From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Marty Hulsey)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: FDN;FCS;UGA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:47:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.215528.28503@clpd.kodak.com>,
black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:

>>[...]
>>You provided two examples of how such traits are ultimately selected 
out 
>>in successful species, unless you would also care to refute the 
>>principles of Darwin.
>
>Were you assuming that these traits were hereditary?

Ultimately, yes, but the genetic vs. environmental components of 
behavior are poorly understood.  Ever hear of E. O. Wilson?

>Did you miss the "and children" phrase following "Woman" in the first 
>example?  The woman's children already existed at the time of her 
death,
>so, even if hereditary, these traits haven't been selected against
>yet in her case.  And what's to say that her children would not also
>reproduce before sacrificing themselves in a similar manner?

Good point, but the dead woman or dog could not reproduce further.  
Thus, their nonadaptive traits would still be limited in future 
generations.  Natural selection absolutely works, but it does not work 
absolutely.

>But none of this is especially relevant to me.  You asked for examples
>of a species sacrificing its own members to save members of another
>species.  In my "Maybe" clause above, I indicated that I may not have
>understood what you were getting at, because the question seemed too
>easy to answer - though I've never expended a great deal of effort on 
>it now or in the past. 

If a statement is irrelevant, just say so.  Don't attempt to extend or 
alter my arguments.  In this case, you used atypical actions of 
*individuals* in an attempt to rebut my assertion about *species*.  Try 
again.

>If you were looking for an entire species that sacrifices all its
>members, then your question was a trivial one, because the chances for
>survival of that species would be nil unless the sacrifices took place
>primarily in the years past the prime reproducing years for the
>sacrificial species.  If you were looking for individual examples of
>non-speciesist behavior, then I presented a couple cases for your
>consideration. 

I was not "looking for individual examples."  The actions of individuals 
would suffice of they were typical of their representative species.  
Your examples were atypical.

This is not a trivial topic.  The notion of speciesism is used to 
support the misanthropic notion of animal "rights" by drawing a specious 
intraspecies analogy with racism and sexism. The concept is fallacious 
because all species compete with and exploit one another to optimize 
their own survival.

>>>[...]
>>>Also it's not entirely clear what your meaning was in the phrase 
"using
>>>animals." If you meant to include the removal of pancreas from 
already
>>>dead oxen, then this does not make the case for lab experiments with
>>>animals.
>>
>>Sure it does.  Quite a few "lab experiments" have relied on materials 
>>obtained at the slaughterhouse.  If memory serves, Guillemin's Nobel 
>>(1977) is another example.  The more recent isolation by Tatemoto of 
>>Neuropeptide Y from 7 kg of porcine brain is another that immediately 
>>comes to mind.  There are many others.
>
>I don't consider the extraction or removal of materials from an already
>dead animal to be animal research.  If you do, then that accounts for
>part of our disagreement. 

It doesn't really matter what we do or do not consider to be animal 
research.  Would you agree that the use of such animal by-products saves 
human lives?  Would you agree that if animals were not otherwise 
consumed for food, that medical research would suffer from a lack of 
such by-products?  I merely want vegans to consider this when they 
criticize meat eating.  

>You seem to want to include under the animal research umbrella the USE
>of by-products from dead animals.  Fine.  Great.  I don't object to 
this
>practice any more than I would object if you used by-products from 
human
>carcasses.  Animals and people die every day and there is an abundance
>of material available.  The debate is over what is done to living 
humans
>and animals.  This is what I mean, and I assumed others meant, by the
>term "animal research."  Referring to the use of slaughterhouse
>by-products as animal research just seems to obscure the real issues. 

Not at all.  The original article that you defended falsely argued that 
human pancreata could have been used to extract insulin.  If you want to 
retract your support for this aspect of the article, then do so.  Don't 
suggest that I am obscuring an issue.

>>I am not simply making a case for the use of animals in the 
laboratory.  
>>You are trying desparately to deny the crucial role of animal by-
>>products in medical research, because it is inconsistent with your 
>>utopian agenda.
>
>Sorry to disappoint you here by pointing out the absence of any
>desperation on my part.  When someone makes such a statement, I usually
>assume that he is projecting his own desperation onto others.  If 
you're
>doing this, please lighten up, okay? The fate of the universe doesn't
>ride on this discussion.  Neither does the rise or fall of the animal
>rights movement.  We're just two individuals presenting divergent views
>of a historical event.

OK.  Remove the word "desperately" from my statement, and try to refute 
it, rather than dodge it.

I do not wish to differ with you with respect to one historical event 
(the discovery of insulin) only.  I wish to challenge you and anyone 
else who purports that animal research is ineffective or worthless.  

>Secondly, I haven't denied the role of animal by-products in medical
>research.  Please explain why you think I have.  However I have 
disputed
>the claim that live animals used in medical research were necessary for
>the discovery of insulin.  If you choose to disagree with me, it would
>be helpful to be accurate about what I'm saying. 

If you did not support the claim of Ted Altar's article that human 
instead of ox pancreata could have been employed, then I stand 
corrected.  I do not recall your disagreement with *any* aspect of the 
article.  Would you care to clarify your position now? 

>>>The dogs of Banting and Best, as well as those of their predecessors, 
>>did
>>>not have to die in order to save diabetics.  The popular citation of 
>>the
>>>Banting and Best work as evidence of the value of animal research is 
a
>>>flawed claim.
>>
>>The claim is not flawed until you disprove it.
>
>I have indicated an alternate path that could have reasonably been
>followed even back then, 70 years ago. 

Your alternative path is not reasonable.  You can provide no supporting 
example, contemporary or otherwise, where a previously unknown endocrine 
hormone was discovered without using animals.

>>>And if one of the most famous and often-referenced pillars
>>>in the animal research edifice is so easily toppled, then what are we 
>>>to make of other more obscure examples and claims?
>>
>>First, this unscholarly revisionist scenario doesn't prove anything.  
>>The "edifice" stands, and has vastly more pillars than you can 
imagine.
>>
>>Second, is this not akin to arguing that if one animal activist is a 
>>terrorist, then so must be the others?
>
>No, it's not.  Remember it's the defenders of animal research who have
>repeatedly pointed to the discovery of insulin to validate their 
claims. 
>My question (not statement) above was basically: why would those
>defenders so often select such a weak (and old) example to bolster 
their
>case if there are better and more recent examples?

Have you not read any other posts in this thread?

I have already provided such examples (55 other Nobel awards) as recent 
as 1992, which you have ignored.  I do not think that the justification 
of lack thereof for animal research hinges on the details of Banting & 
Best's discovery of insulin or any other single example.  In retrospect, 
I could have used any example.

I have previously suggested three areas of research (neuroscience, 
discovery of novel dietary requirement, and discovery of novel endocrine 
factors) that, with few exceptions, require animals.  If you are so 
confident that animal research is unnecessary, would you care to propose 
"alternative paths" for these? 

>>>The second part of your claim (that millions would have died) is
>>>speculation.  It is certainly not a *fact*, let alone indisputable.  
We
>>>don't know what route an alternate historical path would have taken. 
>>>But if insulin had never been discovered, it does seems likely that
>>>fewer diabetics would have survived to produce some of the succeeding
>>>generations.  Whether the casualties would still have numbered in the
>>>millions, given this selection process, is arguable.  But you're 
always
>>>on shaky ground when you observe that: (1) X happened, then Y 
happened;
>>>(2) therefore if X had not happened, then Y would not have happened.
>>
>>I'm not making such an argument.  
>
>I believe that you did make such an argument.  You wrote:
>
>   "The indisputable fact is that if insulin had not been discovered 
>    using animals (human or otherwise) in 1923, more than one million 
>    people would have died up until now, and millions more would die 
>    in the future".
>
>I interpret this to mean: Solely because insulin was discovered using
>animals, millions of diabetics have lived.  You're causally relating 
two
>events: (1) insulin was discovered using animals with (2) millions of
>diabetics lived.
>
>Let X = insulin was discovered using animals.
>Let Y = millions of diabetics have lived.
>
>You're saying that X happened, then Y happened.  Therefore if X did not
>happen, then Y would not have happened.  
>
>This is faulty logic and someone more schooled in Logic than I am could
>probably name the Latin term for the specific fallacy. 

Ouch!  Your argument seems bulletproof, but I remain puzzled.  Would you 
also suggest that it is therefore not "logical" to presume that advances 
in animal *or* clinical research have subsequently saved *any* lives?  
Would the same logical fallacy apply universally, or just in the case of 
the animal research that you oppose?  Do logical arguments such as your 
example above ever fail to explain the truth?

>>I agree that if more people died of 
>>diabetes for lack of a treatment, then there would be fewer to die in 
>>successive generations.  Even if we account for this, many humans 
would 
>>die in past, present and future to save a few dogs.
>>
>>If you are arguing that if diabetes were not made treatable, it would 
be 
>>subsequently selected out of the population, you are again wrong.  
>
>I didn't argue that.  I said, in response to your claim about 
"millions",
>that the numbers would be reduced.

The term "millions" was and is qualitative.  Take away or add a few 
million, and you are still left with millions.  Let us not quibble over 
unimportant details.  Would you argue that not *any* additional humans 
would have died if not for work of Banting & Best?  If so, why do you 
imagine that the work was awarded the Nobel prize?

>>>mh>Of course, the final proof that these extracts were effective in 
>>>>treating *human* diabetes came after human trials.
>>>
>>>It was not the *FINAL* proof.  It was *THE* proof.
>>
>>I will not waste time arguing semantics.
>
>This is not semantics.  Your statement that it was the *final* proof
>suggested to me that there were *earlier* proofs.  If that was your
>implication, then I wanted to go on record as disputing it.

My choice of words was admittedly unfortunate.  I was acknowledging that 
animal results ultimately have to be verified in humans.  This does not 
indicate that the preliminary results obtained with animals are 
worthless.  By sacrificing animals in preliminary studies, we ultimately 
save the lives of humans.

>>You and others have failed to provide a reasonable scenario wherein 
>>Collip could have extracted insulin from pancreas (human or otherwise) 
>>without the prior knowledge obtained with dogs. 
>
>Reasonable scenario:
>
>  1. Autopsies show a link between damaged pancreas and diabetes 
mellitus.
>  2. Scientists formulate a testable hypothesis that there exists a
>     substance in the pancreas which controls the level of sugar in the 
blood.

How would you propose getting from 1. to 2. without using animals?  How 
would the hypothesis in 2. be tested without using animals?  This seems 
like a great leap to me.  On what basis would 1. suggest that there was 
a substance in pancreatic extracts that could save the lives of 
diabetics?  You are employing hindsight here.  Your scenario fails at 
this step.

>  3. Researchers acquire pancreas (from humans or other already dead
>     animals).

Forget the human pancreata, unless you can indicate how they would be 
obtained.  

>  4. Biochemists (like Collip) isolate and purify various extracts from
>     these pancreata.
>  5. Clinical researchers try various extracts on humans until finding
>     one that works.

And killing many humans in the process.  Wouldn't it be better to try 
the extracts on dogs first, as was done by Banting & Best?  Would you be 
the first human to try such an extract, or would you prefer to see it 
work in a dog first?

>This is essentially what happened, except that you would interject 
between
>3 and 4 this step:
>
>  3b. Researchers try various extracts on depancreatized dogs.

This would also be step 2b., in concert with the dog research of Von 
Mering and Minkowski.  Remember that your animal-free scenario must also 
forsake their observations that you *now* consider valuable.

>[...]
>This is not to ignore the dedication or efforts of Banting.  I could
>[...]

You are backpedaling here.  If you do not "ignore the dedication or 
efforts of Banting," why would you previously defend an article that 
labeled his Nobel-winning experiments "worthless?"

>But I'm questioning the historical accuracy of the claim that his dog
>experiments were the critical event without which insulin would have
>gone undiscovered for any length of time, thus causing "millions" (your
>word) of humans to die.  By saying this, I think you've underestimated
>(some would say insulted) the intelligence and ingenuity of generations
>of scientists

There is no question that without the observations of Banting & Best, 
the discovery of insulin would have been delayed.  I find it unrealistic 
to propose that such a discovery could have been otherwise made until 
the advent of high performance liquid chromatography in the late 50's 
and early 60's.

Perhaps I overstated the consequences of not discovering insulin using 
dogs.  If I retract my statement about "millions dying," could you 
address these questions that Ted Robinson did not?

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?

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?

>>[...]
>>Why not?  Medical research using animal sometimes takes place in the 
>>lab.  Sometimes it takes place at the research farm.  Sometimes 
>>materials are gathered in the abattoir, and returned to the lab.  Why 
>>would the *location* of animals used for medical research matter?
>
>If an animal dies or is killed for a non-research purpose (i.e.  food,
>self-defense, accident, roadkill etc.) and you procure some materials
>and use these materials in your lab, then I don't regard it as an 
animal
>experiment because you're not doing something to, on, or with live
>animals at that stage.  You're not directly engaged in the types of
>activities where the ethics of our treatment of sentient creatures is
>relevant.  If my definition is too restricted here, then maybe we need
>another term to clarify this distinction.

Tissues from animals killed by accident, roadkill, self-defense, etc. 
would be unusable.  They must be obtained freshly and kept frozen or at 
least cold in order to be usable.

Concerns regarding "the treatment of sentient creatures" are used to 
argue simultaneously against using animals for food and research.  You 
would link the two instances when it suits your argument, or separate 
then when it suits your purpose, as you do here.  Ted's article falsely 
suggested that human pancreata could have been used to discover insulin 
in order to avoid this point.

>>>[...]
>>>Not really.  Animals were not needed in the development of a 
treatment
>>>for diabetes.  This is not in doubt.  The critical steps were: (1) 
the
>>>discovery of a link between the pancreas and diabetes which derived 
>>from
>>>human autopsies;
>>
>>Again, the clinical observations provided only an associative link.  
>>Animals were required to demonstrate that extracts of pancreas could 
be 
>>used to keep depancreatized animals alive indefinitely, and thus save 
>>lives rather than simply prolong death.
>
>The clinical observations provided sufficient information to form a
>testable hypothesis which could be checked out and, in fact, were
>checked out on humans.  Banting's extract, as I said above, was 
>discontinued after being tried on a human.

These early extracts were "checked out," and failed.  Banting & Best 
were the *first* to achieve success in keeping a depancreatized dog 
alive.  Why do you so persistently deny this achievement?  This was the 
first indication that pancreatic extracts could prolong life.

>>>(2) Collip's technique for extracting insulin from
>>>pancreas which did not require animals; and
>>
>>Wrong.  By your own admission, he used animal pancreata, and not human 
>>pancreata.  You have failed to demonstrate how anyone could have 
>>obtained sufficient quantities of fresh human pancreata to perform 
such 
>>an extraction.
>
>I've said that Collip USED animal pancreata.  I didn't say that he had
>to.  I see no reason why his needs couldn't have been met by organ
>donations from humans.  He was, after all, working in Toronto - even
>then a decent sized city with a number of hospitals.  What sufficient
>quantities are you claiming would not be available?

It is not simply a question of availability.  It is also a question of 
consent and timely harvest.

>But this is still just a side issue, because even if sufficient human
>pancreata were unavailable, the fact is that no animals had to die
>specifically for his work. 

But what would the consequences have been for Collip if the vegan utopia 
that (presumably) you and others seek had been in place in 1922?

>Why do I keep getting the impression that some researchers (and certain
>other people too) seem so eager to propose killing as a solution
>whenever human/animal interface problems and conflicts arise?  

"Killing" is not proposed as the "solution."  Obtaining otherwise 
unobtainable information is proposed as the solution.  Killing non-human 
animals is often the unfortunate result of trying to save humans.  Your 
"solution" would propose letting humans die to avoid killing animals.  
People on your side of the issue oppose research using animals 
regardless of whether death is an endpoint to the research.

Do you support PETA's action to kill animals that they "liberated" 
elsewhere to relieve overcrowding at their animal shelter?  Do you 
support these actions at other animal shelters?  Do you oppose the use 
of pound animals, otherwise scheduled for euthanasia, in medical 
research?

>[...]
>I didn't say that research had to conducted in a "lab."  I'm saying
>that the taking of material, which Collip needed, at the slaughterhouse
>was not research.  Killing animals for food at a slaughterhouse and 
then marketing some of the by-products is not research.

Obtaining materials to conduct research is a necessary component of 
research.

>>[...]
>>This is the second most ridiculous paragraph I have ever read.  The 
>>clinical observations convinced no one that "insulin existed."  The 
>>clinical observations suggested an association between diabetes and 
the 
>>pancreas, but gave *no* indication that an extract of pancreas could 
>>save lives. 
>
>Let me guess: the first most ridiculous paragraph was the one where
>you claimed there was a "cure" for diabetes?

No.  As I indicated previously, the most ridiculous paragraph that I 
ever read was from Ted's article that concluded that Banting & Best's 
dog experiments were "worthless."

>Okay, I'll admit to a somewhat gratuitous slap at Koch's postulates, 
>which allows you to change the subject to Koch below.

Don't be so kind to yourself.  It wasn't "somewhat gratuitous," but 
absolutely ridiculous.

>But an unfortunate
>consequence of Koch's ideas is that there arose among some researchers 
an
>excessive skepticism about clinical data to the point where, here in 
the
>latter 20th century, we could observe researchers denying, in the face
>of clinical evidence, that thalidomide was causing birth defects in
>humans because these birth defects had not been reproducible in 
animals. 
>It was as though an animal model were better than a real human in
>teaching us about humans! 

I see no connection between Koch's postulates and the Thalidomide 
tragedy, and you have not made one.  There is nothing in Koch's 
postulates that would diminish the findings of clinicians, with the 
exception of his contemporaries who argued against the "germ theory" of 
disease. 

>>The Toronto dog experiments demonstrated for the first time (after 
many 
>>unsuccessful tries by others) that symptoms of diabetes could be 
>>reversed by administration of a pancreatic extract, and that a 
>>depancreatized dog could be kept alive *indefinitely* using pancreatic 
>>extracts.  Prior to that, there was *NO* indication that an 
unidentified 
>>life-saving substance was contained in extracts of pancreas.  
>
>This paragraph sums up the heart of your case.  Yet these results were
>not seen by McLeod as promising enough to prod him into immediate human
>trials; it took determined pressure from Banting before McLeod relented
>and allowed Banting's extract to be tried on a human. 

The earlier failures with humans would have been enough to make anyone 
cautious.  Remember that McLeod was *absent* from the laboratory during 
the summer when Banting & Best made their critical discoveries with 
dogs.

>>You are also way off-base with respect to Koch.  Where do you guys get 
>>this stuff? Certainly not from a peer-reviewed journal! Koch's 
>>postulates did not teach that clinical observations _per se_ had to be 
>>"proven" using animals.  His work, using guinea pigs, unequivocally 
>>demonstrated for the first time that microbes cause disease.  
>
>Koch's third postulate taught that the proof of establishing a 
disease's
>cause involved reproducing the disease in a lab animal.  Although the
>postulates were addressing disease-causing microbes, the principle
>was established of confirming clinical results using animals.

If Koch's refutation of contemporary clinicians caused other clinicians 
to later doubt their own results, don't blame it on Koch.  You are 
simply uncomfortable with the idea that clinicians can also make 
mistakes.  You and others advance the false notion that *only* animal 
researchers are capable of error.

>[... deleted stuff about Koch, which belongs in another thread ...]

[reinserted stuff about Koch & the fallacy of Bambiphilic revisionism]

++++++++++++++++++++
This breakthrough overshadows even that of Banting & Best with respect 
to the number of human lives subsequently saved.  It is therefore no 
surprise to me that antivivisectionists would wish to again rewrite 
medical history, and deny the role of animals in this discovery.  I do 
not care to again debate the myriad, though less feasible, "alternative 
paths" that you would propose for this discovery without using animals.

These Bambiphilic accounts of medical history consistently suggest that 
clinicians make the great discoveries, and that vivisectors can produce 
nothing but misleading findings.  The truth is that misleading findings 
and great discoveries can come from either paradigm.

If we examine the case of Robert Koch, and the "germ theory" of disease, 
we see an example where clinicians were in error, and an animal 
researcher proved them wrong.  The leading  *clinicians* of the day 
vehemently argued against the "germ theory" of disease.  In this case, 
clinical observations were misleading.  All it took was a few guinea 
pigs to subsequently save countless human lives.

One of the most egregious aspects of Bambiphilic revisionism is the oft-
repeated assertion that advances in sanitation and nutrition, rather 
than animal research, are responsible for the increase in longevity that 
we enjoy today.  The fallacy of this argument is that animal research 
was required for these advances as well.  The pioneering work of Pasteur 
and Koch used animals to prove that microbes do indeed cause disease.  
How would anyone have seen the great need for sanitation if not for the 
knowledge that microbes cause disease?  Pioneering nutritionists such as 
Hopkins, McCollum, Funk, Eijkman and others used animals to determine 
basic dietary requirements for organic and inorganic micronutrients.  
How would we know today what comprises a healthy diet if not for this 
information?

Few realize that the fundamental paradigm that the nutrition pioneers 
used then and today to make such investigations were derived from Koch's 
postulates.  This is no mere coincidence, for Eijkman studied in Koch's 
laboratory.
++++++++++++++++++++++

Remember that you brought Koch into this argument with your ridiculous 
characterization of his discovery.  If this material, in your opinion, 
belongs in another thread, why don't you start a new thread while 
answering my challenges instead of simply ignoring them?  Cat got your 
tongue?

>[...] 
>>>Yes, we can only conjecture, but a strong case can be made that Ted 
and 
>>>ted are correct.  See Brandon Reines' short account, THE TRUTH BEHIND 
>>>THE DISCOVERY OF INSULIN, or, better, a key source of his, THE 
DISCOVERY 
>>>OF INSULIN by Michael Bliss (Chicago: The University of Chicago 
Press, 
>>>1982).  Bliss is a historian writing about the discovery of insulin.  
>>>He is not an AR person.  
>>
>>Do these references suggest, as you do, that insulin could have been 
>>discovered without the use of animals? 
>
>The first one suggests that.  The second one was intended to be a
>general updated history and does not address the issue head on.  But
>Bliss, quoted by Reines, wrote: "A not uncommon layman's view of the
>discovery holds that without the Toronto work the world might still be
>without insulin.  This is unlikely.  The internal secretion of the
>pancreas had been "discovered" theoretically back in 1889; its 
practical
>isolation and therapeutic use was only a matter of time, determination,
>ingenuity, technical skill, and resources...." The only experiments 
that
>impressed Bliss were those by Von Mering and Minkowski (1889) and the
>same information produced by their experiments was available from human
>autopsies. 

Von Mering and Minkowski were on the right track, so their animal work 
was admittedly impressive.  They only failed because of the crude 
methods available at the time for protein purification.  Ted's article 
(that you vigorously defended) ludicrously suggested this work, which 
you *now* consider impressive, amounted to animal research leading 
clinical research astray.  I wish that you guys would make up your 
minds.

Who can reasonably argue that the *successful* dog experiments of 
Banting & Best were not more impressive than similar experiments that 
repeatedly failed?

If a clinician succeeded where others had previously failed, I'm certain 
that you would not deny that achievement.  Why does an otherwise 
reasonable person such as yourself feel comfortable applying such 
inconsistent standards to animal experiments?

I fail to see how any postmortem descriptive studies demonstrated, or 
even suggested, that pancreatic abnormalities were a cause rather than 
an effect of diabetes.  I also fail to comprehend this obvious and 
convenient gap in your otherwise secure grasp of the concept of 
causality.

>>Yes, there are an infinite number of paths to knowledge, but the ones 
>>that really count are the ones that are timely.  I, for one, am not 
>>willing to sit around and wait for someone to solve today's medical 
>>challenges without using non-human animals.  
>
>If you're that impatient, experiments on incompetent humans are likely
>to get you even faster results. 

I don't see one of those stupid smiley faces, so I assume that your 
suggestion is serious.  Your false suggestion adds support to my 
contention that animal activists care more for animals than humans.

BTW, I was curious why you had no comment on my post regarding the 
Silver Spring monkeys.

--
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