From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:19:31 GMT

In article <Bx8A99.DuL@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Larwence writes:
>rl> If you have any evidence to support the claim that PETA, as an 
>rl> organisation, is absolutely opposed to all animal research, 
>rl> please post it.  If you have any evidence to support the claim 
>rl> that the leadership of PETA is absolutely opposed to all animal 
>rl> research, please post that as well.  
>
>From article <1992Nov3.170733.1016@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>gp> Excerp from UNC Daily Tar Heel (Jan. 24, 1990) 
>gp>    "We are opposed to ALL animal research." said Jon Tracy
>gp>     spokesperson for the national organization People for the
>gp>       Ethical Treatment of Animals. (Stress on All is mine.)
>gp>       
>
>Your quotations seemed convincing to me.  Be that as it may, I 
>decided to contact PETA for confirmation.  I faxed a copy of 
>your article to them yesterday afternoon, but haven't received a 
>response from their public relations officer.  


I'm sure you will inform me of the reply.

>
>I was immediately successful, however, in making contact with Joel 
>Newman at PCRM who made the following statement:
>
>    PCRM promotes alternatives to animal research and encourages
>    higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in animal 
>    research.  We also oppose unethical use of humans in medical
>    research.
>
>This reconfirms the prior statements made by Ted Robinson and Bob
>Black, and negates the claim made previously by Martin Hulsey.

Russel i never mentioned thePCRM but now that you have brought  it up.
First of all I don't recall Martin's "claim".  But he did point out the
the previous goal cited for PCRM contained vague statements.
In addition I feel he makes the point, as I have with the above quote of
Jon Tracy, that what an organization proposes as a goal does not alwways
show the whole picture.  That's what makes these organization so
dangerous.PETA's "official goals" are probably not too disimilar from the
objectives stated above for PCRM.  This leads prospective supporter into
the organization. (Hey, that's what they are there for is to promote thier
cause.)
In addition as a scientist I agree with the above statement as it
stands.(Although I do not believe it encompasses PCRM's entire position).
In fact, I am certain there  are a number of  scientist who would agree.
We are not bent on the infliction of pain and anguish.  As a group there is
nothing sadomasicistic about us.  (Though I am uncertain about the tech
down the hall that always is in leather.  But I digress.)  We are human.
And in so being we are Humane.  I know of noone that likes to see an
animal in pain.
Concerning developement of alternative methods.  Hey, great  idea.If you
 come up with aa valid reliable system let us know.  WE as a community are
 constantly trying new approaches to answer the questions we feel are
 important.  Animla research is slow , combersome and expensive.  But, for
 now is is our only chioce.  Other methods such as computer modeling
 tissue culture (By the way were do you think the tissue come from?)and
 clinical observations.  But there are some answers that can only come
 from stringently controled animal models.

>I have three questions:
>
>1) Do non-human animals have any personal worth that ought to be taken
>   into consideration?  Or, are they merely "automata", as many 
>   behaviorists still believe?

I'm not sure which behavioralist you are refering to?  Nor what you
concider personal worth.  I'll ask a tougher question. Let's not fuck
around. Do animals have right's?  Every day in the world millions of animals "in the wild" further
their own chances for suvival through the use of other animals. (If you
have a problem with Darwin E-mail me, and we'll talk about it) In the same
in the same way I use other animals to benifit human and non-human
health.In the wild there are no "rights" Rights are a human concoction.
Why should we apply them to non-human animals.  

However, I do feel a personal responsibility to treat animals as humanely as
possible.But maybe that's just because I'm such a nice guy.  I'm sure you will point out the differences here.
.
>2) Would you be inclined to support any use of animals that satisfies
>   some human need or desire, eg for fur, food, amusement, etc?

As long as the need is legitamate and can not be obtained adiquately  by
other means, yes.

>3) Among the many thousands of projects that your cohorts have proposed
>   over the years, have you come across any that you would consider to be
>   wasteful in terms of animal suffering?
>
Boy, that's a loaded question Russel.  What sort of Frankensteinish
experiment are you going to pull from 40 yrs ago.  Present day research is
such that I could confidently say no.  But, I can defend anchent
scientific history.  The guards and review proccesses in place today
prevent funding  of "wasteful" experimentation.  In addition, there is
simple not enough money in research to be throughing away on projects the
that are not scientically justifiable. 

                                             Greg Popken  


Please note (this means you Russel) no personal attacks at the end of this
arguement.  Well, except this one.


The opinions expressed here are my own. That is they belong to me  And
these opinions , which belong to me, are mine.  But I choose to share them
with you at this time.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals