Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
Enough.
I don't know about you, but as a surgeon and a biomedical researcher, I'm fed up with animal rights terrorists who threaten biomedical research with their misinformation about animal research, their terroristic attacks on scientists who engage in such research, and listening to the despicable self-righteous idiot who is a disgrace to surgeons everywhere, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, spouting off about how assassinating researchers who use animals as part of their research would be justified.
And apparently I'm not alone. Scientists at UCLA, which, along with UC Santa Cruz, is at ground zero for the animal rights movement in the U.S., have decided to do something about it. They've formed their own chapter of Pro-Test, and, even better, they've decided to get in the faces of the animal rights terrorist crowd:
The campus movement, UCLA Pro-Test, has organized a demonstration on Wednesday, April 22nd in order to support medical research; it will coincide with the "World Week for Animals in Laboratories" rally organized by various anti-research extremist groups. The upcoming UCLA Pro-Test demonstration parallels the 2006 demonstrations by the UK student organization Pro-Test, which opened the public debate on animal research in the UK and contributed to the downfall of animal rights activism in the UK. One of UK Pro-Tests founders, Tom Holder, will be on hand at the Los Angeles rally to show his support for our efforts and to emcee the event.UCLA faculty and students conducting cutting-edge research on the biology of mental disorders and treatments for AIDS and pediatric afflictions have been the victims of increasingly vicious and hateful attacks because of the direct or indirect involvement of animals in their studies. Animal research is crucial for the development of most medical breakthroughs, including the development of insulin and penicillin and the creation of treatments for leukemia and breast cancer. Without such methods, medical progress would be severely impaired.
"Year after year, anti-biomedical research activities in Los Angeles (primarily directed against UCLA faculty and students) have grown (in size and methodology). They have written terrible and hateful lies about us. They have maligned us and our University. They have scared adults and children alike at home. They destroyed our property and sense of security and threatened some of our lives. Their momentum is building. All this while, we haven't risen up as a group and said 'enough is enough.' The time has come." - David Jentsch.
Actually, it's long past time. For too long, scientists have remained silent, cowed by the rhetoric of sanctimonious idiots like Dr. Vlasak, who clearly cares far more for animals than his fellow human beings and thinks nothing of advocating murder in the name of his cause. Of course, he's also a coward in that he never actually takes part in any of these animal rights "actions." Oh, no. He can't get his hands dirty. He can't take any actual risks. Why should he, when he has a band of useful idiots, usually college-age kids whose natural idealism has been warped beyond recognition. Legitimate complaints about abuses that may be visited upon animals have been used to persuade them that all animal research is wrong. Animal rights have been confused with animal welfare. The end justifies the means. Mice, even Drosophila, are worth as much as--more, in practice, than--human beings.
If there's one thing about the animal rights movement, it's profoundly antiscientific. It's Luddite to its very core. Animal rights activists deny that animal research has ever produced any advances in medicine, a demonstrably false claim. The claim more than that, namely that animal research is misleading, that it actually slows down medical progress. They argue that computer models and cell culture can substitute for animal research. Would that were true! But that, too, is false. Moreover, researchers have been working for years to try to minimize the use of experimental animals. They've also been working to minimize any pain and suffering. Indeed, animal research is the second most highly regulated form of biomedical research after human subjects research. Just in my neck of the woods (two institutions where I've worked), in the 9 years that I've been an independent investigator, the length and complexity of protocol applications for animal research have tripled or quadrupled in length and complexity.
Here's another thing. Notice where the hotbeds of animal rights terrorism are: Los Angeles and UC Santa Cruz, the latter of which is about 60 miles south of the Bay Area. Notice anything? That's right. They're also the same areas in California that are hotbeds of antivaccine activism and high levels of claimed "philosophical" exemption for vaccination. While it's true that correlation does not necessarily equal causation, the correlation between antivaccine lunacy and animal rights terrorism, I suspect, is more than just a coincidence, as is the prevalence of pseudoscientific, mystical, New Age woo in the same areas. Antiscientific beliefs tend not to remain restricted to just one area; they tend to be associated with each other. It's crank magnetism in action, and it endangers us all, whether it's due to parents who think vaccines are dangerous because a former Playboy Playmate and gross-out comedienne tells them they are or animal rights terrorists who stifle potentially life-saving research.
This is a battle that's about more than animal rights. It's about science and reason, as opposed to unreason. It's about fighting back against the incipient Age of Endarkenment. It's about not letting antiscientific radicals prevent scientific progress or endanger everyone's children.
Medicine & Health
Life Science
Comments
I couldn't agree more. While I do support certain aspects of the animal rights movement I've always found their primary thrust to be woefully misguided and misanthropic. Also, I can't stand the majority of their tactics..sea kittens anyone?
Posted by: stevogvsu | April 1, 2009 9:25 AM
Aren't IRBs required to have outside volunteers monitor the use of animals in research that these individuals can work for if they are serious about stopping animal abuse?
Posted by: Matt | April 1, 2009 10:49 AM
Would an animal rights supporter be allowed anywhere near an IACUC (not IRB, those are for human subjects)?
Posted by: Jane | April 1, 2009 11:01 AM
Matt - IACUCs are for animal research oversight, IRBs are for human research oversight. But in theory you are correct. There is at least one non-institutionally-affiliated lay-person on an IACUC committee for expressly the purpose of representing the concerns of the general public. I think that this is a very good thing.
However, I suspect that in practice, this is not a viable or valid forum for the sorts of people who are attracted to terrorist acts in the name of welfare of animal research subjects. In part because taking such a position on an IACUC means that you will be supporting some animal research -- your job is to make sure that it is humane. The sort of people who are willing to commit terrorist acts are unlikely to make such a "compromise". Secondly, in light of these terrorist acts the institution needs to protect the safety and privacy of their researchers, so having committed such an act of terrorism in the past, or having been affiliated with an organization that does, will likely disqualify such a person from serving on an IACUC.
Posted by: ambivalent academic | April 1, 2009 2:06 PM
Good for getting the word out, Orac. Wish every university had a chapter of Pro-Test.
Posted by: BB | April 1, 2009 2:57 PM
Okay, I love animals. The fact that my pet count is in the double digits and includes a llama is evidence of that. Animals should be treated in as humane and caring a manner as possible, any suffering should be minimized and of course animal research should have oversight to make sure it is up to a certain standard. However it is such a vital and necessary part of research that there's no reasonable alternative.
Posted by: Noadi | April 1, 2009 2:57 PM
I am living proof that a person can care deeply about animal rights and welfare and still support laboratory testing. I'm a long-time vegetarian, but I am absolutely sure that the benefits of scientific testing on animals far outweigh ethical concerns about animal welfare. It would be great if we lived in a world without disease, but we don't. Only a morally confused person would decide that the welfare of a rat is as important as the welfare of a human child who is sick.
Posted by: koan0215 | April 1, 2009 4:16 PM
While I have nothing but personal anecdotes, I can say that woo is rampant among vegans. IME, raw food 'enzyme' woo, general nutrition woo, alternative medicine, homeopathy and yes, anti-vaccination b.s. is far more prevalent among vegans that the general population. And even vegans who are pro-vaccine or skeptical of homeopathy are often willing (desperate, even) to believe that animal research is completely useless. IMO, the animal rights movement uses a lot of bad information to justify their positions rather than having to do the hard work of finding workable positions that can address both the interests of animals and humans.
It's one of the reasons I basically steer clear of other vegans these days.
Posted by: attrice | April 1, 2009 4:44 PM
Since animal rights activists decry the use of animals in medicine, here is a humble suggestion so that they can stay true to their agenda. All Vegans and Animal Rights supporters must carry a card (similar to an organ donor card) on their person stating that they are a vegan and/or animal rights supporter. In the event that they need medical care, all medical professionals shall honor the belief system by denying them any and all medical treatments that stem from knowledge and advances gained from animal testing. In this way they can remain pure. Sadly, when Ingrid Newkirk of PETA broke her wrist, she was eager and appreciative of the IV fluids and pain medications dispensed to her - all of which had roots in animal testing. Can you say 'Hypocrite'?
Posted by: aegis66 | April 1, 2009 5:32 PM
I remember my first day of Biology 1A lab at Berkeley. We met our GSI, who convened our class by going over the "civil unrest" procedure. Much like a stewardess demonstrating the life vests and pointing out the emergency exits on an airplane, our hapless grad student (who was as much a n00b as we were to the whole deal)dryly instructed us follows:
In the event of civil unrest
1. Turn off the lights in the lab
2. Shut the windows and blinds
3. Cover the window on the lab door with paper
4. Get under your benches and be really quiet
We all knew what the deal was. We dissected freshly deceased, warm rats in this class, so we had to have a plan in case the animal-rights jackasses decided to attack.
Posted by: Rogue Epidemiologist | April 1, 2009 5:43 PM
"Animal rights activists deny that animal research has ever produced any advances in medicine, a demonstrably false claim."
As a vegan, there are few things that embarrass me more than when people say this. Believe what you like about animal testing, but don't try to deny scientific fact. Personally, I embrace modern medicine, although I hope one day animal testing will be unnecessary.
The problem with people who believe this is that they, like the antivaccinationists, have received their degrees from Google University. They will take anything they read on the internet as fact, so long as it coincides with their opinions.
Posted by: Emp | April 1, 2009 6:14 PM
The dishonesty is one of the things that annoys me most. The radical animal rights argument has nothing to do with whether or not reasearch using animals is beneficial: they don't want it done for any reason.
They should have the honesty to say as much.
Posted by: SimonG | April 1, 2009 7:46 PM
I am not generally a advocate for violence, but when it comes to terrorists, I am becoming more and more of a believer in the "just shoot 'em" philosophy.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 1, 2009 9:51 PM
HSUS, Peta and other AR nuts are attacking all over. Breeders, pet owners, agriculture and science. No one is safe from their garbage, we are fighting them in Texas right now. I am so sick of having to defend myself as a small breeder. If these nuts get their way, there will be no animals left except in the wild. All industries that have anything to do with animals need to contact the legislators in the senate, congress and house all of these government officials and tell them NO MORE, we are sick of the crap being fed to the public by these nuts. This is just my opinion. :)
Posted by: Deborah Hesskew | April 2, 2009 12:12 AM
""Animal rights activists deny that animal research has ever produced any advances in medicine, a demonstrably false claim."
As a vegan, there are few things that embarrass me more than when people say this. Believe what you like about animal testing, but don't try to deny scientific fact. Personally, I embrace modern medicine, although I hope one day animal testing will be unnecessary.
The problem with people who believe this is that they, like the antivaccinationists, have received their degrees from Google University. They will take anything they read on the internet as fact, so long as it coincides with their opinions.
Posted by: Emp"
Yep. Same here. Every once in awhile on a vegan forum you'll see a big debate about whether animal research has any scientific validity, and one (perhaps unsurprisingly) consistent finding, however anecdotal, is that people who argue that animal research has no scientific value, have extreme difficulty distinguishing between scientific validity and questions of ethics and morals, such that the two become conflated. Combining that with selectively looking at information that seems to support your moral bias thru Google U. in a confirmation bias, looking at some dodgy conclusions and a lack of understanding about the capabilities of what research can be conducted with modalities such as cell cultures, and it is a fine recipe for someone to start confidently talking to say that medicine is "relying on a counter-productive way of research" or some such thing.
Posted by: Melody | April 2, 2009 3:59 AM
A hint of straw men is in the air here - a lot of emotive terms about terrorism, people who think fruit flies are more important than humans etc. Those who think animal experimentation is wrong morally (curiously enough, maintaining that "the end does not justify the means", taken in Orac's post as pointing in the opposite drection! such is human thinking)do not necessarily fall into the category of hysterics. However, like those they defend, they are fairly powerless in the current situation and many feel desperate to alleviate the suffering caused to animals - whilst acknowledging that animal experiments may have been productive of benefit to humans (and even to some animals). Doing evil (and everyone admits that such suffering is an evil and should be reduced, refined replaced)that good may come does not strike everyone as a morally tenable position and there are those who think it would be preferable to move on to a more sustainable stance, at whatever cost, just as a majority would not countenance experiments on unfortunte humans - something was learned even from Nazi experiments on people, for example, but "the ends do not justify the means"!
Posted by: Rita | April 2, 2009 4:29 AM
And I see a hint of flirting with Godwin's law here, quite frankly.
What most irritates me about animal rights types is that they in essence lie and obfuscate. Instead of coming right out and saying they oppose animal research, period, on absolutist moral grounds, they instead make bogus arguments that it is scientifically worthless. It's the same tactic that opponents of embryonic stem cell research who hide or downplay the real reason for objecting (their religious beliefs) and instead make, well, bogus arguments that embryonic stem cell research is useless and "hasn't produced any cures yet." It's intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: Orac | April 2, 2009 5:56 AM
Regular updates about the UCLA Pro-Test can be found on www.speakingofresearch.com, and especially http://speakingofresearch.wordpress.com/get-involved/ucla-pro-test/
The first few speakers have been announced.
Posted by: Tom Holder | April 2, 2009 6:35 AM
I'm not sure that this is true. There is a perfectly cogent argument for that position, it just happens to be based on a radically different set of moral premises from those generally held in our society.
Practically everybody agrees that there is a sliding scale of sentience, and that an organism's position on this scale determines the rights society should grant it - this is why experiments which are regarded as perfectly acceptable when carried out on fruit flies might not be regarded as acceptable when carried out on rhesus monkeys. The disagreement arises over precisely what rights are granted - some people believe that even organisms a long way down the sentience scale deserve full human rights. I'm not one of them, but I can't honestly say that I think their argument is invalid in form - I just disagree with their premises. However, I recognize that the key premise in question is not a matter of empirical fact, but rather one of judgement.
Like Orac, I would much prefer it if people would just come out and make that argument honestly. Then we could have a sensible debate on exactly what sort of trade-offs we're willing to make.
Posted by: Dunc | April 2, 2009 7:16 AM
Perhaps someone can start an organization for prevention of cruelty to viruses and bacteria by means of research into vaccines. Jenny Freaking McCarthy can be their spokesmoron.
Posted by: ??? | April 2, 2009 12:37 PM
"HSUS, Peta and other AR nuts are attacking all over. Breeders, pet owners, agriculture and science. No one is safe from their garbage, we are fighting them in Texas right now. I am so sick of having to defend myself as a small breeder. If these nuts get their way, there will be no animals left except in the wild."
I've got news for you. If these animal rights folks get there way, there won't be any animals left in the wild either. Zoos and conservation organizations depend on animal research and especially veterinary research to save endangered animals on every continent around the globe.
Posted by: Autodidactyl | April 2, 2009 5:32 PM
I fear the day when one of these groups goes too far and a scientist (and/or his family) are seriously injured or killed.
Posted by: Madrocketscientist | April 3, 2009 1:31 PM
Madrocketscientist ... or when they attack the wrong house, and it belongs to a gun nut.
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | April 3, 2009 2:47 PM
So, as a person who probably believes in common descent on what basis and at what point does testing on an animals become wrong?
Humans are animals, according to biologists.
Chinese were animals, according to the Japanese, who during WWII performed tests on them. ("Human weeds" may be a better translation of how they Japanese caricatured the Chinese).
Jews were dismissed as sub-human by the Germans who performed scientific experiments on them.
Fetuses and embryos are not human, according to many liberal Americans.
And, indeed, while almost all condemn the type of testing performed on Jews and Chinese, some scientific knowledge came about from this testing....scientific knowledge that was not discarded by science after the war, if my memory is correct.
Consent is obviously a component when it comes to testing on humans, but, likely, you still wouldn't accept it if a man consented to testing that would be fatal if a deal had been struck to give that man's family enough money to be financially comfortable.
Posted by: William Wallace | April 3, 2009 3:09 PM
As I watch a great blue heron eat one of my smaller koi and watch that fish keep struggling away as it moves down his throat and into the digestive fluids, which will remove and digest his skin while he is still alive, I think of PETA and the Humane Society and their dangerously limited belief systems. That same heron will also do the same thing with gofers and other small furry mammals and I assume that such treatment of our fellow animals is unacceptable to PETA. I can imagine a research project to measure the level of pain in an animal being digested alive -- could I get it funded or would the ACUC (animal care and use committee) give in to the PETA crowd and say no. It could be a useful experiment in answering the questions about how much pain can be created before the pain system shuts down. There is no evolutionary reason to stop the pain information -- the one being digested will never reproduce again.
To save one of these experimental animals, perhaps some PETA members will volunteer to be wired up and digested alive. Anyone want to be a Co-PI on the project?
Posted by: Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. | April 3, 2009 7:39 PM
Yes, Vlasak is a coward. If he indeed believed animals in Labs are the same as Jews in concentrations camps he would do exactly what he preaches -- liberate them. But he doesn't. Instead, the internet has allowed him to incite to violence from the comfort of their home and brain wash kids into carrying acts of violence (like the AETA4) that are likely going to spend a good time of their lives in jail. They can all thank Vlasak when they get out... in about 5 years.
Posted by: Denis Alexander | April 5, 2009 1:53 AM
The creation of Your organisation is absolutely essential - well done! Many well-informed opinions occur in your comments section, and I absolutely agree that animal rights hooligans thrive on obfuscation, propaganda, and indoctrination of an unsuspecting youth. The loud mouths in organisations such as PETA should definitely corroborate their so-called brave stances by means of tatooing "PETA" on their foreheads - such clowns MUST be denied any form of medical assistance when ailing or injured. Humanity needs to understand that these radicals who in some instances value the lives of lab mice more than that of their own offspring, are essentially cretins with deep-seated inferiority complexes who thrive on attracting attention to themselves via their rediculous, childish statements - these people should get up off their buts, see a psychologist, and get a real job!! In South Africa, widespread finance-related irregularities - in the form of dubious use (or rather abuse!) of public funding - is increasingly characterising the burgeoning, and seemingly lucrative animal rights/welfare movement. Mankind, in increasingly dangerous times (in terms of outbreaks such as H1N1) needs to defend itself, and one of the biggest enemies are these cranks who threaten the safety of our researchers - all in the name of vermin such as rats and mice! Its time to hit back!
Posted by: shane | July 2, 2009 1:28 PM
The creation of Your organisation is absolutely essential - well done! Many well-informed opinions occur in your comments section, and I absolutely agree that animal rights hooligans thrive on obfuscation, propaganda, and indoctrination of an unsuspecting youth. The loud mouths in organisations such as PETA should definitely corroborate their so-called brave stances by means of tatooing "PETA" on their foreheads - such clowns MUST be denied any form of medical assistance when ailing or injured. Humanity needs to understand that these radicals who in some instances value the lives of lab mice more than that of their own offspring, are essentially cretins with deep-seated inferiority complexes who thrive on attracting attention to themselves via their rediculous, childish statements - these people should get up off their buts, see a psychologist, and get a real job!! In South Africa, widespread finance-related irregularities - in the form of dubious use (or rather abuse!) of public funding - is increasingly characterising the burgeoning, and seemingly lucrative animal rights/welfare movement. Mankind, in increasingly dangerous times (in terms of outbreaks such as H1N1) needs to defend itself, and one of the biggest enemies are these cranks who threaten the safety of our researchers - all in the name of vermin such as rats and mice! Its time to hit back!
Posted by: shane | July 2, 2009 1:31 PM
Sadly it would seem that there are still PETA shills in the media.
A Business reporter called Erin Burnett had this to say about the Australian Federal Governments decision to cull feral camels in the Australian outback (For those who do not know camels are *not* native to that country.)
"There is a serial killer in Australia and we are going to put a picture up so we can see who it is," a stern-faced Burnett said during a segment on CNBC on Tuesday.
A large photo of Rudd was then shown.
"That would be the prime minister of Australia Kevin Rudd," Burnett said.
"OK well do you know what he is doing?
"He has launched air strikes - air strikes - against camels in the outback."
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25886883-10229,00.html
Posted by: Graham | August 5, 2009 12:04 PM
Therein lies the biggest tragedy of the 'lunatic' AR activists. People are so put off by their antics that the animals being truly abused are forgotten.
@9 "All Vegans and Animal Rights supporters must carry a card (similar to an organ donor card) on their person stating that they are a vegan and/or animal rights supporter.....deny them any and all medical treatments that stem from knowledge and advances gained from animal testing".
You must be careful to differentiate that some people are vegan just because they happen to like it and how they feel. Alot of times it has nothing to do with thinking the animals are abused. Also, there are several animal rights/abuse groups that only spend time protecting animals from being set on fire, beaten, starved, head run over with a lawn mower, etc, just for the fun of it. The entire cub scout Pack (1st to 5th grade) in this county volunteer(and have member cards)for the humane society, and their only agenda is to protect abused pets. I assume you wouldn't actually deny them treatment :)
As a veterinary surgeon and epidemiologist who has worked in referral practice, the USDA, CDC and now the USAF. I hope people will continue to report when they see animals being abused and not be afraid of being labelled in with those lunatics. Animal research is necessary for medical and scientific advancements. Their terrorist-like approach has turned off many people to the plight of animals who actually need help. There are a few research and food producing facilities that heinously abuse animals, and those places should immediately be shut down. Unfortunately, people like Dr. Vlasak and Peta are spewing animal abuse rants to so many things that the true abuse gets lost in the cloud.
Posted by: Lisa B. | August 5, 2009 1:56 PM