From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:09:04 GMT

In article <By198v.56B@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>I'd suggest that you begin to focus on the facts and rational 
>arguments presented by your opponents, in lieu of addressing what 
>you perceive to be their lack of credentials/honesty/intelligence 
>and various other personality attributes (ie "bozos").  
>Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to point out that you don't have 
>a medical degree, and hence should think twice about criticizing 
>MD's.  And that you don't have a degree in philosophy, and hence, 
>should refrain from criticizing philosophers.  And that you're 
>not a registered dietitian, and hence, should refrain from 
>commenting on the safety of milk, meat, etc.

By issuing press releases, writing articles, being president of PCRM, being
medical advisor to PETA, etc.  Neal Barnard has positioned himself as a
"scientific authority" of the animal "rights" movement.  This is why I
consider him fair game, and apparently why you defend him so fiercely. 
Barnard's publication record indicates that his credentials as a scientist
(much less, as a scientific authority) are lacking, so I do not consider
him qualified to judge the merits of the work of other scientists.  This is
my opinion, as a scientist.  A non-physician would not be called to testify
in a court of law about the medical performance of physician.  Likewise, a
non-scientist would not be considered competent to assess the scientific
performance of a scientist.

Your opinion about Barnard may vary from mine, but you have been unable to
provide any evidence to support Barnard as a "scientific authority." 
Instead, you question my credentials, and thereby reinforce the fact that
you cannot defend Barnard.

If Barnard was merely another UseNet participant, your objections would be
valid.  Because I am merely another UseNet participant, your criticisms of
me are invalid.  You are the one with the double standard, simply because
you have difficulty distinguishing UseNet from the Real World.  When I
start issuing press releases critiquing the performance of psychiatrists,
you may feel free to scrutinize my qualifications as I have done for
Barnard.

>In truth, Martin, I'm happy to hear your comments on these
>topics, provided that you cease and desist from expecting your
>opponents to meet a higher set of standards than you might be
>able or willing to apply to your own arguments.

You persist in this claim, but don't offer any proof for it.  I have never
pointed out your lack of qualifications except as you have questioned mine.

>> ...
>mh> You do have a right to your opinion, but you are unqualified to 
>mh> categorize anyone's research as "mediocre, redundant garbage." 
>
>And you're unqualified to express such philosophical opinions, Martin,
>since you're unable to distinguish an ad hominem fallacy from a
>rational argument.

If my criticism of your qualifications is a "fallacy," then simply tell us
your qualifications.  I will retract my statement if you prove me wrong.

You have repeatedly brought up the discipline of philosophy.  Are you
trying to bait me into challenging your credentials in philosophy so that
you can deliver a "crushing blow" by _finally_ announcing that you have a
baccalaureate degree in philosophy?

>Incidently, I'm still waiting to see your full apologies concerning 
>your misuse of groundless material from the (now retracted) McCabe
>article that had been published by the (now apologetic) _Washingtonian_
>magazine.  In retrospect, I'm sure you realize that McCabe was
>"unqualified" to criticize the animal rights movement.

I already expressed my regrets for using such info in an exchange with Bob
Black.  If you missed it, I apologize to you as well.  I did hear that
there was a retraction, but I was not privy , as you are, to the specifics
of what was retracted.  I read secondhand that it was a problem with
unsupportable implications by McCabe regarding PETA's finances.  I was
unaware that any other aspect of the article had been retracted.  I did
find other inaccuracies in the McCabe article myself, so I agree that
McCabe went way out of line in the article, and it was not a balanced and
objective piece of journalism.

I do not support anyone's stretching the truth in an attempt to discredit
the animal "rights" movement.  The verifiable and admitted antics are more
than sufficient for that.

>rl> Please explain how/why your conclusions concerning Heimlich's 
>rl> opposition would depend, or not depend, on your lack of 
>rl> credentials in emergency medicine.  
>
>mh> Here you go again.  This is not a question of expertise in 
>mh> "emergency medicine," but rather chronology.  As I said above, if 
>mh> Heimlich published (rather than submitted) his 1981 paper prior 
>mh> to the other researcher's "early 1980's" application, he would be 
>mh> justified in his objection...  
>
>Right.  I agree.  In some cases it only takes a logical 
>mind... rather than credentials in the particular field, to spot 
>the weaknesses in a particular program of research.

You are generalizing again.  In this particular case, Heimlich's objections
to the beagle experiment were based on his assertion that he had previously
demonstrated its efficacy on drowned humans.  Chronology, and not expertise
in "emergency medicine," determines whether or not Heimlich's objections
were valid.  You attempted to mislead previously when using a 1988
publication of Heimlich's to support this claim.  You did offer another
article, published by Heimlich in 1981, but you have not yet provided
evidence that this article was published before the "early 80's" experiment
was proposed.  As you are the accuser here, isn't the burden of proof upon
you?

>mh> You still haven't provided a more specific date that would allow 
>mh> us to discern this critical point.  Until you do, you are not 
>mh> really justified in calling the experiment useless, redundant or 
>mh> unnecessary.  
>
>You're confused.   Heimlich's the individual who stated that the
>proposed program was useless.  And Heimlich was both the inventor 
>of the maneuver as well as the author of several dozen articles in 
>the related field.  Was Heimlich qualified to criticize the 
>experiments?

No, you are confused.  I would readily accept Heimlich's assessment of the
feasibility of using beagles rather than humans to demonstrate the efficacy
of his maneuver on drowning humans.  His objections, as *you* related them,
did not address feasibility.  They were instead based on a chronological
claim that *you* have not addressed, much less proven.

>> ...
>rl> Do you have a degree in philosophy, Martin?  If not, please 
>rl> explain how/why you feel qualified to call someone "bozo", simply 
>rl> because he/she believes that animals should have rights.  
>
>mh> It's just my opinion, Russell.  You, and others, may take it for 
>mh> what it is worth. 
>
>My personal opinion is that you have a lot to contribute to this
>newsgroup, but you also have a lot to learn as well.   It seems to
>me that your time would be better spent if you'd concentrate on
>sharing specific ideas on specific issues in lieu of attempting
>to prove that your opponents are suffering from some sort of
>intellectual or moral weakness.

Again, Neal Barnard's credentials were mentioned long ago in the
milk/diabetes thread, and I would have been happy to drop it many posts
ago.  You have persisted in this topic, and I have merely been obliging in
answering your questions.

You are right, though.  I should instead concentrate on engaging Bob Black
on Banting & Best, or Ted Robinson on his "universal ethic."  My exchanges
with you have been frustrating and unrewarding compared to those, so
forgive me if I am less inclined to engage you further.  In fact, I'd
prefer not to engage you at all until you can answer unanswered questions.

>mh> [75% probability that Russell will continue to ignore requests to provide
>mh> more info about the LSU "cat-shooting" experiment.]
>
>rl> I'm not ignoring such requests, Martin. 
>
>mh> Yes you are.  Greg Popken asked you twice if not thrice for 
>mh> more info.  Since you claim to be well-informed about this case, 
>mh> I too would like to see more info.  If you really hold 
>mh> "intellectual standards" dear, it's time to put up or retract 
>mh> your claims.  
>
>If you'd like to go ahead and do your own research, you'll find 
>references in the _Times Picayune_ newspaper, _The Washington Post_,
>_The New York Times_, _Science_, _JAMA_, _American Medical News_, 
>and _PCRM Update_.  Otherwise, you'll have to wait until I have
>time to keyboard the materials. 

Thanks for trying Russell, but these are not references until you are more
specific about issues or dates of publication.  Page numbers would be nice,
also.  If this is too much to key in, just give me the ones from _Science_
and _JAMA_, and forget those from the popular press.  In other words, give
me a couple of complete references rather than a deluge of non-references.

If you asked me for a reference, and I simply gave the name of a journal or
newspaper, you'd protest strenuously.

>mh> Here is a list of questions that I have asked you previously, 
>mh> and obtained no reply...  [personal questions deleted]

You remain evasive.  These are not all *personal questions*.  Any that
could be, I will rephrase in general terms, and let you try again.

>If you think it's reasonable to concentrate on the personal lives
>of your opponents, I'd be happy to prepare some personal questions
>for you to answer, Martin.   Would that please you?

If you answer, rather than evade, my questions, you may then ask me
anything that is related to my treatment of animals.  There are few areas
that I would consider off-limits.  You will find that I am concerned with
animal welfare (though we would obviously differ on specifics), but I will
not sacrifice myself or members of my species to save other species.

I did not mean to be personal.  These questions were hypothetical.  You did
not protest their "personal" nature, at the time the questions were
originally asked.  Your objections are an afterthought, and therefore
another evasive tactic.  I will try again, and hope that you will respond.

+++++++++++++++++   Russell's unanswered questions  ++++++++++++++++++++

[some questions deleted or re-phrased to be less "personal" per Russell's
request.]

Are you suggesting that scientists who publish many papers are "mediocre,"
while those who publish few are "excellent?" 

I already told you what sort of research I would allow.  Why 
can't you return the favor?  All you have indicated was that you 
would like to review proposed experiments on a case-by-case 
basis.  Did you mean that you wanted to review every experiment 
personally, or did you just want them reviewed by someone?  How 
would you modify the _status quo_ to simultaneously protect the 
interests of human and non-human animals?  Would failing to 
perform a critical experiment be worse than performing one that 
proved trivial?  How do we determine, in advance, which 
experiments are critical and which are trivial?  

If a person purchased "cruelty-free" mascara for their daughter, and it
caused severe eye ulceration and subsequent blindness, would they sue the
company for damages?  Should they care more about their daughter's eyes
than those of a rabbit?

Should anyone honestly expect me or anyone else to accept a "fact sheet"
from PETA as a _bona fide_ reference?

Has anyone ever flipped a bit of toothpaste into their eye while brushing
their teeth?  Would it comfort them that the company producing their
toothpaste had determined in advance that its product wouldn't cause severe
eye damage in case of such an event?

How much of the research that PCRM (and PETA) opposes today might save 
human lives tomorrow?

<Re: John Orem>
Using ten cats per year to seek a cure for a disease that kills 8,000
infants per year sounds like a wise investment to me.  Barnard apparently
disagrees.  Is this an example of PCRM's lofty ethics with regard to animal
research?

Given your obvious familiarity with PETA, why don't we cut to the chase?  
Can you tell me exactly what kinds of animal research that Pacheco, 
Newkirk or yourself would support?

For example, has any Nobel prize been awarded in Physiology or Medicine for
"involuntary human research?"

<Re: -- the use of poorly educated human subjects in third world 
countries>
Again, are we unethical to collect data while we give aid to persons in 
the Third World?  

<Re:  -- the use of retarded persons in research>
Again, if we are trying to study retardation and help the retarded, why 
not?
 
Do you propose that Christian Scientists refuse medical care because they
believe the information is tainted?

<Re: the validity of my discussing Singer without having read his works>
If you truly wish to expose the cruelties or needlessness that you perceive
in animal research, don't you think it might be wise to first read the
published
methods and results?  If you rely on PETA's assessment of Robert Taub or
Ted Altar's assessment of Banting & Best, why couldn't I rely on someone
else's assessment of Singer?

Would you agree that it would not "serve a useful purpose" to 
"turn our back" on advances obtained with animals in the future?  
If so, why would anyone argue to have animal research abolished?  
Regardless of what you personally believe, would you agree that the 
abolitionist position of others (forgetting Ingrid) is foolish?  

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals