From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:09:30 GMT

From article <mhulsey-240193124136@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C1BvHz.JpK@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> BTW, I don't dispute the claim that animal experiments have 
>> yielded potentially useful information.
> 
> Perhaps because you cannot.

It's obvious that I could dispute such a claim.  I choose not to
do so because I'm a truthful individual and accept the evidence
demonstrating that animal research has yielded some potentially 
useful information.

>>I do, however, have 
>> serious doubts about the claim that all such experiments are 
>> "essential" or "necessary" or that their benefits outweigh their 
>> harm.
> 
> Yes, we know.  You have suggested on numerous occasions that animal
> experimentation and product testing are less than necessary.  However, you
> have not provided information to prove these claims.

Yes, I have.  Your quibbling won't change history.  Be that as it may,
don't you think it's irrational to insist that every single animal 
experiment ever conducted was "necessary" and "useful"?

> For example:
> 
> I have been waiting months for you to provide evidence for your
> chronological claim that the "early 80's" proposal for the beagle-drowning
> experiment was made after the 1981 publication by Heimlich demonstrating
> the efficacy of his technique on drowning humans.

You're quibbling, Martin.  What are you hoping to prove?

Lawrence Carter, director of the Health Care Consumer Network, reported
in the January, 1991 issue of _PCRM Update_ that the Governor of Ohio
and the mayor of Cincinnati had recently honored Heimlich by declaring
September 11 as "Henry Heimlich Day" in honor of his humanitarian
achievements.  Carter's report went on to describe Heimlich's opposition 
to the proposed beagle experiments, and quoted Heimlich as saying, 

   "Most animal experimentation is useless...  It had 
   already been proven by humans saved using the technique 
   that the Heimlich maneuver was working.  Why would it 
   be necessary to put dogs through cruel and useless 
   experiments only to come to the same conclusion?" 

Do you think Heimlich is lying, Martin?

> In addition, I'm waiting for you to offer some evidence for your claim that
> the Ames test for bacterial mutagenicity is a suitable alternative for the
> Draize test for ocular irritancy.

I've responded to this claim several times previously, Martin.  

From Message-ID: <C0GzKK.9MD@wpg.com> date  7 Jan 1993 06:05:06 GMT
========================================================================
> I am not the one who claimed that the Ames test is an "alternative" to the
> Draize test.  You are.  The burden of proof is upon you.  You repeatedly
> make this point to me, yet forget it when it is convenient. 

You're asking me to prove a point I didn't make, Martin.  The fact that
the Ames test is useful to predict carcinogenicity isn't alterred by
the fact that it may be unsuitable for other specific needs.
Martin
========================================================================

>>To illustrate the last point, take a look at the postings 
>> over the past few days where supporters of animal experimentation 
>> have stated that the murder of humans is ok if the perpetrator 
>> can "get away" with the crime, or that human famine is ok as long 
>> as they're not the ones who're starving.
> 
> I missed those.  What do they have to do with the issue of animal 
> research?

Quite a bit.  If someone's going to argue that animal research is 
"good", it behooves us to make sure that his value judgments are 
anchored in solid ground.  When a man says that animal research 
is "good", and that fur trapping is "good", and that hunting is 
"good", etc, etc, and then goes on to say that murder is "good" 
(if he can get away with it), it raises serious doubts about his 
ability to evaluate the impact that his choices have on other 
beings.  

You've stated that animal research is "good" if it's either 
"necessary" or "essential".  Would you say that deer hunting and 
mink coats are "necessary" and/or "essential"?  

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