From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: research in medicine
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:05:42 GMT

In article <By3r0y.IGx@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Nov22.031924.6200@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>gp> I'm not sure what information Martin cited to the McCabe article.  
>gp> (I remember him saying that in fact he didn't use information from it)
>
>In citing the McCabe article, did Martin bother to explain that the 
>article had been retracted?  [no]  Why not?
>
>gp> Regardless, the entire article was not retracted.  Retractions only
>gp> involved
>gp> 1) The statement regarding Pacheco's photographs and his responsibilities
>gp> in the lab.
>gp> 2)Statements regarding the use of PETA funds to pay the fine and legal
>gp> fees of a man convicted for breaking into and vandalizing a lab. (PETA
>gp> didn't pay his fines as expressed min the article but they did pay his
>gp> legal fees.)
>gp> 3) Statements accussing PETA of a having "slush fund" of unreported
>gp> contributions.. (Though the lastest investigations by the federal grand
>gp> jury into PETA and possible racketeering charges may shed some light on
>gp> the issue..
>
>I doubt it.  If you've got any evidence concerning PETA, why 
>don't you post it in lieu of presenting cheap innuendos concerning
>"grand jury investigations".  BTW, it was my understanding that
>grand jury investigations are supposed to be confidential affairs,
>lest innocent parties be slandered by flimsy allegations.

 have made no slanderous allegations, nor cheeap innuendos.  The comments
 regarding the targeting of Pacheco and Newkirk were taken from interviews
 with Pacheco and his lawyer. I am not certain of the original sorce of
 the refusal of these two to answer questions on the basis that it may
 incriminate them, however this statement was made in a direct quote from
 NABR newsletter.  I am confident that their editors are certain of
 information before printing it as they would be liable for slander and
 much of their information is monitored byPETA.
>
>In any case, your list of retractions is incomplete.  In 
>particular, readers should be advised that McCabe also retracted 
>the allegation that Pacheco had allowed conditions in the lab to 
>deteriorate, as well as the inference that the photos depicting 
>unsanitary conditions were not representative.

****Check point 1 above. 
>
>gp> I know I have nothing to do with this, and since Russell has not 
>gp> answered any of my inquiries into his philosophical stance on 
>gp> animal use and his actions in every day life (i.e.  How do you 
>gp> justify your belief in animals rights if you continue to eat meat, 
>gp> wear leather etc...)Ihad to answer.  
>
>We discussed this at some length, Greg.  In fact, we did so in a 
>thread wherein you mentioned that you'd prostitute yourself for
>a good cause.  I'd be happy to run through it once again.  


Yes, we did discuss what I would do but the question was directed toward your
actions.
==================================================================
>rl> If you'd like to go ahead and do your own research, you'll find 
>rl> references in the _Times Picayune_ newspaper, _The Washington Post_,
>rl> _The New York Times_, _Science_, _JAMA_, _American Medical News_, 
>rl> and _PCRM Update_.  Otherwise, you'll have to wait until I have
>rl> time to keyboard the material.   
>================================================================
>
>gp> Thanks Russell, you've narrowed my search down from somewhere between
>gp> 2,000,000 and 100,000,000 articles.  I have told twice I would do the leg
>gp> work.  But, I do need as starting point.  You must know something of the
>gp> project off the top of your head if you are so well informed about it to
>gp> use it as an example.  Again A date, A name, A volume number, A title. I do
>gp> need a starting point. 
>
>As I mentioned previously, I'm going to provide a half-dozen articles
>(with complete text), when I have an opportunity to keyboard them. 
>Meanwhile, you can wait, or, you can learn to use the library.  

Russell, I don't need you to post the entire article.  A citation
including vol and pg would be enough.  I'll be happy to go to the library
and photocopy the article.
BTY I've been in the library and have done a Med-line search but there is
no mention of a cat-shooting experiment.  Med-line only goes back to 1985
or so.  Was the experiment before this or after.
====================================================================>
>gp> Are you *really* suggesting that scientists who publish many papers 
>gp> are "mediocre," while those who publish few are "excellent?" 
>
this wasn't my question Russell, it was Martin's.  I think he has handled
it quite well, and I do not need to comment futher.
====================================================================
>
>[redundant and/or personal questions deleted]
>
>rl> If you think it's reasonable to concentrate on the personal lives
>rl> of your opponents, I'd be happy to prepare some personal questions
>rl> for you to answer, Martin.   Would that please you?
>
>Martin's questions weren't difficult to answer.  Some of them were
>irrelevant (ie asking about my "major"), and some were redundant (ie
>asking me what experiments I would "allow").

Martin has pointed out that it's you who keeps questioning his
credencials.  I have no qualms with "revealing" my educational history.  I
feel it better allows a person to understand my point of view and to
better communicate their views.  My purpose for inquiry into peoples
education( e.g Rosemary) is not to "see if mine bigger".
It allows me to place the
context of the conversation in an arena that will facillitate communication.

Regarding the redundance of the questions. Perhaps.  I can't keep up with
all the novelettes you and Martin write. I assume Martin does keep up and
is aware of the ground he has covered. 
If that is insufficient then do it for me Russell( spoken with a soft lull
in vioce.).  Humor me and answer the
questions.

                               Greg Popken

-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************