple of
failures, and to ignore the many successes of animal research.  Have you
ever heard of anyone dying from diphtheria, polio, smallpox, rabies, etc.? 
Animal research saves the lives of human and non-human animals.

> I haven't been able to read or post to news recently due to some
> problems with usenet.  By the way, is this getting out past University
> of MD at all?  

Seems OK to me.
 
> >I agree with Ted Feuerbach that this discussion and others like it belong
> >in TPA.  I will be happy to move this thread there now.  You and others
> >have "voted" to keep it here by your actions.
> 
> Believe me, there's a lot more discussion going on here than there
> could possibly be in TPA.  It's a sniper zone over there!

You really should monitor TPA and SMN if you are interested in getting both
sides of the story.  If RFV participants welcome this discussion, I will be
happy to keep it here.
 
> >> >If PETA members believe that medical research on animals is ethically
> >> >wrong, I suggest that they refuse to accept the "cruel" products of such
> >> >research just as they do for cosmetics or animal foods.  Then natural
> >> >selection will run its course, and there will ultimately be fewer animal
> >> >activists with which humanity must contend.
> 
> Well, PETA members already do eschew products using animal by-products
> and tested on animals.  That's a pretty basic step in being an
> ethically minded person.

This avoids the point.  If you truly believe that animal research is
worthless, why don't you simply refuse medical treatments that were
developed using animals?  Why do you and others want to force your minority
opinion on the majority?

>Getting involved in the process of exposing
> the problems with the animal research industry, and making that
> knowledge public, and trying to stop it, through demonstrations, civil
> disobedience, and through press releases is the next step.

You forgot to mention ALF terrorism.  Do you also support that?

>It's what
> the more radically minded people do, and that is what PETA is all about.
> I'm not saying that I agree totally with everything they do, I don't
> for that matter, but what they are trying to accomplish - the end to
> animal suffering, is something I DO believe in.  

What about the reduction of human suffering?
 
> >This is an oft-repeated claim, but I have never seen it proven.  The only
> >historical example of a society that accepted an official policy of animal
> >"rights" was Nazi Germany.  They weren't exactly on "the cutting edge of
> >humanity," though, like you, they thought that they were.
> 
> Huh?  Please explain that.  I know they tested on humans, often very
> cruel experiments on unwilling humans that they considered beneath
> them.

If you want to know more about Nazi animal protection, consult TPA.

--
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: rec.food.veg