Similar righteous “we know where you live” tactics were used by the pro-life movement, with considerable success. Whatever you think of animal research, this kind of indimidation erodes civil society in the same way that hard-core terrorism does. How about having scientists or people desparate for the cures some seek picket the homes of animal rights activists and harrass their families?

However inspired and however good they feel about themselves, these folks can cause real damage. In Britain, activist raiders released minks from fur farms, introducing an exotic predator into the ecosystem, with devastating results. Brillaint.

Karl, at 8:35 am EDT on August 22, 2006

Excessive tolerance

Actually, Karl, it may be excessive tolerance that leads to this kind of intimidation. When the press refers to this kind of activity as “activism” and the courts dummy illegal protests down to misdemeanor offenses, it reinforces this kind of behavior. This is straignt out of the pages of Bandura’s research. What better example than the progressively more violent protests of the Vietnam War era. Two dead protesters in a little town in Ohio and the entire anti-war movement collapsed. Courageous activist may be an oxymoron.

GoFigure, at 9:45 am EDT on August 22, 2006

How Corrupt...

I am most fascinated by the revealing comment by Vlasak (and one of the commenters in this discussion as well):

“As to the Molotov cocktail, Vlasak said that “force is a poor second choice, but if that’s the only thing that will work … there’s certainly moral justification for that.””

The philosophical corruption here is breathtaking as we see how quickly Vlasak and his band of terrorists will turn to anarchy as soon as they don’t get their way. What dangerous yet cowardly little children they are.

jrh, Throwing in the Towel, at 10:45 am EDT on August 22, 2006

Animal Research

Other life has value: HIV, antrax, etc. and we should respect all life? Do any of the activist use anti-biotics (anti-living organisms) when they get the sniffles. Saying an ape would be justified in attacting humans — well how about cows and dear, and corn fields. Should they have rights? Pesticides for insects and rodents in the human food chain? Do the activists buy food at grocery stores that use rodent poisons? More rats die bringing “organic” food to the market than die in animal research.

Human life is the first and foremost value — to degrade human life by killing people because you don’t like their religion/ethics is unethical in all human ethics. Killing animals is not unethical in all human ethics(just a few extremists views).

RJ, at 11:05 am EDT on August 22, 2006

Kill ‘em with kindness

The actions described in this article disturb me on several levels, but I am most troubled by the extreme acts being committed in protest and under the veil of the umbrella organization.

I’ve been a major activist for the ethical and fair treatment of animals, and have participated in several protests and campaigns against major corporations, department stores, fast food chains and researchers alike.

I have not and will not, however, resort to violence to get my point across. Some may call me cowardice or say I lack the true passion to save the animals, but my approach is much more civil, and I couldn’t live with myself if in attempting to stand up to something I disagree with, I expressed violence and these alleged “terrorist” tactics that are just as violent and unethical as what I’m protesting.

It’s these people and groups like these that make my work even more difficult, and it makes me sick that in the meantime, the animals are suffering. I’ve had quite a bit of success with highly publicized yet lowly sensationalized protests free of violence. Let’s get creative here, people, and think of new ways to get the point across.

This is not much of a victory, as it will only cause someone else to enpassionately fight against the actions taken and message sent in order to continue the research and persevere.

Moral justification, indeed. Go fight for something you really believe in.

J in LA, at 12:00 pm EDT on August 22, 2006

This is terrorism...

To the person who claimed this isn’t terrorism, you are mistaken and this is, in fact, terrorism. By definition, terrorism is the use of terror as a means of coercion. How can you say leaving molotov cocktails on doorsteps or intimidating people to where they fear for their safety is not terrorism? It’s a sad time for us when we place the value of animals above that of human life.

Joe, at 12:00 pm EDT on August 22, 2006

Not Exactly Saving The World...

I don’t agree with the use of violence to stop animal experiementation. What I would like to point out however, is that many people mistakenly assume that all research that involves animal experiementation is somehow useful. Scientists LOVE to do research for the sake of doing research! Many scientists explore esoteric topics in a highly self-indulgent fashion and make no real contribution to society. (Read a few journal articles and you may agree.) To suggest that all animal research is as important as that conducted for the purposes of finding a cure for HIV or cancer is ABSURD. A tremendous amount of the cruelty that is bestowed on animals through experimentation is a result of science that stands no chance of resulting in tangible benefits to society (much less the saving of human lives). For example, there is a biologist who kills songbirds and dissects their brains in an effort to determine what allows them to sing. Not exactly saving the world, is she? There is a great deal of research that is performed using animals, and which causes them pain, but which has nothing to do with improving humans’ quality of life (though those doing the research think their work is incredibly important).

Lisa Kramer, And one more thing..., at 1:20 pm EDT on August 22, 2006

While I am happy and releived to see that most comments here take moderate viewpoints, this kind of behavior makes me think that Psychiatry should consider an “Extreme Activism” personality disorder. Seems to be a combination of anti-social and narcissistic.

narcissism criteria from the DSM-IV: (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance —force is a valid last resort when you are right. (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love —ideal love of non-human animals? (3) believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) —non-human animal lovers (4) requires excessive admiration —the kind you get from dogs maybe. (5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations —yup (6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends —yup (7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others —yup, humans anyway (8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her —??? (9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes—yup.

mattp, at 3:15 pm EDT on August 22, 2006

I suppose that since these “activists” have such an impeccable code of ethics they have all resolved to never use the health care system or take any medications or vaccinate themselves or their children. They are terrorists, plain and simple. Sometimes you have to make difficult choices in life.

allyson, at 4:20 pm EDT on August 22, 2006

A place for basic research

I agree with many points raised but would like to add a distinction between basic and translational research. The majority of research involving animals is devoted to basic research with no direct application to human health or survival. However, basic research provides the foundation for our understanding of how the human body and mind work, and provides a framework for the formulation of novel treatment strategies for diseases. Thus research on songbirds as mentioned by Lisa will give insight into how vocalizations are learned, what brain pathways are important, what social interactions are necessary for learning. Of course many relevant human conditions such as autism come to mind as potential future applications of research findings.

Alex, at 7:05 pm EDT on August 22, 2006

Xiaoding,

Let me answer your questions. Because it will save other people, not incredibly but yes, no, no and no.

Let me elaborate a bit. See, equate an ape to a human being, because anyways that is essentially what you are doing. Taking the second example, if a boy is kidnapped and killed by a man named XXX and his brother breaks into XXX’s house and kills him, would that be justified? Looking at the laws which govern this country, no. Morally, well, that’s a personal opinion. See, if XXX was in the process of killing someone and his brother killed XXX to prevent it, that would be a good samaritan, and therefore it would be justified under law. However, in your example you specifically implied it would be after the killing, so the answer is still a big fat NO.

Let me bring up another topic, that of whether this is terrorism or not. Terrorists generally dissagree with someone else on a moral or belief, and then use force, terrorism, to force that other person to comply to their demands. Take the recent kidnappings of two journalists in Gaza, and do me and favor and don’t argue the “israeli occupation": A) its completely unoriginal, overused, old and can easily be defeated if i waste my time with it, and B) those men were from the US and New Zealand, neither of which control Israel in its policies and handling of them. Anyways, they were kidnapped to hopefully entice the international community, or specifically the US, etc, to change its policies. Another instance: the suicide car bombings, embasssy personnel kidnappings, etc. Characteristic of modern terrorism to note: the ideal of putting innocent victims in the way and justifying it for the greater cause.

My point being: the “activists", or whatever you want to call them, put a BOMB on the front porch of someone’s house, and whether their intention was to scare them or to harm them to even to kill them, at this point it doesn’t matter; it STILL EQUATES TO A FORM OF TERRORISM. That “experimenter” was under fire from a group now trying to rationalize and justify their actions, just like terrorists. Also, look at how it ended, that it was accidentally put on the porch of an elderly neighbor’s house. IS THAT JUSTIFIABLE by the fact that it is for the greater good? Well, if you want to quote the leader of Hamas, of Hezbollah, of any modern jihad, of the Indonesian fighter groups, of Haitian fighter groups (forget their personal idealism or if their claims, if not their means, are right) THATS IS WHAT THEY WOULD SAY!

And please don’t right and tell me I’m a murderer, I’m old and ugly, I’m stupid, I’m a terrorist supporter, whatever. I’ve never killed anyone before, I’m sixteen and not that bad looking, if I do say so myself, I get very good grades and was on the debate team, and I’ve had many family members killed/harmed/put in harms way by terrorists, and have never and will never support and terrorist group or organization. So if you were planning on it, get a life.

maya, please tell me your kidding, at 1:25 pm EDT on August 25, 2006

Wasting their time and ours.

What a decadent society that we have people simple minded enough and with enough time on their hands to put thousands of research hours to waste. These individuals add nothing to society and subtract from the efforts of others.

A true parasite in my mind.

Peter, at 10:15 pm EDT on August 26, 2006

Gun rights and academic freedoms

We have a discussion going on this topic: http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/699.page. Professor, we encourage you to get a CCW permit so you can carry a gun, in case you ever need to defend yourself against violent attack. Better to be realistic and prepared for danger than to deny the possibility. Please stay safe, and join our forum if you want more information about this. We are happy to help people get started on this.

CaliforniaCCW, at 5:55 am EDT on August 27, 2006

It is terrorism.

“One, this is not terrorism. Equating this with terroism is obscene.”

It is exactly terrorism. Putting an incendiary device on someone doorstep is attempted murder. If a religious radical did that in your neighborhood, you’d call that terrorism pretty clearly. Intimidating the children is terrorism. The purpose of terrorism is to cause fear for one’s life. That’s what these nutbars are doing. Good grief, the only people who can support that kind of behavior have completely lost their sense of perspective.

I am sympathetic to the ethical value of not causing suffering to sentient beings. I’m a vegetarian. I’m a Buddhist. Causing suffering to humans is just as wrong, and undermines the intended goal every time. There are appropriate and effective ways to work for change and to protect all sentient beings from needless suffering (remembering, however, that life itself is suffering). Venting one’s rage through attempted murder is not one of them.

Tim, at 5:55 am EDT on August 27, 2006

violence

If people would follow the following simple rule there would be no violence at all:

1) Violence is only warranted in cases of self-defence, and should be modulated according to the degree of violence one is defending oneself against.

Problem solved. Woohoo!

Brady, at 6:00 am EDT on August 27, 2006

There should be a more transparent ethics system.

I have benefited greatly from modern medicine as I am sure most people reading this have, and much of this was achieved by sacrificing animals in scientific experiments.

It’s a regrettable fact that animals must sometimes die miserable, horrid deaths to save or improve human lives.

However, there is a moral cost associated with these activities! If one is going to play God with the lives of creatures, no matter how great or small, there needs to be an ethical reckoning and it needs to be visible to all.

While I have a passionate interest in neuroscience, sacrificing 30 primates a year would disturb me profoundly. An investigator who is required to perform such tasks would have to become at least partly hardened to the suffering being caused. This makes it even more imperative that the moral decisions like this not be left to the individual researcher, but be publicly reviewed in accordance with a general agreed-upon set of principles.

Tom Ritchford, at 6:00 am EDT on August 27, 2006

Re: Lisa Kramer: Why songbirds are used in research

Re: Lisa Kramer

First off, I would agree that some research may appear to be unnecessary, but fortunately they constitute a miniscule percentage of what is published in peer reviewed journals. Unfortunately, research that appears to be a waste of time and effort by lay people are in fact highly important in the attempt to understand a vital process. For example, your assertion that research on vertebrate songbirds lacks any scientific merit and is geared towards the mistreatment of these animals shows you missing the point on the importance of such studies. The reason why this research is important to the field of neuroscience is the fact that neurogenesis (the addition of new neurons) occurs in the brains of adult songbirds upon relearning mating songs they forgotten after the previous breeding season. As a consequence, their brains fluctuate in size upon learning and forgetting these songs. This phenomena is in direct contrast to the general rule of thumb where adult mammalian brains (namely those of mice, monkeys, and humans) tend not to show any signs of neurogenesis throughout the aging process. In fact, the trend in mammals is towards neuronal loss throughout aging; a few implications are non-alzheimer’s dementia and the increasing difficulty of learning new skillsets in an aged individuals. Of course, this rule does not apply in areas of the brain associated with olfaction (smell). The question these researchers would like to answer using these birds is how this process occurs in areas of the brain associated with learning of these songs. What is the molecular mechanisms underlying this activity? Can it be found or turned on in mammalian brains? And if so, will older mammals, including humans, be able to learn in the same robust manner as seen in young children and early adolescents? As you see, the scientific question is about learning and also about memory loss. Both profound questions that we unfortunately know little about.

Mark, at 6:00 am EDT on August 27, 2006

Manual Trackback

I’ve posted a response at Philosophy, et cetera: The Ethics of Activism.

Richard, at 6:05 am EDT on August 27, 2006

They are terrorising this man, and so they are terrorists

I would 100% support any researcher like this who defended himself and his family by firing upon these “activist” terrorists; if he gets them, even better. Don’t like what the researchers do? Move to a country where this stuff is illegal. Using terror to get your way is wrong, and these guys firebombing everything are nutjobs. They’re no better than mobsters selling “protection.”

Arthur, at 6:10 am EDT on August 27, 2006

At the very least, this is basic, unimaginative stalking. These people haven’t scored any kind of “victory". They didn’t change anyone’s mind, and I guarantee there are ten more researchers standing in line to use this man’s primates. All the “activists” succeeded in doing was frightening some children. How brave and selfless of them.

irritated, at 6:10 am EDT on August 27, 2006

This is what AR ppl learn from terrorists.

Hello. The most effective means of convicing have ever been violence and force. This is where governments came for: to protect most of the community from violence, by taking arms and violence into government hands.

The system the “animal rights” boys’n'gals used remind me of a state attorney in Russia, who’s been neutralized on next period’s elections via her son kidnapping and killing. She also gave up, trying to find at first her son, and then his body. Nothing was found. Son dissappeared and she stayed off the job.This is the way mafia works.

Sometimes things like shampoo research indeed don’t give any news to the science or humanity, but on the other hand hurt innocent animals for no just cause. I can understand pressure and public sues for THESE.

But the attack on persons family, and violence towards such person sounds more like a daily ruffianism, NOTHING MORE.

the people responsible for these Molotov bottles should be in jail. behind bars.

I can’t say I am humanist, but what if this researcher’s daughter, son and dog would approach that bottle ?

for whom would these activists feel more sorry ? for the dog ?

I also understand that violence towards animals promotes violence towards people.

But isn’t it so vice versa ? Doesn’t violence towards man promote more violence towards anything ?

Criminals should be in jail.

Bye.

Max K., Mr., at 6:15 am EDT on August 27, 2006

What about human animals?

I am constantly amazed by how passionate and even violent people become over “animal rights” when there are thousands of children who are in need of that same passionate advocacy. The same screaming PETA member throwing red paint on a celebrity in New York will pass by hollow-eyed starving street children without a thought. Priorities, people!

smw, at 6:15 am EDT on August 27, 2006

animal “rights” terrorism

Perhaps we ought to apply Guantanomo (sp?) style tactics to these terrorists. If a scientist wants to dissect a songbird solely for the sake of finding out why it sings, they should be allowed to. Science > Sentimentality.

not a biologist, stony brook university, at 6:15 am EDT on August 27, 2006

“This isn’t terrorism?

“So, if there’s a disagreement, firebombing, threats and assault are acceptable means of ‘persuasion’.”

Well, seems that use of guns, truncheons, fists, armoured cars and cages and cuffs are .. but only if you’re “the man", right?

‘Cause “the man” is always right. And terrorists are always wrong.

Lucky the animal researchers are friendly with the man, or they might be getting the trucnheon, right? I mean, that’s how it works.

Why can’t you see your hypocrisy? The terrorists feel justified because an establishment of ‘might makes right’ stands behind the animal researchers.

This works for the establishment, because they need more guns. The scientists need to hurt animals to make sure their new guns are built properly. The medicine helps the man too, when he fights he has good doctors. 90% of surgery was invented on the battlefield. Did you realise that?

Don’t be so naiive to defend the innocent naiive researcher as if they exist in the platonic world that has been built in their heads by the us/them establishment.

This is not a black/white world. Get used to it.

Research that is done behind closed doors with armed guards is research that prompts terrorism.

As a non-terrorist member of a community, *I* don’t want this type of research. I want research that I can walk into the office of the researcher and ask them how it works. I want research that people can learn from without requiring security clearance. And I want research that is humane and cautious, not eager and unthinking.

I don’t know the specific research that was targetted here, but I damn well recognise a bunch of idiotic pandering sycphant militant right wing ivory tower wankers when I see one, and this page is full of them.

nada, at 9:10 am EDT on August 27, 2006

Terrorists

Posting someone’s name, address and phone number for the purpose of intimidation and violence is illegal. That’s not activism, that is simple bullying tactics.

Why didn’t the police ever get involved before the molotov cocktail?

Activism is a right extended by the constituion, but when it threatens not just one person but extended family and neighbors, it’s just simply not activism anymore.

My sympathies to the doctor, his family, and his neighbors.

Concerned and a Little Scared, at 9:10 am EDT on August 27, 2006

You want to stop animal testing? Go get a degree and do your own animal-friendly research. Cowards.

Ryan, at 11:00 am EDT on August 27, 2006

I’d like a second opinion...

I would like to hear from an educated person in the legal profession, preferrably a judge or commissioner(as oppossed to reading the rhetoric here from whomever),how exactly is this behavior not criminal, or why it is...

PE, at 1:05 pm EDT on August 27, 2006

Through the eyes of a man...

I watch with interest.

The Guardian of Man:A creature makes a choice, to extend the life of a species by bringing pain to animals.

In return, they breed these creatures, and guard the survival of their bloodlines.

The Guardian of Animals:A creature makes a choice, to reduce the pain of animals, by increasing the pain of man.

They do not guard the bloodlines of those they save. Mostly, the individuals are killed. The reason the animals were tortured, still exists.

Sometimes the guardians of the animals will attack the guardians of the bloodlines, and successfully extinguish the bloodlines, or release them from safety, into a war, where many will be killed.

The guardians of animals do this to reduce the amount of pain in the world. They say they do this because the guardians of man are cruel. They say they can be cruel to any human because the others are cruel to their animals.

The guardians of man do this to reduce the amount of pain in the world, and because they know no other way to advance with their resources. Seldom do they do this because they are cruel.

Were the guardians of animals to offer the guardians of man a path that did not involve pain, then side by side, their would be great advances.

Were the guardians of animals to learn the arts of the guardians of man, they would become the guardians of both animal and man.

Were the guardians of animals to torture the guardians of man simply to return to them the pain they feel they create, then the world gains less from their lives, than the lives of the animals that died paving the paths of knowledge.

Who disagrees.

MAN, Yay! We won! (What have we actually won, by the way?) at Nature, at 1:10 pm EDT on August 27, 2006

Bombarding someone is a crime in the first place — I don’t see why we need new laws to protect researchers when they are already protected under existing laws — proper enforcement of existing laws against violence is what is required.

Eyce., Already a crime..., at 2:20 pm EDT on August 27, 2006

“the unlawful use of — or threatened use of — force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.”

Sounds like ALF are the terrorist’s here....researchers are not terrorist since their research is LAWFUL and already been approved by a committee to perform the research. You damn liberal, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, freaks need to worry about bigger things in life...like raising your freakishly weak kids into NORMAL people.

Ed, at 5:35 pm EDT on August 27, 2006

A word from your Constitution

So, “bombarding” a senator with phonecalls is illegal, or just one particular group is not legally allowed to make phonecalls?

Does anyone else see where this could lead?

The pharmaceutical industry is so corrupt right now, more protection is the last thing they need.

Violence and the threat of violence is wrong, and should be illegal, but simple phonecalls voicing a polite opinion should NEVER be illegal.

Janet, at 5:35 pm EDT on August 27, 2006

Complete bandwagon-jumping

It’s just rediculous that these people are completely obsessed with the redemption of animals, species, and genes which they have absolutely no prior knowledge about, other than the fact they feel they are being opressed and kept within captivity.

It questions wether these people seek to damage people not because they feel for animals, but because of their own rejection from humans which they feel have beeen the source of their problems.

It’s sad to think that other people are harming other people, and violence and NEARLY KILLING PEOPLE is never an option for the liberation of anything.

These researchers are doing something not for the purpose of “messing with animals” but for the greater, exoteric good of humanity and it seems ironic that those who are so bent upon saving animals are actually putting the progress of their own species on hold for some seemingly far-fetched ideal.

I really think that there is a wave of people whom feel a need to fulfil their own problems by giving them to others as a simple means of transferrence of the issue.

Violence is never an answer. No matter how many bombs you place, or people you kill, you can’t change your own species, nor can you mate with other species successfully.

When these activists come up with falsifiable theory or practice which proves that animal research is completely unjustified, then i am sure that the examples of other techniques and methods which yield exactly the same or higher amounts of data will be enclosed, naturally.

James S, at 9:05 pm EDT on August 27, 2006

presumption

Terrorism is when innocents are targetted in an organised way in order to instill fear in the society. Typical examples are placing bombs in Cafes etc. Here, the person targetted was obviously meant to be the very actor in the society who was to be influenced.

This is what I would call an isolated at of thuggery, obviously carried out by an individual who was not familiar with the researcher — put the thing on the wrong doorstep! — and therefore I think, obviously not a serious animal rights activist. Probably some nut. Is there other evidence to support the idea that there is a campaign of violence or intimidation against these people?

The web site seems to request people to ask questions of the researchers. This is ethical. Research should be subject to question, and research which has large ethical issues should be the subject of community question.

His family were frightened as a by-product, this does not amount to ‘targetting of random innocent unrelated members of society’, which is how I would define terrorism.

The Government proposes to make any sort of lobbying against researchers equal terrorism. Look at the proposal about legislation at the end of the story — it’s named Animal Enterprise *Terrorism* Act and yet it “would make it a federal crime to harass or cause ‘economic disruption’".

If you start lauding about the word ‘terrorism’ for every street mugging and intimidation, you will even more become the society that cried wolf, and even more become the society that is desensitised to violence.

The tactic, whatever it was precisely, was a dumb one. This does not logically translate to ‘all animal rights activists are bad’.

nada, at 9:10 pm EDT on August 27, 2006

why do so many think?

Why do so many people think that to protest against use of animals in research, that people should deny themselves and their loved ones the benefits of PAST research? Do you think that would be a valid protest?

How many should perform that protest to be taken seriously by you guys anyway? I can just imagine the peals of laughter about the stupid moron tree hugger who wouldn’t even take medecine because he liked rabbits so much?!

It’s pretty clear to me which team of this quite divided debate is more rational. In fact, I’m pretty sure the scientists themselves would be embarrassed by the complete lack of any rational thought behind some of these arguments you’re giving to “support” them.

Here, especially for mattp and the other not-so-professional psychologists out there, is a little example of how there are two sides to the coin, but you guys seem to be missing one. This is from the point of view of the animal activists (well if they were a bit like mattp and willing to make psychological assessments of people they know nothing about, anyway):

While I am happy and releived to see that most comments here take moderate viewpoints, this kind of behavior makes me think that Psychiatry should consider an “Extreme Researcher” personality disorder. Seems to be a combination of anti-social and narcissistic.

narcissism criteria from the DSM-IV:(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance —force is a valid last resort when you are right.(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love—ideal love of human animals?(3) believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)—scientists (4) requires excessive admiration—the kind you get from dogs maybe.(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations—yup(6) is exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of other beings to achieve his or her own ends—yup(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others—yup, animals anyway(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her—???(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes—yup.

After reading point 7, I think mattp, you may want to look up “projection". Your “diagnosis” does not aid the situation.

nada, at 4:25 am EDT on August 28, 2006

Animal Activists Are Not Peaceful

I read the news from the Animal Liberation web site. They expect this researcher to make “atonement"!!

In additon, the web site gives coverage for their “activists” which include arson, painting the homes of researchers, vandilizing cars, cutting cables, flooding buildings, calling in bomb threats, glueing locks, taking down advertisments, smashing windows, etc. etc.

Kara, at 4:25 am EDT on August 28, 2006

This isnt the island of Dr. Moreau. The next time someone ruins your fur coat or threatens your family I advocate kidnapping their domestic pets and giving them to research facilities.

All pro-animal groups are sociopathic ANTI-HUMAN campaigns.

Fuck You ALF, at 4:25 am EDT on August 28, 2006

“Environmentalist” NAZIS

These people need an eye-for-an-eye. However much they may be engulfed in their self-righteousness, they have no right to enforce their views on others. Not them, neither any other group in this planet, big or small.

If I start hating so called “environmentalist” activists, does that give me a right to start harassing them? No!

I’m a Greenpeace supporter myself, but I strongly disapprove such movements.

Such below-the-belt tactics need appropriate responses. It’s good to hear that appropriate legislation is being planned.

Trian, at 7:00 am EDT on August 28, 2006

nada

How about we publish YOUR home address on a website inflaming emotions. How would YOU feel about it?

frank, at 8:25 am EDT on August 28, 2006

Appeasement is NOT the Answer

A dear friend of my is a neuroscience researcher, and I have it on good authority that those animals are treated with the utmost ethical treatment. They have even developed methods of making the experimental procedures pain-free without the use of harsh substances and tranquilizers, or at least reduced the need for them. This ensures higher quality research, and less detriment to the animals.

The fact of the matter is, these pro-animal rights activists are deluded and often have no clue what really goes on behind closed doors of animal research labs.

And those who claim to be experts (e.g. “former researchers,” “physicians” etc..) who’ve fallen under the neo-communist bleeding heart doctrine of animal rights extremism are just as bad. If not worse. They are obviously misguiding the naive and impressionable with skewed facts and dodgy logic.

Those who truly equate animal life with human life are deluded and need psychiatric assessment pronto. Animals do not have rights. Rights are things people make for people. Animals *deserve* ethical treatment. The method in which it is bestowed (in the science world) is nowhere near the magnitude of those 1950s b-movie stock footage clips of monkeys and dogs with their skulls cracked open and wires hanging out.

People refuse to wake up and realize scientists take huge measures in ensure top priority of the animals’ safety and “ethical treatment.”

Gill, at 10:50 am EDT on August 28, 2006

Insightfull

Lion Kimbro, I enjoyed your comment. : )

Anonymous, at 11:55 am EDT on August 28, 2006

NEWSFLASH: It is possible

I just wanted to send a plea out to those who are quick to make generalizations about all animal activists. Please try not to let the obscene actions of those more vocal and newsworthy associations skew your overall paradigm of activists.

I myself am a fighter for the fair treatment of animals, but I realize a great many things in the process. I know that research is unavoidable and will continue despite thousands upon thousands of protests (no matter how violent or passive) that may occur. I realize that I have no clue what happens behind the closed doors of the laboratory. I realize that a good number of researchers do genuinely try to avoid cruelty, do try to treat the animals the most humane way possible. I realize the logic behind many of the arguments posted above, and the notion that humans are the greatest species. I realize that most people do not and will not ever agree with me and my opinions, and I realize that I am fighting a losing battle. But I also realize that in my fight, I have helped save a few precious lives, and that makes the world of difference to me.

I do not run into the streets and throw bombs on the cars or doorsteps of researchers. In fact, I have rarely done more than sign a petition imploring an investigation into the research conditions of a few seemingly misguided experiments. I have dressed in a puppy suit and sat inside a cage to protest animal abuse at a pet store that kills unsold puppies after 5 months. I’ve adorned attention-getting attire and face paint and have held signs and hung posters in protest of what I believe to be wrong, but I have never lain a hand on a person I believe to be committing wrongdoing, nor have I participated in any act of violence against them or their organizations/institutions, etc.

I do avoid purchasing a great number of products that have come to be with the assistance of animal abuse. But I also succomb to modern medicine and utilize resources available to me in order to get over illness and ailments.

I am not a tree-hugger; in fact, I work at an institution that probably has many of its own researchers dissecting animals. On the outside, you may never guess that I do the things I do (unless you’ve seen me in photos!) and you will NEVER find me smoking pot (or even a cigarette), doing drugs, failing to bathe, walking barefoot, or succombing to most of the other stereotypes many commenters seem to have about the common animal activist. I do my best to conserve, but I am not perfect. I realize the hypocricies that will inevitably exist in some of my beliefs. I realize that just as some humans will be sacrificed for a greater understanding or cause, so will humans. I may not choose to support this reality, but I must still accept it.

So please, my friends.. do not generalize. ALF is severly misguided, PETA may skew the facts... but not ALL animal rights activists are wrong, crazy, sociopathical, hypocrites who have no idea what they’re fighting or the truth of life, and who feel justified in resorting to violence. Do not categorize me, as I am just one woman, doing all I can to save the lives and spare the suffering of those I can. I may not always be successful, but at least I can sleep knowing that I gave an honest, informed, and nonviolent effort... and instead will be haunted by my failure.

Please don’t discount us all based on the actions of a misguided few.

Jessica, non violent activist, at 1:10 pm EDT on August 28, 2006

Those who would threaten a human being over animals should be thrown in jail for a long time. Not that I condone abuse of animals, but holding animal rights over humans is insane. These research is very important science and as long is avoids the inhumane treatment of the animals, then I don’t have much problem with it. PETA and other moonbat groups involved in threatening people should pay for their crimes. I don’t have a problem with them holding a rally to promote their views, but when they cross the line of terrorism: they should pay dearly for it.

Eric, at 2:25 pm EDT on August 28, 2006

Pretty Amazing...

Let me first of all say that I’m a clinical pharmacist that practices in Internal Medicine/Infectious Diseases. I’ve conducted my own retrospective clinical research (involving human patients), but have read many animal studies and used them to formulate recommendations and better understand areas where human data is absent.

I have one question for the people who think research with animals is cruel and unusual, and unnecessary — “What do you suggest we do; who or what should we use?” Or do you think that all science should just cease to move forward since animals can’t level the playing field and conduct research on us?

Also, I’d like to know what some people define as important research? New antibiotics, for example, are often tested in animals to see what kind of penetration they have into various body tissues and organs (lungs, skin, bone, etc.). The animals have to be sacrificed in order to get accurate measurements — this isn’t a cure for cancer, but isn’t it important? It is to me and the patients that I help treat — some of this information can mean life or death. Also, who knows what information can be discovered in different types of research — the cure for cancer could be found in a totally unrelated field.

As for the “not being terrorists” comments a few of you have made, I don’t even feel like addressing that issue because you are such extremists (or just people who post to lists to get a rise out of everyone), that reason isn’t even close to part of your thought process. Humor the rest of the civilized world and THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

I don’t dislike animals, but I do value human life and well-being more. I feel the bottom line is, man is different from beast in that we have the ability to question the way things are, and we CAN do our best to try and solve complex problems — like diseases. We should always act ethically, in regards to both animals and people, but every study that is undertaken has to go through an ethics committee and/or an Institutional Review Board; there are definitely people watching these things.

I am truly sorry that the researcher in this story gave up — but I completely understand why. I hope someday, those who TERRORIZED that man and his family meet swift justice — who knows, they may be struck down with some degenerative neurological condition that this researcher could have cured. ;-)

Pharmer PM, at 2:25 pm EDT on August 28, 2006

So the terrorist is the one harming the animals, and not the one’s targetting people (the researchers) and their completely innocent families? I can sympathize with your concern for the animals. What I cannot comprehend is your unabashed loyalty to animals over humans. How do I feel that some animals lost their lives so ours can be improved? Great. I feel great about that, and I sleep wonderfully.

Some nerd, at 3:00 pm EDT on August 28, 2006

a cure

What we need to do is stop doing cruel and horrible experiments to the “innocent non-human primates” and begin to substitute the “barely-human terrorists” in thier place. This will help to keep them off the streets and out of people’s yards.

gorgar, at 5:30 pm EDT on August 28, 2006

Let’s get our priorities in order

After we ensure the ethical treatment of humans on this planet, then we should worry about the animals. Until then, we need a zero tolerance to terrorism — Be it of “activist” or Islamic origin, no one should condone terrorism of any kind. To do so makes you a sponsor of terror.

Mr. Common Sense, at 5:45 pm EDT on August 28, 2006

If experimenting on near sentient (if not fully sentient in some cases) primates is permissible, then why not perform experiments on human babies, young children or perhaps people with cognitive disibilities and the elderly?

Certainly there would be much more practical science to be discovered if we would stop limiting outselves to the arbitrary species boundary? Whatever principle makes a 2 year old monkey a better test subject than a 2 year old cat would likely hold even better for a 2 year old human child.

For that matter, experimentation on the homeless and mmigrants could also be a valuable aid to research. Certainly testing a drug on 50 welfare recipients would garner better scientific data than the same experiment on 50 monkeys.

Might makes right doesn’t it?

If we regard a creature’s capacity to feel distress and suffer as well as feel joy and happiness as irrelevant in the consideration of who we are going to do experimentation on, then we are hypocrits when we pretend that we actually “care” about the wellbeing of other beings of any catagorization (including human).

It is certainly more costly and more time consuming to do some research without animal experimentation.

But even if the research was impossible without an animal test case, I still ask the question: Where do you draw the line?

What will you do when you find an experiment which can ONLY be performed on a human being. Why stop at that species boundary? What if you can save many people or cure a great plague if only a few unwilling human test cases were required? What if you could save 10 people for each 1 unwilling human sacrifice?

It is unscientific to hold that human suffering is intolerable while animal suffering is irrelevant.

It is unscientific to hold that any amount of animal suffering whatsoever is worthwhile to reduce some arbitrarily small amount of human suffering.

It is also unscientific to refuse to experiment on human beings simply because they are of the same species as the researcher. If that is the ONLY reason then white researchers can be hired to experiment on black victims and vice versa. (or else non-interbreedable species of human being could be created for that purpose with genetic manipulation)

clearly before any additional suffering is inflicted on anybody or anything we need to establish a scientific basis for determining where we should draw the line.

The free market doesn’t care about who gets hurt. And the only reason we currently dont do involutary human testing is because it is pollitically incorrect. Without the scientific arguments for OR again it, it is just a matter of time before some jurisdiction begins to allow testing on involuntary human subjects, and then all the talk about killing a monkey to save a person is nothing more than fluff, because we will be killing humans AGAIN.

And apart from appealing to theological arguments — I haven’t see a justification as why we should not force humans to be test subjects which wouldn’t also capture the higher primates and some other animals in its umbrella.

Until this is sorted out it seems to be unethical to engage in this kind of research.

As for the violence etc.. it all seems childish. adults ought to be able to reason and debate and reach the objective reality of the matter. Especially parties purporting to have scientific reasons for their behavior.

David, Where do you draw the line?, at 7:15 pm EDT on August 28, 2006

Test inmates instead of primates. We’ve done it before with great results. What better than to test on an actual human. There’s a thought.

Renee, at 5:20 am EDT on August 29, 2006

Ethics Boards

Someone asked about the ethics system for this kind of work earlier, and it was implied that perhaps this researcher has the power to give himself monkeys to use. This is not true.

I have never worked with monkeys, but I work with mice. In order to get any mice at all, I have to fill out a novel’s worth of forms which are read by the ethics board. This board consists of scientists, but also of community members: laywers, priests, etc. These people go through all the forms and scrutinize not only whether the research is important, but whether it is being conducted in a humane manner on the least possible number of lowest animals. (Lowest here meaning: Don’t do an experiment with a mouse that you can do with a cricket.) Our lab is inspected regularly by officials who ensure that we are abiding by our contract with the ethics board.

The process is long and complicated and careful. For mice. I cannot even imagine how much more intense it must be for monkeys.

The system is there. Furthermore, if you walk into a University with an open mind and no evil intentions and simply ASK a researcher about his work or the ethics process, he (or she) will probably tell you in as much detail as you desire.

Most people don’t bother to find out.

Clandestine, at 1:45 pm EDT on August 29, 2006

Good cause ruined by terrorists

As someone who worked in security in the UCLA Center for the Health Sciences (CHS) in college, and used to sneak the primates apples, I can tell you the cages for these intelligent creatures are very small, the animals are very frightened, and that they bash their heads in with blunt force trauma to induce head injuries. All in the name of helping “humanity.”

ALF is crazy, unfortunately, and they tarnish a legitimate cause with their terrorism. But anyone who has any compassion for animals would be appalled at the treatment of these animals.

And don’t even get me started on the dogs on the roof of CHS. If you ever hear barking when driving around the UCLA Medical Center, let’s just say it’s the victims of UCLA’s Cardio-Thoracic surgery department. NEVER leave your dog or cat at a pound unless you want it to become an experiment.

AmyL, at 9:00 am EDT on August 31, 2006

“As someone who worked in security in the UCLA Center for the Health Sciences (CHS) in college. . .”

When, exactly? Animal research has changed a LOT in the last few decades. In the 70s, there were barely regulations at all. There can be no comparison made between then and now. Yet, organizations like PETA continue to distribute videos from years ago as if it is what’s going on now. In the end, they’re just telling lies to pull people to their side. Probably because they know that that’s the only way that they can do it.

“NEVER leave your dog or cat at a pound unless you want it to become an experiment.”

And there’s my answer. The majority of lab animals (and most certainly cats and dogs) are reared specifically for the lab. They are not taking from shelters, though they were in the past.

Things change.

Clandestine, at 3:15 pm EDT on September 6, 2006

Animal Testing

I am an animal lover / activitst and I am ALL FOR animal testing to discover new drugs, therapies, understanding physiological principles, etc. (provided the testing is done exclusively on the human animal).

Number one, that’s essentially who most of the rewards are funneled to. Why have to extrapolate data from non-human animals to human animals, causing inaccuracies, waste, time and money.

Experimenters are quick to state that they follow strict humane guidelines such that the animals do not suffer. That’s good enough for me! Where do I sign??

Besides, given the lack of jobs in the country due to immigration (input) and globalization (output), this could be a gold mine of opportunity for those with no economic options. Remember it’s humane and doesn’t cause suffering, so don’t worry, be happy.

If human animals are the ones being studied and experimented on, the AR activists will finally leave science alone, and have no fear, those against AR activists will not lift a finger to protest YOU being the one experimented on. It’s just good science.

Rocky Shepheard, at 2:20 pm EDT on October 19, 2006

Animal Rights Activists are not all Violent

This last poster refers to animal rights activists as terrorists. I have never made any threats or done anything violent. I have been demonstrating on and off for 20 years so how can I be a terrorist?

This person also asks why activists don’t volunteer as test subjects. Before a new drug goes on the market the FDA requires clinical studies done on humans. Drugs are teste