From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:36:09 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> So you say.  You seem to be pursuing the general notion that Neal 
rl> Barnard's criticism can be summarily dismissed because of the 
rl> superficial credentials that you hold dear.  Where did you get 
rl> the medical degree that now qualifies you to issue decrees from 
rl> the pulpit?  And, how many medical doctors do you know who 
rl> publish truly original research (as opposed to mediocre 
rl> paperwork), in accordance with the kind of schedule that you 
rl> apparently value?  

From article <mhulsey-191192095952@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> You have made my point.  As Barnard is a psychiatrist who does 
mh> little research, he is not qualified to criticize the merits of 
mh> research done by a neuroscientist such as John Orem.  Likewise, 
mh> Orem wouldn't be qualified to comment on the clinical performance 
mh> of Barnard.  Get it?  

No, I don't get it.   You've been claiming that an intelligent 
person is unentitled to express his/her opinions if he fails to
present a particular set of credentials.  Yet, you apparently
believe that you're qualified, for some strange reason, to offer
opinions on philosophy, diabetes, the Heimlich maneuver, and a 
host of topics that seem to be well beyond your field of expertise.
Why?

mh> You have repeatedly criticized me for not having this or that 
mh> degree.  

Not at all.  However, in the future I'm going to demand that you
meet the same intellectual standards that you apply to others.  In
particular, I'd like to learn how/why your "research" position at the 
University of Georgia has qualified you to pontificate about the
evils of "second rate" universities and the various attainments of 
your opponents.

mh> As I have responded repeatedly, you are in no position to 
mh> question my credentials, because you have NONE yourself.  

What sort of credentials must a person have in order to point out
that you have a set of double-standards?

mh> If what you say is true, they now have departments 
mh> full of non-productive scientists, and less prestige than they 
mh> formerly had.  

rl> No, they have departments staffed by faculty members who can think 
rl> freely and critically, because they're no longer harnessed to a 
rl> system that rewards mediocrity more than excellence.  

mh> This is total crap.  Are you *really* suggesting that scientists who
mh> publish many papers are "mediocre," while those who publish few are
mh> "excellent?" Scientists who can "think freely and critically" are of no use
mh> if they cannot successfully communicate their original thoughts and
mh> findings in peer-reviewed journals.  

No, it's not total crap.  Scientists who aren't obliged to spew out
mediocre, redundant garbage at regular intervals can spend the salvaged
time nurturing students and colleagues, and engaging in projects that
don't lend themselves to mediocre, "piecemeal" paper chases.  
		
mh> I'm sure that your mentors at that
mh> "ivy-league" school, that you are so reluctant to name, would be
mh> disappointed with you.  BTW, what was your major?  What degree did you
mh> obtain there?
mh> 
mh> [85% probability of question avoidance by Russell.]

Unlike you, I don't think credentials are particularly relevant to
the discussion, but if you think they're important, why don't you
give us the names of the schools that you've attended and the 
degrees that you've earned and then explain how/why those degrees
entitle you to criticize a man with Neal Barnard's prior training.

rl> BTW, I'd strongly recommend _Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and 
rl> Deceit in the Halls of Science_, by William Broad and Nicholas 
rl> Wade, which explores the role that the "publish or perish" 
rl> mentality has played in cheapening scientific exploration and 
rl> scientific honesty in the United States.  

mh> I cannot deny that fraud is a serious problem in science.  All I 
mh> can say is that I have not encountered any.

rl> Perhaps you're unable or unwilling to identify fallacies when you see
rl> them.

mh> I've had no trouble identifying the fallacies in your arguments.

Can you identify the fallacious appeals to authority that are often 
embedded in your own arguments?  

> ...

re: Henry Heimlich's opposition to useless animal experimentation

mh> If Heimlich had published his first reference well before the other
mh> researcher proposed her/his beagle experiment, I would concur that the
mh> beagle experiment was redundant and unnecessary.  Under those conditions, I
mh> would not support that experiment.  If the researcher did not first verify
mh> that the Heimlich manuver had not been sucessfully applied to drowning
mh> humans before applying for IACUC approval, then it would be a clear
mh> violation of the AWA.

Would you mind furnishing some evidence to support this last statement?
In particular, I'd like to know when/how the rules that you're citing
came into being.

Please explain how/why your conclusions concerning Heimlich's 
opposition would depend, or not depend, on your lack of 
credentials in emergency medicine.  

> ...
rl> Or, would you say that Heimlich is just another "AR-bozo"?  

mh> I would not denigrate Heimlich's achievements, but if he believes that
mh> animals have "rights," and denigrates the contributions of animal research
mh> to medicine, I would regard him as such.  In other words, probably not.

Do you have a degree in philosophy, Martin?  If not, please explain 
how/why you feel qualified to call someone "bozo", simply because he/she
believes that animals should have rights.

> ...
mh> [75% probability that Russell will continue to ignore requests to provide
mh> more info about the LSU "cat-shooting" experiment.]

I'm not ignoring such requests, Martin. 

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