From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:19:32 GMT

In article <C1Dxvv.4r4@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-240193124136@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> > In article <C1BvHz.JpK@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> >> BTW, I don't dispute the claim that animal experiments have 
> >> yielded potentially useful information.
> > 
> > Perhaps because you cannot.
> 
> It's obvious that I could dispute such a claim.

Not successfully.

>[...]
> >>I do, however, have 
> >> serious doubts about the claim that all such experiments are 
> >> "essential" or "necessary" or that their benefits outweigh their 
> >> harm.
> > 
> > Yes, we know.  You have suggested on numerous occasions that animal
> > experimentation and product testing are less than necessary.  However, you
> > have not provided information to prove these claims.
> 
> Yes, I have.

You have provided ONE reference, a newspaper article no less, to support
one claim regarding the Cat-shooting experiment. (BTW, did you see 60
minutes on this?)

You have provided no evidence to support your other claims.  See below.

>Your quibbling won't change history.

This is becoming ancient history by virtue of months of your inaction.

>Be that as it may,
> don't you think it's irrational to insist that every single animal 
> experiment ever conducted was "necessary" and "useful"?

I never insisted that "every single animal experiment ever conducted" is
"necessary" and "useful."  I don't even know about "every single animal
experiment ever conducted."  Do you?

I do insist that the examples that you have condemned are not "useless" and
"unnecessary" until you have proven them to be so.  You have proven
nothing.

> > For example:
> > 
> > I have been waiting months for you to provide evidence for your
> > chronological claim that the "early 80's" proposal for the beagle-drowning
> > experiment was made after the 1981 publication by Heimlich demonstrating
> > the efficacy of his technique on drowning humans.
> 
> You're quibbling, Martin.  What are you hoping to prove?

This is a very important point that you have ignored for months.  You
condemned an investigator for proposing an experiment in "the early 80's." 
You cited a 1981 publication by Heimlich to "prove" that the experiment was
unnecessary.  You have not proven that Heimlich's 1981 publication was
published at the time that the investigator submitted his/her proposal. 
You have ignored numerous reminders by me to provide such information.

> Lawrence Carter, director of the Health Care Consumer Network, reported
> in the January, 1991 issue of _PCRM Update_ that the Governor of Ohio
> and the mayor of Cincinnati had recently honored Heimlich by declaring
> September 11 as "Henry Heimlich Day" in honor of his humanitarian
> achievements.  Carter's report went on to describe Heimlich's opposition 
> to the proposed beagle experiments, and quoted Heimlich as saying, 
> 
>    "Most animal experimentation is useless...  It had 
>    already been proven by humans saved using the technique 
>    that the Heimlich maneuver was working.  Why would it 
>    be necessary to put dogs through cruel and useless 
>    experiments only to come to the same conclusion?" 
> 
> Do you think Heimlich is lying, Martin?

No, he's just ignorant about this issue.  Heimlich argues that "most animal
experimentation is useless," yet does not provide any proof for that claim.
 Do you support this claim?  If so, then let us see your proof.  If not,
would you agree that Heimlich is acting here as a mouthpiece for PCRM?

Heimlich does not even offer any proof that the ONE proposed experiment in
question was "useless" as proposed.  Neither, apparently, do you.

> > In addition, I'm waiting for you to offer some evidence for your claim that
> > the Ames test for bacterial mutagenicity is a suitable alternative for the
> > Draize test for ocular irritancy.
> 
> I've responded to this claim several times previously, Martin.

I'm not sure about that, but you have ignored this issue numerous times.

> 
> From Message-ID: <C0GzKK.9MD@wpg.com> date  7 Jan 1993 06:05:06 GMT
> ========================================================================
> > I am not the one who claimed that the Ames test is an "alternative" to the
> > Draize test.  You are.  The burden of proof is upon you.  You repeatedly
> > make this point to me, yet forget it when it is convenient. 
> 
> You're asking me to prove a point I didn't make, Martin.  The fact that
> the Ames test is useful to predict carcinogenicity isn't alterred by
> the fact that it may be unsuitable for other specific needs.
> Martin
> ========================================================================

You were wrong then and you are wrong now.  Consider the following excerpt:

From Message-ID: <Bxsp6F.FDG@wpg.com> date  16 Nov 1992 06:11:01 GMT
========================================================================

According to PETA, the CTFA has contributed more than $5 million
to the development of alternatives to draize testing alone since 
1981.  The authors of a recent book on the animal rights movement
(Jaspers and Nelkin) claim that the Soap and Detergent Association
has also invested in a program aimed at eliminating draize testing.

It seems clear that neither past nor future developments have
depended on P&G participation.  While P&G ought to be commended for
taking some positive steps in the right direction, I prefer
to give my business to competitors who are fully committed.

mh> Consider that your support of P&G might 
mh> help fund the breakthrough that ultimately allows animal testing 
mh> of consumer products to be eliminated or reduced.  

What sort of "breakthroughs" did you have in mind?  Would they include:

- the "cam" test, the "ames" test, the "agarose diffusion method", 
  and "topkat"
- "Eytex", developed by Ropak Industries
- "Neutral Red Bioassay" and "EpiPack", developed by Clonetics Corporation
- "Neoderm", developed by Marrow-Tech
- "Testskin", developed by Organogenesis

========================================================================

If you weren't implicitly claiming that the "breakthroughs" listed above
are "alternatives" to the Draize test or other test employed for cosmetics
(our topic of conversation at the time), then what, precisely, were you
claiming about them?

How do you propose that the Ames test, or any of the others listed above,
is an alternative to the Draize test of ocular irritancy?

> >>To illustrate the last point, take a look at the postings 
> >> over the past few days where supporters of animal experimentation 
> >> have stated that the murder of humans is ok if the perpetrator 
> >> can "get away" with the crime, or that human famine is ok as long 
> >> as they're not the ones who're starving.
> > 
> > I missed those.  What do they have to do with the issue of animal 
> > research?
> 
> Quite a bit.

Sorry, I don't see it that way.

>If someone's going to argue that animal research is 
> "good", it behooves us to make sure that his value judgments are 
> anchored in solid ground.

Likewise for someone who suggests that animal research is "bad."  I have
been trying to make such an assessment about you, but I cannot, because you
avoid my questions on this issue.  You have also repeatedly ignored a
similar question from James Hoskins.

If you, like Heimlich, believe that some animal research is bad, why?

For example, how many potential and actual human beneficiaries would you
deem necessary before Ed Taub's experiments with 17 monkeys would be
justified?  How many potential/actual victims of head trauma would be
required to justify the "cat-shooting" experiment that you denigrate?

>When a man says that animal research 
> is "good", and that fur trapping is "good", and that hunting is 
> "good", etc, etc, and then goes on to say that murder is "good" 
> (if he can get away with it), it raises serious doubts about his 
> ability to evaluate the impact that his choices have on other 
> beings.

My primary "quibble" with the animal "rights" movement is that, in opposing
animal experimentation, they are able to evaluate (and exaggerate) the
impact on the animal subjects, but they are apparently unable (or
unwilling) to assess the impact of its discontinuance on victims of human
disease.

Would you say that a person who supports ALF terrorism, or whose postings
beseech others to write letters of support for convicted arsonists has
his/her "value judgments anchored in solid ground?"

Would you say that such a person who performs or supports such actions
would be deficient in their ability to "evaluate the impact that his
choices have on other beings?"  

>[...]

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals