From: hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:34:04 GMT

Ted Robinson writes....

>Ted Robinson (quoting Ted Altar) writes:
>
>>>CONCLUSION: The Banting and Best dog experiments were worthless. The 
>>real
>>>breakthrough was the simple purification of insulin by Collip through 
>>normal
>>>biochemical methods.
>
>Martin writes: 
>> Your conclusion is absolutely incorrect.  Without the encouraging 
>> results obtained with dogs, there would have been no support for 
further 
>> refinement of extracts or human testing.
>
>Perhaps, perhaps not. Even allowing for the corrections and comments 
>discussed in your article, this history shows that one can reasonably 
imagine 
>that insulin could've been purified without the dog experiments. While 
they 
>may've provided some encouragement, similar encouragement could've 
easily 
>been available from other sources if the world at the time proscribed 
the dog 
>experiments.

Don't forget that your animal-free scenario *also* depends on Collip 
being able to purify insulin from human tissues.  If you can you give me 
*any* contemporary example where a previously unknown endocrine factor 
was isolated from human organs, I might be more likely to believe you.

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 is *no* example, as you propose for insulin, 
where a previously unknown endocrine factor was discovered, 
serendipitously or otherwise, using human organs such as pancreas (I do 
recall examples using placenta, an expendable organ.)

>Ultimately, of course, we can never really know the answer to 
>the question: "what if ...?", we can only conjecture.

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*?

There are few examples in medicine where animal techniques have been 
replaced by effective non-animal alternatives.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.

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.

>Ted Altar's article 
>clearly (IMO) shows that it's very reasonable to imagine reaching the 
>same results without the dog experiments.

Ted's article shows nothing "reasonable" to me.  It is not a history, 
but a fairy tale.  It's entire thesis is based on falsehood and 
conjecture.  This article used inaccurate arguments to come up with 
false conclusions. I don't see how a reasonable person can defend it or 
its conclusion that the Nobel-winning experiment of Banting & Best was 
"worthless."

If I were a cellular "rights" activist, you could justfully argue that 
certain breakthroughs in cellular physiology can only be accomplished 
with cultured cells.  Using your line of argument, I would then say that 
we couldn't *really* determine that such a breakthrough could not be 
determined using whole animals instead.  You could then argue that the 
biochemical "noise" produced by the chemical and nervous interactions 
between organs would confound the results.  To support your argument, 
you would suggest that if whole animals were the most effective way to 
investigate cellular physiology, why haven't most "breakthroughs" in 
cellular physiology been found with whole animals instead of cell 
cultures?

Research techniques using cultured cells and whole animals are not 
mutual "alternatives" as PCRM suggests. One is not more "effective" than 
the other.  Each paradigm has its own strengths and weaknesses.

When one is concentrating on specific aspects of cellular physiology 
such as signal transduction or gene expression, cell cultures (in cases 
where the cells of interest can be cultured) are required.  When one 
wishes to study the biochemical nuances that make animals more than 
simply a pile of cells, whole animals are required.

Whole animals have greater intrinsic value than cells, so I would never 
argue to sacrifice animals where cells would do.  Likewise, because 
humans have greater intrinsic value than non-human animals, I would not 
sacrifice human lives to save the lives of rats, rabbits, etc.

If, for the sake of argument, I presume what you have not proven, would 
you answer a few questions for me?

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?

Would you be willing to tell all of the HIV-positive people out there 
today that we should avoid using recently-developed animal models to 
develop a treatment or cure for AIDS?  Would they find it comforting 
that, in a few additional years, someone *might* find a treatment or 
cure for AIDS without using animals?

How many humans would you allow to die in order to save a single dog or 
monkey?  If you were suffering from an incurable disease, would you feel 
the same way?

>Martin writes: 
>>>> If you and your colleagues cannot do without the benefits of animal 
>>>> experimentation, then it is not, by definition, needless. 
>
>Ted Robinson writes:
>>>Half true. This would only show that the benefits are useful, not 
that 
>>>vivisection was necessary to derive them.  
>> 
>Martin writes:
>> You were unsuccessful above in proving that vivisection was not 
required 
>> for the development of a treatment for diabetes. 
>
>1. You were equally unsuccessful in proving that vivisection WAS 
required.

We could argue indefinately about what might have happened.  I believe 
that we should instead consider what would be *likely* to happen.  In 
this and other cases, the proof is in the results, which you cannot 
deny.  You cannot provide a tenable scenario for this breakthrough that 
doesn't involve animals.

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.

Consider the following quotes from Partners in Discovery (part of the 
NIH):

"Nothing but research on animals will provide us with the knowledge that 
will make it possible for us, one day, to dispense with the use of them 
altogether." - Sir Peter Medawar, Nobel laureate in immunology, 1960

"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?

>2. You're not addressing my comment. I'm not (at this point) denying 
the 
>ultimate claim (that vivisection was necessary), merely the logic you 
used to 
>reach this conclusion. You now seek to change your logic, which I'll 
take as 
>an implicit admission that you don't care to defend your first 
statement 
>above.

I "seek to change" nothing.  I stand by my original argument, but not 
the extensions that you & Russell repeatedly tried to impose.  If you 
cannot or will not refuse or forsake something, then it is not 
"unnecessary" to you, and you are silly to suggest otherwise.  Before 
questioning my logic yet again, please provide a logical proof that my 
statement is false.

I'm not being dogmatic here (pun intended), but you cannot provide a 
feasible animal-free scenario for the contributions of Banting & Best, 
Collip or the 55 other Nobel laureates I mentioned.  Mind you, these are 
not the only examples, but merely the ones deemed by the Nobel committee 
to be most valuable for humankind.

>Martin writes:
>> Would you care to make 
>> a similar attempt for the other 55 Nobel prize winning experiments in 
>> Physiology and Medicine that also involved the use of animals? 
>
>Not really. Sounds like a lot of work and it would probably lead to the 
>same argument over and over.

Yes, and you would lose the argument over and over.  Forget the 55 
examples.  Why don't you instead consider any of the last 9 Nobel prizes 
in physiology or medicine since 1984, ALL of which required the use of 
animals?  Please note that the proportion of Nobel-winning research 
using animals is not decreasing despite the existence of so-called 
"effective alternatives."  Again, is PCRM more qualified than the Nobel 
committee to determine which research is most "effective?"

>Our basic argument seems to be that you think that if something is 
>ubiquitous, then it's proven to be necessary. I believe it's 
>just proven to be ubiquitous. 

You are trying to put words into my mouth.  I *never* implied any 
relationship between need and ubiquity.  Indeed, if you folks have your 
way, needed experiments might instead become rare.  You are slipping 
into Lawrencian maneuvers here, which indicates the weakness of your 
position.

>[...]
>> I simply offered that animal activists 
>> look silly arguing that animal research is unnecessary if they are 
>> unwilling to forsake its benefits.
>
>No, you've said more than that. From a previous article of yours:
> 
>> If you are opposed to animal testing, you should simply refuse to buy 
>> any product that was tested using animals.   

Your fallacy here is that you, like all of your fellow activists I have 
encountered, cannot distinguish animal testing and animal research.  The 
terms are not synonymous, so don't use I said about "testing" to make a 
point about "research."

At a debate on "animal rights" sponsored the UGA student union last 
spring, a PETA representative named Brebner (I cannot recall her first 
name) argued PETA's case against Kathleen Marquardt from PPF.  During 
the question and answer session, a colleague of mine, Verna Burden (a 
third generation vegetarian), asked Brebner whether "animal rights" 
activists should refuse medical treatments developed using animals.  
Brebner indicated, as accurately as I can recall, that it would be a 
personal decision, and added that it would be like the decision to 
purchase cruelty-free shampoo.

In the case of animal testing of cosmetic products, there is an 
*allegedly* viable alternative.  According to Bambiphilic dogma, you 
should refuse "cruel" products and instead buy the so-called "cruelty-
free" alternative.

If you believe that there is an "alternative" to animal research, and if 
you believe that animals and humans are of equal value, why would you 
and your associates not take a similar action and refuse the "cruel" 
products of vivisection?  It wouldn't matter if we subsequently lost 
you, because we saved an equally valuable animal.

[I'm making an assumption here.  If you *do not* believe that animals 
and humans have equal value, why are you opposed to animal research?]

Would the inability or unwillingness to be a devout Bambiphile and 
refuse the "cruel" products of vivisection suggest instead that there 
are no genuine alternatives?

Puh-leeease, I am not making any claim here about tainted information, 
and I am not suggesting any moral imperative.

>This is the statement I'm asking you to explain. Perhaps by "should" 
you 
>meant "lest you look silly to those who haven't really thought it 
through".

No, I don't believe I meant that.  Nice try, though.  See above.

>> The unwillingness of animal activists to forsake medical benefits
>> derived from animal experimentation indicates, according to my 
"unusual"
>> logic, that the experiments are not needless or unnecessary.
>
>Well, we agree on the "unusual" part I guess.

I was being sarcastic.  I don't really think that I am illogical here.  
Can you provide a logical proof that my statement is illogical?

>> If you regard the animal models that have been developed to tackle 
these
>> problems as unnecessary and unethical, then you antivivisectionists 
out
>> there need to quit whining and start exploring alternative ideas.  
Get
>> your butts into the lab like we do, and work long hours testing your
>> ideas.  May the best idea win.
>
>150 years ago you might've said: if you think slavery is unethical and 
>unnecessary, get out there and invent a robot to replace them. And 
until you 
>do, we're not changing things.

Your analogy is poor.  More appropriately, in this analogy, I might have 
said, get out there and pick the cotton yourself.  Do you genuinely 
believe that medical research using animals is as unethical as slavery? 
If so, why?

>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

>[...]
>One of my goals on this newgroup is to explain AR ideas and beliefs to 
those 
>that may find them threatening. Quite often these people are looking 
for any 
>excuse not to listen.

I have seen no evidence from you or anyone else here that would suggest 
that the notion of animal "rights" is not threatening to humankind.  If 
one accepts the philosophy of animal "rights," biomedical research using 
animals for human benefit is unthinkable.

If people are looking for an excuse not to "listen" to your arguments, 
they wouldn't read your posts.

>Similarly, they often display a strong, visceral 
>reaction to PETA and PCRM. Thus, there's a strong down side to being 
publicly 
>associated with these groups on this newsgroup, at least if you want 
people 
>to really "hear" what you're trying to say. The upside (advertising 
these 
>orgs) is minimal, and isn't part of my goal here, so it's no wonder 
that I 
>(and presumably others) prefer to do what we can to keep the group 
focussed 
>on logic.

Why don't we instead focus on the politics of animals as the name of 
this newsgroup implies?  If you want to "focus on logic" shouldn't you 
try sci.logic?

Where else, if not here, would the "upside" be greater than the 
"downside?"  If the "downside" of admitting PETA & PCRM membership is 
greater than the "upside," why are you a member?  

>Similarly, this newsgroup is plagued by ad hominem arguments. I'd 
prefer to 
>let my words stand on their own. By including affiliations, I'd be 
implicitly 
>agreeing that the person behind the words is important, thereby 
furthering 
>the ad hominem orientation of this newsgroup. This was why I was 
reluctanct 
>to respond to your challenge, but finally I got pissed off enough 
(which I'm 
>sure was your goal) that I said something.

What advantage would I gain by pissing you off?  

I submit that you would prefer to neglect indicating that you are a 
member of PETA and PCRM so that you won't have to continuously avoid 
embarrassing questions about their misanthropic positions.

--
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