From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:55:35 GMT


[I canceled a previous version of this article, because of typos.  My
apologies if it shows up twice on your system]

From article <mhulsey-010193075838@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C05AqB.3z8@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>>[...]
>> > Gerone's "hands on" experience with these monkeys months after the Taub
>> > incident has absolutely no bearing on whether Taub treated his monkeys in a
>> > cruel fashion.  Gerone's assessment of Taub is an opinion that is obviously
>> > not based on the legal record.  He is, in this instance, acting as an
>> > apologist for PETA.  
>> 
>> You're jumping to conclusions here -- bigtime.  
> 
> Not really.  Gerone's opinion of Taub is not consistent with the legal
> record.  It is consistent with PETA's account of the events.

Reread the statement, Martin, and try to think about it critically
without bending and shaping the evidence to make it fit your theories:

========================================================================
... Scientists  who  work  with  animals now know that they are being
scrutinized,  and  they act accordingly. "Today, you'd never see conditions
like  the Silver Spring Monkeys because people are more conscious of this,"
says Gerone. "Ten years ago, there was a lot less consciousness on the part
of researchers about how they cared for animals. The animal rights movement
has  done a great deal to increase the consciousness of people working with
animals."

see The Washington Post, February 24, 1991, FINAL Edition
========================================================================

It's hardly a condemnation of Taub.  Rather, it's a statement about
growing awareness in the research community.

>> > Despite being targeted and set up by Pacheco, Taub was
>> > fully exhonorated of all cruelty charges.  THAT is what Gerone should say.
>> 
>> Thanks for telling us what people ought to think and say, Martin.  
> 
> That is, if Gerone wants to tell the truth, he should say that Taub was
> fully exhonorated.  Of course, he is otherwise free to say anything he
> likes.

Once again, thanks for telling us what people ought to think and say,
but if he's going to tell the whole truth, don't you think he should
point out that the final case against Taub was dismissed on a legal
technicality?

>> Most of the animal researchers whom I know personally seem to 
>> think that the conditions of animals in laboratories have 
>> improved substantially over the last decade, largely because of 
>> the Silver Spring Monkey case.  Are they "apologists" for PETA, 
>> Martin?
> 
> No.  I agree that the SSM case heightened awareness on both sides.  Anyone
> who is yet convinced that Taub was cruel to his monkeys is sucking up to
> PETA's propaganda machine.  The amendments to the AWA also deserve some
> credit for improved conditions in animal labs.

Perhaps.  Why don't you name some of the anti-AR groups that you
support and tell us about their stand re: animal welfare legislation?

> 
>> >>[...]
>> I'm critical of everything that I read, Martin... including materials
>> published by PETA.  Yet you've cited the CFAAR article as a reliable
>> source on many occasions without bothering to mention that it was
>> written by Taub himself?  Why not?  Was the authorship an unimportant
>> detail?
> 
> I withheld nothing.  I do not always cite authors as parts of references I
> give, unless they are books.  I gave this info immediately when first
> asked.

Some of your readers would have been more critical of your "evidence"
had they realized that it was written by the principal player, Martin.

> If you would question this article because it was written by Taub, would
> you also question an account written by Pacheco?  

Of course.  I'm just as critical of the information published by PETA 
as I am critical of the information published by Taub and Martin 
Hulsey.  In fact, I've corresponded with PETA on several occasions to 
complain about the lack of documentation in many of their articles.  
You, on the other hand, seem to be ready and willing to accept any
arguments that support your ideology.  

> If you will compare
> Taub's article with Pacheco's chapter in Singer's book (you know, the guy
> that you falsely claimed to support animal "rights"),  ...

Unanswered question #8:

Do you have any proof to demonstrate that I made "false claims" about
Singer's position?

> you will find that
> Taub's article is based on court testimony.  Pacheco's account of events is
> refuted by seven individuals who testified under oath at Taub's trial. 
> This includes an official of the USDA who made unannounced inspections in
> Taub's lab.

Do you have any proof, apart from Taub's assertions, to support this 
claim?   

The reason I'm asking is that a previous contributor to 
talk.politics.animals claimed that he had met Taub personally on 
several occasions and that Taub had stated that neither he nor 
his attorneys had a transcript of the trial, and for this reason,
were obliged to rely on their recollection of events.  This weakness 
was cited as the cause of the "misunderstanding" that led to Katie 
McCabe's erroneous allegations in the infamous Washingtonian 
article.  

>> BTW, the Washington Post article that I cited was written by a WP 
>> reporter, Peter Carlson, and not by Alex Pacheco.
> 
> I never implied otherwise.  I implied that the _Washington Post_ did not
> read the opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals when writing their story.

How do you know, Martin?

Unanswered question #9:

Is it reasonable for a "scientist" to make unsupported statements about
the background, motives, intellectual resources, etc, of unknown individuals?

>> > mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
>> > Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
>> 
>> Nice signature, Martin.  Why don't you tell us again about your
>> efforts to have your usenet postings subjected to "peer-review"?
> 
> I have already covered this.  Are you trying to imply dishonesty on my
> part?  Why don't you stick to animal issues such as my unanswered
> questions?  For example, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Ames
> test for bacterial mutagenicity is a satisfactory "alternative" for the
> Draize test of ocular irritancy.

Since you posed the question, why don't you answer it?  While you're at
it, why don't you list all the scientific complaints that have been
levied at the draize test since it was first introduced in US product
testing programs? 

> My peers did not have the time to review my posts, which became much more
> frequent (largely, thanks to you) than I originally anticipated.  The
> system was not ideal because it was not blind review.  Besides, the process
> of "opponent review" is equally effective.  Don't you agree?

I agree that you have some silly ideas about usenet as well as the
peer review process.  Since you seem to think that "peer" review would
enhance your credibility, I'm wondering if I should have my peers conduct
a review of my postings.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals