From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:13:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.183024.21385@clpd.kodak.com>,
black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:
> 
> In article <mhulsey-211292164750@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> > In article <Bzn9Bw.IDB@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> [...]
> Just my spur-of-the-moment opinions regarding questions about which 
> whole books could be written ...

Thanks for your consideration, Bob.  Don't you agree that Russell should
try to be as prompt?

Surely whole books could be written on these topics, but isn't that what we
are here for?  These issues should be addressed rather than evaded.

> > Issue 1:  "errors" in the approval process
>[...]
> 
> I'm a little familiar with both of these, but I don't have references
> at hand.  The cat shooting example is IMO particularly outrageous and
> serves to highlight the need to abolish or at the very least apply a
> much closer scrutiny to DOD animal experiments. 

You and Russell *might* be right about these two examples, but shouldn't
you provide some evidence to support your claims?  Is it proper to use
examples of DOD experiments to condemn medical experimentation _per se_? 
Don't you think that Russell should provide some chronological evidence to
support his claim about the "beagle-drowning" experiment?
 
>[...]
> > If these two experiments represent a failure of the system, how would you
> > modify the _status quo_ in order to protect the interests of human and
> > non-human animals?  If you and others cannot suggest effective changes to
> > the present system, would you agree that it is the best we can do?
> 
> No, I think we can do better: (1) improved oversight or possibly
> abolition of DOD experiments;

I have no arguments with the suggestion of improved oversight of DOD.  How
does this pertain to medical research in general?

>(2) involvement of animal rights people in
> reviews of other experiments, (these people would be professionals:
> doctors, nurses, lab workers, etc., i.e. types having familiarity with
> and training in the activities that occur in labs),

Don't you think that James Hoskins' analogy showed what a farce that would
be?  The "Lawrence Review Board" took in excess of one month to render a
decision on ONE experiment!  Think about the thousands of experiments that
would need approval annually.

I do not believe that a physician with primarily clinical experience would
be qualified to judge my basic experiments just as I would not be qualified
to judge his clinical experiments. 

>(3) sunshine laws
> that permit and make possible frequent unannounced visits to labs, again
> by professionals who know what to look for.

Doesn't the AWA provide for this?  Just how much money would you spend
inspecting labs as opposed to funding more research?
 
> Also I would look closely at shifting funds into research for
> alternatives, at acceleration of the certification process and of use of
> these alternatives, at increased emphasis on preventive care, and at
> replacement of animal models for mutagenic diseases with mathematical
> and computer models. 

Do you have any evidence that funding for the development of so-called
"alternatives" is being unfairly denied?

Remember that I do animal research as well as so-called 'alternatives." 
Animal experimentation is much more expensive than computer simulations or
cell culture.  Cell cultures and mathematical models are not truly
alternatives to animal research.  Simulations must be based on data
obtained with living systems.  Cell cultures are very valuable for studying
particular aspects of cellular physiology, but they cannot yet be used to
study the many events that occur in animals.

> > I designing procedures for the approval of animal experiments, we could be
> > stringent or lax.  If we are stringent, we would prevent needless animal
> > exploitation, but we might disapprove an experiment that could save many
> > human lives.  If we are lax, humans are well-protected, but more "bad"
> > experiments, such as the examples above, would be approved.  Obviously, we
> > need a happy medium that provides reasonable protection for human and
> > non-human animals.  As a proponent of animal "rights," what do you feel
> > would constitute reasonable protection for both?
> 
> ANY approach will cost lives.  Even the animal welfare laws may cost
> some human lives, yet you've expressed support for them.

Sorry, but this does not address my question.  In fact, it dodges the
point.  I genuinely want to know how we could improve our trade-offs
between human and animal lives.

I do not see how the AWA _per se_, in its existing form, could cost human
lives.  If animal activists were to become a part of existing IACUC
committees, this could and would happen.

Some researchers have argued that the "red tape" involved in preparing and
submitting proposals for approval is an unnecessary burden.  I disagree.  I
have the approval forms on computer, and I can crank out a proposal in a
few minutes.

>We have
> limited resources to deal with massive needs.  There has been talk of
> formal health care rationing.  A big change I would favor is much more
> emphasis on prevention.  A problem avoided is better than a problem
> incurred and dealt with after the fact.

Again, you are skirting the issue of human vs. animal lives given ANY level
of resources available.

I agree with an increased emphasis on prevention, but some diseases are
simply not yet preventable.  I do not see prevention as an excuse for
limiting animal research unless, like Russell, you would allow fellow
humans to die "for their own stupidity" in order to save non-human animals.
 
> I also question the wisdom behind some of the "glamorous" high-publicity
> experiments (e.g. xenotransplants).

I'm not convinced that the researchers involved choose their methods based
on how "glamorous" they are.  They are instead trying to save human lives.

>Are they ever likely to be
> available on a sufficient scale to justify the immense cost?

The same could be said for many procedures that do not involve animals
(e.g., PET scans & MRI).  I do not see you complaining about them.  Are you
truly concerned with the cost in dollars or the cost of animal lives?

>Wouldn't
> the same level of resources applied in other ways actually save MORE
> lives?  Aren't these expenditures costing lives by funnelling scarce
> resources into areas unlikely to yield a significant return per dollar?

I'm all for saving more lives per dollar expended.  I do support preventive
medicine and I admit that the AMA has perhaps not been concerned enough
with this area.  If the PCRM were exclusively concerned with preventive
medicine rather than trying to support the "rights" of animals by
disparaging animal research and making false claims about consuming animal
products, I would support rather than oppose them.
 
> > 
> > Out of the thousands of animals experiments proposed and performed every
> > year, how many "bad" ones should we expect or tolerate?  Would failing to
> > perform an experiment critical for human health be worse than performing an
> > animal experiment that later proved unnecessary?
> 
> Part of the answer to this centers around the relatively limited
> resources available to meet mounting health problems as the population
> ages.

No it doesn't.  Consider my question again given unlimited resources.

>It could be argued that EVERY experiment not done costs lives. 
> Yet a lot of experiments are currently not done due to insufficient
> funds.  In our decisions about which experiments should be supported, it
> seems only right to factor in not just the effects on humans but also
> those on animals, who are in important ways not different from humans. 

I always try to factor in the effects on animals.  Medical research
designed to save humans also benefits non-human animals.  Veterinary
research designed to save non-human animals has benefitted humans.  Even
research on plants has benefitted humans and animals.  Viruses were
discovered in plants, and shortly thereafter, found to cause disease in the
animal kingdom as well.

> > 
> > If "errors" in any approval process are inevitable, what purpose does it
> > serve to point out a couple of "bad" experiments while ignoring the
> > thousands of "good" ones?  Would you have us increase the stringency of the
> > approval process so that the potential for animal suffering is decreased at
> > the expense of human suffering?
> 
> I'm not sure if the "stringency" needs to be increased, as much as the
> overall philosophy should be re-thought and the oversight process
> revised.  I don't wish to add any further layers of review to those
> already existing ones, but I wouldn't mind permitting AR proponents
> (professionals with some expertise) to conduct unannounced inspections
> of any lab that performs animal research. 

Again, Mr. Hoskins' LRB example illustrated what a fiasco that would be. 
See below.

Is it not true that the ALF has made nearly a dozen "unannounced
inspections" of laboratories in recent years?  How much evidence of animal
abuse did they find?  Answer: none.
 
> It would also be interesting to have unannounced visits by members of
> the press, who could produce videotapes for general viewing by the
> public on news programs or in documentaries.  The Gennarelli tapes
> (mentioned in another thread) showing actual lab activities demonstrate
> the usefulness of candid tapings.  I don't know how feasible press
> access is, but it's sometimes amazing how the realistic possibility
> (threat?) of a little exposure and publicity can produce positive
> change. 

Don't you believe that scientists deserve some protection for their
intellectual property?  How would the development of novel clinical
products at Kodak be affected if the press could come barging in unanounced
at any moment and divulge your R&D activities?

I do believe that scientists should be willing to divulge general details
of animal care & use (i.e., species, numbers, general procedures, etc.)
except to the extent that it would compromise their novel ideas.  In fact,
I will answer any questions in this regard pertaining to my research
(Russell, you still have to answer my questions first).  I do not believe
that scientists should be forced to divulge any information that would be
of benefit to laboratory invaders, such as the location of their animals.

> > 
> > Issue 2:  Prevention versus treatment
> > 
> > You previously, and correctly, pointed out that much human disease results
> > from our own stupidity, e.g. from smoking, poor diets or environmental
> > contamination.
> > 
> > Are you suggesting that we should not try to save the lives of people who
> > are "stupid?"  Would you, for example, allow heart patients to die for
> > their
> > "stupidity" rather than sacrifice a few pigs or dogs to develop a new heart
> > valve, etc?
> 
> I would never say that someone suffering due to his own stupidity should
> go untreated on that basis.  Even so-called "stupid" people are
> ethically deserving of consideration.  However it is very frustrating
> that so many animals have suffered and died purportedly to find cures
> and treatments for blatantly preventable health problems. 

We would disagree on what is "blatantly preventable."
 
> Long ago I would have stopped any research trying to "prove" or
> "disprove" that smoking causes disease.  Any further data could be
> collected in epidemiological and clinical studies using human smokers. 
> I would end any animal research (either privately or publicly funded)
> which aims to further study the hazards of known risky behavior like
> smoking, overdrinking,.... 

I am not denying the value of clinical and epidemiological research, but we
truly need animal research also.

The problem with epidemiological research is that we often cannot control
or account for confounding behaviors on the part of our subjects.  For
example, the Snowdon study of Seventh-Day Adventists is often cited as
"evidence" that vegetarian diets result in increased longevity.  However,
in this study, participation in church and social activities was not
measured.  Participation in such activities has been shown to increase
longevity, so it is an uncontrolled confounding variable that was not
accounted for.

If I may cite an example, animal models have contributed and will
contribute greatly to studies of obesity.  There is a recent
epidemiological study from CDC  suggesting that weight loss is associated
with INCREASED mortality (I'll try to dig up the reference).

> > Would you consider animal research aimed at diseases that are not
> > "stupidity"-related to be justified?
> 
> In some cases, probably...until alternatives are found.

Again, what you and others call "alternatives" for animal research are not
truly alternatives.

> 
> > 
> > Issue 3:  "Tainted" information
> > 
> > I previously suggested that antivivisectionists should eschew medical
> > treatments, that were developed using animals.  You responded that
> > information cannot be "tainted" by its method of acquisition.  Do you
> > presume that there is no other reason that a person would refuse medical
> > care?  For example, do you propose that Christian Scientists refuse medical
> > care because they believe the information is tainted?
> 
> In answer to your two questions: No, No.

Thanks, Bob.  I was really hoping for an answer from Russell on this one.  
  
> Along these lines: first, animal rights people pay taxes that support
> government-funded research.  IF there are benefits, why should these
> people forego these benefits, which they have partially funded?

Your objection here assumes that all animal research is federally-funded. 
A significant proportion is funded by the private sector.  May I assume
that you have fewer objections to this research?

Those who believe that animal research is useless should demonstrate how
useless it is by forsaking its benefits.  If enough did that, the impetus
for funding future experiments would cease.  The fact is that most
taxpayers support federally-funded animal research.

Even more damaging to your argument is the fact that we spend only 40 cents
on research (animal and non-animal) for every 100 dollars spent on health
care.
 
> Secondly, many AR people believe that if their entire agenda were
> adopted, there would be MUCH less overall illness, yet they're faced
> with existence under the current system.

I see no evidence to support this claim.  On the other hand, if the entire
animal "rights" agenda was adopted there might ultimately be fewer human
illnesses due to extinction.

>They believe that they're
> paying enough price by foregoing benefits that would accrue from a
> non-(or reduced)-animal experimentation approach.

There is no evidence that eliminating animal research would be beneficial
to humans.  If you give any credence to the significance of Nobel awards,
there is evidence to the contrary.  We have discussed this before.  You
admitted that medical research in general saves lives, yet indicated that
we could not attribute "exclusive causation" to animal or non-animal
methods.  Why do you now propose that we would benefit from eliminating a
type of research that is the cause of some, if not most, of our medical
advances?

>To ask or expect them
> to forego any lesser benefits from the existing system which they
> view as inferior (but must coexist with) does not seem to make sense. 

Again, you have ignored the issue of human vs animal lives and diverted to
economic issues. 
 
> > 
> > Issue 4: Public input to the approval process
> > 
> > James Hoskins recently created a hypothetical scenario whereby usenet
> > participants sat on a "Lawrence Review Board" to consider a hypothetical
> > experiment.  After several weeks, the LRB has been unable render a decision
> > on ONE experiment.  Considering this example, and considering that ACUC
> > committees often consider DOZENS of proposals at one sitting, do you agree
> > that greater input from the public on ACUC panels might result in
> > unnecessary delays in the approval process?  Would it serve any purpose,
> > other than an obstructive one, to have animal "rights" activists on such
> > committees?
> 
> I believe that it would serve a purpose, if the activists chosen were
> qualified professionals.  I'm thinking of people like Neal Barnard,
> Stephen Kaufman, Irwin Bross, Eric Dunayer, Donald Barnes, Christopher
> D. Smith, Brandon Reines, etc.  There are many others. 

These individuals are either on record as opposing animal research or, in
Barnard's case, believes that so-called "alternatives" are more
"effective."  Do you seriously suggest that any of these people could
render an impartial decision regarding an animal experiment?

I suppose you could argue that animal researchers would be equally
impartial.  This might be true, but none of the proposals that I have
submitted have been approved without modification.  I do not support Ingrid
Newkirk's suggestion that IACUC committees are "rubber stamp" committees.

> > 
> > Issue 5: Relative intrinsic value
> > 
> > What do you feel to be the relative intrinsic value of a dog as compared to
> > a human?  Do you feel that your own species deserves *any* special
> > protection?  ...
> 
> I take the approach that those closer to me are more valuable.  My wife
> and immediate family are more valuable than other humans.  I would give
> special protection to them.  But my dogs and cats are more valuable than
> Saddam Hussein and Jeffrey Dahmer.  I acknowledge that this is not an
> approach which could be used to formulate policy and that's why (partly)
> there has developed over the centuries this notion of rights...to
> protect others who would receive lower priority in my own egocentric
> scheme but yet can not be objectively said to possess lesser worthiness. 
> So all things being equal (which they seldom, if ever, are), I would
> tend to prefer those nearest to me and those of my own kind.  But that
> doesn't make it necessarily right. 

I did not ask about the relative value of other members of your own
species.  I asked about the relative value of members of other species.

> I don't know how to objectively assign levels of value to all the
> various forms of sentient life.  But I always find it interesting that
> most spokesmen for animal research fall into this utilitarian analysis. 
> "How many dogs should we kill to save one human?" I don't know.  You
> tell me. 

I believe that other species, regardless of sentience or complexity, have
less intrinsic value than members of my own species.

How many dogs would I kill to save one human?  As many as it would take. 
It seems really silly to complain about the few dogs that die to develop
better heart treatments, etc. when many more dogs die needlessly in animal
shelters.
 
> If you answer: an infinite number - then you're saying that no dogs have
> any value except in their ability to serve humans, and you should oppose
> even the existing animal "welfare" restrictions.  If you answer N - then
> you're conceding that dogs do have value and therefore are worthy of
> ethical consideration (rights?).

I agree that all life forms (even non-sentient ones) are worthy of ethical
consideration, but only humans can claim and understand rights.  I would
not argue for the worthless slaughter of any life form.  Medical research
is not worthless.

> 
> > ...In a hypothetical scenario, would you sacrifice the life of a
> > dog to save a human life?
> 
> Yes.  This type of question is dealt with often by AR advocates.  See
> for example Regan's discussion of the four men and a dog in the boat
> which can only support four lives (Regan, Tom, _The_Case_For_Animal_
> Rights_).

Again, thanks for your forthright and honest answer.  Are you reading this
Russell?

> An aside on Singer: People who have read him closely are obviously aware
> that he supports a utilitarian view not a true rights view, even though
> he is often perceived as the father of the modern animal rights
> movement.  This was even mentioned a while back in an issue of Animals'
> Agenda, and I mentioned it in a post many months ago.  That's why even
> some animal rights advocates (I've seen it on ARNET) use quotes around
> "animal rights." I found it interesting from the start that you also had
> adopted that convention, albeit for a different reason. 

I always put quotes around the word "rights" when used in the context of
animal "rights."  To do otherwise is, IMO, an endorsement of the concept.

> But I think you're meandering down a dead end with this line of attack
> that the concept of "animal rights" is inane simply because Singer
> didn't promote it in his book.

Not only does Singer not promote the notion of animal "rights," but he
objects to having the term applied to him.

You have misread my position here.  I do not believe that Singer's
reluctance to endorse animal "rights" provides evidence against the
concept.  Neither does Ryder's acceptance of the concept provide support
for it.

I was simply refuting Russell's claim that Singer supported the concept. 
He was being a jerk about what the Nazis truly meant when they proclaimed
support for animal "rights."

Does it also seem "inane" for members of the animal "rights" movement to
repeatedly claim a prominent "supporter" that they simply do not have.

>There are wide philosophical differences
> among those who consider themselves part of the AR movement.  I stand by
> my previous claim "stolen" from a company newsletter where I once worked. 
> Shown here out of context, the claim was a quote from the treasurer of a
> local AR group: "We are united in the struggle against the most
> egregious and the most unnecessary cruelties on all fronts." IMO this is
> the one valid universal statement about AR people. 

I would support a statement such as "We are united in the struggle against
the most egregious and the most unnecessary cruelties on all fronts," but
we would obviously differ about what constituted "egregious and unnecessary
cruelties."  

IMO, you are off-base when attributing such sentiments to the animal
"rights" movement.  These and other admirable attitudes about animals could
equally well be categorized under the aegis of animal welfare.

There is no evidence that we must give "rights" to animals in order to
provide for their welfare or to prevent cruelty. 

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals