From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:15:57 GMT

In article <C1FEp0.EFA@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> As usual, you're assuming that your opponents have a burden of 
> proof, but not you yourself.

Did I claim that the "beagle-drowning" and "cat-shooting" experiments were
questionable or did you?

>Should taxpayers be obliged to fund every 
> experiment unless it can be proven that the experiment is 
> useless?

No.

>Or, should the experimenters have the burden of proving 
> that the research has some promise?

Yes.  All of the grant proposals that I have seen and prepared do indeed
consider this very issue.

Considering that only a small fraction of submitted proposals are funded,
would you agree that those funded are likely to have the most merit? 

>[...]
> 
> You're saying that Heimlich is ignorant about the history and
> use of the Heimlich manuever?

No, I'm saying that he is ignorant about the usefulness of "most" animal
research.  I could be wrong.  He might, instead, be lying about the
usefulness of "most" animal research.

Even if Heimlich's chronological claim (that you cited) regarding the
"beagle-drowning" experiment is true (I'm still waiting for you to prove
this), would your keen analytical mind suggest that it would prove that
"most animal experimentation is worthless?"

I'm sure that Heimlich is well aware of the history and use of his namesake
maneuver.  Our dispute here involves use of the well-known "Lawrence
Maneuver," your namesake.  That is, the making of a claim without
supporting evidence, avoiding questions, and attempting to shift the burden
of proof to others.

> 
> > Heimlich argues that "most animal
> > experimentation is useless," yet does not provide any proof for that claim.
> >  Do you support this claim?  If so, then let us see your proof.  If not,
> > would you agree that Heimlich is acting here as a mouthpiece for PCRM?
> 
> I'd agree that Heimlich is acting as a mouthpiece for himself.  Do you
> have any proof that he made this statement on behalf of PCRM?

You can judge that yourself.  I was asking rather than claiming.

Is Heimlich a member of PCRM?  If the public accepts Heimlich's "expert"
opinion on animal research, who would benefit the most, Heimlich or PCRM
($$$$)?

Do you support Heimlich's claim that "most animal experimentation is
useless?"  If so, where is the proof?

> In the statement above, Heimlich is pointing out that the usefulness 
> of his technique to save drowning victims had already been demonstrated.

Yes, and I am waiting for you to PROVE that Heimlich's 1981 reference that
you cited was published BEFORE the "early 80's" proposal was made.

> Are you disputed his claim that further research to prove the efficacy
> of the technique was unnecessary?  Where's your proof, Martin?

Don't attempt the "Lawrence Maneuver" on me.  The burden of proof in this
instance is upon Heimlich (and you).  

If Heimlich's 1981 paper was indeed published a reasonable length of time
(~2 months) BEFORE the "beagle-drowning" experiment was proposed, I'd agree
that the PI was at fault.  If not, I'd say that you and Heimlich are
criticizing the PI of the "beagle-drowning" proposal for not being able to
read Heimlich's mind.

> > Heimlich does not even offer any proof that the ONE proposed experiment in
> > question was "useless" as proposed.  Neither, apparently, do you.
> 
> What was the purpose of the experiment that Heimlich was protesting???
> 
> Answer:  To determine whether or not the Heimlich technique could 
> 			be used to resuscitate human drowning victims.
> 
> In view of the fact that this had already been demonstrated, using
> humans, what was the use of conducting additional experiments on
> dogs?  Let's see your evidence, Martin.

You just don't get it Russell.  Heimlich's claim regarding this particular
experiment regarded chronology, not usefulness.  It is the *chronology* of
the "Beagle" proposal vs the "Human" publication that I am waiting for you
to demonstrate.  See above.

>[...]
> 
> Are you saying that the Ames test isn't useful to predict 
> carcinogenicity?   Let's see your proof.

Another "Lawrence Maneuver."  I am not making any claims related to the
Ames test.  You are.

However, I do find it curious that animal "rights" activists often claim
that it is inaccurate to extrapolate results obtained on lower mammals to
humans, but that it is accurate to extrapolate results obtained from
bacteria to humans.

Can you explain this reasoning?

> > From Message-ID: <Bxsp6F.FDG@wpg.com> date  16 Nov 1992 06:11:01 GMT
> > ========================================================================
> > 
> >[...]
> > 
> > What sort of "breakthroughs" did you have in mind?  Would they include:
> > 
> > - the "cam" test, the "ames" test, the "agarose diffusion method", 
> >   and "topkat"
> > - "Eytex", developed by Ropak Industries
> > - "Neutral Red Bioassay" and "EpiPack", developed by Clonetics Corporation
> > - "Neoderm", developed by Marrow-Tech
> > - "Testskin", developed by Organogenesis
> > 
> > ========================================================================
> >
> > If you weren't implicitly claiming that the "breakthroughs" listed above
> > are "alternatives" to the Draize test or other test employed for cosmetics
> > (our topic of conversation at the time), then what, precisely, were you
> > claiming about them?
> 
> Of course, they're alternatives...

Alternatives to WHAT?  What, precisely, are you claiming about these tests?
 We were discussing the Draize test, and its "alternatives."

, but it's foolish for you to insist
> that a tool or idea that fits one particular purpose must also satisfy
> a whole range of purposes.

If I said that, it would indeed be foolish.  Because I did not, you are the
foolish one.

> If it's reasonable for you to continue asking me how the Ames test
> might be an alternative for ocular irritancy then it would be 
> equally reasonable for me to ask you how the LSU cat shooting
> experiments are going to find a cure for cancer.  

I'm just asking you to clarify/prove your previous claim(s) surrounding the
list of "breakthroughs" that you listed above.  Are you capable?

> > [some "unanswered questions" crap deleted]
> 
> In view of the fact that you're playing the "unanswered question"
> game again...

Precisely where did I mention any "unanswered question" in this exchange?

>let me call your attention to the fact that you've
> failed to answer the following question:
> 
> ===============================================================
> You've stated that animal research is "good" if it's either 
> "necessary" or "essential".  Would you say that deer hunting and 
> mink coats are "necessary" and/or "essential"?  
> ===============================================================

Precisely where did I "state" that "animal research is 'good' if it's
either 
'necessary' or 'essential'?"

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