scientists above reproach?

[Bryan Grieg Fry]

As a scientist, I must agree with Peter response.  The idea that research 
is unquestionable is not a valid assertion, why else do we have ethics 
boards to evaluate the legitimacy of animal research exps?  That said, if 
a valid board did approve the initial toad expirements, then nothing more 
needs to be evaluated unless 1) there is a gross deviation from the 
origional prospectus or 2) it is clear and obvious (two words whose 
meanings are anything but ) that the board errored in approving said 
expirements.

Research is always being questioned by others, HOWEVER the reasons that 
such questions are viewed with strong suspicion is that the questioner 
may have an agenda of their own.  This is especially the case in either 
animal expirements or in cases where the ideas deviate from the existing 
paradigm.  In the latter case, criticism is often not valid because the 
people who are doing the criticizing often times have their career and 
thus livelyhood staked on an opposing view.


That said, I will always support the freedom to criticize the validity of 
expirements.....ever hear of Dr. Mengle??  


With regards,

Bryan Grieg Fry

-- 

 "The caribou love it. They rub against it and they have babies. There are more caribou in Alaska than you can shake a stick at."
                               --George Bush, on the Alaska pipeline