Ongoing witch-hunt against Oklahoma scientists, Part Deux

Quite possibly one of the weirdest things I have ever witnessed in my scientific career– The president of Oklahoma State University has ‘forbidden’ an ethics panel approved, NIH funded research project on ‘his’ campus.

What kind of abominable research are these Satan worshiping scientists trying to do? Injecting healthy infants with large doses of heroin? Telling women they have miscarried, when really scientists are stealing their fetuses for medical research? Teaching turtles to tap-dance? What?

A project to test anthrax vaccines and treatment on baboons was quashed by Oklahoma State University administrators because the primates would be euthanized.

… Wait, wat?

OSU administrators declined to comment for this story, but released a statement through OSU spokesman Gary Shutt stating “this research was not in the best interest of the university. The testing of lethal pathogens on primates would be a new area for OSU that is controversial and is outside our current research programs.”

… Wait… WAT??

Oklahoma is kinda ‘known’ for our baboon facilities. Um, I think its technically an Oklahoma ‘resource’. The Oklahoma baboon colonies are associated with OUHSC, OMRF, schools all over OK like Oklahoma State veterinary school and HSC, schools in TX… and have been for years. Doing research on baboons is in no way ‘new’ for OSU. Hell, weve had people from OSU come talk about their virus research with baboons here in OK.

WTF?

Veterinary scientist Richard Eberle said the faculty believes Hargis’ ruling was influenced by an animal rights advocate or other organization.

He fears the decision will jeopardize future projects as well.

“OSU is now seen by researchers at other institutions as an unreliable research partner and afraid of animal rights demonstrators,” Eberle said. “It is sad that such a golden opportunity for OSU and the state of Oklahoma to attain national recognition has been missed as the result of a single individual’s decision.”

You know, its weird, animal rights people dont really last long here in Oklahoma. Kinda known for loving nomming on cows, pigs, birds, kickass leather cowboy boots… why the hell would OSU be worried about animal liberation freaks?

OOOOOOOOOOH THAAAAAATS RIGHT.

That horribly disfigured woman, Madeleine Pickens? That poor dumb thing married to some rich guy? Rich guy gives money to OSU, so people listen to the stupid blonde who mutilated herself a-la Michael Jackson with ‘animal free’ (**WINK!!**) plastic surgery/botox/hair dye/make-up? Oh, Im sure she had nothing to do with this. **WINK!!**

Well, I mean, I dont know what the ~~pussy whipped~~ ‘president’ of OSU thinks is going to happen, but I cant imagine any science researcher staying at OSU. We all use animals. Mice, dogs (*wince*), baboons, ferrets, and President Pussy just made it clear that he, at any time, will personally deem their research ‘controversial’ and not allow them to do it anymore.

If I were a newish professor, I would just leave, and tell OSU exactly why. If I was tenured, Id look into my legal options (you didnt sign up for a Uni that didnt allow animal research).

Im used to the freak politicians here in OK making a mess of science, but the administrators of the OU schools try their best to balance and reason with the crazy. They dont cave, even under more political pressure than President Pussy has had to deal with.

Shame on you, Burns Hargis. Grow a fucking spine.

Great response: Speaking of Research

Comments

#1 Paul Browne
November 30, 2009

I’d like to be able to say that you were over-reacting Erv, that this is all a storm in a teacup…but that would be wrong.

This looks like a clear case of a university president interfering with the running of an individual project at the behest of a donor. If this is allowed to stand than it will set a very worrying precedent, not just for animal research but for any other area of academic research that Boone-Pickens decides he doesn’t approve of…and looking at his political record that is likely to be a long list.

The research and academic community at OSU need to stand up to Burns Hargis, and I hope that the NIH has words with him too, after all it’s the projects they fund that are under threat. Of course if goes without saying that the rest of the research community should stand by Michael Davis, Richard Eberle and Kenneth Bartels who have had the courage to speak out against this ill-conceived and craven decision by Burns Hargis.
#2 Joshua Zelinsky
November 30, 2009

Wow. That’s off the wall. I hope the tenured biology and medicine people are giving him an earful.
#3 Bayesian Bouffant, FCD
November 30, 2009

Oklahoma is kinda ‘known’ for our baboon facilities.

Indeed! The Oklahoma baboon facility is so well-known that it has its own web site
#4 BeamStalk
November 30, 2009

*sigh* My own Alma Mater. This is why if I go back to school it will be at OU. I will write but I am not T Boone Pickens and I think that is the deciding factor like you said.
#5 RayvenAlandria
November 30, 2009

It seems like things just keep getting worse in Okie-not-so-dokie-land. Pretty soon all the scientists will have to just give up and flee to other areas. Maybe that’s their secret goal, to get all the rational people to leave the state. I’m sorry you have to deal with such overwhelming stupidity. You’d think you’d be safe at a uni, but nope, there is no safe haven in this backwards place. So sad.
#6 Rob Jase
November 30, 2009

Are you sure it wasn’t dropped out of fear the baboons might evolve?
#7 Joe
November 30, 2009

I don’t know that I’d call this a witch hunt. This isn’t driving out the eviloutionists or geologists who believe the earth is more than 6,000 years old. This is (however wrongheaded) a judgment that injecting baboons with deadly stuff is immoral, even for the potential gains. You don’t have to agree with him, but this is a wee bit of an overreaction. Even if he’s only doing it because of important donors.
#8 Prometheus
November 30, 2009

I copy pasta my previous description and quote re rubber faced Madeline “Gulfstream” Pickens:

She loves thoroughbred racing. She lives in 25,000 square foot house on a 68,000 acre hunting ranch with feeding stations for deer, quail, turkeys and breeding coops for canned hunts of pheasants…..

“……the Wild West equivalent of a southern gentleman’s hunting plantation arguably the finest quail-hunting spot in the known universe.”

Yep that’s PETA approved Maddy.

If she joined a league of super villains her power would be to throw checks, morally paralyzing you with her hypocrisy bombs.
#9 Joe
November 30, 2009

In any event, I thought Orac had a monopoly on all posts about injections with TOXINS.
#10 D. C. Sessions
November 30, 2009

I like this — redefine “academic freedom” to “you can do any research you like, but we will block your funding if you piss off the donors.”

Makes sense.
#11 ERV
November 30, 2009

OMFG I FIGURED IT OUT!

I figured out why the sight of Mrs. Pickens makes me want to vomit!!!

Uncanny Valley.

I feel better now.
#12 vhutchison
November 30, 2009

This is not the first time Mrs. T. Boone has become involved with the OSU Vet School. Earlier, she criticized the use of live animals in surgery training, even though they were properly anesthetized and treated. Some reports suggested that the procedures were no longer used?
#13 Sili
November 30, 2009

Funny. If industry and business leans on independent researchers to get the results they want, it’s bad, but this is just fine and dandy?

Someone please remember this, the next time the antiscientists whine about undue influence.
#14 Paul Browne
December 1, 2009

Joe, the problem is that this isn’t a case of the University having a clear policy agreed to by the departments concerned that the researchers were unaware of, that might just be reasonable. If OSU didn’t want to do this kind of research they really shouldn’t have invested so heavily (State and NIH funds) in non-hunam primate and diodefence facilities.

What has clearly happened here is that the Burns Hargis, president of OSU, took an entirely unilateral decision without consulting those, the investigators, funders and IACUC, who were involved with the project. It seems clear that he was leaned on by the Boone-Pickens, he clearly decided not to consult with the researchers concerned because he knew that he would not be able to justify the decision and that his motives would be questioned.

The danger is that if he is allowed to get away with it other bans will follow, this decision really does pose a real threat to the future of medical research at OSU.

Clearly Hargis had hoped that the researchers would simply comply with the decision without making a fuss…clearly he was wrong!
#15 BAllanJ
December 1, 2009

So, when Hargis put the university up for sale, did he follow proper tendering rules? Maybe he could have got a better price with a sealed bid process, instead of his backroom/secret methods. I think this needs to be looked into. At least the final deal should be made public so you know exactly what he got for selling, and exactly what he sold, so he doesn’t keep selling for the same return. ‘Cause when you sell out to the devil, the deal can be way worse than you thought, and it often turns out that souls are a glut.
#16 William Wallace
December 1, 2009

The logical result of evolution theory meets post WWII world. The Japanese conducted research on the Chinese, as did the Germans on the Jews.

Evolutionists think baboons are our distant cousins.

So, are they, are aren’t they?
#17 Stephen Wells
December 1, 2009

Willy, _every_ living thing is your distant cousin, for sufficiently large values of “distant”. What was your point? A poorly executed Godwin?
#18 phantomreader42
December 1, 2009

Stephen Wells:

Willy, _every_ living thing is your distant cousin, for sufficiently large values of “distant”. What was your point? A poorly executed Godwin?

Has Cowardheart EVER had any more point than that?
#19 Spirula
December 2, 2009

re: Mrs. Pickens pic

My first reaction was that she must be Mason Verger’s sister.
#20 Uncle Glenny
December 2, 2009

Wee Willy, why don’t you and Mrs. Pickens take Dick Cheney quail hunting?
#21 jon
December 4, 2009

@ #16:

The logical result of evolution theory meets post WWII world. The Japanese conducted research on the Chinese, as did the Germans on the Jews.

Evolutionists think baboons are our distant cousins.

So, are they, are aren’t they?

Translation: HURRRR DURRRR! DERP DERP DERP!
#22 baby cribs
December 4, 2009

It seems like things are not going well. I would not be surprised if all the scientists will give up and go to other places. I hope this will not happen.
#23 stubs
December 4, 2009

Actually, many of the researchers here are going with the more “professional” route. No big displays, no threats to quit, just statements of disapproval.

In a way I would have hoped for more outcry from them, but if they just pack up and leave it does nothing but hurt the institution (and my chances of working with them!).

Here is a letter to the O’Colly (OSU’s paper)

http://www.ocolly.com/primate-research-rejected-with-reason-1.951783

Many of the reasons just don’t make sense. :/

I mean the site was put together just for this study, so the excuse that we aren’t equip to handle it is ridiculous.

Also I find it hard to believe Steve McKeever agrees with this, he is typically a upright guy.

A few years ago when Hargis became president he specifically said he would not interfere with research. This at worst makes him a liar, at best untrustworthy.

Hopefully he either reconsiders, or at least realizes that research can bring in just as much money as donators.
#24 Salamander
December 5, 2009

That they should be influenced by animal welfare activists is not of concern provided their arguments are valid. Neither is it a concern that their arguments might be influenced by scientists (although, of course, the two categories are not mutually exclusive). Why should this allegation prove so damning? You haven’t even addressed the question of whether or not the research was indeed ethical but have instead focused on the impact this decision will have on the researchers – which seems appalling.
#25 Stephen Wells
December 5, 2009

Salamander, you don’t get NIH funding without passing an ethics panel. Which this research did. So dial back your deep concern.
#26 Salamander
December 5, 2009

Have you ever applied for NIH funding? The ethics panels, although time-consuming, are no more than paperwork. Would you like a list of a few highly objectionable projects that I am personally aware of?
#27 Stephen Wells
December 5, 2009

Ah, we have a whistleblower. You may be on the wrong blog.
#28 Lavinia Whateley
December 5, 2009

Enough with the misogynist and ablest insults, if you don’t mind. Heeding the desires of a major university donor makes the OSU president ‘pussy-whipped’? If he was a real man, he’d have told that bitch to get her skank ass back in the kitchen, amirite? Fuck off, ERV.

Even if you believe that critics of unregulated animal research are Luddites deserving of as much contempt as the YECs, you can express that contempt without the ugly = unfuckable = inferior rhetoric – I’m sure Ms. Pickens is utterly devastated to learn that the commenters find her unworthy of their mighty cocks – or the implication that facial disfigurement and/or plastic surgery reflects some moral failure on the part of the victim.
#29 stubs
December 5, 2009

@ Lavinia:

First off, Ad hominem arguments are silly and fun, ERV uses then in conjunction with actual arguments to make her posts entertaining to read.

While your argument above is pure Ad hominem, with little to no substance to back it up. Your post says little about the issue at hand (namely, Hargis’ arbitrary axing of a already funded and approved project for no other reason than some donators are displeased).

If you approve of what is going on at OSU than please give some other reason other than “ERV is being a big meanie!”

kthxbye
#30 Tyler DiPietro
December 5, 2009

“If he was a real man, he’d have told that bitch to get her skank ass back in the kitchen, amirite?”

No, he would told her to get back in the kitchen and make him a sandwich, and then he would have cunt-punched her for making it wrong.
#31 Tyler DiPietro
December 5, 2009

“If you approve of what is going on at OSU than please give some other reason other than “ERV is being a big meanie!”

I’d much prefer that those moralfagging ERV just shut the hell up and do a barrel roll. Stop wasting your fucking breath and be a PC leftard with the Isis crowd.
#32 Douglas Watts
December 7, 2009

Rich guy gives money to OSU, so people listen to the stupid blonde …

Wow. Pretty sexist.

Not much misogyny here.
#33 Douglas Watts
December 7, 2009

A project to test anthrax vaccines and treatment on baboons was quashed by Oklahoma State University administrators because the primates would be euthanized.

Given that the risk of anthrax exposure to U.S. Americans is just about zero, it seems hard to justify this research on any utilitarian or societal basis.

This post could be improved by the author offering a rational, non-misogynistic explanation for why this type of research, with its inevitable bad outcomes for the baboons, provides potential benefits of significant magnitude to outweigh the real and ongoing costs and why less harmful research methods are not being used, or at least investigated.
#34 Douglas Watts
December 7, 2009

The only reason why this type of research is not allowed on human subjects is that it is against the law. If it were not illegal, I can imagine it would be done by someone, using the exact non-rational explanations provided here. A key problem with non-human primate experimentation is that the subjects are not volunteers. They are non-voluntary captives and subjects, forced and subjected to endure a lethal exposure to a deadly disease. If humans were intelligent enough to be able to learn baboon language, and capable of actually asking baboons if they are willing to die for “us,” with no benefits to them, I think we know what their answer would be. It seems to me that the author should consider a post which examines the question of what researchers would do if a baboon said no, I don’t want to be killed.
#35 Douglas Watts
December 7, 2009

Funny. If industry and business leans on independent researchers to get the results they want, it’s bad, but this is just fine and dandy?

Umm … this is nothing about skewing the results of research, this is questioning the morals and ethics and necessity of the methods.

Two very different things.
#36 ERV
December 7, 2009

Pretty sexist.
Its an accurate descriptor which you cannot refute, so you bawww sexism. False claims of sexism hurts all women, including myself, so Id appreciate if men like you kept your white knighting to yourself. Yes, the woman has mutilated herself, but shes still not going to fuck you. You arent rich enough.

In regards to your other comments, this is why stupid people are not allowed on review boards. See, this ‘useless’ study sure seems important to the CDC, NIH, DOD, IACUC, internal reviewers, and the researchers who spent the time and effort to put forth the grant. Primate research is very, very, very expensive, and it not used unless its for a very good reason. I do most of my research with tissue culture. Its relatively trivial to say ‘Hmm, I wonder if…’, split off a plate of cells, and try something that might end up being ‘useless’. No one does that with primates, because you cant. Legally, you cant.

So basically what we have here, is a pussy whipped ‘president’ of a public university (former accountant), hoping to increase his political sway, is bending to the whims of a bored rich housewife (animal liberation is a hobby… except when animals are being used to perfect surgery and cosmetics, or hunting, or horse racing), going above the heads of the best scientists in this nation, interfering with research that will not only increase our understanding of this universe, but also help save lives.

You are a fucking dipshit, *Doug*. Bawwing about a monkey giving its life for science, while you fish just for the fuck of it.
Tim is holding what had been a 20 inch striper that was bit in two by a bluefish as he reeled it in. HAHAHAHAHA! *blink*

Selfish fucking cunt.
#37 Gerard Harbison
December 7, 2009

Given that the risk of anthrax exposure to U.S. Americans is just about zero, it seems hard to justify this research on any utilitarian or societal basis.

Huh?

Sleep through 2001, did you?
#38 Prometheus
December 7, 2009

#34 Douglas Watts wrote:

“If humans were intelligent enough to be able to learn baboon language, and capable of actually asking baboons if they are willing to die for “us,” with no benefits to them, I think we know what their answer would be.”

Are all of your ethical positions this transparently decorative?

I have forwarded this to a whiskey soaked sociology professor who likes to use the expression “impregnated with presuppositions” in his critiques. I thought he would enjoy encountering the philosophical equivalent of the octo-mom.

If we are dumb and if baboons have a comparable intellect and language, then they have failed in not learning humanspeak as we have failed in not learning baboonspeak. The consequence is that their ignorance of our intentions and our ignorance of their desires is merely mutual idiocy or laziness.

Their presupposed answer would be as ours is by your reasoning.

It is not “Don’t spray me bro!” It would be,”Spray the anthrax on the chimps* or whoever and give us the vaccine when it works!”

*pick the chimps that eat our babies, we HATE those guys.
#39 Douglas Watts
December 7, 2009

Sleep through 2001, did you?

No. And unless you have some new info. you wish to relate here, the sole source of the anthrax in 2001 was a single U.S. govt. bio-lab and a single researcher. And before 2001 and up until today, I can’t find credible evidence of any of an intentional attempt to transmit anthrax in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world. If you have evidence otherwise, I’d be glad to listen.

Thanks.
#40 Prometheus
December 7, 2009

By Occam’s Razor I have to assume your entire post is parody.

By your post I have to assume you don’t understand the definition of parody, Occam’s Razor or much else really.
#41 Gerard Harbison
December 7, 2009

And unless you have some new info. you wish to relate here, the sole source of the anthrax in 2001 was a single U.S. govt. bio-lab and a single researcher.

How does that make the risk of anthrax to US citizens zero? Five people died. Five is not zero

And before 2001 and up until today, I can’t find credible evidence of any of an intentional attempt to transmit anthrax in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world. If you have evidence otherwise, I’d be glad to listen.

Oh really? You haven’t tried very hard. Google ‘unit 731′.
#42 Optimus Primate
December 7, 2009

Abbie,

In the couple of years or so that I’ve been following you on the web, I’ve never so shocked and appalled by something you wrote that I felt the need to call you out on it. But today you’ve crossed a line. You said:

Bawwing about a monkey giving its life for science…

I’m genuinely dismayed here. Baboons are apes, not monkeys!

*tsk*

Otherwise, spot on as usual.
#43 Optimus Primate
December 7, 2009

Errr… never been so shocked and appalled…

*Le sigh*

I hate it when a typo ruins an otherwise perfectly mediocre joke.
#44 Douglas Watts
December 7, 2009

How does that make the risk of anthrax to US citizens zero? Five people died. Five is not zero.

The average reported no. of U.S. Americans killed by lightning strikes each year is 58, based on statistics gathered by NWS since 1979. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm

That is at least a one order of magnitude difference than anthrax, (n=5) for one year (2001) and none before or since.
#45 Douglas Watts
December 7, 2009

If we are dumb and if baboons have a comparable intellect and language, then they have failed in not learning humanspeak as we have failed in not learning baboonspeak.

I don’t recall any recent instances of baboons putting humans into cages and injecting them with anthrax.

But since you folks are the experts, any published cites on the topic would be appreciated.

Thanks.
#46 Gerard Harbison
December 7, 2009

The number of people killed in lightning strikes is not zero, either. In fact, we go to considerable lengths to prevent deaths from lightning strikes, including installing lightning rods on buildings, severe thunderstorm warnings, etc..

Anthrax is a known biological warfare agent, which is or has been possessed by several governments worldwide. In addition to the use by the Japanese on prisoners and possibly Chinese civilians, there was the Sverdlovsk leak, which killed scores of people. The 2001 releases show how dangerous it is; we don’t even know how some of the victims were infected. It is completely plausible a terrorist group might possess and release it, and entirely reasonable we should do research to minimize deaths from that eventuality. Even before 2001, I had a contract from the Army for development of anthrax spore detection methods. It’s something that has worried us for decades.

Pretending it is not a problem is meretricious in the extreme.
#47 Prometheus
December 7, 2009

“I don’t recall any recent instances of baboons putting humans into cages and injecting them with anthrax.”

Can’t argue with you there. It appears that in your example of comparably linguistically gifted baboons the baboons are the ones who have dropped the ball.

Perhaps they have a bad self image.

As far as anthrax is concerned we do know that the 2001 strain was a fluffy kitten compared to the strains stockpiled in at least a half dozen countries. Why do you think they stockpile anthrax? Is it fun at parties?

Since you are white knight. Try this example.

If you know 6 surrounding kingdoms hate you and have catapults, do you start making helmets before or after the rocks start falling.

BTW
Your princess is a former vegetarian/McDonald’s advertisement model turned private in-flight hostess turned third socialite wife turned socialite widow turned fourth socialite wife (widow aspirant) turned animal philactivist hunting and horse racing plastic surgery buff.

As you prepare to joust, she quiveringly awaits you at Marina Del Mar drinking nutri sweet cosmos with her buddy Jenny Craig. She wearing a cape of golden marmosets and a pair of blood diamond encrusted albino baby baboon skin Ugg boots. As you cup her chin to kiss her, note the stubble is a product of having so many face lifts she now sports a goatee.

Way to pick those battles buddy. *high five*
#48 windy
December 7, 2009

I’m genuinely dismayed here. Baboons are apes, not monkeys!

No, they are just plain monkeys (if you define apes as the monophyletic clade of Hominoidea or as ‘large tailless monkeys’) or both apes and monkeys (if you want to call any large monkey as an ape)

there you go mr alleged ‘Primate’!
#49 Optimus Primate
December 7, 2009

D’oh! You’re right, Windy!

Epic Biology Fail. I’ll hush now.
#50 Optimus Primate
December 7, 2009

Seriously, this is what I get for posting when I’m completely out of Simply Orange. My brain just doesn’t work right at all without its proper fuel.
#51 Douglas Watts
December 7, 2009

“I don’t recall any recent instances of baboons putting humans into cages and injecting them with anthrax.”

Can’t argue with you there. It appears that in your example of comparably linguistically gifted baboons the baboons are the ones who have dropped the ball.

Perhaps they have a bad self image.
–

So, according to your above criteria, a human child who is incapable of spoken language would be a suitable candidate for lethal anthrax experimentation.
#52 Douglas Watts
December 7, 2009

Prometheus — except for the 5 U.S. deaths in 2001 (which was a single criminal act, like the Unabomber), you cannot point to a single instance of death from intentional anthrax infection worldwide since 2001. Yet you defend killing baboons on an annual and perpetual basis to potentially address a vector which poses a similar annual risk to people as being killed by a meteorite and much lower risk than being killed by a shark. (11 reported fatalities worldwide in 2000).

Where is the cost/benefit in this and how do you assess it?

Thanks.
#53 Optimus Primate
December 7, 2009

Since I’ve already revealed myself as a complete idiot in this thread, I’ve got nothing to lose my climbing out on this philosophical limb.

Douglas, I think you know as well as anyone that we’re all working on an ethical continuum here. Comparing human infants to baboons just because both are incapable of speech is, at best, setting up a straw man.

As Abbie pointed out, you seem to have no trouble killing fish for the pure sport of it. So why the problem with medical testing on baboons? The obvious answer to that is that you recognize baboons’ closer kinship with humans. So the idea gives you the heebs.

I’m with you there. It gives me the heebs, too. I would be absolutely incapable of conducting the tests that Abbie defends here. But you know what? I absolutely agree that they should be done. Should we put infinitely more thought into the tests we conduct on baboons because of our relatively close family ties? Absolutely. Should baboons be afforded the same consideration as a human? In my opinion, no. If sacrificing a poor baboon has the potential to save untold numbers of human lives, I — with a heavy heart — have to support the testing.

The problem I’m having here is that emotionally, I believe you and I share the same sympathies. Hell, I refuse to eat mammals at all, for my own personal moral reasons. And when it comes to hunting/sport/what have you, I totally join with you in drawing a huge distinction between fish and baboons.

But in the end, I think you’re intellectually dishonest. I don’t want a baboon (or any mammal — especially any primate) to suffer, especially needlessly. But if one baboon life has the potential to save numerous human lives in the future, I have to put aside my own personal emotional hangups and support that. If you can’t make that distinction, then I’m far from the biggest idiot posting here today.
#54 Prometheus
December 7, 2009

“So, according to your above criteria, a human child who is incapable of spoken language would be a suitable candidate for lethal anthrax experimentation.”

Of course not, and it isn’t my criteria anyway remember:”If humans were intelligent enough to be able to learn baboon language”. Yours is a criteria of linguistically capable intelligent equals wherein humans do not understand out of stupidity or baboons choose not to be understood for reasons you have yet to disclose.

2. The question that reflects your criteria (which was moronic and that was all I was really pointing out)is: Can a human by omission give consent to a painful death for the sake of research projects the results of which may be futile or at least inapplicable to humans?

Yes. The sterile cancer ridden rock stars that research Chernobyl every day are just one example.

If you start the business of attributing characteristics to baboons they do not possess out of morphological empathy you open the door for others to do the same and claim they are suicidal or have an overblown sense of non-species-centric-altruism.

If I were not so busy amusing myself being a jerk I might point out that what I am really doing is providing you with an opportunity to make a quite legitimate objection to primate research based on pragmatic utilitarian models that exploit alternate protocols rather than flex an anthropomorphic sentimentalization more appropriate to bored checkbook demigoddesses.

I am not saying “Yay painful fatal primate research!” I am saying “Boo! Bad basis for objecting to painful fatal primate research!”
#55 Tyler DiPietro
December 7, 2009

“Where is the cost/benefit in this and how do you assess it?”

The cost in this case is that a stupid fucking monkey doesn’t get to live-out it’s entire pointless existence throwing shit everywhere and banging its wart-ridden ass against a glass wall. The benefit is that we develop a treatment for exposure to a potentially dangerous substance. This would only be difficult to assess in the case that you are retarded.
#56 Tyler DiPietro
December 7, 2009

I propose that those opposed to animal research on moral grounds be legally forbidden from benefiting from medical therapies resulting from said research. That way natural selection will do its thing and make the world a better place for all non-PETAfags.
#57 William Wallace
December 16, 2009

I can’t believe you want to kill our cousins. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyt0CIIL_Mg
#58 LanceR, JSG
December 16, 2009

Just yours, Limp Willy. Just yours.
#59 insatiableappetiteforbabytortureinthenameofscience
December 16, 2009

So, according to your above criteria, a human child who is incapable of spoken language would be a suitable candidate for lethal anthrax experimentation.

Depends. Are we talking about real babies or Irish ones?
#60 LanceR, JSG
December 16, 2009

Thread’s over. insatiable wins +2 Internets.

Nothing more to see here.

Move along.