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: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:01:53 GMT

In article <Bxxn0D.KL@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:

>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.

This is childish, Russell.  Please show me an example of a "top-rate"
university that hired a "scientist" (for a *faculty* position, not
custodian) that published only two papers in eight years.  They should be
especially anxious to hire me.

>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?  

You have made my point.  As Barnard is a psychiatrist who does little
research, he is not qualified to criticize the merits of research done by a
neuroscientist such as John Orem.  Likewise, Orem wouldn't be qualified to
comment on the clinical performance of Barnard.  Get it?

You have repeatedly criticized me for not having this or that degree.  As I
have responded repeatedly, you are in no position to question my
credentials, because you have NONE yourself.

>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?

The number of publications is not the only consideration.  Obtaining
extramural funding is also important.  It is hard, though, to secure the
latter if you cannot produce the former.

>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.  

This is total crap.  Are you *really* suggesting that scientists who
publish many papers are "mediocre," while those who publish few are
"excellent?" Scientists who can "think freely and critically" are of no use
if they cannot successfully communicate their original thoughts and
findings in peer-reviewed journals.  I'm sure that your mentors at that
"ivy-league" school, that you are so reluctant to name, would be
disappointed with you.  BTW, what was your major?  What degree did you
obtain there?

[85% probability of question avoidance by Russell.]

>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.

I've had no trouble identifying the fallacies in your arguments.

>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.

Another one of your pagan dances.  Ignore the name-calling, and try again
to refute my statement.

[Russell forgot to include an ellipsis below to indicate that he edited out
the series of following questions that he doesn't want to answer:

+++++++++++++++++++
>mh> I already told you what sort of research I would allow.  Why 
>mh> can't you return the favor?  All you have indicated was that you 
>mh> would like to review proposed experiments on a case-by-case 
>mh> basis.  Did you mean that you wanted to review every experiment 
>mh> personally, or did you just want them reviewed by someone?  How 
>mh> would you modify the _status quo_ to simultaneously protect the 
>mh> interests of human and non-human animals?  Would failing to 
>mh> perform a critical experiment be worse than performing one that 
>mh> proved trivial?  How do we determine, in advance, which 
>mh> experiments are critical and which are trivial?  
+++++++++++++++++++

]

>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.

Why do you continue to dodge my questions that you edited out of this post?

[98% probability of continued question avoidance by Russell.]

>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.

[Not to be flaky by correcting Russell's usually impeccable spelling, but I
believe that it would instead be "Annals of Emergency Medicine" for the
benefit of those who would seek this first reference.]

Were both of these references published *after* the other unnamed
researcher proposed his/her beagle experiment, or just the latter one?  If
so, are you criticizing the beagle researcher for not reading Heimlich's
mind?

>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.  

If Heimlich had published his first reference well before the other
researcher proposed her/his beagle experiment, I would concur that the
beagle experiment was redundant and unnecessary.  Under those conditions, I
would not support that experiment.  If the researcher did not first verify
that the Heimlich manuver had not been sucessfully applied to drowning
humans before applying for IACUC approval, then it would be a clear
violation of the AWA.

>Question: Was Heimlich qualified to make such an assessment?

Again, the question would center on the timing of Heimlich's 1981
publication compared to the timing of the other researcher's "early 1980's"
proposal.

>Or, would you say that Heimlich is just another "AR-bozo"?  

I would not denigrate Heimlich's achievements, but if he believes that
animals have "rights," and denigrates the contributions of animal research
to medicine, I would regard him as such.  In other words, probably not.

[75% probability that Russell will continue to ignore requests to provide
more info about the LSU "cat-shooting" experiment.]

--
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