Before we begin, I think we need some adorable shoes. Adorable shoes make difficult topics slightly more palatable. Not easier. Just slightly more palatable.
Figure 1: Franco Sarto Palm Loafer Pump. $101 at shoes.com.
Dr. Isis is finding herself reflective this evening. There has been a lot of interesting talk in the blogosphere and an event in the blogosphere that has left me thinking about how we train young scientists and how I may have recently failed those working for me...
Earlier this week PhysioProf posted a letter on the DrugMonkey blog from a reader whose NIH-funded R01 had been requested by another investigator via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). One of the frightening bits of information to come from the resultant conversation is the notion that NIH-funded grants are mined by animal right extremists in order to target investigators, including the posting of grants in their entirety.
As I write this, someone has left the following comment:
Yet, today I received news that animal rights activist Michael Budkie has mined the National Eye Institute's (NEI, an institute within the National Institutes of Health) publicly-available database to find what he calls "duplicated research" and has posted the names of the offending researchers on his website. What Mr. Budkie identifies as "redundant" in his spreadsheet of offenders appears to be redundancy in the method of restraint used in the research. It truly is nothing more than incendiary -- perhaps I might have given it a second look if he were able to show that the NEI were funding research in which the aims were duplicated. The problem is that many, many people do give Mr. Budkie's website a second look At the time I clicked through his website indicated that he had.4,188,566 page views. I mean, he's no Dr. Isis, but people are looking and interpreting this information framed without the proper context.
The good folks at Speaking of Research write, prefacing an open letter to Mr. Budkie:
And the fact that animal rights terrorists use FOIA is maybe the biggest red herring I have ever seen.
Yet, today I received news that animal rights activist Michael Budkie has mined the National Eye Institute's (NEI, an institute within the National Institutes of Health) publicly-available database to find what he calls "duplicated research" and has posted the names of the offending researchers on his website. What Mr. Budkie identifies as "redundant" in his spreadsheet of offenders appears to be redundancy in the method of restraint used in the research. It truly is nothing more than incendiary -- perhaps I might have given it a second look if he were able to show that the NEI were funding research in which the aims were duplicated. The problem is that many, many people do give Mr. Budkie's website a second look At the time I clicked through his website indicated that he had.4,188,566 page views. I mean, he's no Dr. Isis, but people are looking and interpreting this information framed without the proper context.
The good folks at Speaking of Research write, prefacing an open letter to Mr. Budkie:
Mr. Budkie's complaint was based upon his own analysis of the publicly available information about research funded by the National Eye Institute, a division of the National Institutes of Health. Budkie's complaint, related information, and press releases are posted on the website of Stop Animal Exploitation Now (S.A.E.N.). We feel that it is essential to point out that his analysis, through omitting critical details, presents a remarkable illustration not only of bias, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. Here, we identify his omissions and mis-representations and request a response to our challenges.
It is worth clicking through to read their open letter.
All of the discussion this week has left me reflecting on two things -- 1) How very public what we do can become and how individuals might use fragments of our work to further an agenda and 2) How ill-prepared young scientists are to deal with this.
Allow me to do something rare -- offer you a tale of what happened in the Isis lab last week, including an example of me losing my junk, to illustrate the point.
The IACUC at MRU is very diligent and it is important to me (as it is with many researchers) to maintain a transparency with them. Part of their diligence includes the regular inspection of laboratories and I am proud that we have always been very compliant.
Last week I was largely away from the lab working on the infamous grant I mentioned in a few posts. While I was in my office a few representatives of the IACUC came to the laboratory unannounced and spoke with one of the undergraduates working on a project, who proceeded to offer the tour. After they left this student sent me a casual email to let me know what had happened and I more than mildly lost my junk.
My immediate and panic-stricken thought was, "How did this student know that these people were actually from the IACUC?" Fortunately they really were, but anyone could walk into our laboratory and claim to be from the IACUC. If these individuals had demanded access to our animal housing facility, would the student have offered it? Would he have shown anyone claiming to be from the IACUC equipment? Specimens? Data? Our protocol complete with the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all of the students working in the laboratory? I feel sick to consider anything more nefarious. Our work is responsibly done, but like Mr. Budkie did in his recent offering, any bit of it could be twisted to serve some agenda.
This has left me repeatedly pondering the situation. On one hand, I want to maintain the current very good relationship I have with the IACUC. On the other hand, I have a responsibility to protect those working under me from harm and, after speaking with this student, it became very clear that they did not appreciate the potential danger associated with working with animals. It also became very clear to me that it was my fault for not having the conversation, but I am left at odds with what to do. I appreciate the IACUC's need to inspect facilities and I value their role at our university. Still, I think it is unreasonable to ask for information from a student, or to ask to see equipment and facilities, without notifying the laboratory of who is coming so that the identity of the inspector is apparent. The best solution I've come up with is to institute a new "Lab Law" -- if anyone shows up and identifies them self as an inspector, the response must always be "Let me call Dr. Isis." I mean, what else can you do?
All of this pondering has left me painfully aware of one fact -- I have no idea what I am doing and my dealing with these situations is largely reactive instead of proactive. Looking back, I was required by my current MRU to take 15 hours of animal use training before they would approve my protocol. I was required to take an additional 8 weeks of new hire ethics training. Not once in 39+ hours of training did anyone ever speak about animal right terrorism. I can't remember ever speaking about it in graduate school.
How do I train students to deal with these situations when my own training consists largely of finding myself in a situation and thinking to myself, "Oh, crap! That could have been very bad"?
Last week I was largely away from the lab working on the infamous grant I mentioned in a few posts. While I was in my office a few representatives of the IACUC came to the laboratory unannounced and spoke with one of the undergraduates working on a project, who proceeded to offer the tour. After they left this student sent me a casual email to let me know what had happened and I more than mildly lost my junk.
My immediate and panic-stricken thought was, "How did this student know that these people were actually from the IACUC?" Fortunately they really were, but anyone could walk into our laboratory and claim to be from the IACUC. If these individuals had demanded access to our animal housing facility, would the student have offered it? Would he have shown anyone claiming to be from the IACUC equipment? Specimens? Data? Our protocol complete with the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all of the students working in the laboratory? I feel sick to consider anything more nefarious. Our work is responsibly done, but like Mr. Budkie did in his recent offering, any bit of it could be twisted to serve some agenda.
This has left me repeatedly pondering the situation. On one hand, I want to maintain the current very good relationship I have with the IACUC. On the other hand, I have a responsibility to protect those working under me from harm and, after speaking with this student, it became very clear that they did not appreciate the potential danger associated with working with animals. It also became very clear to me that it was my fault for not having the conversation, but I am left at odds with what to do. I appreciate the IACUC's need to inspect facilities and I value their role at our university. Still, I think it is unreasonable to ask for information from a student, or to ask to see equipment and facilities, without notifying the laboratory of who is coming so that the identity of the inspector is apparent. The best solution I've come up with is to institute a new "Lab Law" -- if anyone shows up and identifies them self as an inspector, the response must always be "Let me call Dr. Isis." I mean, what else can you do?
All of this pondering has left me painfully aware of one fact -- I have no idea what I am doing and my dealing with these situations is largely reactive instead of proactive. Looking back, I was required by my current MRU to take 15 hours of animal use training before they would approve my protocol. I was required to take an additional 8 weeks of new hire ethics training. Not once in 39+ hours of training did anyone ever speak about animal right terrorism. I can't remember ever speaking about it in graduate school.
How do I train students to deal with these situations when my own training consists largely of finding myself in a situation and thinking to myself, "Oh, crap! That could have been very bad"?
Figure 2: So, how do we convey this information?
Life Science
Education
Comments
"Let me call Dr. Isis." I agree that's exactly what the student, post-doc, assistant secretary, or whoever it is must say.
It sounds like it's time for a lab procedures manual. Page one: When in doubt, call Dr. Isis. Possibly your whole department could have department-level procedures: When in doubt, call the PI.
And you're right of course -- you can't possibly anticipate everything that'll come up.
Posted by: Gingerale | July 29, 2009 3:59 AM
As a former "campus radical" it pains me to say this, but this sounds like an excellent issue for MRU's Public Safety department. I bet if you call them, they not only have some sort of written plan or policy regarding animal rights violence, but would also be happy to come and give a briefing to your lab staff regarding good security policy.
Unfortunately, you have to anticipate that things may happen while Dr. Isis is away/unavailable. The student should be told that it is OK to ask for someone's ID.
Finally, don't overlook that IACUC bears some responsibility here too. They should have a policy of always showing their credentials (prior notice of inspection may not be possible/desirable), and also instructing students who fail to ask for ID. In fact, IACUC (who has overall responsibility for animal welfare) and Public Safety (overall responsibility for people/property welfare) together should be tasked with taking the lead in this area, not individual hard working scientists like Dr. Isis (responsibility for continuing to be fabulous while doing hot science).
Posted by: Anon | July 29, 2009 4:52 AM
Maybe you could also set up a default PI from another lab who has also dealt with the IAUC that your students call to handle any spontaneous visits of this kind when you're away.
Posted by: Angela | July 29, 2009 5:27 AM
I have not had to personally do any animal experiments yet, but I have gone through multiple animal care training/RCR sessions at my current institute. No one-in training sessions or in either lab-has ever mentioned anything about animal rights extremism.
The Nature journals have highlighted the rise in animal rights extremism in editorials and news features many times over the past few years-which is the only reason I am aware of the issue. Both my graduate and current postdoc labs do animal research and reside in the same buildings housing animal care facilities. Security was pretty lax at my graduate institute, and the only time they ever gave consideration to security around the animal care facility was when PETA was planning a demonstration. At my current institution, security is marginally better, but oddly many researchers view swiping a card or flashing an ID as a hassle.
I'm with Anon @ 4:52-this is not solely your responsibility. Departments and institutes need to step up. BUT individual scientists have to increase the visibility of this issue by initiating the discussion. It's an ugly topic, but one that's too important to ignore.
Posted by: biochem belle | July 29, 2009 6:51 AM
I think the policy of "Let me call Dr. Isis" is perfectly appropriate. And I like the idea of working with an additional PI in order to give you grad students/assistants a back-up person.
As for being aware of animal "activism". In University A, where I took my first graduate research course, the professor was in charge of creating the first animal lab that had been on campus since the 1970's. (Wherein they were training rats to dunk basketballs via conditioning.) The new lab had a cypher lock, only high ventilation windows and was kept in strictest confidence. As students we were not to discuss that it existed, where it was, or who was working in it. Nevertheless, I learned very valuable skills in animal handling. It was a necessary addition to our facilities, but we were constantly aware of the fact that it would be a target for attacks and that by working within it, we too were targets.
In University B, where I worked as a research assistant, there was a separate floor for the animals. The doors were locked and only the PI's and animal handlers were cleared to be there. We had reports of clueless crusaders who took animals who were being treated and just dropping them to die in pain on the streets. Heaven forbid they *take care of the animals they've stolen.* It set back research into surgical methods to mitigate paralysis, and a few drug trials.
I think you do need to address these possibilities with the students with whom you are working. They do need to be aware that there are rabid groups who may try to gain access to areas without authorization. I would suggest that beyond talking to the IACUC and other suggestions above, that you also talk to your animal protocol and training group to have them add a section on anti-research terrorism. It needn't be long even. Perhaps an hour more of training for all new hires working in labs.
Posted by: Gaming Girl | July 29, 2009 7:52 AM
Hailing from a northern European country the animal rights activism was always big on the agenda when training in "white biology" (i.e. lab and animal research). Most of the labs are "not known". Noone will be allowed to walk into the animal area, if they are not visiting scientists (need to sign in with name and id, made up appointment at least three days in advance) or governmental officials (full id etc needed).
It may sound too harsh but in reality it is the only way of ensuring security for the science, as well as the animals. There has been a number of attacks/indcidents when activits have forced entry into the animal lab and freed the animals and destroyed the data. (By law, all the animal information has to be left next to the animals as ell as the information of the scientists.... imagine name,address, phone and other info in the hands of people who break in and hate you?!).
I definetly think you need to bring this to the Department so you all can have a uniform way of dealing with "strangers coming to the lab". As of today, I don't think it would be strange at all not to let people in to the animal lab.
And of course, this will help the undergraduates/graduates to know that it is ok to say "no, I can't show you that room" without feeling like they are doing something wrong.
THere are some interesting books/booklets on the subject that I will try and remember, in case you would be interested in the subject?
Posted by: chall | July 29, 2009 7:57 AM
It's not terrorism.
That term has been adopted to justify denying certain criminals their basic constitutional rights. The same was done to communists, socialists and anarchists in decades past. As long as you recite the state's propaganda, you are complicit in the destruction of our most fundamental civil liberties.
Call it property destruction when it's property destruction. Call it threats of violence when it's threats of violence. Don't call it terrorism if you want to be taken seriously.
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/
Posted by: back in reality | July 29, 2009 8:25 AM
@back in reality:
Of course it's terrorism. Terrorism is the use of acts intended to invoke fear in order to coerce. This often involves threats of violence or property destruction. "Animal rights" extremists use tactics such as threats of violence and property destruction in order to coerce.
This doesn't mean that it's okay to deny *anyone* constitutional rights, ever. If I call these acts "terrorism" this doesn't mean that I don't value civil liberties.
Posted by: postdoc | July 29, 2009 8:36 AM
Not being in your field I can't say I have experience with this sort of situation. What I can say loudly (and anonymously) is that I have no patience for those who consider animals more important than humans. Animal rights activists who destroy property and stalk and hurt people should be in jail. Probably best to talk with your students about calling you and not letting anyone take a tour of your lab. Maybe you can put notices around that says your permission is needed to tour the lab so your students won't forget.
Posted by: aurora | July 29, 2009 8:41 AM
Then our troops are terrorists, for you have just described "shock and awe."
Yes, it does. You know what the government does to "terrorists." You take advantage of that when you use that particular propaganda. A terrorist cannot get a fair trial. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. Continuing to use the word when you know the consequences is not so much dishonest as evil.
Posted by: back in reality | July 29, 2009 8:45 AM
According to Merriam-Webster, terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".
Animal rights activists use tactics (violence perpetrated against researchers and their families, threats towards researchers and their families, and destruction of lab material which can mean loss of livelihood for the researcher) that cause terror in the hearts of animal researchers. These attacks and threats of attack happen every year (we received regular emails regarding "animal rights" demonstration weeks). Thus it is systematic.
The goals of these threats and attacks seems to be to coerce animal researchers to stop using animals in research.
This very clearly *is* terrorism. Don't deny that it's terrorism if you want to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Sara | July 29, 2009 8:46 AM
It's not terrorism.
Regimes commonly have this concept of an "enemy of the state," however defined. The terrorist is 21st century USA's official enemy of the state.
What you're doing is morally equivalent to a Soviet citizen agreeing in the Stalin era that certain people are enemies of the state, but disagreeing that they should be sent to gulags without fair trial. You know that's the punishment for being an enemy of the state. You can't have it both ways. You are responsible for the unfair trials as long as you legitimize by agreeing that there is such a thing as an enemy of the state.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 8:57 AM
I would be careful throwing the terrorism word around... but after a few of my friends (researchers) have experienced anonymous letters to their houses with map "this is how your kid goes to school" and credit card bills in their names (used with info from the research forms) I am not so sure. Personally, if you go after my family and threaten them... well, most bets are off.
THen again, that is more mobster style and as far as I remember, that is not terrorism since it is not meant towards a government.
All in all, I would rather discuss what to do to make researchers and young scientist feel that they are prepared that there are people out in the world who would actively hurt their research (and maybe them too).
Posted by: chall | July 29, 2009 9:01 AM
Comments containing the phrase "...if you want to be taken seriously..." give me the giggles.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 29, 2009 9:02 AM
According to Sara's definition, United States troops are terrorists. British troops are terrorists. Israeli troops are terrorists. Pretty much all militaries, ever, were composed of terrorists. Regardless of whether you feel this is a fair turn of phrase, the facts are not in debate.
If the word "terrorism" accurately describes both behaviors you abhor and behaviors you willingly pay taxes to support, then it's a pretty useless word.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 9:05 AM
I hear you. It's overused, and usually wrong, and I may well be mistaken.
I believe it's correct, though, in the case when you are endorsing the indefinite detention of prisoners without charges or trial.
I would hope that directly attacking the very basis of liberal democracy would be damaging to your credibility.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 9:09 AM
On the topic of the inspection, we have the same thing at my business. The FDA, EPA, or state equivalents can drop by at any minute. We have a written policy that they get to wait at the front door until they can be escorted by appropriate personnel (for which we have a written hierarchy of who to call on).
No one gets in the door without ID.
Posted by: Ranson | July 29, 2009 9:12 AM
Of course you feel that way. But that's why we try to cultivate a unbiased public court system, instead of encouraging you to seek vigilante justice for your family.
We should agree that accused criminals ought to be charged with crimes else released for lack of evidence; we should agree that evidence should be obtained by warrant; and we should agree that courts should presume the accused to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But the word "terrorism" is designed to side-step all these constitutional considerations. Unless and until Western law enforcement systems are actually functioning in accordance with Enlightenment values (a so-far hypothetical system not likely to be witnessed during our lifetimes), the word "terrorism" cannot be part of a civil society's vocabulary.
Isis is encouraging the new McCarthyism.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 9:29 AM
And the nutters show up 3...2...1...now.
You crack me up, btr. You are one adorable little muffin.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 29, 2009 9:33 AM
@Back to reality. If you read my comment, I am not in favour of calling it terrorism. I am calling it mobster style unlawful threatning.... not the same. I did however write that I think this discussion was not what the post wanted to know.
Personally, when I read Isis' post I read "What can I do to better prepare my young scientists in the lab for encountering animal activists and to protect our research and data".
the terrorist discussion was thrown in from somewhere else.
Posted by: chall | July 29, 2009 9:34 AM
I've never been involved with animal research- my only research has been in theoretical physics, which typically doesn't involve mice. However, one of my masters courses was located in the imaging building, which had animal labs on multiple floors. All the people in my (medical physics) program had the course, but the only two people from among us who could open any of the doors with their ID cards were the ones who worked for radiation safety. If you didn't time it so that you arrived with one of them- tough luck.
That being said, given the animal rights extremist activities that take place, the security probably wasn't unreasonable. And that is disturbing.
Posted by: ms physics | July 29, 2009 9:37 AM
That's a useful response, Isis.
Really, I'm not asking much. Just that we take seriously the fact that modern Western governments have lately been abandoning their judicial principles. It's not something we can safely ignore.
We know for a fact that adopting the "enemy of the state" rhetoric of any given time has always resulted in those enemies being denied their basic constitutional rights. We know it's happening again today. You are not so ignorant of history, I'm sure.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 9:38 AM
That would be a good discussion. But our basic constitutional democracy is a bit more important. Usually the latter discussion does not get in the way of the former. But bringing in "terrorism," as Isis has done, poisons the well.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 9:41 AM
"That would be a good discussion. But our basic constitutional democracy is a bit more important."
I find feeding the hungry and treating the sick more important than our basic constitutional democracy. May I hijack the conversation toward that end, now? Thinking of ourselves as a state and being up in arms about "our constitutional democracy" instead of being citizens of the world rather poisons my more important topic.
Posted by: ms physics | July 29, 2009 9:45 AM
If Isis had said that her experiments were more important than feeding the hungry, then you wouldn't even be threadjacking.
Don't call criminals "terrorists" and you can have whatever discussion you like, undisturbed. But when you bring out the "enemy of the state" stuff, the proper response of a citizen is to denounce this attack on human rights.
"Terrorists" are the subjects of torture and other crimes against humanity. That's more important than anyone's laboratory.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 9:54 AM
btr, I must commend you on your obviously superior intellect. You have seen right through my plan to establish a totalitarian state with me as its head. Today animal rights extremists. Tomorrow, fine upstanding citizens like yourself.
Be warned, though. Everytime you hit "refresh" you contribute another dollar towards my regime.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 29, 2009 9:57 AM
Our IACUC has been proactive in developing policies and procedures, most of which involve letting security and administration handle threats. Our basic science research complex has every floor locked with card access only. It's annoying when someone needs to meet in my office, but I understand why it's done. The best sign that its working? The day the Vice Chancellor for Research showed up without an ID and a student made him find ID before letting him onto the floor... (I still giggle when I think about it).
The bigger question in my mind is how we go about winning the public relations war. HSUS, PETA, and their more radical kin have become "authorities" on animal treatment, not veterinary experts! This was apparent this week when these groups were quoted in the ongoing saga of Michael Vick (see http://pascalesthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/07/becoming-authority.html).
I think part of the problem is that we have hidden behind closed doors (and administrators and lawyers) and allowed others to set the (anti-) animal research agenda. Unfortunately, speaking out, even with the truth, may make one a target for violence. But we have to start doing a better job, or we will lose our ability to progress.
Posted by: Pascale | July 29, 2009 10:05 AM
The word "terrorism" existed before 9/11 and before the USA grossly sidestepped the judicial process in the name of Homeland Security. I disagree with the activities that "terrorism" is used to justify in contemporary America, but I do not believe that the word itself has become inextricably linked to these abuses. It's the best word we have to describe violent intimidation tactics, and extreme animal rights activists should be taken as seriously as suicide bombers if both are willing to kill for their cause. If you feel that "terrorism" has lost its useful meaning, then perhaps you can suggest a new word, but that new word should be applied to all cases where violence is used to create fear for ideological reasons.
Arguing that the US military has used tactics that would be considered terrorism doesn't negate the definition of the word. It's wrong when religious extremists do it, it's wrong when political extremists do it, and yes, it's wrong when our military does it. Targeting innocent people to psych out 'the enemy' is never justifiable, even if my country or one of our allies is doing it.
Posted by: Laura | July 29, 2009 10:07 AM
Come on, be serious. It'll probably even make me go away faster.
We as citizens have a basic responsibility to do some ACLU-like stuff, right? US citizens have to try to overturn Bush's now Obama's obstensibly legal rationales for indefinite detention. Canadians have seen their civil rights threatened, and I know Britons know what I'm talking about. At the minimum have to look for candidates who call for a rethinking of the War on Terror.
Well, one of our civil responsibilities is not to label our fellow citizens the status that they have defined as extra-constitutional. That starts to predetermine the legal outcome. Terrorists basically don't have rights. We should be almost as avoidant of the T-word as we are of the N-word.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 10:12 AM
Comparing "terrorist" to "n-" is ridiculous. Race is something one is born with, and using derogatory terms for one race or another is uncivilized, to say the least.
The tendency to blow up other people and their property because they disagree with you is not something one is born with. Softening the term for the people who do so is ridiculous. Your suggestion is nothing short of insulting.
Posted by: ms physics | July 29, 2009 10:21 AM
I'm "willing" to use the word as long as it is acknowledged that it accurately describes the behavior of most of our respective nations, my own the most notorious, since the end of WWII.
I just don't know how useful it is to declare the soldiers I pay money for to be terrorists, though, if you know what I'm saying. Some of them are personal friends of mine, and I wouldn't say that to their faces, so behind their backs I ought to encourage a better label.
Talk about violence as the specific violence it is: "John Hinckley Jr tried to murder Ronald Reagan." Everybody is totally against murder already and we have a criminal court system accustomed to dealing with charges. There's no need to suggest a new word.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 10:24 AM
Yeah, I agree. The words are only similar in their ability to condemn a person to cruel and unusual punishment. Not in any other way.
Many American heroes are noted for blowing up other people and their property over legal disagreements. It's tradition!
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 10:32 AM
Thank you for bringing this to light, Dr. Isis. It is scary that we do have to think about the animal rights extremists coming into our labs either as pretend "inspectors" or even as summer "volunteers" who pretend to try to learn from us and help with our science. This should be something that is covered in all of our countless hours of animal research training so that we can ensure not only the well being of our research animals but also ourselves and our employees/trainees.
We should all be careful of who we let into the lab and make sure that we convey that information to the lab "newbies." Here at our MRU, we have had people who have claimed to be(1) from the IT department who needed to "check our computers" and (2) electricians who were installing new "boxes." In both cases, when this was checked later, there was no such authorized work going on. These groups were up to no good - getting personal data from computers, stealing from the lab, etc - and they usually targeted the labs in the evenings when lonely grad students were left alone and defenseless. Thankfully, nothing REALLY bad happened, but it was a reminder of what could happen by trying to cooperate with MRU "staff" without checking for ID's first.
Posted by: Jenny | July 29, 2009 10:41 AM
First, it is terrorism. Just as the anthrax attacks were.
Second, should we be terrorized? Well, human fear of danger isn't always rational. Lots of people worry more about flying in a plane than driving a car, despite the statistics. I want to preface this with saying that if you're scared, particularly if this sort of thing has hit close to home, I'm very sympathetic.
That said, in the hopes it will minimize fear, and that scientists are interested in data:
"Over the past 18 months, there have been at least 39 criminal actions undertaken in the name of animal rights, according to data compiled by the Foundation for Biomedical Research, an advocacy group for researchers. " (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525039,00.html; for reference the story is from June 2009)
Number of people who die each year from being struck by lightning? about 49 (http://weather.about.com/od/thunderstormsandlightning/f/lightningdeaths.htm using about a decade's worth of data from the mid nineties to 2004; I couldn't find more recent numbers)
Being prepared for bioterrorism doesn't mean being terrified of anthrax- it means being informed about what kind of threat it is. Being prepared for animal rights terrorism doesn't mean being terrified of someone coming into your lab without identifying themselves.
And just to be ornery, I'll note that I find it pretty messed up that we live in a world where meat recipes and glorifying the conspicuous consumption of leather shoes are A-OK, but medical research is fraught with danger.
Posted by: becca | July 29, 2009 10:52 AM
I currently work in a building that is not marked on any campus maps. It's a black hole. We order supplies in through a front. This is for our safety and that of our data. We are regularly informed of upcoming protests via mass emails, we all lock everything behind us all the time, and the entire building can be locked down very quickly if need should arise. We have not had any specific training in this, but every new person to come into the lab is educated in all of it by those already there. I should probably find a more polite way of challenging people who try to come into the lab than "Who are you and what are you doing?", but, quite frankly, if anyone has a problem with that they can shove it. We do not need to make any apologies or polite accommodations when it comes to protecting ourselves and the safety of our research teams. If institutional policies to educate new researchers with regard to this issue, then it is our responsibility to transmit it to new hires just as much as showing them where the Eppys are kept.
As for BtR's problem with the use of the word terrorism, I do believe that s/he is conflating current international political dogma with a more scope-limited issue primarily relevant to researchers. Terrorism is any violent coercion against any one group by an external group. We are scientists, and animal rights activists seek to use terrorist to suppress us and our research. Terrorism is not necessarily international, as those citizens who are fine with blowing up abortion clinics and burning crosses know quite well. The English language and the semantic context of our discussion is certainly flexible enough to differentiate between the use of "terrorism" as international propaganda and the tactics of any internal group. Not calling violent animal right's activists emboldens their missions and gives it an entirely false sense of respectability that is all the more dangerous in its disingenuity.
Furthermore, seeking to stifle discussion by dangling danger words around labeling troops as terrorists is patently ludicrous and intellectually dishonest. War is terror, armies exist to wage war as "needed". Ergo, troops are inherently terrorists as well, but we don't label them as such when they further our collective interests. This is not an attack on the troops or your patriotism, it is honesty. It is also arrogant to presume that I gladly pay taxes to support the waging of war. If I had my druthers, 70% of my taxes would go to education and the remaining 30% would go to support social services of all stripes.
Posted by: Toaster | July 29, 2009 10:55 AM
It's not terrorism.
Not unless you also fund terrorism.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 10:57 AM
Really Becca? That's the best you've got? Don't stress because its only happened to 39 people in the last 18 months? You're usually so much more creative than Googling a statistic. Still notice my bolding of the phrase "at least" for your consideration. And, those are actions deemed to be "criminal." I wonder how any addition cases of harassment, etc are not considered here.
I'm baffled by your response, Becca. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be concerned about strangers walking into laboratories? Similarly, are you saying I shouldn't be worried about Little Isis opening his umbrella in the middle of a thunderstorm?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 29, 2009 11:05 AM
The propaganda is not separate from the disfunctional court system that will deal with the people you now call terrorists.
What you are doing is calling people Soviet spies under McCarthy. You are failing your duty to your fellow citizens.
And it's largely not up to you or me, so we do pay our taxes to support war, like it or not. It's not arrogant to note this.
Then if we are not going to be honestly consistent, we have no right to use the term.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 11:10 AM
What you wrote there is perhaps the most obtuse and least intelligent tautology I have ever seen.
It really should be noted that the terrorists who have been denied their basic human rights have been apprehended by our military, and that these people have not been American citizens (see case of John Walker Lindh). Animal rights terrorists would be dealt with through our civilian court system.
Posted by: Toaster | July 29, 2009 11:17 AM
Some of these comments are a good reminder of how weird some people's thought processes are. Expressing concern about the real physical dangers posed by the more fanatical type of animal rights activists somehow means makes a person an advocate of cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners?
Posted by: Paul | July 29, 2009 11:21 AM
If you're going to quibble with the statistic, it doesn't say 39 people. It says 39 criminal acts. If someone snuck into a lab and left a threatening note, that would be at least two acts. That statistic offered no data as to whether any of the criminal acts actually injured or killed anyone.
If people were 100% rational, you'd be a lot more worried about Little Isis in the thunderstorm than people wandering into your lab. Would you loose your junk with Little Isis for running out in the rain?
I'm saying I'm not worried about strangers walking into my laboratory. You can worry if you want, but understand that not everybody does.
If people were rational, the anthrax attacks wouldn't have worked as terrorism. Do you have any idea how ineffective that stuff was for the purpose of killing people? The hoopla that surrounded it, getting everyone drummed up about "weapons of mass destruction"- like a powder that killed five people (who probably had somewhat compromised immune systems, judging from age) = a nuclear bomb- was entirely insane.
Some things are terrorism, but being terrified of them is Not Logical.
Posted by: becca | July 29, 2009 11:24 AM
Of course not. That's a weird look into your thought processes, though.
Calling someone a terrorist is not "expressing concern." It is a political act, in this case a political act of solidarity with the government's new definition of terrorism, and new legal maneuvers in the so-called War on Terrorism.
This whole discussion, with all the expressions of concern appropriate, could have been had without that political act.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 11:33 AM
Don't feed them...
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 29, 2009 11:41 AM
There's no tautology there. Either wrecking a lab is not terrorism, or your military is made up of terrorists. In the latter case, they can be denied their rights under the Geneva Conventions. So this is kind of important.
No. Jose Padilla was held for over 3 years without charges.
There is no legal requirement that they be.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 11:42 AM
First, the response of the student, as already mentioned several times, should have been "please wait outside, I will call Dr. Isis to walk you through the inspection".
Second, Dr. Isis correctly comments that most PIs and their students are unprepared for the possibility of an attack by animal right extremists. The same applies to university administrators. If you believe this cannot happen to you and you should not worry (like Becca) then you have been not following the trends
Third, "back to reality" appears to be no other than Will Potter. He constantly complains about our use of the word "terrorist" for acts of violence from the extreme left, but not for those of the extreme right. He is right. They are all terrorists. Those that killed an abortion doctor, those that killed a security guard at the Holocaust museum, and those that are bombing scientists to achieve their political goals.
Society should not be held hostage to the views of the 1% of lunatics on the extremes of the political spectrum. We should put all these crazies in jail and let the other 99% of the people resolve their differences in a civil manner. We have to do more to enforce the limits of 1st amendment rights. Threatening, harassing, and blowing up property is not protected free speech.
Posted by: Denis Alexander | July 29, 2009 11:53 AM
I think anyone doubting the terrorist nature of some individuals in the animal rights movement should really do a little background search on a certain Jerry Vlasak and Jason Miller and their ALF friends (though you'd probably best not do the search from a work computer), the comparison to the terrorists who murdered George Tiller and other abortion providers is not all that fanciful.
On the issue of security it's usual in the UK for scientists to be briefed on the threat from animal rights extremist groups during the Home Office personal licence course. To be fair though most of the measures should be observed in any lab, just think about the quantity of toxic or radioactive substances you find in your average molecular biology lab. Even in my current department where we have no animals we have had cases where people attempted to gain access in order to steal computers, and a couple of years back even lost a couple of very high end machines in what was probably a theft to order. Security is now a lot tighter with staff expected to swipe in etc. and any visitors having to report to security first.
Security isn't something to be taken lightly, extremism just adds another reason to keep it tight.
Posted by: Paul Browne | July 29, 2009 11:54 AM
BtR, I think you're confusing the term "enemy combatant" with the term "terrorist". It's the label "enemy combatant" that makes for unfair trial, not the term "terrorist". Merriam-Webster is a well-respected dictionary. You are not.
Repeating "It's not terrorism" doesn't make it so. You'll have to argue your case better. So far you are conflating a word that has been around for a long time and is well-defined with a political action that in no way defines the term. Like I said, the word you're looking for is "enemy combatant".
Posted by: Sara | July 29, 2009 12:06 PM
As someone who has been the direct victim of a violent attack by animal rights extremists, allow me to weigh in to the debate over the use of the word "terrorism"...
When I awoke at 4 am and looked out my window at a raging car fire only 3 feet from my house, and when I was subsequently taunted by the individuals who perpetrated the action, I felt one thing: terror. Not fear. Not anger. Not sadness. Terror: the same feeling in your chest when you wake up from the most horrific of nightmares. Unfortunately, for some of us, we don't wake up from this particular nightmare.
I am ambivalent about the popular use of the word "terrorism" (or "terrorist"), as well as (perhaps more importantly) the utility of using it to categorize animal rights extremists in the media. But I want to be clear that this is not a debate about semantics or about the politicalization of a word. It's a discussion about real actions that inflict real terror that affect real people. Focusing on counteracting these terror-inducing actions (through pro-active advocacy, etc.), rather than debating the appropriateness of the usage of a particular word, should be our main objective.
Posted by: David | July 29, 2009 12:08 PM
Just chipping in.
Animal rights activists who systematically use violence or the threat of violence to coerce a population are terrorists. Soldiers who are not invited into a country by the legal government (allies) or enter without declaring war on the legal government (invaders) are terrorists to the civilians/government of that country. As taxpayers we fund soldiers and expect our government not use them as terrorists.
To the topic on hand. Posting reminders to contact you, when there are visitors, by the door to the lab areas is a good reminder for your group. Really, there should be no visitors in any lab unless invited due to safety and confidentiality issues. When I worked at a university, I met friends in their offices, outside their labs or whereever. I rarely entered a lab outside of my research group unless I was invited.
Posted by: Casz | July 29, 2009 12:17 PM
"Soviet" was a word that had been around a long time, well defined, having nothing to do with the actions of a particular world power. Nonetheless, it was antidemocratic for a US citizen to use the term in reference to one's fellow citizens during the 1950s.
Words pick up meaning regardless of what we'd prefer. There is no neutral scholarly use of the word "terrorist" now, not that there ever was, but everyone should recognize this today.
And an enemy combatant is directly subject to definition by the chief executive. Not only can any "terrorist" be automatically declared an "enemy combatant," so can any dissident.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 12:23 PM
This, by the way, was naive. Terrorism means they don't even have to present evidence in public. State secrets will mean you'll be lucky if the judge is allowed to inspect the evidence privately.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 12:28 PM
Regardless of a declaration of war, any non-defensive action by the military is an act of violence intended to provoke fear and achieve a political outcome.
We can no more excuse ourselves for our nation's actions than we would any other hated regime in history.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 12:33 PM
This is like saying that being called a "communist" didn't interfere with a person getting a fair trial. It's just naive, ignoring all of history. Enemies of the state are not afforded enough rights to adequately defend themselves.
Whatever you let them do to guilty people, you let them to do innocent people as well, because the system can never achieve zero error.
These people can already be tried for specific acts of violence or attempted violence or property destruction. There is no need for you all to come to the aid of zealous prosecutors who need to bend and break the constitution to make their case. Call violence violence. It's not terrorism.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 12:47 PM
A whole dollar, by the way? That sounds very lucrative. I didn't think blog ads could accomplish that.
Posted by: back to reality | July 29, 2009 12:51 PM
My wife did animal research while getting her PhD at U. Maryland. She tells me that security and threats from animal "rights" terrorists was a big part of the orientation training provided by the IACUC, so it seems that at least some universities are already on board with the importance of this. Once again, I would urge Dr. Isis to make the MRU Dept. of Public Safety work for a living by taking the lead on this issue.
I find the semantic debate initiated by BTR to be incredibly silly. "Terrorism" has a pretty clear legal meaning in the context of U.S. Criminal Law, but I (a lawyer) would paraphrase it as "acts of violence or intimidation intended to influence the political debate." Attempting to influence the political debate of whether or not we should use animals in research through violence (vandalism, assault, etc.) and intimidation (implied and direct threats to researchers) is terrorism, plain and simple. That doesn't mean animal "rights" activists should be waterboarded in Dick Cheney's basement, or otherwise have their Constitutional rights impaired. But it does make them liable under a set of criminal statutes specifically aimed at people who attempt to influence a political debate with violence. Given the Constitutional emphasis on rights that (theoretically) secure a more-or-less equal access to the political debate by all parties (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, to petition the gov't, etc.), it is entirely consistent to reserve particular (and lawfully enacted) criminal sanctions for those who believe they have the right to impose their political views through violence.
Accusing the entire U.S. military of being "terrorists" moves the discussion from one of U.S. Constitutional/criminal law to a broader (and much more pointless) debate about international law, the laws of war, and the relationship of nation states. Under that context the definition of "terrorist" is admittedly much more murky (e.g., George Washington was a "freedom fighter" to us, and a "terrorist" to the Brits). Sticking with the definition of terrorist as "one who attempts to influence the political debate through violence and intimidation", then BTR's attempt to tar the US military probably falls short since we didn't really seek to "influence" any "political" process in Iraq -- rather we sought to replace the entire political process/regime/system wholesale. Whether we (the US) had a 'right' to do that under the law of nations/international law/Marquis of Queensbury rules is something that will be debated for decades to come.
Anyway, none of that is even really relevant to the logical fallacy of BTR's argument, which appears to be that "because the evil Bushies misused the word, we should stop using that word correctly!" Even if Bush & Co. did misuse/overuse the word, (either by applying it to conduct that wasn't actually terrorism, or to people who weren't actually guilty of terrorist conduct) that doesn't change the fact that people who seek to use terror as a political tool are, well, terrorists.
Posted by: Anon (same as @4:52am) | July 29, 2009 1:13 PM
your lab is probably regulated by several agencies: animal use, environmental compliance, financial, NIH maybe radiation safety, OSHA, what have you. No undergraduate should ever provide a "tour" of the lab to any regulatory agent. The undergrad, no matter how good, is only partly trained, is inexperienced, and is just passing thru. You can't trust that he/she will have the common sense to not say whatever stray thoughts pass through their little minds.
in industry, we are regulated by all those plus FDA, SEC, and some I can't remember. we have a simple rule: one regulatory department is responsible for all interactions with regulators, and nobody else ever says anything. if a regulator shows up, it's always "let me get the appropriate person for you." Every employee is trained to that policy and signs a piece of paper acknowledging it, annually.
Posted by: David | July 29, 2009 1:38 PM
I don't work with animals, but do sensitive work (confidentiality and security of resources are important). Students (undergrad and grad) are not allowed to answer any questions (including over the phone). Postdocs are the most junior people allowed to talk to outsiders and undergrads never work unsupervised so someone is always available. Outsiders (even faculty not directly involved) are not allowed to wander unsupervised and no one below a postdoc may "supervise" a visitor.
If anyone shows up unannounced we call the office that sent them and confirm their identity and assignment.
In addition, we have two rooms that are kept locked at all times and no one below a postdoc has keys (if they need access to the room for their work a postdoc unlocks it for them). So a undergrad would be literally incapable of showing someone most sensitive information or material.
We don't have formal training, but are required to include security in the research protocol. It's part of our ethics review and the university's "risk management" folks have to sign off since the university is ultimately liable.
Posted by: anony | July 29, 2009 1:45 PM
I have not read all of the comments, so I apologize if this is redundant, but isn't the IACUC worried about this potential threat as well? If animal rights terrorists showed up impersonating the IACUC reps, and an undergrad (or your research program!) was harmed in any way, wouldn't that be some pretty bad mojo for the IACUC? I would think a letter to the IACUC stating your concerns would be totally appropriate, or even a phone call...
Posted by: gnuma | July 29, 2009 1:56 PM
A thought on the terrorism definition, I've always felt that it needs to be ammended with the qualifier that the "perpetrators of such acts are not affiliated with a recognized sovereign entity." i.e. if 9/11 had been conducted by soldiers under orders from say Putin it would have been an act of war, not terrorism.
Posted by: PhilB | July 29, 2009 2:37 PM
I find the semantic debate initiated by BTR to be incredibly silly.
It is not "silly" it is an intentional distraction ploy used to advance the ARA terrorist agenda. They know full well that they can gain back some people by repeating this whole "the gov'mint is suppressing our freedom of speech and conflating us with the waronterra" angle. Because they know that scientists trend left politically and are very uncomfortable with anything that smacks of violating 1st amendment rights. Not a bad strategy if your position is weak, as is theirs.
Everyone just has to decide for themselves where the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" line lies.
But don't let such trollish derailing get you away from the essential point that no matter what you call it, burning a guy's car to persuade him to give up a completely lawful and well regulated profession in the service of public health worldwide is unacceptable.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | July 29, 2009 2:56 PM
@DrugMonkey - I think it is a silly strategy because, in my experience, the academic community is largely on the left of the political spectrum. They largely support sound environmental policies, responsible pet ownership, and are mostly against hunting for fun or sport. The extremists are alienating a large group that in fact agree with them in various areas except on the ethical use of animals in research. That's silly.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2009 4:25 PM
"Not once in 39+ hours of training did anyone ever speak about animal right terrorism. I can't remember ever speaking about it in graduate school.
How do I train students to deal with these situations when my own training consists largely of finding myself in a situation and thinking to myself, "Oh, crap! That could have been very bad"?"
You're asking the same questions that anyone asks when she (or he) realizes that self-defense starts with "self" and that you are the person primarily responsible for your own protection.
I'd suggest that you start with this woman's website:
www.corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx
To boil it down to its essence -- you have to ask yourself "What am I really willing to do?" and then realize that whatever your limits, there are always some people willing to go beyond your limits to force you to do their will. Then, plan and prepare accordingly.
Or, as Pres. Truman put it in a more folksy way: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." So, if you want to cook, . . .
Posted by: wfjag | July 29, 2009 4:33 PM
The extremists are alienating a large group that in fact agree with them in various areas except on the ethical use of animals in research.
..and the ownership of pets, extension of citizen/human-type "rights", the eating of meat, milking of cow, eating of eggs, killing of household vermin....
I don't think you really appreciate the true positions and goals of even the seemingly respectable (but in actuality radically extreme wackanut) organizations such as peta, pcrm and hsus. This is unsurprising because they try to conceal their more extremist beliefs in mixed company...
Posted by: DrugMonkey | July 29, 2009 4:40 PM
At my BRI (biological research institute), we have a spiral bound book of what to do in case of various emergencies. "Animal Activist" is right after "Terrorism", which is right after "Bomb threat". The instructions for "Animal Activist" are: if it's a peaceful protest on public property, call security. If it's not peaceful or they're trying to break in, call 911.
All the animal facilities at my BRI and MRU are key-coded, mostly underground, and hard to find. There is a primate facility somewhere, but I have no idea where.
We're pretty careful because the ELF burned a building about a decade ago, and people are still pretty sore about it.
My creepy-people story: Late one Friday afternoon, after most people had gone home a UPS guy showed up (not our usual guy). After he had me sign for the package he started asking if we had monkeys in this building. My answer was "No, of course not, and why are you asking?" He was surprised at my attitude, "Well, I was just curious." As soon as he left I called our elderly security guy, but I was pretty sure that he was a legit UPS guy, but I was still pissed.
Posted by: JustaTech | July 29, 2009 4:49 PM
my probably worthless take:
--I don't have much sympathy for animal rights extremists, but I do respect animal rights activists who work to improve the way animals are treated
--I've always been more sympathetic to individuals who were willing to die, or otherwise go to the line for their cause than those who were willing to kill for it.
--I think there are some important distinctions between sabotage and property destruction that could endanger others and I think it hurts us in the long run to call certain acts of sabotage 'violence'--a term which should be reserved for doing harm to others
--i think that the use of the word terrorist is problematic, but i want idiots who engage in uncivil disobedience that could physically harm others (or threaten to) to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...and I don't care for what the terrorism laws have done to due process
--i think that sabotage that doesn't physically harm others should be prosecuted differently, and not lumped in with the rest of it. And that doesn't mean i feel that animal rights protesters have been justified in their actions for the most part.
Posted by: tbell | July 29, 2009 5:18 PM
"the seemingly respectable (but in actuality radically extreme wackanut) organizations such as peta, pcrm and hsus."
Did I miss something? PETA and PCRM are wacky for sure, but I thought that HSUS was more into promoting spay/neuter programs and rehoming neglected/abandoned pets...or am I confusing them with ASPCA??? Too many acronyms.
Posted by: ambivalent academic | July 29, 2009 7:24 PM
This is NOT ONLY AN ISSUE FOR THOSE WORKING WITH ANIMALS, but with any specialised, delicate equipment or with any potentially harmful reagents (which is ALL reagents). Anyone entering a chem lab, for example, should be wearing the correct safety gear (in our case, eye protection, foot covering and a lab coat). Even unannounced officials. Other labs have other protocols.
What if, instead of an animal lab, this had been a lab with some delicate reaction bubbling away in a fume cupboard, or a sealed ether-room, and the people had opened the door or fume hood protector? Or walked in front of a laser beam, or bumped something out of alignment in an instrument room?
Isis has correctly identified the issues - a 'responsible' person (ie someone employed to take responsibility) should be called, ID should be sought, and the lab should write a set of procedures to be followed if ANY visitor approaches. ANY VISITOR - no fear or favours.
Posted by: d. | July 29, 2009 7:24 PM
Cross-posted from my comment at BlueLabCoats::
I wonder how one might deal with this in a “open lab” format like the one I work in.
We have several bays of benches that extend across the length of the building. Several “labs” have assigned benches in this area, but there is no physical barrier to separate one lab from the next.
There are doors at either end of the common space which require prox card access, but only after hours. The nature of the research done here is quite collaborative between labs and I like it this way. But is also means that anyone granted access (not like they have any obstacle to coming in during normal working hours as prox cards are not required at those times) to a given lab in this space then has access to all the labs in this space. Happens with sales reps all the damn time.
Of course, rooms housing sensitive equipment require prox card access all the time, and the animal colony is in a separate building requiring use of prox card at 6 different points just to get anywhere near an animal. I always wondered if this was really an effective strategy for animal security. The same prox card gets you through all the access points, so presumably if one could get ahold of someone’s card all they would have to do is figure out how to navigate the unmarked maze to get there.
Posted by: ambivalent academic | July 29, 2009 7:26 PM
HSUS is an impostor. That is how they operate. Try to confuse the people, i.e., implicate that Animal Rights and Animal Welfare (AR vs. AW) are the same thing (or perhaps on the same continuum, with one being perhaps a little vocal than the latter). In fact, they are polar opposites. AW care about animals. AR would not know how to care about animals even if they wanted to - and they don't. They are in it for the money, fame and self-righteousness. AW are allies of animals. AR destroy both animals and people and the scientific research, aka they are terrorists.
Posted by: Coturnix | July 29, 2009 7:31 PM
Ah yes, I was confusing Humane Society of the US (AR imposter) with the American Humane Association (legit AW org). Tricky bastards! Thing is, I know the difference, I just can't seem to keep all the names and acronyms straight. Like the "People's Front of Judea" and the "Judean People's Front" except they're not actually on the same side.
Thanks for the link Coturnix.
Posted by: ambivalent academic | July 29, 2009 7:36 PM
Isis:
I read both letters (USDA/Budkie). I know two of the people on Budkie's list personally. I've worked for years with animals, and some of my protocols would easily make me a target of some of these idiots. I still think that this has nothing to do with why accepted grant applications should be public knowledge.
Every publication should, theoretically, have enough information in it to duplicate the experiments. And it also has the names of everybody involved in the study. Whatever information animal rights terrorists need is there, too. Are you positing that the ability to see scientific publications should be restricted to scientists? That when antivaccination people misuse papers, that that is a reason to restrict access to everybody? That PLoS and the open access movement is allowing animal rights idiots to bomb cars?
Fundamentally, I think that the people paying for your research have a right to see what it is and why you think it will work. I stand behind my statement that the public at large is not a bunch of three year olds (although many are).
Posted by: Brian | July 29, 2009 8:33 PM
Brian, to the best of my knowledge, grants contain personal contact information for the PI and often other employees who will be involved in the research. Scientific papers contain institutional contact information, but not home addresses. This is a critical difference.
Posted by: Toaster | July 29, 2009 9:13 PM
Ok, well, in any kind of public database, that could easily be censored - and there obviously is a need for the govt to do that.
Posted by: Brian | July 29, 2009 10:20 PM
If we're throwing around the word terrorism like nothing in reference to psychological activism then surely you believe the IRS and collection agencies to be terrorists as well... and those are just people that send mass letters and call at all hours of the night. They don't actually torture and cause terror like researchers do in nonhuman animals, but I digress...
Anyways, we should all have access to the grants because it's our money in them. We deserve to know where it's going. But oh no! Accountability for people that use my money, I must be a terrorist.
Why are you so afraid of people seeing what goes on inside your lab? Is it because what goes on in there would piss people off? Make them want to take action? Show them how sick animal testing is?
If what you are doing is so humane and valuable, everyone deserves a tour do they not? I know I would allow anyone to tour our lab since much of the funding comes from their taxes. But, you see, we have nothing to hide because our participants volunteer. They aren't forced and caged.
I'll be thinking about the animals that will suffer in your care today. Someone should care for them.
Posted by: ARPhilo | July 30, 2009 8:32 AM
ARPhilo,
I work with nasty human bacterial pathogens in animal models. Security concerns and delicate equipment notwithstanding, I would not grant a tour to any member of the public simply to avoid assuming any liability of the lab contaminating them or vice versa.
Animal testing is far more humane than perpetuating human suffering through inaction. What we do with experimental animal models in our laboratory is far more palatable than what goes on in a slaughterhouse or feedlot.
Posted by: Toaster | July 30, 2009 10:21 AM
Toaster,
When all you can do is divert attention from you torture of nonhuman animals in a lab to the torture of nonhuman animals on farms, it says a lot about your side of things.
For the record, I don't consume, wear, use animal products whenever possible (which is about 99% of the time). So, your remark about slaughterhouses does nothing to defend your use of nonhuman animals.
What also does not defend it is the fact that nonhuman animals react very differently to these pathogens you study than humans do. You're wasting valuable research dollars sickening animals when they could be used to study what these "nasty human bacterial pathogens" do to HUMANS. Imagine that. Perpetuating suffering through ACTION- your actions.
Posted by: ARPhilo | July 30, 2009 12:29 PM
ARPhilo-Apologies if this was already answered above, but do you use medicines and medical treatments that were developed through animal research?
Posted by: Allyson | July 30, 2009 12:38 PM
We use animal models developed specifically to mimic human disease etiology, therefore shedding light on the mechanisms of human suffering. I would far rather induce experimental autoimmune encephalitis in a mouse or rat to study the autoimmune mechanisms that cause multiple sclerosis in humans than stand by and attempt to merely palliate the suffering of a human patient while remaining ignorant as to what may be causing the disease. I have worked with Shiga-toxigenic bacteria that can cause hemolytic uremic syndrome, a condition most commonly found in infected infants that leads to death, lasting kidney damage, and several CNS inflammation. Once again I would far rather infect a mouse, observe the course of the disease, and then euthanize it before it is moribund for dissection and data than watch as an infant suffers or die.
Your claim that animal models do not have any physiological relevance to human pathologies, and that our research is therefore wasteful, is patently false, demonstrates a very profound lack of understanding of general biology, and is almost a verbatim PETA talking point.
I'm glad that your abstinence from animal products makes you feel like you're a better person, but it gives you no right to cast aspersions upon the researchers who are doing their damnedest to improve the lot of humanity.
Posted by: Toaster | July 30, 2009 2:20 PM
Yeah Toaster, microbes never affect people the way they infect animals! Look at rabies, people aren't dogs, they don't foam at the mouth and bite when they get infected (they become animal rights terrorists!).
And lots of the diseases animals get are completely different species from the human versions! Cowpox is completely different from smallpox, one is relatively avirulent and the other is capable of causing deadly pandemics. So there is obviously no point in studying cowpox
(except for all vaccinations, ever).
ARPhilo- I applaud your stand on avoiding contributing to the suffering of sentient beings for the purposes of your own gustatory hedonism or fashionista vanity. HOWEVER, your stand on science is so ignorant as to constitute the intention infliction of suffering on any thinking microbiologist in your vicinity. Your stupid, it burns.
(Aside to Denis Alexander- my point was not "this cannot happen"- it obviously can. My point was "if it helps, remember that the statistical likelihood of this is very low". For some people that is reassuring. I think if we are going to educate young scientists we need to educate them to exercise caution, but also be able to assess the risk rationally. Kind of like abiding by airport security regulations without refusing to fly because your plane could be crashed into a building.)
Posted by: becca | July 30, 2009 2:39 PM
Let me get back to the main topic...lab safety.
At one point in my life I was an OSHA inspector. We carried ID cards and were required to show them prior to entering any workplace. The EPA and most other enforcement agencies are required to do the same thing. It is a reasonable requirement that protects us all.
If there is any doubt about the validity of the ID (Fake IDs are frighteningly easy to get), it is reasonable to call the office to verify the inspector's identity. They might be a bit peeved, but reasonable explanations tend to help.
I encourage you to have a written plan of action for any agency that comes to inspect your lab. Health & Safety and Security should already have something in place. There are plans required by OSHA that could be readily adapted to include IACUC visits. At the top of the list should be "Call Dr. Isis." There should be a call list in case you are not available. No lab tours should be allowed until the person on the list arrives on site.
In the world we live in, this kind of planning has become an unfortunate reality. It sucks. But that's what you have to do for safety. Plan for the worst, educate the student muffins and hope/pray for the best.
And where the hell is IACUC in this? They, most of all, should understand the danger that you face. Sheesh.
Posted by: Irishmom | July 30, 2009 5:26 PM
Since "terrorism" is worse than "aggressive war" these days, as post-WWII warmongers walk freely among us, your definition just legitimizes any terrorism that governments commit. Surely you must see that this could only make the world a worse place, not better, unless you are in the business of legitimizing state terrorism.
It's hard in these threads to tell who are the happy fascists and who are the fellow travelers.
Posted by: back to reality | July 31, 2009 3:05 AM
Happy fascist, here!
Posted by: ms physics | July 31, 2009 8:57 AM
Allyson, I don't take any medications. Thankfully I don't need to. I do take ibuprofen for pain on occasion. Sure, animal testing played a part in it- in delaying it- nonhuman animals showed ibuprofen to be either unsafe or ineffective. The same goes for aspirin and tylenol. I have also been known to take antibiotics with penicillin in the past, something also shown to be ineffective in animals and only made it to the market through human use.
So, please don't pull the "animal testing plays a part" joke with me because, as you know, animal testing plays a part because the law currently demands it for some things, not because it has scientific validity.
To Becca, rabies may have similar effects in humans on a macroscopic level but affects us differently on a microscopic level, just like other illnesses. Even if it did affect us exactly the same as it did dogs, showing one example where a nonhuman animal mimics human response out of the countless examples where they do not does not show anything. And "gustatory hedonism or fashionista vanity" as reasons for me to boycott animal suffering? Whatever helps you sleep at night, sweetheart. Let me guess, you contribute to animal cruelty for gustatory and fashion greed, eh?
Toaster, as for your accusation that I said animal science has no relevance to human science at all, I did not say that. I said that the variability is so large that they do not make good models for human disease while humans, parts of humans, and computer models DO. The amount of time that nonhuman animal models actually do predict human response is so close to the margin of error that it is frightening that so many "scientists" would so faithfully defend it. I have nothing to do with PETA. In fact, they irk me with many of their campaigns. My statements come from meta-analyses and basic observations of the history of scientific discovery. It's not hard to see that human research, not animal research, has played the largest part in discoveries that have helped humans. Yet, all of our money goes to animal research. Go figure.
I can't expect those whose profits come directly from nonhuman animal suffering (and the suffering of humans that is connected when all funding that could help them goes down the drain) to be swayed in my direction. I just wanted to stop by and offer the other side of the story- outside of this "terrorist" baiting bullshite jargon that you all use to make your research seem important. The only terrorists are those who cause suffering every single day for profit under the guise of helping humans. There is no doubt that some of you actually believe you are helping. To those people, I suggest a little more research. Just a little will go a long way. Challenge everything.
Ta ta now.
Posted by: ARPhilo | July 31, 2009 10:46 AM
Penicillin ineffective in non-human animals??? Are you serious?
Penicillin is one of the most commonly used veterinary antibiotics out there. Vets wouldn't give it to critters if it *didn't* work. Like becca said: the ignorance, it burns.
Posted by: ambivalent academic | July 31, 2009 10:50 AM
I meant when penicillin was first discovered. It worked in vitro but not in animals it was tested on. It does not work in some animals, like I said. The guy who discovered it almost tossed it out but ended up trying it in a female patient who was sick and he had nothing else to give her. It worked.
Like you said, the ignorance, it burns.
Ok, I am really done now. Feel free to continue lying. I promise not to interrupt you.
Posted by: ARPhilo | July 31, 2009 10:57 AM
ARPhilo, thank you for addressing that question. We disagree on the value and contributions of animal research in improving human and animal health. We agree that there are complex issues that benefit from careful consideration, examination, and education. Many places to get that info - one is:
http://speakingofresearch.com/extremism-undone/
Posted by: Allyson | July 31, 2009 10:59 AM
Penicillin was initially tested via injection for toxicity, but not efficacy, in healthy, non-infected rabbits and mice. Fleming gave up on it due to instability, not lack of efficacy for which he did not test. After further purification, Florey's group ran a proper efficacy experiment in mice (injected with toxic bacteria +/- 1 or more doses of penicillin). The mice dosed with toxic bacteria alone died, those additionally treated with penicillin survived [Chain et al (1940) Lancet.] This was quite definitively a positive result. In animals.
Following animal results were the first clinical reports [Abraham et al (1941) Lancet.]
Posted by: leigh | July 31, 2009 11:56 AM
"Let me guess, you contribute to animal cruelty for gustatory and fashion greed, eh?" Generally not. Which is why I can get my quota of smug-self-righteousness about superfluous animal suffering without resorting to being a total judgmental dick about people who are trying to alleviate human suffering.
Anyway though, if you actually want to do something to minimize animal use, you can volunteer for my research study. I work on innate immune responses to malaria...
Posted by: becca | July 31, 2009 12:03 PM
I am amused by those who think that by not consuming animals they do not contribute to suffering of animals. The simple act of growing crops harms animals. What do you think happens to all the little mice and other creatures when a field is plowed, or a garden tilled? Farmers also have to deal with animals that want to eat their crops, and often they do this by killing them. A while back Gourmet magazine published an article where a farmer recounted his ordeal killing a possum. Several readers were offended, but farmers also wrote in that they were glad that the magazine showed the difficulty of farming, and cleared up the naive, disney-esqe pastoral image that Americans clung to in an age where no one really wanted understand where food really comes from.
Posted by: sea creature | August 1, 2009 1:14 AM
Wow. I stopped reading about halfway through the comments. So here are my 2 cents, assuming no one has already said any of this.
I'm amazed that more schools aren't proactive about this. Everywhere I have worked, we were taught explicitly during our standard safety training to be concerned about all safety issues, whether we worked directly with animals or P3 level viruses not, and whether the strangers showing up in our buildings were concerned about animals or had some other potentially destructive agenda. Because even if it's not your lab, it could be the lab adjoining yours. Awareness is key.
Personally, I do not share the mentality of those like aurora that animals are not worth as much as human beings. I do believe that animal research can provide insight but should not be redundant. It pains me to see fruitless, expensive animals research being done by scientists who lack reasonable preliminary data to justify proceeding to animal studies. It is one of my guiding priorities to limit my animal studies to the bare minimum that I think is required for meaningful scientific progress.
It seems to me that your school is remiss if you weren't openly instructed on how to avoid and, if necessary, deal with exactly the situation you're describing. I'm kind of shocked, actually, that you never faced this issue earlier in your career, and apparently never thought about the risks involved in animal research? I guess you're shocked to realize that too. And I'm glad you blogged about this, since it makes me wonder how many other animal researchers have not considered the real-world risks of doing science with animal subjects. Maybe this will reach a new generation of young scientists who have not been aware of professors having their hands blown off, etc. by packages designed to attack researchers.
On my campus, we are almost always given warning before inspections of any kind. There are no surprise visits from safety officials, UNLESS you have previously been in violation. Then you might have to expect surprise visits as part of your punishment, which I think is fully warranted for the safety of the animals, your lab, and everyone else on your campus.
Your undergraduate sounds a bit naive, but I wouldn't expect them to be aware unless you had educated them about these kinds of scenarios (and you said that you hadn't).
Yes, you can tell them to find you if someone shows up, but everywhere I've worked, we always had a safety officer and sometimes in addition, someone in charge of animal studies. Usually these two are technicians, or sometimes a grad student/postdoc - point being it is a semi-permanent, salaried lab member. I would recommend that you designate someone like this if possible, so the undergraduates aren't coming to you every five minutes, and so you can have at least two responsible people (yourself and one other) who know what is going on at all times. Two sets of eyes and ears.
I also liked the suggestion to get a PI from a neighboring lab to act as babysitter if need be, but you can't always rely on other PIs to be around - you'll probably both be at faculty meetings, etc. at the same times, so it's not a complete solution, but it will help if you and your neighbors are looking out for each other.
Posted by: msphd | August 2, 2009 3:54 PM
Wow, you don't get many nutters but the ones you do get are pretty virulent.
BTR: Shock and Awe, as seen from outside the US, was most certainly an act of terrorism, so... whatever that proves. Nothing actually.
Your government regularly redefines terrorism: remember the 80's when the Taliban were "brave freedom fighters?"
And ARPhilo: as a tested-in-animals prescribing, leather-wearing, meat-eating ordinary human physician: you have been duped. Animals are wonderful creatures and deserve to be treated with respect, but mice don't talk, and ducks aren't cheap, and dogs aren't goofy. Stop anthropomorphising and grow up.
Posted by: red rabbit | August 2, 2009 4:38 PM
ARPhilo "I meant when penicillin was first discovered. It worked in vitro but not in animals it was tested on. It does not work in some animals, like I said. The guy who discovered it almost tossed it out but ended up trying it in a female patient who was sick and he had nothing else to give her. It worked."
As Leigh pointed out Fleming never tested penicillin for it's anti-bacterial effect in animals. He had done preliminary studies which indicated that it was broken down quickly in mice and he couldn't produce it in large enough quantities to achieve effective concentrations. Florey, Chain and Heatley developed a process to produce sufficient quantities of penicillin so that they could test it in mice. Success in mice lead to the successful trials in humans by Florey, Fleming et al.
The instability of penicillin was major problem during the early years, as much in humans as it had been in mice, and led to the failure of Florey and colleagues first human trial when they ran out of it during treatment of their first patient. Also the early penicillin had to be injected into patients, as it couldn't survive if taken orally, it was not until after WWII that more stable forms of penicillin were developed that could be taken orally.
Posted by: Paul Browne | August 3, 2009 8:40 AM
ARPhilo "Yet, all of our money goes to animal research. Go figure."
And with that statement straight from an AR propaganda piece you shoot yourself in the foot.
Animal research receives only a minority of medical research dollars from government, charities andn industry, I doubt that it's even as high as 20% of the total in the US.
Animal research is an important part of the mix, but so are the other approaches.
Posted by: Paul Browne | August 3, 2009 8:48 AM