From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:48:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA

In article <Bxu6qv.vz@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:

>From article <1992Nov9.223222.10233@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>mh> When I exchanged "letters to the editor" with Barnard in our 
>mh> local newspaper (The Athens Observer 4/2/92), he said that John 
>mh> Orem's research had "nothing of clinical value," and was "macabre 
>mh> and useless." I replied (ibid., 4/16/92) that Barnard was not 
>mh> qualified to make such judgements against Orem, because his 
>mh> publication record (two papers in Medline since 1986 when I last 
>mh> checked) would not qualify him for a position at a second-rate 
>mh> university, much less at UGA.  I never heard back from him or 
>mh> PCRM's lawyer.  What I said was true, and therefore not libelous.  
>
>I would agree that such a record of publication might not qualify 
>a person for a position at a second-rate university.  On the 
>other hand, it certainly wouldn't disqualify him/her for a 
>position at a top-rate university.

Yes it would.  No top-rate university would hire a "scientist" who had
published only two papers in 8 years.  If they did make such a mistake,
that person would never receive tenure unless they improved considerably. 
You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.  Even at
institutions like Harvard that have abandoned tenure, a scientist with a
poor publication record would not get serious consideration.

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

The quality of publications is also a consideration, but harder to discern.
 If what you say is true, they now have departments full of non-productive
scientists, and less prestige than they formerly had.  Thankfully, what you
say is most likely false.  If your alma mater is so prestigious, you
shouldn't be so hesitant to name it.  If you never did postgraduate work in
science, I can understand why you are so ill-informed about hiring,
promotion and tenure in science departments.

>BTW, I'd strongly recommend _Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and 
>Deceit in the Halls of Science_, by William Broad and Nicholas 
>Wade, which explores the role that the "publish or perish" 
>mentality has played in cheapening scientific exploration and 
>scientific honesty in the United States.  

I cannot deny that fraud is a serious problem in science.  All I can say is
that I have not encountered any.

Instead of "publish or perish," now it's become
"publish-with-one-hand-while-fending-off-animal-'rights'-wackos-with-the-other
or perish."  Even so, the problem is not as bad as you or Broad & Nicolas
suggest (with new oversight committees in place), and there is no reason to
suggest that a researcher with few publications is nobler than one with
many.

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

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

Is this what you call an answer to my above questions, or is this simply
another of your "pagan dances around a midnight fire written in
intellectual runes?"  Care to try again, or should we add these to the
ever-growing list of Russell's unanswered questions?

To answer your question where you clearly do not deserve one, I would
*probably* oppose the experiment that you describe, but I would first need
to see the researcher's justification.  Can you provide more details as to
the institution & researcher?  

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

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

From <Bxu6qv.vz@wpg.com>:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> I was immediately successful, however, in making contact with Joel 
>rl> Newman at PCRM who made the following statement:
>rl> 
>rl>     PCRM promotes alternatives to animal research and encourages
>rl>     higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in animal 
>rl>     research.  We also oppose unethical use of humans in medical
>rl>     research.
>rl> 
>rl> This reconfirms the prior statements made by Ted Robinson and Bob
>rl> Black, and negates the claim made previously by Martin Hulsey.
>
>From article <1992Nov9.223222.10233@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):

>mh> With respect to PCRM's *present* position, I stand corrected.
>mh> 
>mh> Recall what Bob Black quoted from a PCRM pamphlet...
>mh> 
>=========================================================================
>bb> Here's some text extracted from the PCRM's Declaration of Concern and
>bb> Support:
>bb> 
>bb> "We support:    effective, humane research methods which reduce or 
>bb>  replace the use of animals in research, including epidemiological
>bb>  research, clinical studies, cellular research, and computer models.
>bb> 
>bb> "We support:    improved legal protection for all animals in 
>bb> laboratories.
>=========================================================================
>mh> 
>mh> By advocating "replacement" of "inhumane" and "ineffective" animal 
>mh> paradigms, PCRM opposed animal research then.  
>
>PCRM opposed SOME animal research.

Yes, as I have conceded above.  How much of the research that PCRM opposed
then would save human lives today?  What about my claim regarding PETA?

>mh> By "promoting 
>mh> alternatives" to animal paradigms (as though they existed), and 
>mh> implying that existing standards of ethics and effectiveness are 
>mh> unsatisfactory, PCRM opposes animal research now.  
>
>PCRM's position states that they support "effective, humane 
>research methods which reduce or replace the use of animals in 
>research".  Can you present a statement from PCRM to support your 
>simplistic claim that PCRM was/is opposed to all animal research?

No Russell, that statement was from Bob Black's pamphlet.  Their position
NOW, according to you, is: 

>rl>     PCRM promotes alternatives to animal research and encourages
>rl>     higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in animal 
>rl>     research.  We also oppose unethical use of humans in medical
>rl>     research.

As I have stated many times, there is, in most cases, NO alternative to
animal research.  PCRM is wrong to suggest otherwise.  Remember my
examples, such as neuroscience, that you and others ignored.  By
"encouraging higher standards for ethics and effectiveness" in animal
research, PCRM implies that existing standards are insufficient.  I
disagree.

The "cat-shooting" and "beagle-drowning" examples that you and others harp
on continuously are an infinitesimal fraction of the animal studies
performed.  Before I and others can accurately judge the merit of these
studies that you label as questionable, we must have more details.  Greg
Popken asked for more info on the "cat-shooting" study thrice, and you have
not complied.  I KNOW that you have more info.  Why are you so reluctant to
provide it?

--
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