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: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:46:45 GMT

In article <BxzG0B.BLE@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:

>[...]
>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.

If you truly don't understand, why do you attempt to extend & revise my
remarks?  I never implied any such thing.

Everyone has a right to their opinion.  A person's qualifications, or lack
of them, can make their opinion more or less valuable and trustworthy.  For
example, it would be perfectly acceptable for Barnard to testify in a court
of law as an expert witness on matters of psychiatry.  He would have more
difficulty establishing his credibility in matters related to research,
having done little or none himself.  Why, therefore, do you and others
consider him qualified to assess the merits of work done by bona fide
researchers?

>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?

I'm not claiming to be a philosopher.  I have done research in a lab
studying diabetes, so I am familiar with this area.  I never denigrated Dr.
Heimlich's achievements.  On the contrary, I laud them.

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

Wrong.  You have criticized me for not having the following degrees:

R. D.       (in the Ferrell Wheeler exchange)
M. D.       (pediatrics, in the milk/diabetes exchange)
Philosophy  (this post, below)
M. D.       (emergency medicine, this post, below)

These criticisms are true, but are disingenuous coming from someone like
you who has refused to reveal what degree(s) they have, and what
"ivy-league" institution(s) conferred it/them.

>However, in the future I'm going to demand that you
>meet the same intellectual standards that you apply to others.

Fine.  I already do.  I resent your evasive tactics because I always try to
answer every question (though it often takes me a few days), or at least
explain why I cannot.  I don't simply edit them out and hope everyone will
forget them, as you do.

>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.

You are again a bag of wind.  I never said anything negative about
"second-rate" universities.  I have never cast aspersions on any
institution of higher learning.  I instead used the term as an example to
indicate that even *they* (whoever they might be) would be wise enough not
to hire a "scientist" who had published only two research papers in eight
years.  Assuming his psychiatric credentials are in order, Barnard could
possibly secure a position at a med school.  His notoriety in mainstream
medical circles, and lack of publications might also be an obstacle there.

As president of PCRM, and medical advisor to PETA, Neal Barnard has
appeared on television shows, written articles, etc. condemning the work of
animal researchers such as John Orem.  He certainly has a right to his
opinion, but his scientific credentials are sorely lacking.  He is,
therefore, abusing the trust that the public places in physicians.  I
imagine that he is a whiz-bang psychiatrist (if he has the time); that
would be for his peers to judge.

Remember how Dr. Spock prefaced his remarks at the PCRM "milk/diabetes"
press conference with the disclaimer, "I am not a nutrition researcher?" 
This is the kind of professional courtesy that reinforces, rather than
abuses, this public trust.

>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?

Another pagan dance.  If you have evidence for a double-standard on my
part, let's see it.  Either way, stop questioning my credentials.

>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.  

I never implied that teaching was not *also* an important part of a
scientist's duties.  The animal "rights" movement would interfere with this
critical process also, by opposing dissection.  The motto at UGA is "ET
DOCERE ET EXQUIERE RERUM CAUSAS." (both to teach and to inquire into the
nature of things).

If one's colleagues are qualified, they don't need "nurturing."  Otherwise,
they wouldn't be called colleagues.

If these "non-mediocre" projects to which you refer aren't published, of
what benefit are they to humankind?

You do have a right to your opinion, but you are unqualified to categorize
anyone's research as "mediocre, redundant garbage."

>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,...

Naturally, because you probably have none.

>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.

Yet another pagan dance.  I asked you first, Russell.  I'll be happy to
describe all four of my degrees immediately after you list yours.

>[...]
>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?  

Appeals to authority are not fallacious if the authorities are genuine.  In
one instance, I referred you to Dr. Alan Goldberg.  He would be considered
by many THE authority on animal testing and possible alternatives.

You will have to refresh my memory with respect to any other "appeals to
authority" that I have made.

>> ...

[Russell didn't forget the ellipsis this time, but note that he still won't
answer my questions.  I predict a 99.999% probability that this will
continue.  See below.]

>re: Henry Heimlich's opposition to useless animal experimentation

"Useless" is not synonymous with redundant.  You have not yet indicated Dr.
Heimlich's opinion of any other than one animal experiment, so don't
generalize.

>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.

I'm not certain which revision of the AWA introduced this measure, but I
have to indicate how (i.e., what database I searched) I determined that the
research projects I propose are not duplicative.  I will see if I can get
more accurate info from my IACUC.

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

Here you go again.  This is not a question of expertise in "emergency
medicine," but rather chronology.  As I said above, if Heimlich published
(rather than submitted) his 1981 paper prior to the other researcher's
"early 1980's" application, he would be justified in his objection.  You
still haven't provided a more specific date that would allow us to discern
this critical point.  Until you do, you are not really justified in calling
the experiment useless, redundant or unnecessary.

>> ...
>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.

It's just my opinion, Russell.  You, and others, may take it for what it is
worth. 

>> ...
>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. 

Yes you are.  Greg Popken asked you twice if not thrice for more info. 
Since you claim to be well-informed about this case, I too would like to
see more info.  If you really hold "intellectual standards" dear, it's time
to put up or retract your claims.

Here is a list of questions that I have asked you previously, and obtained
no reply.  My newsreader has dropped a few posts here & there, so forgive
me if I missed an answer.  I would appreciate an answer to these questions
at any time in the near future.  Optionally, you may admit that you simply
have no viable answer for any particular question (and explain why).  I
will repost remaining and new unanswered questions periodically to remind
you.  Your evasive tactics will either end, or shall be made clearly
evident to everyone.

Lest you again accuse me of a double standard, I encourage you to do
likewise.  If you have not obtained an answer to any question that you
asked me, I would appreciate a second chance.  I have not purposefully
avoided any question that you have asked with one exception:  I will reveal
my degrees *only* after you reveal yours.

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

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

BTW, what was your major?  What degree did you obtain there?

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 you purchased "cruelty-free" mascara for your daughter (assuming you had
one), and it caused severe eye ulceration and subsequent blindness, would
you sue the company for damages?  Would you care more about your daughter's
eyes than those of a rabbit?

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

Have you ever flipped a bit of toothpaste into your eye while brushing your

teeth?  Would it comfort you that the company producing your 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?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

--
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