From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: The Discovery of Insulin
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:53:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.045428.16364@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.214931.15291@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec3.143439.379@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>>
>>> I was recently going thru some files I have acquired as part of the animals
>>> research group I am involved in and came across a photocopy of a letter I
>>> thought Russell Robert and Martin might be interested in.

[...3 letters about Dr. Brandon Reines deleted for space considerations...]

[...some quotes from Bliss' book on insulin deleted...]

>Robert, these are the very quotes Reines pulls from Bliss' article and
>misrepresents.  Reines is a master of taking things out of context

Reines has taken input from various sources, analyzed the data, and
arrived at conclusions sometimes in conflict with those whose input
helped him derive his conclusions.  So what?  If he read only those
who agreed with him, wouldn't you and others be likely to criticize
him for not examining both sides of the issue?  The fact that Reines
agrees with some of Bliss' positions is not surprising.  The fact that
Reines does not agree with everything written by Bliss is also not
surprising.

>
>EX. Science 245: 1437, 1989
>     My attention has been called to a letter by Brandon Reines (11 Aug., 583)
>     citing a statement of mine which seems o align me with the
>     antivivisection movement. 
>     [...] Of course I stand by that (his quote), but its use in the
>     context of his letter is a distortion of my belief and practice.
>Paul Beeson

Did Reines say that Beeson agreed with him?  If not, then how is he
distorting Beeson's beliefs and practices by drawing on Beeson's
statements but ultimately reaching a different conclusion?

>
>
>EX.
>J. AM Psychiatry 145:5, May 1988 pg 653
>Letter to the editor
>
>     Sir: One of our papers(Paper cited) was cited in a letter to the editor
>     (Reines Am. J. Psy. 145) to support the position that many animals test
>     have served no purpose in the development of antidepressant treatments. 
>     Our position on the issue, to which we have devoted some years of careful
>     thought and research, is quite different.  We called, in the paper and
>     elsewhere for more sophisticated use of animals models.
>[...]
>     Dr. Reines' letter, which does not admitt any benifit,s from animal
>     studies, is an exercise in sophistry, twisting our argument and those of
>      others in order to serve a purpose which subordinates human welfare to
>     other conciderations.
>
>  
>Perhaps if you were to read the original article and not rely on the
>revisionist ideas of Reines you would see that these quotes (from Bliss) are
>taken out
>of context and that other quote important to the issue are conveniently
>left out.

A key point that apparently led Reines to his conclusion was the quote
by Collip, which Bliss used to describe the effectiveness of the Banting
and Best extracts on humans: "It was 'absolutely useless for continued
administration to the human subject,' wrote Collip in 1923, in a mood,
which we will come to understand, of considerable bitterness." How is
this quote taken out of context and distorted? It seems to quite clearly
indicate what the human results were with the B & B extracts that had
previously led to some success in dogs. 

>These are only three examples of authors who have claimed that their ideas
>have been misrepresented by Reines.How mwny others are there? How can
>anyone concider relying on his writings when it is apparent to me that he
>misrepresents the facts?

Dr.  Reines has done significant reading of the opinions of those who
support the historical importance of animal research.  He and others
have concluded that historically the breakthroughs claimed in the name
of animal research are often exaggerated, distorted, incorrect....  This
is not unusual for a later generation of historians to take a fresh look
at decades-old events and discover that the passage of time has made
possible a more objective look at those events. 

It's interesting to note that Reines does not always reach this
conclusion.  In his monolog on heart research, he names some claims for
animal research which he found to be valid.  He is clearly not a
proponent of the "All animal research is useless" school.

>
>                                Greg
---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals