From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: 60 min. Cat Shooting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:23:08 GMT

From article <mhulsey-280193082510@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> Clearly, better evidence than the heresay of those who thought they heard
> screams is needed.

At last reckoning, Carey's official position is this:  no postop 
analgesics were administered to the cats.

In response to the GAO's initial report, LSU submitted a 
statement which claimed that each of the many hundreds of cats 
were observed continuously after surgery, and that none of them 
showed any signs of pain.  Of course, there aren't any records to 
demonstrate the extent and frequency of monitoring, presumably 
because records were deemed unnecessary.  In view of the incisions 
that were necessary to insert various catheters, not to mention 
the removal of the anterior wall of the right frontal sinus, 
isn't it amazing that none of the cats experienced pain?  

> ...
>>In fact, Carey was criticized for failing to test
>>drugs he was supposed to have used during the first contract
>>period.
> 
> Which has no bearing on activities during the second funding period.  If
> performance was so poor during the first funding period, as Barnard
> suggests, how did Carey successfully secure funding for a second period?

Good question.  One of the findings of the GAO investigation was
that the army had failed to monitor performance in accordance with
standard regulations and procedures.

> ...
>>   Also omitted from the broadcast was the fact that the GAO
>>found some of Carey's reported data to be physically impossible
> 
> Again, using that top-secret GAO "possibility detector."

The GAO's questions about "impossible" blood gas data came from the
input of the five veterinary anesthesiologists who were asked to
review the project.   

>>and that much of his data was left out when he published his
>>findings, in violation of standards of research integrity.
> 
> Another serious charge that remains unproven.

LSU disputes the ethics charge, but doesn't dispute the fact that
the project used a great many animals that weren't accounted for
in the published reports.

   "... All five anesthesiologists believe that given the current
    scientific climate --- minimizing the use of experimental animals
    for humane and cost purposes --- there is a marked disproportion
    between reported and unrepored animals in this project.  One 
    anesthesiologist commented that it is difficult to have confidence
    in the reported results when so many animals have been excluded with
    no explanation as to the effect that data for them would have on the
    results."

Incidently, all five of the veterinary anesthesiologists held 
professorships at various universities; all five were board certified;
and all five had themselves engaged in animal research.

>>Carey's procedures were careless in many respects
> 
> Barnard's "expert" opinion.
> 
>>and deviated from the protocol which the Army had approved.
> 
> So what?  The DOD didn't care.  They still want to continue the research.
> 
>>   The 6O Minutes staff knew of these problems, but instead
>>portrayed Carey as a leading-edge researcher.
> 
> And Barnard has provided no evidence to the contrary.

Yes, he has.  And so could anyone with an open mind who's read the
GAO report.

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