Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and is currently a 3rd year medical student. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
I'm very upset to see that following up on previous threats, animal rights terrorists have set fire to a scientist's house.
I've been saying for a while that the real threat towards biological science isn't the evolution denialists and other silly cranks' rather laughable attempts at trying to convince people the earth is 6000 years old.The real threat is what we've seen in England and other countries of extremist violence against scientists for using animals in research. These actions are often justified based upon the absurd premise that research can be performed without the use of animals.
Let's be clear, biological science and medicine are dependent on animals and animal products. From basic research to implantation of heart valves, the success of medicine and medical research is dependent on the use of animals and biological materials. While one can disagree with the ethics of using animals for research, one can not deny, without being dishonest, the absolute requirement of animals for the advancement of biological science, and for current therapeutic modalities used every day in medicine. And I think we can all agree that setting fire to Edyth London's house has more than met the definition of domestic terrorism on the part of the animal rights extremists.
It's fine if you think it's immoral to use animals for medical research, I'm not upset by this. But realize that if ALF and PETA have their way there will be no biological research. It is not possible without animals, and if they're going to be honest about their objectives they have to make it clear to their supporters that the agenda of animal liberationists (note not animal welfare) includes the cessation of progress in biomedical science. Further the groups behind this action have made it clear that they believe scientists may be killed to save animal lives.
Where do you stand? Should it be acceptable to terrorize people like London for using animals in research? Do you agree with Vlasak that people like me should be killed to save animals' lives? Or are we going to be realistic about the role of animals in research and honestly explain to people that the ultimate objective of these terrorists will be the elimination of progress in multiple fields of research? If they still agree with these extremists based upon that information that's one thing, but I don't think that most people realize how extreme the objectives of animal liberationists really are.
Comments
Nick Anthis has an interesting take on this issue
http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2008/02/oxonians_march_in_support_of_a.php#comments
Posted by: Jim Lee | February 11, 2008 7:53 AM
I live in the UK and am disgusted that the tactics of our animal rights terrorists are now being used within the US.
All I can say is that the only way to combat these people is to invoke the full force of the law and treat these people like the terrorist scum they are. You also need to be very active in getting out the message that everyone will either had their life saved by medical treatments that came out of research involving animals, or will know someone who has.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 11, 2008 8:19 AM
Why the absurd obsession with the (strictly ethically controlled!) scientific use of animals as opposed to the far more widespread (and ethically uncontrolled) use in farming? These people are ridiculous hypocrites.
Posted by: John Conway | February 11, 2008 8:27 AM
Ecosystems are falling to pieces and the best thing these people can do to protect the animal kingdom is attack scientists? They are the worst criminals -because- they should know better.
Posted by: Steven H | February 11, 2008 9:00 AM
Mark,
I don't know...I think that ALL of the threats you listed are the "worst" threats.
The "animal liberationists" are more violent, but the religionists are better-funded, and have more political power.
Take away that funding and political power, and they would be just as violent....maybe more so.
But WRT the "animal liberationists"...I think it's clear from their increasing violence and stridancy (as well as their tactic of taking on small, isolated and poorly protected targets as opposed to huge agricultural concerns) shows that they are a marginal and powerless group whose lack of numbers and resources confine them to this sort of action...
More dangerous to individuals, but less dangerous to a whole system...and easier to pick off one-by-one if hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Which would be eaiser if there wasn't such a pernicious anti-science attitude being promoted by religious nuts and other cranks spreading this attitude that scientists are the enemy of morals.
Posted by: Teresa | February 11, 2008 10:18 AM
The Los Angeles Times had a good story over the weekend, revealing that Philip Morris is funding London's work. We know cigarettes and drugs are addictive. Monkeys shouldn't be tortured and murdered because some people are stupid enough to begin taking these things.
And do you really believe that Philip Morris is funding this research for an altruistic purpose? Please. They only care about profits.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-tobacco9feb09,1,7364502.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
Posted by: Tracy | February 11, 2008 10:27 AM
I'd like to point out that the Animal Crackers article you link to ohas a link to the Center for Consumer Freedom.
You might want to check into the CfCF as a Denialist organisation.
I've had a number of commenters refer me to this organization.
For instance, the site currently has an op/ed with this teaser line:
"Preserve right to eat without guilt: Don't post calories of fast-food dishes"
Not surprising that they are heavily funded by elements of the fast-food industry.
To be sure, they are enemies of PETA and ELF, etc...but the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Posted by: Teresa | February 11, 2008 10:31 AM
Tracy,
While funding by Phillip-Morris would certainly make me turn a jaundiced eye toward the out-put of a scientist, and question their studies if they somehow managed to show that cigaretts were not harmful...
...in the end, it really doesn't justify, in my mind, setting fire to their house.
Posted by: Teresa | February 11, 2008 10:43 AM
From the LATimes article mentioned above:
An indication that this particular politician has absolutely no idea how science works. Results can only be "tainted" if the peer-review process and attempts to reproduce the results by other scientists are bypassed. Does London make it a habit of not publishing her results in peer reviewed journals?
Also, there is no justification for killing scientists at all. None. If you are really concerned about how animals are treated in these labs, put the work and the time in and find a way for researchers to do it differently.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 11, 2008 10:58 AM
As Edythe herself pointed out a major problem for researchers working on addiction is the lack of funding available, mainly due to moralistic attitudes from both right and left (depending on the drug involved), so researchers are tempted to go for funding from tobacco companies and others on the supply side. As has been pointed out there's no indication that her research has been in any way affected by the source of the funding, though it's obviously been a gift to the AR extremists targeting her.
There's certainly no doubt in my mind that there is a need for more research into treating addiction, the war on drugs as it's currently being waged has been a failure. Perhaps the answer is for more charity involvement, or maybe under a Democrat president more NIH funding will be directed to this area of research, then at least the AR nuts would be denied the fig leaf of legitimacy they're getting from highlighting Phillip-Morris's funding of Prof. London's work.
I agree with Teresa that CfCF is a rather dubious organization, and some of its campaigns have a distinctly denialist smell to them. They can be a useful source of information, but I'd wear asbestos gloves when handling anything they produce.
Posted by: Paul Browne | February 11, 2008 11:25 AM
When I was being treated for breast cancer, I told my children that I was alive because of animal testing and we would thank the animals that were sacrificed. My daughters are both vegetarians and buy cruelty free cosmetics but they respect the need for animal research.
Posted by: Lindata | February 11, 2008 11:27 AM
Firstly, I think it is blind dogma that is the "real threat" - now, with that out of the way ...
I think most people are simply unaware of all the things surrounding animal study. I think that they get images of extreme neglect and cruelty when they think of lab animals. Cramped conditions, poor eating, lack of other stimuli, socializing, etc. If that were all true about animal testing, I would understand their complaints. But that's usually not the reality. Lab animals are usually treated quite well because neglected animals can change the result of any experiments that are done. That being the case, lab animals are generally in better health than wild animals (aside from whatever effects the experiment has - which isn't always fatal or severe).
Furthermore, being domesticated means that liberating the animal puts it at greater risk to be killed in the wild than their already wild counterparts. They haven't had the chance to develop the skills to survive in the wild.
I think if people took the time to learn more about what they were really protesting, we wouldn't see this kind of thing nearly as much.
On a side note: There has been some indication lately that people who are highly religious have differences in their brain when compared to the non-religious. I wonder how the brains of those who do these things compare as well.
Posted by: Sophie Hirschfeld | February 11, 2008 1:35 PM
Poison the well much, Tracy? Look it up, that's a logical fallacy.
If London's work is shown to be questionable, then Philip Morris's funding is an explanation of that fact. But it's not evidence.
Posted by: Davis | February 11, 2008 1:38 PM
Matt Penfold said:
Seconded absolutely - apologies USA (please don't send us your creationists in exchange!).
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 11, 2008 1:58 PM
Brian O'Connor kept the blog Animal Crackers (http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/), tracking the animal-rights craziness, for quite a while. Here is an index post
Posted by: Liz Ditz | February 11, 2008 2:55 PM
@Lindata:
I feel the same way your daughters do.
I'm a vegetarian, and I am appalled that radical groups like PETA do things like this. They are never going to convince anybody of anything they say that could be even moderately sensible- and I don't think that's the point. I honestly have no clue what they are actually trying to ultimately do.
Whatever reasons PETA has to devote so much time to animal research are probably superficial. Far, far more animals suffer in factory farms than in laboratories. My opinion is that it probably has to do with PR: Americans are more distrustful of science & scientists than they were a generation ago. This creates fertile ground for denialist and other extreme groups to emerge and hijack debate.
I just hope that someday, I won't have to lie about the fact that I am a vegetarian, so people won't think I'm a PETA nutcase. And that is truly saddening- because I want to have a rational discussion. But I think this blog is taking a step in that direction.
Posted by: Skwee | February 11, 2008 11:16 PM
Would it be rude to protest the animal liberationists by simply sending them roadkilled creatures via UPS?
Posted by: Lab Lemming | February 11, 2008 11:20 PM
Would it be rude to protest the animal liberationists by simply pointing out to them that they are animals too (in addition to the human animals whose lives are saved by animal research?)
:-)
Posted by: Teresa | February 12, 2008 1:24 AM
Teresa, it's pointless to try to point out anything to the animal liberationists. What the scientific community can do is show more support for the victims of AR extremism, that's what Pro-Test did in Oxford. Granted it was only one part of the anti-extremist effort but it certainly had an effect.
http://www.pro-test.org.uk/
Posted by: Paul | February 12, 2008 5:35 AM
Paul,
"Teresa, it's pointless to try to point out anything to the animal liberationists."
I know, I was just being flip.
Posted by: Teresa | February 12, 2008 11:27 AM
Or you could point out that animal research saves animals, too.
Posted by: Skemono | February 12, 2008 6:23 PM
Sorry Teresa, I forgot to put a smiley at the end of that last statement...hope I didn't seem rude.
I guess my view is that there's little point in trying to win over the animal liberationists, so in debates with them it's better to think about how what you're saying will appear to somebody who hasn't made up their mind yet.
Posted by: Paul | February 13, 2008 10:31 AM
I appreciate the link to my post Vlasak Openly Advocates Assassination, though I notice the link to the video of Vlasak had expired. I have updated the link, and it is now active. I apologize for the inconvenience.
I continue to believe that the way to defeat the Animal Rights movement is to attack its ideology.
If you understand what AR (as opposed to Animal Welfare is), where it's "anti-speciesism" ideology logically leads, and the enormous violations of AR dogma called for by AR luminaries, you are well equipped to reveal AR for the ugly, dangerous and destructive fantasy it is.
Posted by: Brian O'Connor | February 13, 2008 12:51 PM
Paul wrote:
That's true as far as it goes. But that's a game that only deals with individual incidents, rather than patterns derived directly from the AR ideology. It's much easier for an AR defender to simply say: "We don't condone the actions of XXX . . ." and then to turn it AR advantage by continuing " . . . but we certainly understand the anti-cruelty motive which animated his actions. etc. etc. etc."
The best approach is to attack the ideology, thereby separating the AR movement from its largest base of support, viz, a public that doesn't understand the difference between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare.
The AR people have deliberately conflated the two (AR and AW), and a naive public is ill equipped to understand what they are really supporting when they give big bucks to AR organizations.
Educate the public . . . just keep hammering.
Posted by: Brian O'Connor | February 13, 2008 1:02 PM
Absolutely true Brian, and certainly where Pro-Test is concerned it has always been about far more than merely facing down extremists. Public education is a vital part of the equation, and something Pro-Test have in their own small way tried to improve.
Actually in this respect Pro-Test's greatest success was not anything it itself has published, but rather the large number of articles that appeared in the British press in the immediate aftermath of the first Pro-Test rally in February 2006. Some of these were written by science journalists, some by editors, some by social commentators and several by scientists. Overall they did much to raise awareness of what animal research actually involves, and why it is ethically justified.
This is something to remember, small campaigns against extremism can provide the catalyst for much wider, more informed discussion of these issues.
Posted by: Paul | February 14, 2008 8:49 AM
I am a vegetarian and love animals, and I'm glad my research only involves killing drosophila because I think I would have a hard time working with rats. But I would do it because animal research has been the precursor to every medication I have ever taken, saving my life and probably every one I know in one way or another. I can't imagine advocating living in a world with smallpox & polio, without insulin or antibiotics or kidney transplants or anesthetics, etc. Like some of the comments above suggested, focus on factory farming (but without the arson).
Posted by: marc | February 16, 2008 3:16 PM
I'd also like to point out that animal research has saved non-human animals...witness all of the medications and procedures available for pets, domesctice animals, and wild animals (expecially of endangered speciaes)in need of rehabilitation.
Couldn't do it without animal testing.
Posted by: Teresa | February 17, 2008 12:16 PM
Thanks for the post Mark. Violence and threats are the most sickening aspect of the animal rights movement.
Brian, may I take this opportunity to say thank you for your great work in helping to expose the misanthropic psycho-pathology underlying AR ideology.
Whilst I agree that the dark nature of AR ideology has to be publicly exposed, and our outrage over violence and intimidation given vocal expression, a huge amount of education needs to be done to address the concerns of honest decent folk who know little or nothing about science, but care very much about animal welfare. Amongst them will be some who care little about science and others who are ambivalent or hostile towards it.
Assurances from scientists are not going to play too strongly amongst this group of people. We need to be constantly challenging the constant stream of misinformation, disinformation and lies put out by poorly camouflaged antiviv organisations like AFMA, PCRM, Dr. Hadwen Trust and the various openly declared AV and AR organisations like PeTA.
The violent actions of a small number of pathologically misguided individuals will grab the headlines, but the decent people I have mentioned above will not associate themselves with the perpetrators of those actions. They will feel as much repugnance for such acts as we do.
What they may be affected by, is the constant drip-drip saturation of the public consciousness with nonsensical, antivivisection, non-science. All those involved in the biological sciences need to publicly mark-up this kind of clap-trap, whenever they come across it; it's just as important, if not more so, as in the case of intelligent design.
Posted by: Leigh Jackson | February 17, 2008 4:46 PM
The animal rights people argue that whatever progress has been made using animals could have been much more quickly and cheaply realized if we'd used alternative techniques, like computer modeling. Plus, they argue, animals are so different from humans that they aren't necessary, are misleading and actually hinder progress towards identifying effective treatments.
If you're interested in how I approached answering these points, you might like to read my post Reply to Peter Tatchell's: "Why Animal Research is Bad Science".
Posted by: Brian O'Connor | February 17, 2008 4:48 PM
Teresa, it's fair of you to flag the Center for Consumer Freedom, but I would also point out that the reply of Davis to Tracy, with respect to Phillip Morris funded research, also holds good for CfCF.
Posted by: Leigh Jackson | February 17, 2008 5:04 PM
Your reply to Peter Tatchell is an example for us Brian. He represents just the kind of decent, concerned person I was referring to.
He also is an example of why it is so important to educate the public by challenging AR/AV nonsense whenever we come across it. Peter has totally bought into the AR/AV package deal.
http://www.petertatchell.net/
Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2008 6:50 PM
I forgot to sign that last post:
Your reply to Peter Tatchell is an example for us Brian. He represents just the kind of decent, concerned person I was referring to.
He also is an example of why it is so important to educate the public by challenging AR/AV nonsense whenever we come across it. Peter has totally bought into the AR/AV package deal.
http://www.petertatchell.net/
Posted by: Leigh Jackson | February 17, 2008 6:53 PM
Thanks for the kind words, Leigh.
Animal Rights people are very adept at putting us on the defensive by making their outrageous accusations. And while we can defend ourselves, we won't win this test by playing defense -- we'll lose incrementally.
So I'm a strong advocate of going on the attack.
But to do this, you have to understand how AR differs from AW. This is the key.
In a nutshell, the AR people believe that discriminating on the basis of species differences ("speciesism") is every bit as immoral as discriminating on the basis of differences in race, gender or age. (If it's immoral or unethical to do something to a human, it's no less so to do it to an animal.) In other words, animals have a right to the same moral consideration western civilization has conferred on humans.
That is fundamentally different from AW, which holds that animals and humans are not of equal moral value.
Once you understand this, the AR people can be forced to defend the indefensible.
So -- if humans and animals are of equal moral value, how do AR folks justify spaying and neutering domestic animals, unless they would justify spaying and neutering humans, for the same reasons.
And -- how can PeTA justify killing over 80% of the animals they take in to their shelter, if they wouldn't justify killing humans for exactly the same reasons?
When faced with these questions, the AR folks retreat to an AW defense, which is speciesist, the antithesis of AR ideology.
They'll argue: "Spaying and neutering is necessary because of animal overpopulation!", which is an AW argument, because it subordinates the rights of animals to human whim.
Or: "We kill them because they have been damaged and are un-adoptable and too expensive to keep!", which is likewise an AW argument -- unless you'd do it to humans who are expensive to maintain. (Parenthetically, one would think that "damaged" animals would be especially deserving of AR compassion, rather than death, all the more so if the "damage" was inflicted by humans.)
You won't change the true believers, but you will, in a public forum, reveal them for what they are, and force the disinterested third party to decide how much he wants to support AR groups.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 18, 2008 1:42 PM
Oooops -- I too forgot to sign my post.
Sorry
Posted by: Brian O'Connor | February 18, 2008 1:43 PM
"Once you understand this, the AR people can be forced to defend the indefensible."
It was Animal Crackers which first switched the light on for me. That insane equation - most graphically and unequivocally expressed by Ingrid Newkirk - is the alpha and omega of AR ideology.
Posted by: Leigh Jackson | February 18, 2008 8:36 PM
"Don't you know what they do to those animals?
No, but whatever it is it's delicious"
- Jim Gaffigan, Beyond the Pale
Violence against people or property, when there is no immediate threat to life and limb, is inexcusable. Individuals who seek to frighten scientists and alter policy share the same level of action as Islamic extremists who threatened to kill Salman Rushdie.
Having lived in Norfolk, Virginia, the heart of the PETA (and some say ALF) operation - I observed a strong narcissistic quality about the adherents to these skewed philosophies.
Posted by: Citizen Deux | February 20, 2008 10:53 AM
Mark H,
You claim that "groups" want vivisectors "dead". Who else besides Jerry Vlasak has ever said that? I would really like to know. One person makes a statement like that and you all think everyone thinks that way. Personally, I think Vlasak's comment has caused repression for demonstrators. I also suspect that Vlasak is working for the government along with his wife. Vlasak defends an informent who had film evidence edited. The person who "filmed" was involved in a lawsuit I represented myself in when I was injured at a UCLA demonstration. We are all individuals folks. Many of us are opposed to vivisection both for humans and animals because we realize that since animals and humans ARE different species the results are dangerous, misleading and a waste of time and money. That's why UCLA has not debated vivisection in 20 years.
Corinne Titus
Antivivisection Activist (not affiliated with any group)
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 22, 2008 12:10 PM
Is there anyone in this antivivisection movement willing to help me move forward with the truth before the government silences me? CoryCatLady@aol.com
Just look up the camera man's background and you will see that his previous name does not match his new name, the birth dates. Vijay.
You think activists are violent? They edited the film by an informent and the whole movement looks the other way while an informent had a film edited. I could of hired any personal injury lawyer. I had to represent myself. If anything happens to me please also check out the guy on the plane next to me on my way home from Detroit (Dec. 2007), the white guy. He was trying to get me to go to his place in Texas for "no reason". He knew what I said on a phone that has a tap. I knew I would not be coming out of Texas again, fools.
You are scared of activists? You ought to be afraid of a public univeristy that refuses to debate what they claim is helping human beings funded with our tax money for 20 years now.
Yeah, my arm hurts everyday. My pocket book, peace of mind & future hurts but I will never stop loving America because I believe in freedom of speech, including debates. Any incidentally, I DID offer to drop my lawsuit if UCLA would just debate vivisection and they would not. So I took them to trial all alone.
America? Why won't they debate vivisection? They claim it helps human beings. We are a different species. Wake up.
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 22, 2008 3:18 PM
I think this is a great example of what I'm talking about when I describe ARAs as denialists. This is a statement as extreme in ignorance as one would expect from a evolution denialist. Talk about a fundamental failure to understand the most basic underpinnings of biology, this is ultimately a failure to appreciate the role of evolution in comparative biology. We study different species because despite the differences much of the fundamental biology between organisms is the same.
This is a great example that illuminates the unscientific nature of the ARA attitudes. The paranoia towards the government is also a big red flag, as well as using the rather silly "vivisector" terminology. We're not dealing with rational people who understand science in the ARA movement.
Posted by: MarkH | February 23, 2008 10:50 AM
Wow Mark, I am suprised you posted my second post. You have bigger ***** than those vivisectors you call "researchers".
Paranoid? You think questioning authority means being paranoid? A public university funded with tax money refuses to debate animal experimentation for 20 years and you think I am being paranoid?
Yes, I do fear for my life since editing evidence film is a serious crime and I did speak on a phone that is tapped, an activist's. I did say what I would do to myself (only) at UCLA if I am unable to prove the truth about UCLA's cover up.
You see Mark, I really do believe in and respect debating in America. I feel VERY strongly about it. I know that numerous debates over animal experimentation at public universities over years to come will expose the scientific fraud of using animals as a model for the human being. Facts will surface and laws wil change which will lead to abolishment. Killing vivisectors will only cause an increase in their salary and they will be replaced.
Give me a debate or give me death.
Remember Patrick Henry? "Give me liberty or give me death."
Now I would only do that at UCLA in a few years after I have fully exhausted any possiblity of exposing UCLA's cover up. I would never take anyone with me because that's not the message that I would ever want to leave.
Paranoid? Tell that to Vijay and ask him why his birth dates don't match. Tell him my arm hurts like hell and that all he has to do is tell me his REAL name.
Ask him why he answered with "4 minutes" when I asked him how long we were in the buidling for. Why did he time out the inside film footage? Why did he do that? So I could not point out to the jury that there was more time included inside the building which was the time of the FIRST shove into a wall which caused nerve and tissue damage in my left arm. Also, any site of the first guy was removed.
All I was doing was asking why UCLA won't debate animal experimentation. You think they are going to get away with their cover up? Over my dead body.
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 23, 2008 12:07 PM
We don't debate with denialists.
Contrast with:
Hmmm. And all one has to do is read the ALF's threats against researchers to see that it's more than just Vlasak. All one has to do is listen to your paranoid ranting and we see it's just a matter of time before you let it slip that you advocate violence and don't understand research.
I think we're done here. Get back on your meds.
Posted by: MarkH | February 23, 2008 12:55 PM
Mark,
How truely sad it is that you would advise an American citizen PROUD of the quest and dream of a public university to debate "research" for the sake of what is best for human health should reach for meds and shut up.
Corinne :(
Posted by: Woman | February 23, 2008 1:09 PM
"We don't debate with denialists." ` Mark
There are thousands of doctors opposed to animal experimentation. They are opposed to it. Call them denialists or what ever you choose, they are MDs that believe using an animal as a model for the human being is a HUGE mistake.
Face it. You all are cowards when it comes to debating what you take millions of dollars for and CLAIM is helping human beings.
Who can respect that?
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 23, 2008 1:36 PM
Ah, the cries of a crank, I'm sobbing for you guys.
We have no problem with debates that are honest and meaningful, but debates with denialists are pointless. You demonstrated this with your completely inane statement that animals are too different to teach us about human physiology. The ethics of animals research is one thing, and if people honestly disagree about their use I have no problem with that. What I won't accept is the nonsense from cranks and crackpots that biological science and medical research can be performed without animal research, or that animal research isn't exceedingly valuable. It's not the idea of debate that we attack, but debating people who are cranks and denialists who have nothing honest or valuable to contribute. Because you don't like animal research you are making false and absurd claims about the efficacy of animal research and its utility for the study of biology and physiology. It's dishonest, and stupid, and there is no point arguing about it until ARAs accept the fundamental fact that without animal research advances in biology and medicine would come to a screeching halt. If you want to argue against their use in the face of that fact, that's fine and good and I'm happy for you, but realize that is the starting point of an honest debate. Because no one would accept the loss of human knowledge that entails, you refuse to acknowledge this fact, and instead insist on an absurd and false debate about the utility of animals. I'm having none of it.
Tell me something, how many of the last 10 nobel prizes in physiology/medicine required animals? 9/10, the exception being the award to the guys who figured out MRI (although that was undoubtedly tested on animals before being widely applied to humans, animals were not critical for its discovery).
You people start from a false premise, then presume to tell us everything we know about biology is wrong, despite doing no biology yourselves. Why exactly should we debate with you? You're crackpots, it's a waste of time.
Posted by: MarkH | February 23, 2008 7:17 PM
The fact is... UCLA has not debated animal experimentation for 20 years. I am not asking you to debate Mark, how about the Chancellor of UCLA? He likes to conduct experiments on animals himself, Chancellor Block. Does he have the guts to debate an MD opposed to vivisection/animal experimentaion? Hell no.
This whole thing with Edyth London and Philip Morris cigerette company conducting tests on teenagers and monkeys is insane. Why don't they spend time and money on convincing these 14 year old kids NOT to smoke instead of using their brains in tests? This all seems illegal and unethical.
You keep debating me because you know what I am writing is true. People that torture animals hide from the public when it comes to having to prove anything. Will they let the public see what they do in labs? Hell no. Will they debate animal experimenation? Hell no. Will they disclose records? Hell no. Is that legal? Hell no.
It's becoming more and more secret. That's why the movement is moving more underground regardless of how anyone feels about it.
You really think it's science? Then help open up the lab doors if you are so proud of what they do. Let the public see what they do to those animals. It's fucking insane.
Yeah, it can make a person become a crack pot, that's for sure. ha, ha , ha....
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 23, 2008 9:31 PM
It's been nice writing you Mark. Im signing off now.
Since you feel so strongly about using animals for what you consider research for human beings, why not educate the public about it? Why don't you get on the phone and talk to the folks at UCLA. Ask your pal Edyth if she will debate what she is doing. That would be interesting, don't you think? The public deserves to see what she is up to with those children and monkeys.
How about it Edyth? Ready to debate an MD opposed to what you are doing? How about you Chancellor Block? You are perfect for a vivisection debate! You have a solid background in it. Come on, who is it going to be? Wait a minute I am going to flip a coin. Heads goes to Block tails to London. It's heads. It was a silver dollar. I thought it was a quarter and it says, "Liberty" on it. Guess I will live to see a debate. Since the head is of a woman, perhaps both Edyth and Gene will partake in vivisection debates in the future. Maybe sooner than you think if I work my magic. Ya know, my trial was on Halloween, October 31, 2006.
I will be thinking about you all... sweet animal rights dreams and remember... animal experimentation is BOTH an animal rights issue AND a human rights issue.
Corinne Titus
Antivivisection Activist
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 24, 2008 12:32 AM
"Tell me something, how many of the last 10 nobel prizes in physiology/medicine required animals? 9/10, the exception being the award to the guys who figured out MRI (although that was undoubtedly tested on animals before being widely applied to humans, animals were not critical for its discovery)."
Actually it's 10/10. Paul Lauterbur's initial research into the application of NMR/MRI to tissue analysis used animals (rats and at least one clam!), and he later used rats in many studies that refined and extended the uses of MRI.
Posted by: Paul | February 24, 2008 12:31 PM
Corine Titus wrote:
It's always interesting to me when I hear people say that animals are so different from humans that results based on animal studies aren't applicable to humans, because of where the logic takes us: if one really believes this, what is the argument against testing compounds on humans that were rejected because they proved lethal in on animals?
Posted by: Brian O'Connor | February 24, 2008 4:44 PM
Corine Titus has criticized scientists for not debating animal experimentation with anti-vivisectionists.
I think it's hard to debate matters of faith: you either believe or you do not.
It is not possible to reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
What facts, what logic, could one offer that would change Pat Robertson's mind about the sinfulness of homosexuality?
And what facts, what logic, could one offer that would change the mind of someone who knows with the same absolute certainty that Pat Robertson feels about homosexuality, that animals are so different from humans that they are unsuitable models for processes that occur in humans?
Posted by: Brian O'Connor | February 24, 2008 5:18 PM
Corina Titus, animal activist, wants a debate with UCLA scientists between them and anti-vivisectionists.
I'm not from UCLA, but if I were, I'd consider doing so, on two conditions:
1) That her anti-vivisectionist Dr. would either publicly repudiate at the outset the concept of speciesism (the assertion that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal moral value), or to publicly stipulate, again at the outset, to his/her belief that the life of a human and an animal are of equal moral value.
2) That her anti-vivisectionist Dr. would at the outset publicly deny evolution -- that is, the concept that has as one of its core premises the notion that the similarities between living animal taxa are due to shared common ancestry (that the similarities are not due to "something else"), together with his/her public repudiation, at the outset, of the legitimacy of zoological clades based on that premise.
Posted by: Brian O'Connor | February 24, 2008 10:35 PM
Brian O' Cunto,
You mispelled my name so many times I figured I would mispell yours. lol.
I think it is odd that you bring up homosexuality here. Bam, like out of no where. It's no sin to be gay, it's a sin to not debate "research" at a PUBLIC univeristy for 20 long years.
You and your conditions. Who gives a fuck? Get UCLA to debate what they cliam is helping to cure human diseases (with a loser record of 20 years of NO debates) or get the fuck out of here.
I am sick of this bull shit of not debating. And no, I don't want to debate. I want an MD to debate, not some twisted person for vivisection either. I offered to drop a lawsuit and UCLA would still not debate. It's insane. I just want to puke. Barf....
Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 11:08 PM
That was me that wrote that, Corinne Titus. You people that HATE animal rights people have no idea how much people in this world love animals. I find it really sad that you never experience the communication, love and friendship of animals on the level of fulling respecting them and ackwoledging thier existence.
YOU COULD NEVER BE FRIENDS WIH AN ALIEN FROM OUTER SPACE.
YOU ARE TOO FULL OF HATE. You discrimate and hate. Yeah, I guess you could call me an animal rights person because I am a veagan and think animals don't OWE you jack shit nor do children, women or any man to anyone.
But no mater what you say or write ALL OF YOU, animal experimentation will ALWAYS BE A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE too.
Corinne Titus
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 24, 2008 11:23 PM
"For my part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom of slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the FREEDOM OF DEBATE. It is the only way we can hope to arrive at TRUTH, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and country.
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry
"Give me a vivisection debate or give me death."
Corinne Titus
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 25, 2008 8:14 AM
I want to apologize to Corinne Titus for having misspelled her name. It was unintentional. I did not wish to insult.
I also think the readership should understand that Corrine is a completely sincere individual: she honestly and passionately believes in her Animal Rights cause.
Having said that, there are several points worth mentioning.
First (and this is an observation, not a criticism), with her Patrick Henry quote, she acknowledges that she believes that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal moral value. That is the core principle of Animal Rights, the one from which all else flows, the one which, if repudiated, causes the Animal Rights ideology to collapse.
If you believe that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value, then you can understand why Professor Steven Best, if he could save only one, would save his dog from a burning building before he would save a human stranger. To Corrine and Professor Best, both lives are of equal moral value, and Professor Best's dog is more important to him than the life of the human stranger is to him. Why? Because Professor Best's dog pleasures him, and the human stranger does not.
If that human stranger happens to be your child, parent, sib, lover or mate -- that's just too bad. To the committed Animal Rights activist, there is no moral reason to save -- in AR-speak -- a "human person" before one's dog (a "non-human person"), since neither life is more valuable than the other.
If you believe that the life of an animal and a human are morally equally valuable, then you agree with Corinne and Professor Best.
Again, that's not a criticism, it is merely an observation.
(In passing, by quoting Patrick Henry as she does, Corrine assumes as true the very issue that is in dispute: that the life of a human and that of an animal are of equal value.)
Second, note the depth of passion and the commitment to her cause revealed by Corrine's posts. She is not open to the possibility that her cause is false, or that her conscience might be fallible. She is totally dedicated.
Now imagine that you have others who believe as strongly and certainly as she does, but who are more disciplined, more thoughtful, more courageous and more cunning than she is.
And imagine that they are people who feel absolutely compelled not just to abide by the prohibitions of AR ideology (the "thou shalt nots"), but to act according to its obligations (the "thou shalts").
If you are such a person, what is the argument against following Jerry Vlasak's logic (and here)? (Dr. Vlasak has reduced morality to a simple matter of arithmetic: since each animal and human life is of equal value, if by killing 5, 10, 15 or "X" scientists you can prevent the deaths of 6, 11, 16 or "X+1" animals, respectively, you've acted morally.)
I find this chilling, but if you are an AR zealot, you will not.
Third, Corrine either unable or unwilling to understand the parallel I drew between Pat Robertson's absolute belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality (you cannot talk him out of it using facts or logic) and Corrine's absolute belief in her ideology (she cannot be talked out of it using facts or logic). Both are examples of faith. (I don't know which would be worse: being unable or unwilling to understand. How do you carry on a meaningful discussion with someone who plays that game?)
Fourth, I don't understand why the conditions for debate I outlined should be so objectionable to Corrine. What's the argument against simply agreeing to them?
They are, after all, nothing but the truth, and if she's seriously interested in a debate, she should be anxious to place it within a clearly-defined ideological framework.
Posted by: Brian O'Connor | February 25, 2008 1:10 PM
Brian O'Connor,
Notice how you appologized about mispelling my name and then proceeded to mispell it again, over and over. It's not Corrine, it's Corinne. Spelled and pronounced the same as the singer Corinne Bailey Rae.
Yeah, I suppose the joke about your name was a little harsh.
I don't want to stray away from the TRUTH and subject of how "researchers" avoid debating vivisection, animal experimentation, what you folks call research and what many of us realize its nothing more than torture and fraud. An excuse for grants funded with hard earned American tax dollars. Why can't we hear a scientific debate with an MD opposed to vivisection with a top person over there at UCLA?
Why? Because secrecy is the enemy of democracy.
Yeah, I take the issue of animal experimentation very seriously. I was active in the 80's and then got out in the 90's. When I entered the faculty building at UCLA during a demonstration in 2003, my whole life changed. The door was opened for me and I thought at that moment, 'Yes, I am going inside to ask them face to face why they won't debate vivisection."
What could they possibly say? My emails and calls were ignored so I seriously wondered what they would say since they could not hide from my question.
Instead of getting an answer, I received nerve and tissue in my left arm. My left elbow struck the wall when I was slammed into it. There were 2 shoves. One was removed from the video tape (through an informent who filmed) along with the first man who shoved me. The second guy who shoved me is dead now. He died of a heart attack 3 months after the incident. I took the deposition of the account who was told to, "Watch the door." (That was thier idea of security folks, lol) The accountant admitted he was with Mr Bell when he died. I believe they were having a meeting about my lawsuit since the accountant was at his house. Mr Bell died of a heart attack on the way to the hospital and I feel very bad about it because UCLA's assocites edited and made the film LOOK LIKE Mr Bell shoved me both times but he did not. He did not injure my arm, it was the other guy who was edited out of the film. Mr Bell must of felt the pressure of having ot lie for his job and univeristy. RIP Mr Bell.
I will tell the truth for you. That was thier defense in the trial. They claimed that Mr Bell shoved me both times, just enough to get me out of the way. I was suprised that they admitted thier was an injury. They called contusion to the elbow but my arm is not the same anymore since Dec. 16, 2003, and I will take a lie detector test gladly. I have nothing to hide. I am being honest.
Rather than just debate like I offered to drop my lawsuit early on, and just pay my medical bill, UCLA spent 3 years fighting me. If the film wasnot edited I would of won mycase for sure. If I had a lawyer, I still could of won and that's why on Aug. 4, 2006, when I took UCLA's medical expert's deposition, I told them I finally had a lawyer (he later changed his mind about taking my case). UCLA knew I could win with an attorney. They also don't want thier cover up exposed so what di dthey do? Notice how UCLA vivisector Dario Ringach quit on Aug. 4, 2006. Yeah, the email was first sent to PrimateFredom then it went to the ALF press office by PF.
Oh I got more for my story. My initial witness list has 2 presidents of vivisection groups were going to testify agsainst me for trying put a debate together. ha, ha, ha!!!!
No kidding. It's public record!!! They pulled them off and I tried to subpeopna them but they avoided me. I was soooo looking forward to cross examining them.
See Mr O'Connor, my life is forever changed in many ways. I don't have a college degree but I made it through my lawsuit for 3 years with a trial. I am not a detective but I see that the camera man's names don't match, the birth dates. I don't have the money for a private investigator since I am in debt from representing myself.
Worst off, I had planned on going back to cocktail waitressing but my arm is gong to buckle with a full tray of drinks. I may be able to serve a few at time, I don't know. I have worked as an adult entertainer and model all my life, as well as a waitress. I am getting too old for entertaining and don't khow how I will be able to survive so yes, I take that quote by Partick Henry very seriously.
I think what hurts the most was that no animal rights attorney would at aleast do the 4 day trial for me after I invested so much and I had a fgood case with the all the facts at hand, no security, door was opened for me, no sign on the door on went in, never touched anyone (witnesses all admitted newver seeing that cause I did not), etc, etc, I have an abnormal nerve test, etc.
Will anyone help me now with proving that the camera man has a birth date that does not match. Who the hell is this guy? You would think he would want me to have some peace of mind so I can move on with my life. But there is no way in hell than I will except my injury and not get his real name. Cause I know what he did with the evidence and that's a CRIME. He told me to go to the hospital and have my arm looked at, he knew the film was evidence.
It's better to burn out than fade away. I would rather go out in style and make you peole think about debating vivisection. That would make me very happy. ;)
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 25, 2008 3:57 PM
I must admit that those Terminator movies some how make me come back from my sadness at times. The overwhelmng depression of what "researchers" do to animals in labs and the laws that protect it can make you feel helpless and lost in doom. Especially myself, having my government edit a film where I was peramently injured in my left arm, an injury inflicted simply because I was asking why UCLA won't debate animal experimentation.
Terminator movies. Remember how the woman robot comes back to life and has no emotions? Well, I think that's how us acitvists have to think, just like you vivisectors think with no emotions. Like ok, here I am, right back at ya. Let's go... now, how about that debate? When are you people ever going to debate? That's what I have been programmed to ask.
Why? Why won't UCLA debate vivisection for 20 years?
You can run but you can't hide.
The future is now. Stand up and debate UCLA.
What do you think Gov? Patrick Henry was a Govenor.
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 25, 2008 5:39 PM
Wow, Corinne. Try the meds again. You know, the ones that won't make you as crazy.
Posted by: Another Anonymous Poster | February 25, 2008 5:57 PM
MarkH, you are to be congratulated for prompting these little dialogs. The fact that these ARAs are so obviously and, in this case tragically, mentally disturbed should be brought to the attention of all who listen with sympathetic ear to their claims.
B O'C, you may wish to strike a pose of not judging those who would rescue their dog before another human being. sorry but this is not an area to extend moral relativism. There is something wrong with these people. There are times when it is necessary for the civil community to stand up and say "No, your theological beliefs and the actions resulting thereof are not okay with the community".
Here's a question for the lawyers. Reckless actions that cause the unintentional death of another person can be acts of involuntary manslaughter with legal penalties. How should we view an intentional act to save a dog from a fire in full knowledge that one or more humans were going to die?
Posted by: trollanon | February 25, 2008 7:01 PM
You people always bring up this dog over person idea. The truth is... what's safe your dog may kill your baby. Drugs react differently on animals. When are people going to realize how ridiculous it is to use dogs, cats, monkeys, and other animals as models for the human being?
Yeah, I am worn out, all beat up physically, mentally, finacially and spiritually from the incident at UCLA, Dec. 2003. If you want to call me crazy than so be it. I am telling the truth here folks and can prove evrything with court documents, etc.
Can you people prove anything? You all hide your torture and call people who want to open up lab doors to show the public crazy. It's a real horror movie and you all support it.
People use to think women were withes and burned them at the stake. You people torture animals and think that's science.
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 25, 2008 10:27 PM
Corinne: "Terminator movies. Remember how the woman robot comes back to life and has no emotions? Well, I think that's how us acitvists have to think, just like you vivisectors think with no emotions. Like ok, here I am, right back at ya. Let's go... now, how about that debate? When are you people ever going to debate? That's what I have been programmed to ask."
It's good to care, Corinne, but this is burning you out. If you feel robotic and programmed, then that should be a warning sign.
Let me tell you what your friends should be telling you (but definitely won't): your health is more important than a room full of rats. If you aren't taking medication because of animal rights you could be putting your own life at risk. This is why you should think it through a bit more. Otherwise you could be risking your job, your health and your happiness for nothing. Not to mention your criminal record. You must be so invested by now it seems unthinkable to start questioning it. But think about it. You could write a book about your experiences in animal rights organisations. It will pay for all legal and medical fees. Plus shelters for lost kittens.
Start with asking yourself this question: Why do the drugs work on humans if there is no similarity between humans and animals?
Posted by: debbyo | February 26, 2008 11:12 PM
The only time animal experimentation is required by law is by the FDA with drug testing.
The fact is, many drugs that work for rats don't work for human beings. Human cancer patients are not always told about experimentatal drugs available to them. And then there are lists of drugs that work fine in animals but kill people like arsenic which sheep can safely eat.
Burning me out? You really don't get my messages. I am way past burned out. My life has been permanently changed, ever since the incident on Dec. 16, 2003, where I was smashed into a faculty wall for asking why UCLA won't debate vivisection (one shove was edited out of the film through an informent).
This obstruction to my life fell on my lap and I am not the type of person to not stand up for myself, not at my age after all the bs I have been through. No fucking way.
If you were in my position where you were injured and someone edited the evidence film, you would want to know the real name of that person as well.
Those films that animal rights people sell to one another have thier place in the world but I am not interested in preaching to my own choir. Only a few of those people ever helped me with my lawsuit. Why would they give a shit about me now?
My health is already shot because of the overwheming experinece of having to represent myself, pay for it all by working extra shifts, etc. Having to deal with a messed up left arm and constantly wonder who the hell this camera man is when his birth dates don't match and he resembles an informent from a 1991 magazine.
Think what through? There is nothing that would make me happier that to get some peace of mind by finding out what the camera man's real name is and expose and consequently reveal UCLA's cover up. You think I am going to let it go? ha, ha, ha ha.. keep dreamin honey.
What's this about my criminal record? Who said I would do anything criminal?
UCLA is the one who did something very criminal to me, they edited evidence film. You are scared shitless that I am telling the truth and will expose even more truth about torture and fraud.
Drugs tht pass safety tests on animals often harm or kill people. Don't you pay attention to all the drug recalls seen constantly? Doctors like to wait on giving new drugs to thier family members. They like to wait until new drugs have been out ont he market for awhile. Humans are the guinea pigs.
You probably don't see any problem with a public univeristy not deabting what they claim helps human beings, for 20 years. My goal is to witness a debate at UCLA before I die.
Posted by: Corinne Titus | February 27, 2008 10:35 AM
Corinne Titus wrote:
I've spoken directly to this point, at some length.
Please read it and either refute the logic, or show me facts that falsify what I say.
Posted by: Brian O'Connor | February 27, 2008 1:13 PM
Corinne Titus wrote:
How would abandoning the use of animal in biomedical research make this less true?
If new medicines and treatments are to be developed for humans, how would you propose to do so without, well, testing on humans?
(For anyone not aware of how new drugs are brought to market, here's an excellent schematic of how the process works. You can click on any of its parts and see a layman's explanation of what's going on.)
And again I ask this question: if you really believe that animals and humans are so different as to invalidate animal-based results, what is the argument of taking all those compounds that were found lethal in animals, and beginning clinical trials of them?
Or, taking all those compounds that caused abnormal pregnancies in animals (reduced numbers of offspring, fetal resorption, birth defects, etc.) and testing them on pregnant humans?
I think it's important not to let the "fantasy of perfection" that one might imagine to imagine in an unachievable utopian world kill the "imperfect but very good" that we have to live