NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/politics/animals/9727

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 5.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!olivea!charnel!rat!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!tulane!wpg!russ
From: [e-mail] (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:12:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: WP Group
Lines: 123


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 <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Yes it would.

No it wouldn't, Martin.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Question: Was Heimlich qualified to make such an assessment?  Or,
would you say that Heimlich is just another "AR-bozo"?

--
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans [phone]
[e-mail]   uunet!wpg!russ