In the summer of 1981 in Silver Springs, Maryland a student, Alex Pacheco, began working undercover in the Institute of Behavioral Research under Dr. Edward Toub (The Silver Spring). At this time Dr. Edward Toub was conducting research on monkeys to see if people could be taught to use paralyzed limbs even though the limbs lacked feeling. In these experiments Dr. Edward Toub surgically severed the nerves in the limbs of monkeys in order to see if the monkeys could be retrained to use their numb limbs (Smith). The goal of this experiment was to gain information that would aid in the rehabilitation of patients who had suffered from stroke or spinal cord trauma (Rossi).
In September of 1981 Pacheco provided evidence to the police…show more content… Animal rights activists have a right to seek justice for animals as they cannot seek justice for themselves. Also, as a member of the research team, Pacheco had not only a right but also an obligation to report Dr. Edward Taub of scientific misconduct if it had been committed. Depending on his intentions Pacheco could have two reasonable expectation. If Pacheco had entered the lab to simply ensure that the research animals were being treated within the laws and ethics of research science then it would be expected that Pacheco would find that the lab was run correctly and that he would not press charges. However, If Pacheco had entered the lab with the intention to create a set-up framing Dr. Edward Taub then it might be expected that Dr. Edward Taub be charged and prosecuted.
The Federal Government is the third affected party in this case as Dr. Edward Taub’s research was federally funded by grants (U.S Cuts off). The Federal Government has a right to withdraw grants if the grant money is not being used for research that is both lawful and follows the ethical codes of scientific research. The Federal Government would have the reasonable expectation that the lab be run within the laws and ethics of research science and that no controversy would occur from the