From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:12:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: WP Group


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I would agree that such a record of publication might not qualify 
rl> a person for a position at a second-rate university.  On the 
rl> other hand, it certainly wouldn't disqualify him/her for a 
rl> position at a top-rate university.

From article <mhulsey-181192104357@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Yes it would.  

No it wouldn't, Martin.

mh> No top-rate university would hire a "scientist" who had published 
mh> only two papers in 8 years.  

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

rl> The ivy league institution 
rl> that I occasionally call "alma mater" has, for the past twenty 
rl> years or so, been turning it's back on the cretinous notion that 
rl> a thinker's qualifications can be judged by the sheer number of 
rl> his publications.  

mh> The quality of publications is also a consideration, but harder 
mh> to discern.  

It doesn't take much intelligence to tally up the number of line items
in a bibliographical search, Martin.   Were you under the impression
that faculty selection committees at highly competitive schools would
be obliged to fall back on such measures?

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.  

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

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.

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

mh> The best way to expose fraudulent results (or honest mistakes) in 
mh> research is by their duplication in other laboratories.  Of 
mh> course, you AR-bozos are opposed to that as well.  

"AR-bozos"?    Thanks for giving us another glimpse into the way
your mind works.

rl> PCRM member, Henry Heimlich, appeared on a recent episode of _The 
rl> Nature of Things_, to discuss his fervent opposition to a 
rl> proposed animal research project in the early 1980's, wherein a 
rl> prospective researcher wished to study the use of the Heimlich 
rl> maneuver on drowning victims by deliberate drowning 42 healthy 
rl> beagles.  Heimlich pointed out that the efficacy of the famous 
rl> maneuver bearing his name had already been demonstrated on 
rl> drowned humans and that the deliberate drowning of dogs would 
rl> have been useless.  The project was eventually cancelled, thanks 
rl> to public pressure as well as Heimlich's opposition.  Was 
rl> Heimlich qualified to make such an assessment?  

mh> Is this what you call an answer to my above questions, or is this 
mh> simply another of your "pagan dances around a midnight fire 
mh> written in intellectual runes?" Care to try again, or should we 
mh> add these to the ever-growing list of Russell's unanswered 
mh> questions?  
mh> 
mh> To answer your question where you clearly do not deserve one, I 
mh> would *probably* oppose the experiment that you describe, but I 
mh> would first need to see the researcher's justification.  Can you 
mh> provide more details as to the institution & researcher?  

Not off hand.

mh> Wasn't the Heimlich maneuver intended for victims of choking 
mh> rather than drowning?  We cannot automatically assume that it 
mh> would be helpful rather than harmful for this application.  Can 
mh> you provide a reference where the application of the Heimlich 
mh> maneuver was successfully used on drowned humans?  

I suspect you'll find some case histories in the following articles:

Heimlich, HJ.  "Subdiaphragmatic pressure to expel water
from the lungs of drowning persons".  Annuals of Emergency Medicine, 
Sept, 1981.

Heimlich, HJ and Patrick, EA.  "Using the Heimlich maneuver to save
near-drowning victims".  Postgrad Med, Aug, 1988.

mh> How does Heimlich determine that such experiments are to be 
mh> performed?

In the interview that I cited previously, Heimlich stated that he 
was opposed to the experiments because the efficacy of the 
technique had already been established on drowning humans.  Yes, 
we realize that a series of redundant experiments on dogs would 
have given some poor individual an opportunity to inflate his 
curriculum vitae, and hence, appear to be much brighter to someone
like yourself, but would they truly augment our understanding 
of emergency medicine?  Not according to Heimlich.  

Question: Was Heimlich qualified to make such an assessment?  Or, 
would you say that Heimlich is just another "AR-bozo"?  

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