From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:30:24 GMT

In article <mhulsey-211292164750@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> In article <Bzn9Bw.IDB@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:

[...]

> Are you there?  Bob????  Rosemary?  Ted?  Steve?  Anyone?

Just my spur-of-the-moment opinions regarding questions about which 
whole books could be written ...


> Issue 1:  "errors" in the approval process
> 
> You have indicated that you are not opposed to animal research, but would
> like to consider experiments on a "case-by-case" basis.  ...

For some interesting examples of case-by-case evaluation, take a look
at the _Perspectives_on_Medical_Research_ series published by MRMC. 
Whether or not one agrees with some, all, or none of the evaluations,
this series of monographs nevertheless does provide some examples of
professional evaluations of specific experiments. 

> ...You've pointed to
> a couple of experiments such as the "cat-shooting" and "beagle-drowning"
> ones as examples of "worthless" animal experimentation. ...

I'm a little familiar with both of these, but I don't have references
at hand.  The cat shooting example is IMO particularly outrageous and
serves to highlight the need to abolish or at the very least apply a
much closer scrutiny to DOD animal experiments. 

> You have not yet
> provided evidence, as requested, to prove your claim that these experiments
> are questionable, but let us assume that they are for a moment.
> 
> If these two experiments represent a failure of the system, how would you
> modify the _status quo_ in order to protect the interests of human and
> non-human animals?  If you and others cannot suggest effective changes to
> the present system, would you agree that it is the best we can do?

No, I think we can do better: (1) improved oversight or possibly
abolition of DOD experiments; (2) involvement of animal rights people in
reviews of other experiments, (these people would be professionals:
doctors, nurses, lab workers, etc., i.e. types having familiarity with
and training in the activities that occur in labs), (3) sunshine laws
that permit and make possible frequent unannounced visits to labs, again
by professionals who know what to look for.  

Also I would look closely at shifting funds into research for
alternatives, at acceleration of the certification process and of use of
these alternatives, at increased emphasis on preventive care, and at
replacement of animal models for mutagenic diseases with mathematical
and computer models. 

> 
> I designing procedures for the approval of animal experiments, we could be
> stringent or lax.  If we are stringent, we would prevent needless animal
> exploitation, but we might disapprove an experiment that could save many
> human lives.  If we are lax, humans are well-protected, but more "bad"
> experiments, such as the examples above, would be approved.  Obviously, we
> need a happy medium that provides reasonable protection for human and
> non-human animals.  As a proponent of animal "rights," what do you feel
> would constitute reasonable protection for both?

ANY approach will cost lives.  Even the animal welfare laws may cost
some human lives, yet you've expressed support for them.  We have
limited resources to deal with massive needs.  There has been talk of
formal health care rationing.  A big change I would favor is much more
emphasis on prevention.  A problem avoided is better than a problem
incurred and dealt with after the fact. 

I also question the wisdom behind some of the "glamorous" high-publicity
experiments (e.g. xenotransplants).  Are they ever likely to be
available on a sufficient scale to justify the immense cost? Wouldn't
the same level of resources applied in other ways actually save MORE
lives?  Aren't these expenditures costing lives by funnelling scarce
resources into areas unlikely to yield a significant return per dollar?

> 
> Out of the thousands of animals experiments proposed and performed every
> year, how many "bad" ones should we expect or tolerate?  Would failing to
> perform an experiment critical for human health be worse than performing an
> animal experiment that later proved unnecessary?

Part of the answer to this centers around the relatively limited
resources available to meet mounting health problems as the population
ages.  It could be argued that EVERY experiment not done costs lives. 
Yet a lot of experiments are currently not done due to insufficient
funds.  In our decisions about which experiments should be supported, it
seems only right to factor in not just the effects on humans but also
those on animals, who are in important ways not different from humans. 

> 
> If "errors" in any approval process are inevitable, what purpose does it
> serve to point out a couple of "bad" experiments while ignoring the
> thousands of "good" ones?  Would you have us increase the stringency of the
> approval process so that the potential for animal suffering is decreased at
> the expense of human suffering?

I'm not sure if the "stringency" needs to be increased, as much as the
overall philosophy should be re-thought and the oversight process
revised.  I don't wish to add any further layers of review to those
already existing ones, but I wouldn't mind permitting AR proponents
(professionals with some expertise) to conduct unannounced inspections
of any lab that performs animal research. 

It would also be interesting to have unannounced visits by members of
the press, who could produce videotapes for general viewing by the
public on news programs or in documentaries.  The Gennarelli tapes
(mentioned in another thread) showing actual lab activities demonstrate
the usefulness of candid tapings.  I don't know how feasible press
access is, but it's sometimes amazing how the realistic possibility
(threat?) of a little exposure and publicity can produce positive
change. 

> 
> Issue 2:  Prevention versus treatment
> 
> You previously, and correctly, pointed out that much human disease results
> from our own stupidity, e.g. from smoking, poor diets or environmental
> contamination.
> 
> Are you suggesting that we should not try to save the lives of people who
> are "stupid?"  Would you, for example, allow heart patients to die for
> their
> "stupidity" rather than sacrifice a few pigs or dogs to develop a new heart
> valve, etc?

I would never say that someone suffering due to his own stupidity should
go untreated on that basis.  Even so-called "stupid" people are
ethically deserving of consideration.  However it is very frustrating
that so many animals have suffered and died purportedly to find cures
and treatments for blatantly preventable health problems. 

Long ago I would have stopped any research trying to "prove" or
"disprove" that smoking causes disease.  Any further data could be
collected in epidemiological and clinical studies using human smokers. 
I would end any animal research (either privately or publicly funded)
which aims to further study the hazards of known risky behavior like
smoking, overdrinking,.... 

> 
> Would you consider animal research aimed at diseases that are not
> "stupidity"-related to be justified?

In some cases, probably...until alternatives are found.

> 
> Issue 3:  "Tainted" information
> 
> I previously suggested that antivivisectionists should eschew medical
> treatments, that were developed using animals.  You responded that
> information cannot be "tainted" by its method of acquisition.  Do you
> presume that there is no other reason that a person would refuse medical
> care?  For example, do you propose that Christian Scientists refuse medical
> care because they believe the information is tainted?

In answer to your two questions: No, No. 

Along these lines: first, animal rights people pay taxes that support
government-funded research.  IF there are benefits, why should these
people forego these benefits, which they have partially funded?

Secondly, many AR people believe that if their entire agenda were
adopted, there would be MUCH less overall illness, yet they're faced
with existence under the current system.  They believe that they're
paying enough price by foregoing benefits that would accrue from a
non-(or reduced)-animal experimentation approach.  To ask or expect them
to forego any lesser benefits from the existing system which they
view as inferior (but must coexist with) does not seem to make sense. 

> 
> Issue 4: Public input to the approval process
> 
> James Hoskins recently created a hypothetical scenario whereby usenet
> participants sat on a "Lawrence Review Board" to consider a hypothetical
> experiment.  After several weeks, the LRB has been unable render a decision
> on ONE experiment.  Considering this example, and considering that ACUC
> committees often consider DOZENS of proposals at one sitting, do you agree
> that greater input from the public on ACUC panels might result in
> unnecessary delays in the approval process?  Would it serve any purpose,
> other than an obstructive one, to have animal "rights" activists on such
> committees?

I believe that it would serve a purpose, if the activists chosen were
qualified professionals.  I'm thinking of people like Neal Barnard,
Stephen Kaufman, Irwin Bross, Eric Dunayer, Donald Barnes, Christopher
D. Smith, Brandon Reines, etc.  There are many others. 

> 
> Issue 5: Relative intrinsic value
> 
> What do you feel to be the relative intrinsic value of a dog as compared to
> a human?  Do you feel that your own species deserves *any* special
> protection?  ...

I take the approach that those closer to me are more valuable.  My wife
and immediate family are more valuable than other humans.  I would give
special protection to them.  But my dogs and cats are more valuable than
Saddam Hussein and Jeffrey Dahmer.  I acknowledge that this is not an
approach which could be used to formulate policy and that's why (partly)
there has developed over the centuries this notion of rights...to
protect others who would receive lower priority in my own egocentric
scheme but yet can not be objectively said to possess lesser worthiness. 
So all things being equal (which they seldom, if ever, are), I would
tend to prefer those nearest to me and those of my own kind.  But that
doesn't make it necessarily right. 

I don't know how to objectively assign levels of value to all the
various forms of sentient life.  But I always find it interesting that
most spokesmen for animal research fall into this utilitarian analysis. 
"How many dogs should we kill to save one human?" I don't know.  You
tell me. 

If you answer: an infinite number - then you're saying that no dogs have
any value except in their ability to serve humans, and you should oppose
even the existing animal "welfare" restrictions.  If you answer N - then
you're conceding that dogs do have value and therefore are worthy of
ethical consideration (rights?).

> ...In a hypothetical scenario, would you sacrifice the life of a
> dog to save a human life?

Yes.  This type of question is dealt with often by AR advocates.  See
for example Regan's discussion of the four men and a dog in the boat
which can only support four lives (Regan, Tom, _The_Case_For_Animal_
Rights_).


An aside on Singer: People who have read him closely are obviously aware
that he supports a utilitarian view not a true rights view, even though
he is often perceived as the father of the modern animal rights
movement.  This was even mentioned a while back in an issue of Animals'
Agenda, and I mentioned it in a post many months ago.  That's why even
some animal rights advocates (I've seen it on ARNET) use quotes around
"animal rights." I found it interesting from the start that you also had
adopted that convention, albeit for a different reason. 

But I think you're meandering down a dead end with this line of attack
that the concept of "animal rights" is inane simply because Singer
didn't promote it in his book.  There are wide philosophical differences
among those who consider themselves part of the AR movement.  I stand by
my previous claim "stolen" from a company newsletter where I once worked. 
Shown here out of context, the claim was a quote from the treasurer of a
local AR group: "We are united in the struggle against the most
egregious and the most unnecessary cruelties on all fronts." IMO this is
the one valid universal statement about AR people. 

---
Robert Black black
@serum.kodak.com - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.  
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals