From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:56:43 GMT

myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	I'm a member of the public, and it doesn't repulse me.  Strike one.
>You are certainly one barbaric, cold blooded member of your public.

	Thank you.  I prefer the term "practical," but if you figure I
am barbaric and cold-blooded, that's fine with me.  As we've already
seen, I'm not particularly convinced of the validity of your opinions.
See, animal-testing doesn't repulse me.  Neither does eating animals.
Do you think I'd be repulsed if I'd seen the process?  Not only do I
usually kill, gut, clean, cook, and then eat animals, I've also raised
them commercially for slaughter.  I've *seen* what happens and *lived*
the lifestyle.  Have you?  I'm still not repulsed.

>>	It could be that we simply believe animals to be quite good as
>>research subjects.  If you can name, and exhibit, a better specimen
>>you will be a *very* rich person in spite of saving animals.  Strike two.

>Wrong. Alternatives do exist, but they all cost significantly more.

	Then why do you expect for that alternative to be used to
the exclusion of all else?

>Worse, "prior results" all involve animals, and there's a tremendous
>inertia and reluctance to switch over to the non-animal alternative,
>because results will be difficult to correlate to prior research data.
>Again, this simply means more effort is necessary initially, hence
>requiring even more money.

	Translated: the computer models may not fit what has been learned
by animal studies, hence we'll need to to take more time, effort, and
money to find out which is correct and modify the computer model.

	I've got some rather unsettling news for you, but though animal
testing has resulted in many failures, it has also resulted in many, many
successess.  Things tested on animals that pass are not given the go-ahead
just because a rabbit liked it; they are given the go-ahead only after
humans have been found to prosper from it.  Likewise, shitloads of rabbits
dying for no apparent reason often justifies testing on humans in order
to verify things.  You may not hear much about this, but then again you
probably haven't spent years on a hospital floor where the patients
don't leave by the front door, either.  It's not uncommon, and it is
not at all anything that can be done using a computer model.

	Another hint: we've discussed this already, but before you can
make a computer model of something you need incredibly vast and accurate
information on that thing.  The human body is just too vast, complex,
and the biology too illogical for a computer model to be more than a
first-step test.  Beyond that, we need living organisms.  This might
mean molds or bacterium, it might mean rats, it might mean humans.  If
you're qualified to decide, I'm honestly suprised you aren't on such a
board and providing evidence to substantiate your claims.  Russell
giving megabytes of references notwithstanding (thanks, Russ!), I spent
years on hospital floors with the terminally ill, and learned in some
depth how people I knew and cared for were guinea pigs so that others
might live after they died.  Another model?  The single-cell organisms
are simple enough the computer model stands a chance of emulating them.
That the best in the business can barely model a cockroach is testament
to how flawed this assertation is.  Would you care to offer a better
research tool?  Tell ya what, if you can please e-mail it to me -- I've
always wanted to be filthy rich.

>>	And you kindly forgot that the AT community is not who he is
>>talking to.  It's the public.  Strike three.
>Again, if you're trying to speak on behalf of the human public, then
>I must be from Mars, just dropping by this week for a brief look.

	Glad to meet ya, Gronk.  How's life on the Red Planet?  Come
up with anything new in the medical field lately?

>>>w95_cook, you and others like you simply don't have the guts to 
>>>admit that animal testing is, in fact, inhumanity on a gross scale.
>>>You know it.  But you won't say it. 
>>	I've got the guts to say that I believe you are wrong, and
>>that you're way out of your depth.  Judging from all the evidence
>>you've supplied here, you'd be out of your depth anywhere the sidewalk
>>was wet.  Get this, pal, I don't believe what you believe.  Live with it.

>This is priceless. You call someone out of his depth when he suggests
>that treating animal cruelly is inhamane and must stop?

	I note you never said this.  I called you out of your depth
because you insinuated that medical testing was cruel, inhumane, and
must be stopped.  You provided no alternatives, and no evidence to
back up your generalized claim.  When you can do so, come back and
talk to me.  Please bear in mind that I am also firmly in favor of
concealed carry of firearms for the law-abiding public because only
a trifling number use these firearms for illegal purposes, and are held
responsible once they do so.  Link that with illegal and immoral medical
research and you'll see how innane it is to shut down the entire
operation that produces results because of a few who are unethical.

> Just what does
>that attitude have to do with one's "depth"? Your lack of depth is truly
>showing, since you're refuting arguments without ever checking into the
>facts yourself.

	"Without ever checking into the facts myself?"  Please ask Russ
for the details of why I spent several years as a constant figure on
the fourth floor of Mercy Hospital in Council Bluffs, Ia.; if he does
not recollect all the details, please e-mail me and I'll provide them to
you.  For a short summary:

	My father had kidney cancer.  He was one of 12 documented cases
at the time.  He did not respond to the standard chomotherapy or cobalt
treatments of the time, and was given 3 months to live.  Through the
use of experimental chemotherapy developed on rats, rabbits, apes, and
other animals, his life was extended to four years.  Quite a lot of
valuable data was taken, tests performed, and suffering done.  In the
end, he died a lingering and painful death.  I'm talking a constant
morphine IV drip, a 175lb man weighing less than 70lbs (as I remember),
and over 4" shorter as his body consumed his now-useless legs.  I'm
also talking about 125 pills *PER DAY* for the chemotherapy, and the
loss of bodily control.  Months before he died, he couldn't even
swallow, let alone talk well.  The cancer had spread to his bones,
his head, his mouth, his liver, his lungs, and his blood.

	Do you remember 6th grade?  How would you like to see a man
be only as tall as you, much weaker, and living his life from a
hospital bed, who happened to only be 27 years your elder at that
time?  It ain't a pretty sight.  Be that as it may, the drugs that
prolonged his life, and made it more tortuous, have saved countless
others.  My father isn't alone here.  11 other kidney cancer victims
played their part, as did hundreds if not thousands of rats, rabbits,
apes, or what have you.  Was it worth it?

	In a word, Yes.  See, I know Ryan Sullivan.  A nice kid, only
13 or so when struck with the same cancer.  He survived, and is now
nearing age 30 with no recurrence.  He's cured.

	I won't go so far as to say an entire species is worth the
life of Ryan Sillivan, but many hundreds of lab-bred animals, to
me, are.

	If you cannot understand this, I sincerely hope you are never
in a position to witness it.  It doesn't make for the easy, clear-cut
answers you seem to find, and I'd hate to subject you to having to
make unclear or even painful choices between well-deserving causes.


	Follow-ups concerning my father to /dev/null -- I've talked
about it enough already.  Other questions answered as normal.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>