Human testing to begin within a year on monkey AIDS vaccine

An area of testing animal
rights activists claimed would never produce results was AIDS research
with monkeys. Unfortunately for the activists, Australian scientists announced
a breakthrough vaccine that fights off HIV infection in monkeys.

Given to monkeys already
infected with the HIV virus, the vaccine caused their immune systems to
produce large numbers of T cells that rid their systems of the virus.
The vaccine works by exposing the monkeys to a modified form of the HIV
virus which stimulated their immune systems.

Of course monkeys are not
human beings and there is no guarantee the method used here will work
in human beings. The Australian scientists hope to begin human trials
on HIV carriers next year and possibly in non-infected human beings soon
after if those trials prove successful. Even if this vaccine should ultimately
prove itself ineffective in human beings, however, this represents an
important advance in human understanding of HIV and points to ways that
the disease can be attacked and hopefully one day cured.

Vegetarian Times hack piece against animal testing

The October 1998 issue of Vegetarian Times contained a mostly hack piece against animal testing by freelance
writer Kelly James-Enger. James-Enger’s article does quote Adrian Morrison
as saying, “a careful reading of the historical record [of animal
research] reveals that it’s been absolutely indispensable for discovering
and understanding basic biological processes.”

Unfortunately, James-Enger
never bothers to even try to reconcile or explain this in the context
of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine activist Steven Ragland
who in the very next sentence is quoted as saying, “Humans and animals
differ too much to make animal research useful.”

Using insulin derived from
Pigs to treat Diabetes must then qualify as yet another ineffective and
useless innovation foisted upon the world by the evil drug companies.
But if Ragland and the PCRM say humans and non-humans are too different
to make animal research useful, God forbid if anyone at Vegetarian
should critically examine the claim.

Wall Street Journal keeps pressure on Peter Singer and Princeton

A few weeks ago I mentioned
that the Wall Street Journal published two scathing attacks on
Princeton for naming animal rights advocate Peter Singer to the prestigious
position of De Camp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton’s Center for Human
Values. Aside from his position on animal liberation, Singer has argued
for infanticide and involuntary euthanasia for people he claims
aren’t leading lives that have value, such as the severely retarded.

Singer and Princeton recently
launched a counterattack, writing letters to the Journal arguing
that the articles distorted Singer’s views on euthanasia and infanticide,
and claiming academic freedom should allow Singer to make his arguments
and let others decide their validity. Journal columnist William
McGurn effectively debunked both these arguments in the Nov. 13 edition
of the paper.

Has the Journal distorted
Singer’s record? Singer claims he qualifies his support of murder, but
as the Journal points out, those qualifications are rarely very
edifying. For example Singer has written, “We should certainly put
very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions
might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic
wrongness of killing an infant.”

In other words, there’s nothing
wrong per se with killing a severely retarded infant, but certain
restrictions might be necessary to make it appear less horrific to those
of us still squeamish and irrational enough to believe in the sanctity
of human life. As McGurn points out, this only highlights the fundamental
problem with Singer’s utilitarian philosophy — Singer sees human beings
as merely means and never ends in themselves.

Singer also tries to sidestep
the problems with his views by pointing out that technology creates many
of these dilemmas — some severely retarded infants, who in earlier periods
would have died, can now be made to live — and at least he is willing
to debate the issues that technology brings up. McGurn demolishes this
sophistry, writing:

… normally when changing circumstances challenge our principles we
look to adapt them. The Internet, for example, has made things easier
for pedophiles. But we do not conclude that our view of pedophilia is
old-fashioned. It is similarly difficult to believe that the path to
a healthy debate begins with a man whose own starting point is the jettisoning
of the understanding of man’s dignity that has defined Western civilization
for two millennia, and who apparently can’t conceive of someone who
could both understand him and disagree.

Finally, does academic freedom
require universities to hire people who believe infanticide is morally
permissible? McGurn writes that a Princeton spokesperson told him that
Singer’s views fall “this side of the moral divide between moral
debate and Nazism.” This is the standard applied at our elite universities
— as long as someone isn’t an out and out Nazi, he or she is more than
welcome. One wonders what keeps Princeton from being selective enough
to exclude Nazis. Would David Duke be acceptable to Princeton, McGurn
asks, if he had a Ph.D.?

As McGurn sums up his article,
Singer’s appointment “leaves us with one of our most elite universities
anointing an ethicist who can at once argue for the killing of infants
while teaching that drawing a moral distinction between child and chimp
is mere prejudice. And then we wonder why so many of our best and brightest
have such a hard time telling right from wrong.”

Could animal rights activist be wrong about gene therapy?

For the past few months animal
rights groups and activists have been repeating the same old line about
new advances in Genetic Engineering — it’ll never work, it’s cruel because
some of it uses animals, and it is being pushed just so greedy companies
can bilk people out of their money.

So imagine my surprise when
it was announced this week that the first genetic therapy to correct a
human health problem has been tested and appears to work rather well.
The experiment involved injecting a gene for a protein that helps the
heart build new blood vessels to relieve chest pains from angina. The
16 patients who received the injections of vascular endothelia growth
factor suffer from clogged arteries but were considered to week to undergo
bypass surgery or angioplasty.

Sixteen patients of Dr. Jeffrey
Isner of St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center in Boston who suffered from extreme
chest pains with even minor exertions all saw substantial improvements
in their angina. Of 11 patients who were followed up after three months,
six were entirely free of pain.

One of the patients, farmer
Floyd Stokes from DeLeon Texas, described his experience on the new treatment,
“One Sunday morning I woke up and told my wife I hadn’t felt so good
in 15 years. I felt fantastic.”

More studies are required to measure
the long term improvement to decide whether this treatment is more efficacious
than currently available treatments, but so far the results are promising.
Thank goodness these researchers weren’t listening when animal rights
activists said genetic engineering would never work.

Renewed fight between Chinese merchants and animal rights activists

Just when it looked like animal
rights activists and merchants in San Francisco’s Chinatown had reached
an uneasy truce, once again the two groups are squaring off over the sale
of live animals in Chinatown’s markets.

For a brief recap, the animal
activists charged live animals being offered for sale in the markets were
being treated cruelly. The merchants argued the activists were interfering
with their traditional cultural practices. The activists sued, but the
whole issue appeared to be resolved when the merchants agreed to abide
by a voluntary code of conduct and the activists agreed, in return, not
to appeal a judge’s ruling against the activists.

The whole agreement broke
down, however, over hard-shell turtles. The merchants currently remove
the turtle’s shell and then cut off the animal’s head, which the
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considers cruel. Instead,
it wants the merchants to cut off the turtle’s head first and then remove
the shell. The merchants argue that because turtles instinctively withdraw
their heads into their shells, trying to cut the head off before removing
the shell is too dangerous.

The markets are very crowded,
and “when you try to chop off (the head)while your finger is right
next to the butcher knife, you have to beware of the workers walking back
and forth behind you,” said Michael Lau who works in the market.
“Sooner or later you’ll chop off something besides the head.”

The ASPCA accuses the merchants
of failing to meet an October deadline for adopting humane practices on
the storage and slaughter of frogs and soft-shell turtles. The merchants,
in response, say the ASPCA never really gave them a fair shot at resolving
the implementation problems.

The ASPCA is now apparently
going to join animal rights groups appealing to the California Fish and
Game Commission seeking legislation to regulate the markets’ treatment
of live animals.

Poverty In America: Are They Serious?

       Leftist social criticism of the
American economy usually follows two contradictory impulses — on the
one hand American citizens are lambasted for being greedy consumers of
most of the world’s resources. On the other hand, tens of millions of
Americans allegedly live in Third World-style squalor. Some critics go
so far as to charge that 30 million Americans suffer from hunger.

       The two conflicting views were
highlighted in the recent release of new Census Bureau statistics on American
poverty and a United Nations Human Development Report. Everyone from the
Pope to the Heritage Foundation responded by weighing in on the issue
of poverty in America and the world.

       The Census Bureau statistics on
poverty were promising but still highly misleading. According to the most
recent report, 35.6 million Americans (13.3 percent of the population)
lived below the poverty line in 1996. This figure represented the third
straight annual decline in the poverty rate. Median family income increased
1.9 percent after inflation, with black families seeing median income
jump 4.3 percent after inflation. Another interesting trend in the Census
Bureau’s statistics that Christian Science Monitor reporter Laurent
Belsie picked up on is the emergence of what she calls the “mass
upper class.” In 1967, 3.2 percent of all families earned at least
$100,000 while in 1996 the figure was 11.8 percent — an amazing increase
in only three decades.

       But for now lets stick with the
poor. Just how poor are America’s poor? Are they the overconsumptive spoiled
First Worlders the Left loves to despise, or are they the oppressed, struggling
Third Worlders the Left loves to romanticize?

       Certainly there is no denying that
real poverty continues to persist in the United States. By historical
and contemporary economic standards, however, many of those counted as
living in poverty by the Census Bureau possess relatively high standards
of living.

       In 1995, for example, 41 percent
of households living in poverty owned their own home. Seventy percent
owned a car. Only 3 percent of poor households said they “often”
didnt have enough to eat, and in fact the overwhelming
nutritional problem suffered by those living in poverty (as with other
Americans) was obesity rather than malnutrition.

       How can this possibly be? How could
someone be officially listed in poverty and yet own a home, car, TV and
VCR, and eat just as well as the upper class? What’s going on here?

       As the Heritage Foundation’s Robert
Rector notes, the problem is with the way the Census Bureau chooses to
measure poverty. In the early l960s the Census Bureau set up specific
income thresholds for families of various sizes; any family below those
thresholds was considered poor. Any family of four making less than $3,100
in 1963 and $16,404 in 1997, for example, would be considered poor. Left-wing
groups, unsatisfied with those levels, often define poverty at even higher
income levels, with a popular definition of poverty being 150% of the
official poverty rate or about $24,000 for a family of four in 1997.

       The main problem with the Census
Bureau’s method is that it dramatically undercounts the financial resources
of the people it classifies as “poor.” As Rector points out,
the problem becomes immediately obvious by comparing the total personal
income in the United States as measured by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s
National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) with the figure arrived at
by the Census Bureau. Whereas NIPA reported total personal income in1996
at $6.8 trillion, the Census Bureau’s official figure was only $4.8 trillion
— a whopping difference of $2 trillion (larger, Rector points out, than
some national economies.)

       Not all of this $2 trillion belongs
to the poorest Americans, but a significant portion of it does. According
to the Census Department, for example, those in the bottom fifth of income
earned an average of $8,350, but according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s
Consumer Expenditure Survey, the average household in this group spend
$14,607. This gap of about $1.75 in spending reported by the Dept. of
Labor for every $1 of income reported by the Census Bureau has generally
persisted throughout the l980s and l990s.

       As Rector notes, this figure itself
is also too low, since the Department of Labor survey leaves out most
governmental transfer spending such as public housing and health subsides.
Add those in, and the average household income of the bottom
fifth of Americans is $20,335.

       Now things seem to make a bit more
sense. It’s hard to imagine how people could afford to own their own homes
making only $8,350 a year, but if in fact they have $20,335 in resources,
these figures about home and car ownership as well as the figures about
food consumption suddenly make sense.

       Rector is certainly correct that
if “poverty is defined as generally lacking adequate nutritious food
for one’s family suitable clothing, and a reasonably warm, dry apartment
in which to live, or lacking a car to get to work when one is needed,
then there are few poor persons remaining in the United States.”

Don’t hate us because we’re rich

       Now I happen to think it is an incredibly
good thing that the bottom quintile of Americans has an average of $20,000
per year in income. The United Nations and the Pope happen to disagree.
As my local newspaper chose to sum it up, the UN’s most recent Human Development
Report bemoaned that “the rich consume the resources.”

       According to the UN report, not
only do First Worlders consume most of the resources, but they pass along
environmental damage to the Third World. “All over the world,”
the report declared, “poor people generally live nearest to dirty
factories, busy roads and waste dumps.” Richard Jolly, the report’s
chief author, told reporters “though the rich create most of the
damage, the poorest in the world suffer most of the consequences.”

       But this merely begs the question.
Why are the world’s poor so poor? Why do they consume so few resources?
Looking at who the poor are tells much of the story. The poorest 10 countries
in the UN’s report were Sierra Leone, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Burundi,
Ethiopia, Eritrea, Guinea, Mozambique and Gambia. All ten are among the
most poorly managed countries in the world. Marked by petty dictators,
often constant civil wars and a legacy of failed socialist experiments,
these ten countries would be among the worst places in the world to live
even if they weren’t dirt poor.

       As Investor’s Business Daily
put it, “Why work hard and start a business if the state can seize
it when it becomes prosperous … That’s the real problem most poor countries
face … It’s that the incentives are all wrong. A country doesn’t need
much to develop. But it must have private property and the rule of law.”

       Which puts the Pope’s comments that
the contrast between the world’s rich and poor is “truly intolerable.”
John Paul II told a gathering of the faithful in September, “It is
isn’t right to be resigned to the immoral spectacle of a world in which
there are still those who die of hunger, who don’t have homes, who lack
the most elementary education, who don’t have access to health care in
case of sickness, who cannot find work.”

       Certainly this is a great crime,
but it is not one that the First World is guilty of. Instead, blame lies
squarely at the feet of Third World governments more intent on enriching
their own coffers and expanding state power rather than improving the
livelihood of their citizens.

       Which, finally, provides an answer
to the UN’s lament that the First World uses most of the worlds resources.
Why? Because the First World produces most of the world’s resources.

       The UN Human Development Report
notes, for example, that only 20 percent of the world has 74% of all of
the telephone lines. This did not happen because the First World stole
telephone lines from the Third World, but because the First World allowed
telephone companies to operate relatively independently (at least compared
to the state-run behemoths present in many Third World nations) and respond
to consumer demand, rather than the demands of the state.

       It is the same with the UN factoid
that the richest 20 percent in the world own 87% of the world’s vehicles.
The First World let entrepreneurs form multitudes of automobile companies
and forced them to face often withering competition. No, the system was
never a perfectly free market, but it was light years beyond that in the
Third World where setting up a business often involves knowing the right
people and paying the right bribes and often includes the right to use
the state to restrict competition almost completely.