From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:10:08 GMT

From article <mhulsey-250193091110@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> I do insist that the examples that you have condemned are not "useless" and
> "unnecessary" until you have proven them to be so.  You have proven
> nothing.

As usual, you're assuming that your opponents have a burden of 
proof, but not you yourself.  Should taxpayers be obliged to fund every 
experiment unless it can be proven that the experiment is 
useless?  Or, should the experimenters have the burden of proving 
that the research has some promise?  

>>    [Quote from Heimlich:]
>>    "Most animal experimentation is useless...  It had 
>>    already been proven by humans saved using the technique 
>>    that the Heimlich maneuver was working.  Why would it 
>>    be necessary to put dogs through cruel and useless 
>>    experiments only to come to the same conclusion?" 
>> 
>> Do you think Heimlich is lying, Martin?
> 
> No, he's just ignorant about this issue.  

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

> 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?

In the statement above, Heimlich is pointing out that the usefulness 
of his technique to save drowning victims had already been demonstrated.
Are you disputed his claim that further research to prove the efficacy
of the technique was unnecessary?   Where's your proof, Martin?

> 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.

> 
>> > In addition, I'm waiting for you to offer some evidence for your claim that
>> > the Ames test for bacterial mutagenicity is a suitable alternative for the
>> > Draize test for ocular irritancy.
>> 
>> I've responded to this claim several times previously, Martin.
> 
> I'm not sure about that, but you have ignored this issue numerous times.

Why should I answer the same question over and over?

>> From Message-ID: <C0GzKK.9MD@wpg.com> date  7 Jan 1993 06:05:06 GMT
>> ========================================================================
>> > I am not the one who claimed that the Ames test is an "alternative" to the
>> > Draize test.  You are.  The burden of proof is upon you.  You repeatedly
>> > make this point to me, yet forget it when it is convenient. 
>> 
>> You're asking me to prove a point I didn't make, Martin.  The fact that
>> the Ames test is useful to predict carcinogenicity isn't alterred by
>> the fact that it may be unsuitable for other specific needs.
>> Martin
>> ========================================================================
> 
> You were wrong then and you are wrong now.  Consider the following excerpt:

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

> From Message-ID: <Bxsp6F.FDG@wpg.com> date  16 Nov 1992 06:11:01 GMT
> ========================================================================
> 
> According to PETA, the CTFA has contributed more than $5 million
> to the development of alternatives to draize testing alone since 
> 1981.  The authors of a recent book on the animal rights movement
> (Jaspers and Nelkin) claim that the Soap and Detergent Association
> has also invested in a program aimed at eliminating draize testing.
> 
> It seems clear that neither past nor future developments have
> depended on P&G participation.  While P&G ought to be commended for
> taking some positive steps in the right direction, I prefer
> to give my business to competitors who are fully committed.
> 
> mh> Consider that your support of P&G might 
> mh> help fund the breakthrough that ultimately allows animal testing 
> mh> of consumer products to be eliminated or reduced.  
> 
> 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, 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 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.  

> [some "unanswered questions" crap deleted]

In view of the fact that you're playing the "unanswered question"
game again, 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"?  
===============================================================

Please answer the question.
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals