Spin is not the same as a debate
Posted by thomaspainescorner on November 11, 2009
By Ray Greek MD
November 10, 2009
Simulposted with Negotiation is Over
Dr. Dario Ringach has posted an essay titled “Opponents of animal research should get their facts right” on the Speaking of Research website. In his essay Dr. Ringach creates the illusion that 30,000 scientists support using animals in research and that the only people opposing such use are misanthropic nonscientists. There are several falsehoods in his essay.
1. A vast majority of the scientific community does not see animal models as predictive for humans. The pharmaceutical industry as a whole is working to find predictive tests as animals have not been and even the National Cancer Institute has said society has lost cures for cancer because of misleading effects in mice. The people who support animal use regardless of efficacy are those who pay their mortgages with the proceeds from the enterprise. Upton Sinclair in his book I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935) said “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
2. Dr. Ringach uses the usual bait and switch technique of confusing basic research with predictive research. Society is uncomfortable with using animals in research but tolerates it because they have been told, by those who use animals, that cures will be forthcoming. When society asks, “Where are the cures?” the researchers respond that the research they are doing is basic research which is not goal oriented and hence was never supposed to lead to cures. They are pursuing knowledge for knowledge sake and maybe that knowledge will someday lead to cures but maybe it will not. This rhetoric is necessary, as numerous scientific studies have proven beyond doubt that animals cannot be used to predict human response to drugs or disease. However, society will only allow animals such as monkeys and chimpanzees to be used in research if they believe that such animals are surrogate humans and can be used to predict human response. The basic researcher’s dishonesty tells us mush about their priorities.
3. Dr. Ringach uses the fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and lists supposed historical examples he claims society has only because of using animals in science. Neither of these things is science. One is a fallacy hence should alert the reader to the strength of Dr. Ringach’s argument and the other is unverifiable without extreme effort on the reader’s part. No reader is going to exert that kind of extreme effort so Ringach is safe in making his case.
I could continue to point out the flaws in Dr. Ringach’s essay specifically but have done this in general in a book authored by Niall Shanks and myself, Animal Models in Light of Evolution. However, there is another way to allow society to judge for themselves who is right on this issue. Hubert H. Humphrey said, “The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously.” Facts matter more than rhetoric. Society needs to know the facts and understand this issue because lives depend upon the outcome. With that in mind, I have on numerous occasions asked Dr. Ringach and his colleague at UCLA, Dr. Jentsch, to debate this issue in a public forum on the UCLA campus. They have declined. (Although I hear they are trying to arrange a panel discussion with nonscientists, who know nothing about the issue, or scientists who more or less agree with them. Perhaps they hope that by having such a fiasco they can claim they have honestly debated the issue.)
Sometimes researchers present a sweat-drenched fear of public debate because of threats to their life. The fact is, I have probably had as many if not more threats to my life as any of them have. (A little publicized fact.) What they really fear is public exposure to the facts. Furthermore, this excuse does not play when the forum for the debate is a college campus complete with security and metal detectors. If the researcher is as scared as many suggest he is then he should not be walking around campus or driving to the store but rather staying at home 24/7. Clearly this excuse has more to do with not wanting the facts exposed to the light of public debate than actual rational fear.
Hubert H. Humphrey also said, “Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.” I agree. If researchers like Ringach want society to believe their rhetoric then let them engage in a time honored American tradition and debate the science behind their claim that animals are predictive for humans. I am still available.
Ray Greek MD
President, Americans For Medical Advancement
Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com
For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/
If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.
And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan
Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!
To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.
» Spin is not the same as a debate NEGOTIATION IS OVER! said
[...] with Thomas Paine’s Corner Billboard propaganda is not [...]
Aragorn Eloff said
Did anyone catch the Blogger Bunch insert on CNN at midday EST yesterday?
Dr Greek and Peter Young debated Tom Holder and Michael Cohn (neither of whom had anything new to say) for around 20 minutes.
I must admit, the format left me a bit annoyed – whenever Dr Greek and Mr Young rebutted one of the usual cliches raised by the pro-animal researchers, the topic was quickly changed. I certainly hope Holder, Jentsch and co. don’t now use this short appearance as a way of refuting the claim that they are unwilling (unable, more like it) to have a proper public debate.
I also found it amusing that all Holder was capable of was reiterating his same tired rhetoric, e.g. that only 1% of animals in labs are primates (and what *is* one percent of many, many millions, Mr Holder, you utter moron?) and that because the animal research industry is government regulated, it somehow affords laboratory inmates a painless existence and is also magically rendered scientifically useful.
Here’s the announcement on Speaking of Research http://speakingofresearch.com/2009/11/10/the-debate-cnn-wednesday-9th-november
PS: If anyone recorded the broadcast, I’d love a copy
Fred said
I noticed the big pro-test group was made up of people in the industry. They are the ones living in the dark ages.
http://www.antigenics.com/whitepapers/qs21_adjuvant.html
” What they fail to go on to say is: ‘It hasn’t been put into man yet.’ The use of adjuvants is an empirical science, and you can learn only so much from preclinical studies. I’ve grown very skeptical because I’ve been burned so many times. It really comes down to clinical trials. If you want your vaccine to work in a human, you’d better get it into a human, quickly. Otherwise you’re going to spend a lot of time with animal studies and never be able to predict what it will do in people.”