There was a rally in LA for a group in favor of animal experimentation, Pro-Test, which also had a counter-rally by animal rights groups. You can guess which side I'm on in this debate: blocking experimentation on animals would kill biological research dead. The tactics of the anti-vivisectionists are also reprehensible and deserving of condemnation.
The Pro-Test group, an offshoot of an Oxford, England-based group founded in 2006, was organized by J. David Jentsch, a UCLA neuroscientist who was the target of a recent attack by anonymous animal-rights activists. In the attack, Jentsch's car was set on fire while it was parked in front of his Westside home. (The FBI recently announced that a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible has been increased to $75,000.) Jentsch, who researches schizophrenia and drug addiction, conducts tests on monkeys. While he acknowledges that some monkeys are killed as part of his research, he maintains that they do not suffer. Jentsch was expected to speak at today's rally.
Most importantly, we're biologists. We're in this business because we have a passion for the organisms we study, not because we're some kind of sick sadists. We're also currently swaddled up to our ears in regulations and monitors to prevent abuses of the animals in our care.
Unfortunately, the article discussing this rally has associated with it a poll. This makes me rather cranky—it's a serious issue worth discussing, so please, don't slap a stupid internet poll on it. It just means that advocacy groups will push at the numbers as if they mean something. So, please, go forth and destroy this pointless metric:
Can medical research on animals be conducted humanely?
Yes -- and I support it if the animals are treated well 27% (1872 votes)
No -- it's inhumane by definition and I don't support it 73% (5049 votes)
Not sure <1% (4 votes)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The fact is that in vitro experiments, i.e. using cells in petri dishes are alternatives to animals.
Comments like this make me wonder if people who oppose testing on animals have any real idea of how biomedical research works.
Isolated cells in a petri dish can't tell us a number of things about how a gene or a drug work in a whole organism. Furthermore, cells grown in culture are not the same as cells in a body. For example, cell lines are often transformed with EBV, a virus which changes the cell's behavior fairly profoundly. Many things that work in cell culture flop in organisms, either animals or humans. (That having been said, there is a lot that can be done with cell culture and IS done with cell culture. It's cheaper and easier than animal studies and therefore is used whenever possible.)
But the real irony about cell culture is that it is NOT an animal exploitation free system. Virtually all cell cultures require fetal or newborn calf serum to grow. How is that obtained? The same slaughter of calfs (or fetal calfs when a pregnant cow is slaughtered) that people have decried the dairy industry for.
Oh, and the argument that mice are too closely related for us to experiment on? Some have claimed that Hela cells are a new species. They're clearly separate from humans. If so, they are humanity's closest living relatives. And are killed every day by the millions in labs across the world. Protests, anyone?
They don't. What they generally have, at least as far as I've observed, is displaced religious zealotry. Instead of latching onto some mega-church and bashing "the gheys" they're after science.
Really, same witch hunt, different church.
Grandiose over-statement showing a total lack of perspective to go with the narcissistic hubris that man is so powerful that he can save or destroy all animals and things. Get off your God complex and religious zealotry and come back down to earth.
eptesicus People HAVE RIGHT to use other creatures for their purpose, just like lions,...
People sometimes speak of rights as if they exist independently. The brutal fact is that rights only come into being when the powerful grant them to the weak. In a democracy, the people, through their elected representatives, are the powerful.
Democratically granted rights allow certain research, subject to approvals by ethics committees, to be performed on animals. It is important for medical research & for fundamental research in various fields to maintain such rights. Unfortunately, misinformation generated by the animals rights fanatics, prejudice this.
I agree that we should avoid causing unnecessary suffering, & this can only be assessed, (perhaps not always very accurately), by experts in the field. Emotional appeals by animal rights advocates invoking anthropomorphic sympathies are probably more influential on the general public than cogent arguments by experts. The research community has a tough fight on their hands, & I think that it’s important to support them in this.
Currently, only the human animal has the capability of willfully saving or destroying any or all animals (and things).
If humans can destroy species at will then why are there still mosquitos? Or rabbits in Australia for that matter? Humans blunder around, changing the environment and taking what they need to survive and sometimes messing things up for other species. In that way, humans are exactly like every other plant, animal, and microbe on the planet.
From Pharingula quotes:
'Yes, but humans are more important than animals,' said Brutha.
'This is a point of view often expressed by humans,' said Om.
(Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
I vote for respecting the pain of any being according to the development of its nervous system.
So I'm ok for experimenting with human embrios but I would like farming cattle to be treated better.
It's simply sad that we take the lives of beings we deem lesser for our own benefit, with some misguided and false sense of "well, they don't suffer." You wouldn't think the same if you were bound in a cage with machines and tubes hooked into every limb, knives cutting pieces off of you, and all of this in the name of science? What scientists and doctors alike need to ask themselves is, "What is the goal?" Preservation of human life? But why? On an already-crowded planet with much less resources than we can sustain ourselves on, what is truly the end product?
Tom: I don't think anyone has stated "lesser" animals don't suffer, indeed, many have acknowledged this is plain to see, and anyone with a brain can tell you that sensations like pain are very real to even the smallest rodent.
However, you then go and make an appeal to emotion with the whole "You wouldn't like it if you were tested on, would you?" argument. I think we've debunked this kind of kneejerk reaction thoroughly already.
As to the ends? Well, as someone who works for a CRO which tests everything from agrochemicals and veterinary medicines to monoclonal antibodies targeting HIV, I think I can safely say the improvement of those currently alive is the key aim. I'm well aware of Malthus, climate change and peak oil, and I have a certain disposition against my own species at times, which is ironic given my job. But, I also like knowing that my job means the standard of living for those around now, whatever species they are, is improved via the small amount of suffering incurred by animal testing. I know the sacrifice of the few for the many is an iffy position to take morally, then again, no one really accepts that this testing is without moral hazards. Still, if several dozen rodents, Beagles or primates have to endure such tests in order to help countless others, do you not think it is worth it? The birth rate simply needs to come down in our species within the developing world in order to deal with excess growth and running into our own Liebig's limits (along with a more austere lifestyle for all), as I think you can agree, increasing the death rate is not preferable.
And we should separate RESEARCH, i.e. SCIENCE = producing new knowledge, either "basic" ("pure") or applied, from testing of new perfumes or make-ups. The first may be justified - either performed to know how organism works, or to obtain e.g. new cure for some desease. If the goal of the study is really important then sacrificing of animals can be accepted. The second should not be justified if it produces any harm or suffering.
Adm: My point is simply that the end-goal of this research is the extension of individual humans' lives. But is that what is best? Sure, it's nice that you might very well cure my grandmother's cancer, but what will happen when we're unequivocally overcrowded, no end in sight, and we haven't the resources to sustain our own lives, nevertheless the lives of everything in nature? What is the outcome of all of this "important" and "necessary" research? Where does it lead humanity?
We don't know, but without the knowledge gained humanity will be worse off. Open ended questions tend to be philosophically loaded, like yours, and at the end of the day likely to be irrelevant.
@268
I certainly think most human suffering is greater than animal suffering, as far as we can know. I think many adult higher mammals would suffer more than a human newborn, and I think this isn't considered nearly enough, we just stick suffering/intelligence figures on one species as a whole, ignoring how much that figure grows during the species development, the size of the disparity between the newborn and the adult (a newborn calf can do virtually as much as an adult cow within half an hour of leaving the womb). Humans probably have the largest intelligence disparity of all mammals between newborn and adult - even if you ignore the fact that we educate our young the most. A human baby has lot of postnatal brain development to do that is done prenatally in other animals, this is because it's a dangerous squeeze to get the babies large head out of the womb as it is.
Both the extremes of this issue use dogmatic rules rather than actually trying to approximate reduced suffering (yeah maximize happiness is probably the wrong way to phrase it) it's either: "There just ANIMALS! Who cares?!" or "Causing suffering is NEVER justified no matter what the outcome!". Both are equally infuriating. My post is a "you can't have it both ways" either only testing on animals of basic intelligence (newborn babies come surprisingly low in intelligence when compared to adult mammals as far as we know) or orphaned newborns also become subjects of testing to keep things morally fair and not speciesist.
I vote for respecting the pain of any being according to the development of its nervous system.
I suspect you mean in terms of organization, not development.
But if you use those criteria you're in a hell of strokes, trisomy, etc. I don't have problems, personally, with some of those consequences - but only because I'd offhandedly kill many humans but would do a lot for my horses and dogs. (shrug)
I certainly think most human suffering is greater than animal suffering, as far as we can know
Uh, no. You can explain things to a human.
A huge component of fear is ignorance and incomprehension. After I managed to explain things to him, I've done things to my horse that would have resulted in my head being crushed with a well-placed hoof.
If you accept that argument, most animal suffering (caused by humans or not!) is morally innocent.
Or are you saying that comprehending suffering makes it greater? (I.e.: it's more moral to suffer if you understand it and therefore it's somehow 'better' pain? Ugh. Sounds like something Mother Theresa would come up with.)
Nerd of Redhead, OM
We don't know, but without the knowledge gained humanity will be worse off.
But, as we're most likely to say, "My god, what have I done?!"
Man isn't worth any more or less than any other creature. We're just more powerful. Nihilism is an inevitable conclusion of our actions as well as our inactions.
In a democracy, the consent of the governed is from the social contract; i.e.: they submit to the will of the majority in preference to conflict. This cannot be said in the case of compulsion. Indeed, democracy is not fully moral unless it offers an alternative.
It is not moral for a democracy to vote to allow torture or capital punishment any more that it is moral for a democracy to allow animal testing. The only way to clear that particular dilemma up is to recogize that "moral" is meaningless.
For those of you realizing that you know little about ethics, and are feeling some slight discomfort about making claims about the nature of morality, rights, and moral considerability I would suggest starting some research here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/
This conversation has really made me rethink the value of this site as a whole. I must admit that I took a great deal of pleasure when some silly religious nut would come here and make misinformed pronouncements about science. Watching these hapless fools get taken apart was a joy. That said, I was quite excited when an animal rights conversation got going. Surely this conversation would be conducted with a bit of modesty. Many of us do not fully understand all the variety of ways that animals are used in science, and thus we should exercise a bit of caution before declaring ourselves either 'pro' or 'anti' testing. Further, I thought some may have realized that this involves ethical issues, an area that I am now quite confident very few of you realize is an area of active intellectual discussion. I say you don't realize this because surely the silly ethical theories that have been offered here would never have been uttered by a person who realized that better thinking has been done on these topics. I imagine that scientist hate nothing more than getting religious fools in their classes who think they know something about science when they are woefully misinformed. The foolishness we've seen here makes teaching ethics class just as terrible for me. I'll be cautious about making broad moral pronouncements about science because I realize I need more information-- about the science. Please avoid making pronouncements about ethics when there is so much more for you to learn. This was an opportunity for an interesting discussion. That opportunity has, as far as I can tell, been lost.
I don't think so. Scientists as a whole are not fools. Again, are you going to volunteer for tox testing of an unknown drug? It's either you or an animal. There has to be a first in vivo use test.
J Harris,
Do you realize that animal research is very very strictly regulated by ethics committees at universities in addition to national standards? Do you realize that trials must pass through "lower" organisms first loooooooooonnnnnnggggg before studies are ever allowed to be done on "higher" organisms (I use lower and higher to mean sentience, not as a dismissive term)? Do you realize that ALL experimentation must be vetted and get permission before it can proceed from multiple people? That experiments involving pain of any kind must be double anaesthetized unless the pain is part of the experiment (like using foot shock for learning) and that these sorts of experiments are carefully considered before permission is given? Do you realize that all animal houses are regulated by law to have veterinarians and that each animal must have a certain amount of space, food, and water by law?
In other words, animal experimentation is a very carefully regulated, ethical process.
Betcha PETA won't tell you that.
Does it smell smug around here?
It smells irrational and emotional around here.
Don't forget to show your support by signing the Pro-Test petition at www.raisingvoices.net
Rev, I described my post to my wife as being sanctimonious, bit I think smug works too.
LRA, I'm quite please to hear that universities regulate animal experimentation carefully. Do all animal experiments use the procedures set out by universities? Further, I think, some of the concern about animal experimentation also has to do with the needlessness of the experimentation. It's my impression that this is part of Peter Singer's objection to animal experimentation. For instance some of the LD50 tests done may result in many lives lost, but relatively little useful information. All the same, I appreciate the information.
Also, I'm not directing anyone to PETA. The link I provided was to the Stanford Encyclopedia for Philosophy. The only thing I was advocating was a bit more careful thinking.
J Harris, careful thinking is a two way street. Some information, such as LD50 data, is need to calculate OEL levels for worker exposure. How do we get this data in a meaningful way for new chemical entities? I'll be happy to save your animals if you take personal financial responsibility for any deaths/injuries/cancers that may occur because of lack of testing.
That's what people keep saying, but then I keep reading - often on Sb (including Orac's, and he's one of those who's remarked on the burdensome regulations) - of cruel and unethical experiments performed on animals*. So I'm not entirely buying this "carefully regulated" line.
*And I'll leave aside the issue of drug testing on poor people.
That's what people keep saying, but then I keep reading - often on Sb (including Orac's, and he's one of those who's remarked on the burdensome regulations) - of cruel and unethical experiments performed on animals*. So I'm not entirely buying this "carefully regulated" line.
always a bad apple in the bunch.
probability alone suggests there will be some who choose to flaunt proper husbandry guidelines.
They can be and usually are punished for it.
I've seen it.
I've got a ward full of sick children with their parents waiting for you to tell them that their quality of life and their very lives are worth less than those of rats.
But are the husbandry guidelines sufficient? I know for chimpanzees they are not (can't speak for other critters). Unfortunately, you know who gets to vote on what's proficient? For the most part, its people who have an active stake in biomedical labs. When professional primatologists like Jane Goodall and Roger Fouts go and try to get these regulations updated to fit the current research on chimpanzee physiological and psychological needs (like say increasing the minimum cage size, or reduce the use of solitary housing) they are not passed because the people who have the most votes in the process will lose money making these changes. Until we stop letting the people who spend the money make the decisions about the animals minimal needs, we can't really say that we are being reasonably ethical.
As it stands, chimpanzees are required to be kept in 5x5x7 foot cages, and have at least one piece of enrichment or a "enrichment plan" (even if it's not followed through). That means one ball, or one blanket their whole lives. Oh, and things like benches in an enclosure fit the requirement for enrichment too. They are required to have access to water one hour each day, and are in most cases only feed Zuupreem (monkey chow protein biscuits).
Also, at the facility I work at we have a chimpanzee who is 5'1"-5'2". He couldn't even lay out in an enclosure meeting the legal requirements. In addition, during "holding times" and transportation in biomedical facilities, chimpanzees may be kept in cages that are up to two feet smaller in all dimensions, and they can remain in these cages as long as a vet approves. The seven chimpanzees at a sanctuary near where I am (not the one I work in) were allowed to live in those cages for years. This isn't just a bad egg story, unfortunately, there are piles and piles of instances like this.
In psychological testing, sometimes they get "outdoor time" or even possibly social housing.
In biomedical, chimpanzees are almost always kept in solitary caging only, in elevated cages with slotted bars that make them easier to clean, but provide the chimpanzees no flat surface to lie on. Chimpanzees have the same complex social needs that we do. We use solitary confinement as the ultimate form of punishment at prisons. Why on earth can we consider this meeting their needs?
Not only is this not meeting the needs of the test animal, but is it really producing good results? If we are keeping animals in such an atypical environment, how can we say our results are truly effective? (Obviously this is more apt for the psychological research, but the chimpanzees' different immune system still comes into play for the physiological research, as demonstrated by the huge amount of wasted funding into chimpanzee AIDS research)
So, while we may have the IACAUC, that doesn't mean that what they are enforcing actually fits the animals needs. The problem often lies with what regulations the IACAUC has to work with.
*sufficient, not proficient, sorry.
As it stands, chimpanzees are required to be kept in 5x5x7 foot cages
please define which entities created and actually use these guidelines please.
Is this a national standard set up by the FDA?
is it a specific standard used by a lab somewhere?
be very specific.
...btw, it's not something I've ever seen, ANYWHERE primates are kept, either in zoos, or in research facilities within academic institutions.
Either or, at least you recognize it.
I say you don't realize this because surely the silly ethical theories that have been offered here would never have been uttered by a person who realized that better thinking has been done on these topics.
this sounds a lot like a Courtier's Reply, to me.
Well, zoos and santucaries in particilar tend to have different conditions, and these are just the MINIMUMS to which chimpanzees must be cared for according to the FDA. So, while some facilities certainly go beyond these minimums, not everywhere does. However, if we adovacating that this research is a "necessary evil"(as I do in the case of non-endangered animals), and that we are making the the best effort to reduce suffering, shouldn't we ensure these minimums are sufficient?
The cases that tend to be the worst are the non-university affiliated biomedical institutions, but some university affiliated ones still stick to most minimum requirements in an effort to increase control in research, or just lower costs.
If FDA specific enough, or would you like to me to see if I can find you a link somewhere?
Sorry, that last one was for me. Also, that number is for solitary housing, it does increase when you have multiple individuals.
So did you watch the linked video in #492?
(...not saying that HSUS is an unproblematic source, but on this issue it seems that they have a point.)
but some university affiliated ones still stick to most minimum requirements in an effort to increase control in research, or just lower costs.
which.
ones.
If FDA specific enough, or would you like to me to see if I can find you a link somewhere?
yup.
all I can find at the FDA is this statement:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html
...which was an interesting read in and of itself.
Which ones? Well, the most recent example I can think of Is the New Iberia research center at the University of Louisiana (Lafayette).
As for the documentation, I'll have to ask my boss for a copy or location on Monday. I'm an intern at a chimpanzee sanctuary that is located on but not owned by a university, and we are given the basics on the regulations and what kinds of violations to report to our university's IACAUC. In Retrospect, we learn FDA and CDC regulations, so maybe it's a CDC one. All I remember is that it is one of the government regulations.
That's what people keep saying, but then I keep reading - often on Sb (including Orac's, and he's one of those who's remarked on the burdensome regulations) - of cruel and unethical experiments performed on animals*.
zB? Specific examples from Orac's blog would be best since you brought him up.
Sydney, have you read this book?
Sure. My laptop freaked out when I went to RI for some reason, so I was only able to get one actual link:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/05/some_monkey_business_in_autis…
The other one that came to mind was another, absolutely horrid, autism study at Columbia. I'm sure if you do a search there for it, it'll come up. I think I left comments on both of those threads. The thing that most bothers me about it is that the research was so poorly designed as to be useless anyway, so any ill-treatment of the animals is totally gratuitous. I was told there, IIRC, that the review boards don't take into account the necessity of the research or the quality of the study design in the approval process, which, if true, I see as a problem. I'm also a bit bothered that Orac seems only to point out these cases when they're related to certain issues (vaccines, HIV-related quackery), but then doesn't bring them up in the context of discussions about animal research in general. He does the same thing with research on people, arguing recently that some insane HIV vitamin research in Africa violated ethical standards without noting that those standards have been chipped away at, not well enforced in practice, and ultimately scrapped by the FDA last year, as I mentioned here just recently:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/20/9084
As for the documentation, I'll have to ask my boss for a copy or location on Monday.
Id like to see that, and which orgs contributed to the development of the guidelines, if you run into them.
then I'd like to see just how common it is that research facilities "work exactly to guideline" (especially the cage size issue), as again, I've been involved in a lot of animal research myself, and have yet to see a large animal crammed into such a small space.
ALL of this aside, that some tend to abuse the privilege of being able to work with animals to solve important questions has little to do with whether or not we should continue working with them.
The thing that most bothers me about it is that the research was so poorly designed as to be useless anyway, so any ill-treatment of the animals is totally gratuitous.
pretty much my point. It becomes a double-smackdown for researchers involved in poor husbandry.
I'm also a bit bothered that Orac seems only to point out these cases when they're related to certain issues (vaccines, HIV-related quackery), but then doesn't bring them up in the context of discussions about animal research in general.
why? Didn't you also just point out, in what i quoted in my previous post, that most of these were so poorly designed as to be useless anyway?
why would Orac, or anyone, make general conclusions about the efficacy of animal studies based on ones that had been carried out so poorly?
Huh?
Is there some reason you can't watch that video from #492? How big are those isolation cages?
Honestly it is really easy to find out Orac's thoughts on using animals in research.
Huh?
they get smacked down from their colleagues for both poor husbandry and poor research protocol.
clearer?
again, I've seen that happen one time, with someone who worked on vision in cats at UCB, and he quickly cleaned up his act.
What the hell? I'm not suggesting he make general conclusions about the efficacy of animal research based on them; I'm asking that when he's speaking about animal-rights activism he take into account cases of unethical research (which apparently was approved by universities) that he himself has called attention to in other contexts. The question isn't whether animal studies are or can be efficacious, but whether they are being carried out ethically in practice.
Is there some reason you can't watch that video from #492? How big are those isolation cages?
I'm speaking of personal experience within academia (and that's considerable - gotta be at least 3 dozen or more institutions in the US, Canada, and the South Pacific), not vids of other places I've never been.
...and that vid doesn't answer any of my questions as to who sets guidelines, how commonly they are or are not followed, etc.
did you have some other point?
otherwise, can we move on now?
rev, you might have wanted to highlight Orac's closing line there:
First, I haven't seen evidence of them having been smacked down for poor husbandry (unless you count blog posts). Second, I'm concerned about these studies having been approved in the first place.
You seem to be in a bit of a snit tonight. Not sure if I want to have a conversation with you about this.
? I'm not suggesting he make general conclusions about the efficacy of animal research based on them
forgive me, that's not what I understood when I read this part:
but then doesn't bring them up in the context of discussions about animal research in general.
The question isn't whether animal studies are or can be efficacious, but whether they are being carried out ethically in practice.
and who decides what's "ethical"?
I rather think that is the reason you don't see Orac commenting much along those lines, but I also think you might want to read the article that RBDC linked to to see Orac's actually thought process in "action", as it were. To see how we tend to rationalize the ethics of working on one animal over another.
He's right to be concerned as to what the effects of that will be.
Not for me, since for some reason I can't go there tonight. Could I ask what's there that's relevant to this discussion?
Honestly, I don't understand how questioning or looking critically at how research is being carried out in practice is being read as opposing all animal research.
Yes, you read that wrong.
Well, that's an important question. Who in practice is deciding what's ethical, how, and how well are the standards that have been decided upon being enforced? I don't think it helps the animal-research cause simply to get defensive about it whenever the subject comes up.
What is?
First, I haven't seen evidence of them having been smacked down for poor husbandry (unless you count blog posts).
that's because you aren't in those departments, but instead relying on second hand information through the blogosphere.
Second, I'm concerned about these studies having been approved in the first place.
sometimes, the studies that are approved look good as they pass through animal use committees* but they end up different in practice due to a lack of funds, or materials, or what have you. Or, the investigators responsible simply lied in the interviews. Happens. There is a huge amount of resources and effort spent to make sure all research within a university is done responsibly, and much of that has been due to fuckups of the type you have seen. Is it always effective? Hell no. That doesn't imply that there are no effective oversight measures. For every one fucked up animal research project that makes it to the blogosphere, how many MORE examples are there where there was good husbandry that result in excellent published papers? How would you be able to compare, given that you probably will never hear of "good" research within the general news-sphere?
* BTW, yes, there actually are animal use protocol committees at most universities that you must submit an animal use report to, and justify your use of animals in a specific research project in a personal interview in front of the committee. Moreover, that was 20 years ago, when I was a grad student; it's even more involved for most institutions now.
What is?
ethics.
read his comments about surgical training using dogs to understand why he might be concerned about personal bias influencing the decision as to what constitutes "ethical" animal research.
When I was a grad student, over the 4 years I was at UCB I saw a strange thing happen wrt to animal use protocols.
1st year: only mammals were considered to be "animals" (this was the year before I arrived)
2nd year: birds and reptiles added.
3rd year: amphibians and fish.
Was it "ethical" to add, or leave out for that matter, any specific one of the above groups to begin with?
early on in the thread, the Rev in response to someone pointing out a specific bad case in point as suggesting all animal research should be stopped, compared that to an animal rights movement terrorist attack, and asked the poster if they then though all animal rights activists were terrorists.
It was a good point, and I'd like to extend it to SC's concerns posted above. If the activities listed in the article below appear common (well, they're in the blogosphere regularly enough), how should that impact the ethics of the animal rights movement itself?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=61
this article also has an excellent summary of what is inaccurate in many of the arguments animal rights activists tend to put forward.
So if people are concerned, they should just trust that something is being done in-house? That doesn't exacty seem wise, or the best way to protect animals from abuse.
Then this is a serious issue and safeguards should be put in place.
Who has argued that?
I'll just note here that these didn't make it to RI in the context of discussing animal research, but of discussing other issues.
Of course you do, all the time. But it's not a question of the amount of unethical research outweighing the amount of ethically-performed research, but of any unethical research occurring. You've simply asserted that it's just a few "bad apples" and that these people are sanctioned. But it's possible that there are broader problems that need attention.
No kidding. That's why I referred to them in my comment above, and discussed them on the threads at RI. I'm saying that if Orac is discussing the ethics of animal studies it's disingenuous not to note the cases in which these safeguards fail that he himself has pointed to in other contexts.
I really don't know if you're responding to my comments at this point. Nothing you're saying seems to have much to do with what I'm saying. And as I've said twice now, I can't read them because my computer is not allowing me to go to the site.
I'm not making, or interested in involving myself in, any arguments about the ethics of individual practices. I'm interested in the institutional structures and processes through which these standards are decided upon, changed, and enforced. Sheesh.
OK. I have no idea what you're talking about.
SC are you ignoring the IACUC?
No, I'm saying that I believe that in the cases I mentioned at RI, Orac asked in his post "Where was the IACUC?" (you can find probably those exact words in the post there that I linked to above). That seems to me like an important question, and one that needs to be answered. It appears these are far from foolproof mechanisms, and I don't think people would be as unconcerned about these failures if we were talking about IRBs.
But if the regulations are in place then we should procecute the ones that don't follow the guidelines. You can't demonize everyone who follows the rules because there are those that don't.
Or did I totally misunderstand what you are getting at. It's highly possible as I've been playing with my new pup and drinking, heavily.
SC are you ignoring the IACUC
The IACUCs are in-house committees, so asking how much we should trust in-house oversight is not "ignoring" them.
Yes, totally. :)
New pup?! Yay! What kind? What's his/her name?
I'm still heartbroken over the loss of my little boo. Nice to hear about puppies.
Humm. Seems I don't know what I'm talking about with the IACUCs.
Not rare but I'll step away slowly...
*refills Makers on the rocks
A 2 year old Choc lab from our local Labrador Rescue.
He was a stray and I have no idea how anyone could lose/get rid of a dog like this.
He's HUGE and solid muscle and a total sweetheart.
They called him JD at the pound and the foster home. We were going to call him something else but figured he knew JD so we're sticking with it.
i'm in love. We put our 12 year old black lab down in oct because he had lymphoma so it was a big decision.
Not sure my husky likes it right now but he'll adjust.
Clearly you're insane.
/Walton
They're great dogs.
I think it's cute.
I remember. I sent you an email, and it was even harder to write because I was reminded that with my dog's 14th birthday approaching I probably didn't have much more time with her.
***
Enjoy the new pup!
Yeah that's right.
He's currently licking my foot. Something he seems to want to do alot.
Good for you Rev. in taking in a breed rescue dog.
We have two Bulldogs, one horribly disfigured by abuse and one amputee. They fit into a very quiet home, and because we love the breed we are happy to have them. They have some quirks, and your dog may have some too - but good on you and the Mrs. Dumb Chimp for taking the chance!
Our previous lab and our current Husky are both rescues as well.
Wouldn't have it any other way.
I support animal testing for research necessary to human survival. That is for medical research, but I don't support it for cosmetic shit that's unnecessary for human survival and there's really no need for the products. If a company can't make eyeliner that's non-toxic to humans then well too friggin' bad, cuz I'd rather see an actual raccoon than see a woman wearing too much eyeliner that LOOKS like a raccoon.
So if people are concerned, they should just trust that something is being done in-house?
I'm saying that your perception of what oversight is already in place appears more colored by looking at the relatively few cases where it failed, than the vast, vast majority where it works fine and dandy. Very much like how one shouldn't form a comprehensive view of animal activism base on rare terrorist acts amongst animal activists.
I'm also saying that you should visit a biology dept. and find out for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it, or anyone else for that matter.
animal use protocols are typically a matter of public record, and oversight often involves people from outside of the university anyway, so unis typically have no problems with people asking about these things directly.
I'm interested in the institutional structures and processes through which these standards are decided upon, changed, and enforced.
All I'm pointing out that the idea of "ethics" as applied to those processes is often based on entirely subjective notions and biased perceptions (again, see Orac's debate on mice vs. dogs as suitable subjects for surgical training), and has little or nothing to do with any actual scientific data. We need to be careful when deciding on animal use protocols that we avoid too much subjective opinion in forming them, as way too much of it has already influenced them (mostly coming from pressure by animal activists themselves); often not for the better.
This also was why I listed how what those protocols encompassed changed over time at UCB, as the subjective "feelings" of the external committee members (nothing based on any science whatsoever), re-defined what "animal" itself even meant over time.
My parents kept dogs but, for what I've come to recognize were mostly religious reasons, didn't think to treat their children quite as well. So, I've become a cat person, especially once an ex left me with a seal-point Himalayan whom I met as a kitten. Years later, but far too soon, I found myself nursing him after kidney failure until more than a week of injecting saline at home, after a week of that at the vet, was more painful than both of us could bear.
The younger rescue kitten, whom my wife and I had adopted years before, took both the loss of her senior cat, and the addition of a toddler, badly, becoming a recluse, so we decided to bring in a younger cat to pull her out of her seclusion. Agreeing that the new kitten should have a playmate of equivalent age, we adopted a rescued boy and girl, who succeeded in restoring our senior cat's social graces. An elderly female, a young female, and a young male got along OK at first, but apparently when the young female was neutered, they missed a spot, so every once in a while she noisily confuses the young children and the formerly male cat, to no avail.
What's worse, the former male cat never quite got the hang of litter box 101, so, despite three litter boxes (with SWheat ScoopTM, clay dust reputed to be not so good for kidneys), he never thought to do more than randomly scratch, leaving it for the other cats to bury in exasperation. After a couple of years of this, he suddenly decided that litter boxes were no longer for him, and so he picked about three to five spots in the house that he decided were "his" leading to much consternation. We have wooden floors that are easy to clean, but having finished potty-training one child, with another not yet out of diapers, part of the deal with cats is that they're supposed to come, and stay, potty-trained, so we were ready to give this one back. Unfortunately, surrendering a rescued cat to a shelter, in the hope that another household will be better for him, is essentially a death sentence; even consigning the cat to the outside world would also shorten his life. Eventually we found that we'd been trained to leave three litter pans lined with newspaper, which turn out to be far easier and less messy and less expensive to clean than litter--it's as if he's more fastidious than the other cats, who need to splash litter all over their area. Now I'd like to train them to newspaper...
Meanwhile, the last time I worked for Walt Disney Imagineering, on the project I left just before Randy Pausch signed on and wound up documenting it, another researcher who designed and built our VR project's head mounted displays ended up being in charge of the project about the same time. This guy had become an authority on the visual cortex, prior to becoming an Imagineer, partly due to research he had conducted on kittens: sewing their eyes shut at birth, and waiting X number of weeks before sectioning their brains to examine the resulting underdevelopment / compensation in their visual cortices. This earned him the nickname, "Dr. Mengele," which was more fun to say while reminding each other of the fact that his wife, as he claimed, would not let him watch The Simpsons, because it was so distasteful.
So, the next time you go to ride a "pitch and puke" motion simulator like Star Tours, and notice the difference between 24 frames per second and 60 frames per second, or ponder the difference between a Samsung HD Plasma display with 120HZ vs. 240Hz, and wonder why some of those experiences prompt what Theme Park cleanup crews euphemistically describe as a "protein spill" or a headache, or an epileptic fit, or, don't have any ill effects at all, please remember the kittens who never saw a thing on your behalf.
Well, I mentioned the video because you were asking Sydney S. of examples - why did you bother to ask if you're only interested in what you've personally seen?
And two people who actually work with chimpanzees have spoken of major issues with chimp medical research in the US. Why haven't these problematic studies been "smacked down" yet?
You have mentioned this incident numerous times in the past, but frankly I don't know why you find it so objectionable. UCB is hardly alone in extending regulation from mammals to other vertebrates in recent decades, it has happened all over the developed world. Do you have some basic problem with this development? Of course it sounds silly to go about it by redefining "animal", but that's bureaucracy for you.
No perception is "already in place" and I haven't formed any "comprehensive view." I'm raising questions based on some failures of which I've seen evidence, and you're being defensive. And again this business about "the vast, vast majority where it works fine and dandy" is just an assertion at this point.
No, and I don't, but visiting one department wouldn't be a good basis for any comprehensive view. Again, I'm interested in these processes of decision-making and enforcement more broadly.
I would think they should always be a matter of public record.
You say this so casually, but this is part of what I'm asking about - how is this organized, and how is it working out? Is it the best possible system? If there are problems, is anything being done about them?
That's big of them, especially public universities. Then my and Orac's questions about these cases should be easy to answer. I really can't understand your lackadaisical "Happens" attitude.
Who is "we"? And what about the times that this pressure has had an impact for the better? You appear to be saying that the "subjective" views of people outside departments can only interfere with the "objective" positions held by the scientists within them. Democracy and transparency be damned - "trust us, we're doctors." I'm saying this guarded posture is not conducive to the best practices for making and enforcing these decisions. I don't see how in a functioning institutional context scientific data can't be presented and policies rationally and openly debated.
So, what, the scientists had no subjective feelings? Isn't this definition - and the ethics of this more broadly - an important public question that will always involve subjective judgments, or do you as a biologist have an objective, science-based answer?
Would you approach research with human subjects the same way?
I missed a spot in #578... two people who work with chimps have spoken up in this thread, in case that wasn't clear.
There's a little bit of dissonance in that sentence...
(Why would anyone voluntarily wish to keep a potentially dangerous animal in their house? I will never understand dog owners. Or snake owners, for that matter.)
He referred to me as "morally depraved and not particularly bright" on another thread.
It's your own poor social skills that lead you to think that my comment about you is an example of mine. It was not a rant, rave, or curse, but rather a statement of fact that is the general view of this community, and so it increases my standing; notice how people came to my defense here, even to the point that someone defended my social skills (at least compared to yours) who had recently claimed that I lack them (it was on April 1, so we can pretend it wasn't serious, and perhaps allow that all water to slowly flow under the bridge).
But I am NOT going to be drawn into discussing libertarianism, since I will then be accused of "hijacking another thread"
Right, because popping in here out of nowhere with a post entirely about me and my social skills was so on topic.
P.S.
But I am NOT going to be drawn into discussing libertarianism, since I will then be accused of "hijacking another thread" (and it will conveniently be forgotten that you were the one who brought it up).
Wrong, you dishonest fool, it was you who raised the subject by quoting my "morally depraved" comment, which 'Tis Himself reiterated and expanded upon ... without ever using the word "libertarianism", so it's clear that even you understand that they are equivalent.
Why would anyone voluntarily wish to keep a potentially dangerous animal in their house? I will never understand dog owners.
As opposed to gun owners, guns being so loyal and loving.
I believe I suggested not that you lack social skills but that
*steps back*
*pictures flowing water*
That's your contempt for poor people. I know you don't feel a red-hot burning rage against them, but you're confusing this absence of rage for an absence of hatred. Not so. Your hatred of poor people is cold contempt.
I don't think it's contempt, I think it's indifference; Walton doesn't value people (or dogs). But he does value things, and he sees others valuing people, so he comes up with sort of a cargo cult version, valuing the relationship between people and things -- "property rights". So the poor don't matter, not even the rich matter, but a loaf bread and ownership of the loaf of bread matter.
How so?
Rev.: "A 2 year old Choc lab"
Walton: "Why would anyone voluntarily wish to keep a potentially dangerous animal in their house?"
Ha! Hahahahahahahahahaha! Get a clue, Walton.
I believe I suggested not that you lack social skills
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/yeah_the_catholic_church_has…
*steps back*
*pictures flowing water*
Stepping back in time ... I apologize for my alter ego's "shallow ideologue" comment. It was wrong, and you were right to call me a cruel _____.
And you were so damn quick to identify me upon my return ... you still impress me.
"Far more--and much worse--animal suffering is caused by factory farms. The protesters seem curiously silent on that subject. Wonder why."
I'm vegan and commented on this very thing when Orac blogged about it. Of course there's peaceful protests on both things, but the terrorists really seem to target the scientists.
Yes, it was, because for much of this thread you were flinging abuse and invective at those who dared disagree with you. I was merely commenting on the fact that it's not just me who is the target of your ranting.
In all honesty, it was "not particularly bright" which really stung. I don't give a fuck if you think I'm "morally depraved". You don't know me, and consequently your judgment as to my moral character is completely worthless, not to mention clouded by your own prejudices.
An insult to my intelligence, on the other hand, is something which I cannot help but take personally. As you may have picked up by now (though, given your self-evident insensitivity to others' feelings, you probably haven't), I have huge mental and emotional problems. If I don't have intelligence, then I have virtually no redeeming characteristics at all. If you genuinely think I'm stupid, you're essentially telling me that I might as well go and kill myself now and stop wasting oxygen. Is that what you think? If so, then have the fucking courage to say it.
Oh. So I did. :0
Well, now I'm impressed. Thank you for that - it means a lot.
Walton, you need professional help. I'm very concerned about you. You have to get counseling. Please, please, please go talk to a professional.
I'll be fine. I was exaggerating a bit when I said "huge" mental and emotional problems. But I do have self-esteem issues, and "nothing's sacred"'s comments hit me harder than they should have done.
I don't need professional help, just a bit of sensitivity.
PS to ns: And I apologize for my "good man" comment in our subsequent exchange.
Walton:
You've mentioned suicide on more than one occasion. That is a clear sign that you're not OK. You need counseling, which is nothing at all to be ashamed of.
You're not going to find much sensitivity here, especially if you keep talking the crap that you have been.
Guns don't kill people. People (and dogs) kill people.
Counselling will address the symptoms, not the causes. It won't magically make me good-looking, socially competent, interesting, bright or knowledgeable.
In the end, nature is random and deeply unfair. Some people are born with worthwhile features and abilities, and others with nothing. The former succeed and propagate. The latter - those of us who are nature's failures - can do nothing more noble than live out our days consuming food and resources, going round in circles in our pointless little lives and waiting to die. Counselling won't change that. It'll just make me feel better. It's like taking a painkiller when your leg's been ripped off; taking away the pain doesn't do anything to give you back your leg.
Is the concept of a watchdog at all familiar to you?
To amplify what SC wrote, there is nothing shameful about getting counseling or other psychological help. It's not a moral failing on your part. If you broke a bone, you'd feel no stigma about getting it treated. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with getting emotional problems treated.
This place is not a touchy-feely, flower spot where you'll get tea and sympathy. Nor is it a hail fellow well met club. This is more a pub full of rugby players from competing teams. You will not get any sort of emotional support here.
Walton, this alone is evidence enough that you need counseling. Why won't you give it a try? Please. I'm begging you.
After reading every post on this subject it appears that one fact is still indisputable: Some animal research is humane and some still is not. So as a community of scientists, why aren't there any pressures being brought upon those institutions and individuals that are conducting inhumane research? In-house ethics committees are not always working. It obviously has a negative effect on us all. Wouldn't an organization of rational scientists be more effective in dealing and policing this issue than PETA? Re-work some of the rules on necessecity of research and primate treatment, enforce those rules to the letter in every research lab (public or private), and make it a norm that this subject is to be dealt with head-on and not pushed to the side-lines. What's the new catch word? Transparency. If a lab has something to hide, well then, they have something to hide.....
Walton,
No-one is born with low self esteem. You picked it up somewhere along the line and if you picked it up you can - with perhaps a little effort - get rid of it again. The idea that The World's final verdict on you should be both wholly negative and passed on someone at your age is ridiculous.
Even with this distance and anonymity I can see several things about you which are decidedly positive. You write well, even when you are talking rubbish. You would not be where you are today without the gift of intelligence: a little more wisdom about how you use that intelligence would help but wisdom tends to come with time if you'll only give yourself a chance to acquire it. I also see a sharp sense of humour trying to get out sometimes.
Counselling is not a magic pill, nor is it always mumbo jumbo if you take good advice on which counsellor to see. You'll have to do much of the work yourself but you've already proved you have the ability to do that - you can think. Counselling simply provides a framework within which to do that job - brings a little order to the chaos.
And, yes, you are sensitive. What I don't understand, I'll admit this, is why you are so determined to use that sensitivity against yourself when you could make it the foundation of great worldly success as others have done - though perhaps not as a political philosopher.
I second SC's recommendation not because we are a couple of nasty old bitches but because, being a little older and a little less afraid of some of the ideas which freak you out, we know what we're talking about. Believe us, please.
Walton, I've been where you are; heck, in some ways I'm still where you are and I'm reasonably sure that I'll be there for the rest of my life.
I'm not physically attractive either. I don't do all that well in social situations. While I like to think I'm intelligent, it's certainly not in any way that appears to be noticed by other people who meet me in person. I've got an average job, I live by myself and - as you can probably judge from the frequency of posts - I spend a lot of time on the internet rather than in bars or in beds or in the (physical) company of interesting people.
Yeah, I can put words together in an amusing and (I'd like to think) thought-provoking (not to mention insulting, when necessary) way - but that's something that, outside of here, no-one values very much at all.
Being unattractive and socially awkward isn't everything. It really isn't. Yeah, you might have a smaller circle of friends than other people have. Sure, you might have to spend a lot more of your time alone than other people do - but it doesn't have to be the end of the world.
Find what you enjoy doing - that doesn't involve other people who judge you on your appearance or don't understand your personality - and do it. Don't let your happiness be determined by what 'most people' (or the marketing/advertising industry) think should make you happy.
I got into amateur theatre, and have managed to eke out a social life (of sorts) from that. Maybe that's not for you, but there are other things you can do where the sort of judgemental attitudes you face in other places don't apply.
But, if what I say makes absolutely no sense to you whatsoever, and you can't ever see yourself being happy no matter what, then you should definitely get some help as SC and the others have suggested.
Walton,
Several people, both in this thread and previously, have recommended that you seek counseling for your self-esteem issues. You've alluded to these problems several times and the response has been uniform. We think you need to have counseling.
Believe it or else, there are people here who actually give a damn about you. Please listen to us.
Rev BDC #572
He's probably interested in the bacon socks you wear.
Dude, seriously. I doubt anyone here really thinks you are stupid. I sure don't. I think you are wrong on many things but you are far from being stupid (at least from what I can tell from blog comments).
And couselling addresses the core issues. It can't change somethings but it gives you the path to be more accepting of yourself.
Trust me. I've been through it and it does help.
Of course I look exactly like Brad Pitt and I'm the most charming person on earth so I didn't have far to go...
/sarcasm
Now to address this...
I've been a dog owner my entire life and never once has any dog I have owned bitten anyone. And if you find the data (if it exists) I'm sure you would see that the vast majority of dogs do not harm people. It's the dogs owned by shitty owners that are the problem, not the dogs.
I currently have three dogs in my house (we have a red headed step dog we keep for a friend when she travels) and none of them is anything but a big teddy bear. My 85-90 lbs. new Labrador, a 70 Lbs. husky and a smaller 60 lbs. Lab. All are big babies and would be more likely to lick you to death before they'd ever bite you.
Walton, this is another subject on which you are speaking from ignorance.
I have been bitten by a dog. I have the lightning bolt shaped scar on my face to this day (no I'm not harry potter). Want to know why the dog bit me?
Because the person that owned it used to beat it. All the time. It was a sad case of a bad owner transferring his anger to the dog. The dog responded in kind.
You should seriously reconsider your dog opinions. I honestly think that having one and seeing the love and loyalty you can get from a good dog would be helpful for you.
I'll leave you folks to settle the problems of the world and Oxford undergraduates. I'm going for a sail.
Looks like fun. Come pick me up in Charleston harbor. I'll be the one wearing the bacon socks.
I apologise (not for the first time, nor, I suspect, for the last) for bringing my personal issues into this forum where they don't belong. I'll stop hijacking the thread now.
Thanks to Tis Himself, SC, Wowbagger, Rev et al for the advice. And, re counselling, you're probably right.
@515
Well I think apprehension of suffering makes it worse, but I would agree with you that if a human knew it wouldn't result in their death and that it would be brief, but an animal who went under the same test didn't, that would increase suffering in the animal. I think the most important variable in calculating suffering is the intelligence of the sufferer as far as we can calculate that. However if we randomly tested adults without consent explanation wouldn't help much and the terror apprehension of all adults everywhere that they could be tested would cause it to produce far more suffering (through the universal apprehension) than if creatures who couldn't apprehend it were tested. My main point was that this would include human newborns and so if people are willing to perform tests on Chimpanzees it would be a double standard if they weren't prepared to perform them on orphaned newborns (which are also vastly less intelligent than adult Chimpanzees). In this regard I think my view overlaps with yours in that it would not always cause more suffering to test humans rather than animals.
Yes: 63% (87529 votes)
No: 37% (51557 votes)
w00t!
Well-designed, humanely done animal research can also benefit other animals. Veterinary medicine is doing amazing things these days. We used to have only two choices with a seriously ill pet: let nature take its course, or have the animal put to sleep. Nowadays vets have treatment options nearly on a par with the human members of the family.
Those of you that voted in the LA Times poll might also consider adding your signature to the UCLA Pro-Test petition at www.raisingvoices.net
This isn't about rights, it's about consent. An animal can't give it, a human can.
I have yet to hear a single all-mighty scientist stand up and volunteer to be a test subject, even if it meant 'saving human lives'. Can't you see how cowardly this is?
Get over yourselves, you're just not that special, that others need to go in your place. In this, you sound a lot more like a religiot than some enlightened atheist.
Ichthyic:
Apparently I mixed up which organizations did what. The regulations regarding housing, water access, enrichment plans, etc are under the Animal Welfare Act, which is under the USDA. These things can be found mostly in C.F.R. § Part 3, subpart D, Section 3.7 & 3.8.
Sorry for that error. This isn't information I have to use regularly. I may intern at a captive primate facility, but I study primate behavioral ecology in free living situations, and am more well versed in those studies and materials.
Also, I made another error in that I said the regulations were that they had to have access to water one hour a day, it is actually one hour, twice a day.
I am not the only one who thinks these requirements are inadequate. The USDA itself finds them to be lacking, and drafted improvements in 1999. However, there was an outcry of researchers touting the costs and practicality of improving conditions, and the document was never instated, even though they had is as an "urgent change". A few animal welfare organizations took them to court over it in 2002, and it's been bouncing around over it for years, not sure what the current status it.
So, my main point is that while I find certain research to be necessary, and support it going on when done in a humane fashion, I don't believe it's fair of us to portray this testing as humane by hiding behind the IACAUC. The IACAUC system only works if the federal laws are up to par on the needs of the animal. So, even though many places may go above and beyond the law, the law is still found to be lacking.
Well, let me qualify that, I support it in non-endangered species. In case people missed my much earlier post, the US is doing some shady work where chimpanzees, and chimpanzees alone are suddenly not endangered when they are in the US. Which is why the US and Gabon are the only countries that allow them to be used for biomedical research.
I feel we should not be doing biomedical testing on an endangered species to help an overpopulated one, especially through means of "relabeling". Use another critter.
If I don't have intelligence, then I have virtually no redeeming characteristics at all.
I'm genuinely sorry that you feel that way. It's hard to imagine that it's true. And I didn't say that you don't have intelligence, nor do I think it.
If you genuinely think I'm stupid, you're essentially telling me that I might as well go and kill myself now and stop wasting oxygen. Is that what you think? If so, then have the fucking courage to say it.
I had the courage (although I don't think it took any) to tell the truth: I don't think you're particularly bright (keep in mind that this is forum where a lot of people are particularly bright). That's not to say you're stupid; you aren't. And if you don't agree with my evaluation, why would you kill yourself because of it? You're certainly intelligent enough, and courageous enough, to acknowledge that you have emotional and esteem problems (but don't think you're alone in that) -- please keep that in mind when you start feeling bad about yourself just because someone -- especially someone you consider rude and insensitive -- says something negative about you.
You should never be looking for a magical solution for any of those. You actually need to work on acquiring those skills gradually. Expecting yourself to go from social-retard to the bell of the ball overnight is best save for nerdy girls who are hidden by glasses and a bad hairstyle in Hollywood films. For the rest of us, it takes work, goal-setting and gradually working towards achieving your goals.Think of it like an RPG. You aren't going to go slay dragons as a noob, you need to start out slaying rats. Then work your way to skeletons and zombies. And so on and on, all the way until you are ready to take the dragon. i.e. set small achievable goals that will gradually progress you to where you want to go.
Or, alternatively, saying to the people of the world, 'screw you all; I've got books, arthouse cinema and a love of indie rock music - what do I need you for?'
Worked for me.
And I apologize for my "good man" comment in our subsequent exchange.
I don't remember that. It was the notion that you had dodged a bullet that really stung ... going back and looking at it, I wrote "shallow ideologue" after that -- I was being reactionary. Neither of us was very nice to each other that day, but you were still recovering from some previous unpleasantness (I've forgotten what). Your comment that "you can't treat people you claim to like, respect, or care about like trash" stuck with me and is a big part of why I have tried to be a bit different here this time.
Wowbagger - All this time I was imagining you to be one of those exotic handsome beasts, and then you had to say you were unattractive. What's with that? Drink a can of swagger. ;)
Well, that was then; now I'm a bit more comfortable with, as they say, 'who I am' - so I can (and do) manage a swagger or two from time to time.
It really is about attitude. Physically, I look like I could be the result of an experiment to create someone who looked like a combination of Gene Wilder, Christopher Walken and the kid that plays Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter films. But I have had a few admirers; this took me by surprise at first but became less of a shock once I understood how people who aren't high school morons thought.
My thing - I could say problem, but I don't think of it that way - is that I'm really quite solitary, and I actually opt out of doing a lot of interacting with people because of that. I'm okay in short bursts, but having to spend more than a few hours at a time with anyone actually makes me really uncomfortable.
Counselling will address the symptoms, not the causes. It won't magically make me good-looking, socially competent, interesting, bright or knowledgeable.
You would be surprised. I was in counseling for 10 years; it didn't fix me, but man you should have seen how bad off I was before.
Guns don't kill people. People (and dogs) kill people.
That you write that sort of thing is part of why I evaluate your intelligence as I do. Aside from it being a foolish mantra that intentionally misrepresents events as having single causes, the issue is the danger of having dogs vs. guns in one's house, where people are present and interact with them, so the fact that guns (generally, but not always) aren't self-directed agents is not relevant. If you had, or were using, a particular amount of intelligence, you would recognize that the fact that *some* dogs *sometimes* kill people is no reason not to keep a dog that almost certainly *won't* kill anyone in the house, any more than having electricity in one's house, or bananas, or stairways, or numerous other things that sometimes kill people.
The question is, since you're not stupid, why do you say such stupid things? Perhaps it has nothing to do with intelligence, but is, at least in this case, due to some irrational (disproportionate) fear of dogs, people, and other self-directed agents.
Yeah that too, but replace indie rock with prog metal for me.
I've been where walton is before. Hell I'm still sort of there now. But I improved a hell of a lot, I stopped expecting myself to be Mr fucking perfect and realised that I'm going to have to start from the beginning - it will be as embarrassing as all hell but it's better than wallowing in self-pity. And I'm a far better person for doing so. I'm happy and well-adjusted. I enjoy what I do with my life, and even though I'm still uncomfortable in social situations around strangers, I'm far better than I was before.
If you are unhappy with your life, surely it's obvious to try and make a change.
[Patricia, see my comment @ #594 and 'Tis Himself's @ #598.]
ns:
No.
I'm glad of that, and flattered that you would consider my opinion so seriously.
I hope some emotional trust can be rebuilt in both directions. (I may have to delete those emails first...)
I honestly think that having one and seeing the love and loyalty you can get from a good dog would be helpful for you.
In particular they are great for people with low self-esteem, because they provide so much love and affection.
Walton, its' difficult for me to read #596 and not think it's satire, but apparently it really isn't, which makes it tragic., not just for you but for all the others whom you judge to be so worthless. Reading it, I now realize that you are not so much morally depraved as morally disordered; that you have a deep hurt that is manifested in your moral judgments. Counseling can alleviate and possibly even eliminate that hurt -- really; I speak from experience (about alleviation, at least).
this is not only stupid but disjointed from reality. If that were the case, then all we'd see is people born with worthwhile features and abilities - because natural selection would weed out the undesirables. But this is crap and you know it Walton, do you honestly think that most people who are successful are born that way? That the musicians you call talented haven't spent most of their lives training, or the [shudder] lawyers who are the most successful haven't put in the hard yards? Being born naturally gifted can only get you so far, even Tiger Woods who is a natural at golf spent hour after hour, day after day training to improve his abilities. Nature may give some a slight advantage, being born into the right family may give a socio-economic advantage. Some may be put at a disadvantage by both. But that isn't the be-all and end-all of your existence. There's this thing called life, and by living it, you gain experience. That's how funny people are funny, that's how successful people are successful. Very few are born into it or get it easy.
Ah, the emails; I had forgotten about them. I could have responded very differently to your "checking in", but I was hurt and defensive and determined to prove myself right, rather than respond to your offering. That exchange could be in a textbook on transactional analysis of human relations.
SC - Yes, re-reading that with your explanation of the slant makes it easier to see.
Actually, I've seen plenty of emotional support here for people dealing with death, sickness, floods, hurricanes, etc. We're a bunch of foul mouthed rowdies, but not totally heartless.
Until Walton's pout and pity fest became the focus, I thought I had a perfect chance to derail the conversation into a cat thread (particularly with my tales of unusual litterbox behaviors), but it looks like the dogs have the cats outnumbered.
What Walton may not have noticed in his apparent puzzlement over why people keep dogs, is that the mentality of a dog is sort of frozen at the level of a smart 2 year old child, and there are many people who can never, or should never, or will never, or never will again, be parents; dogs and people thrive sharing that emotionally vulnerable space. If more people kept dogs and left it at that, there'd probably be fewer people, and fewer messed up ones, as a result.
:D
Of course not (this thread itself is evidence of that). That's not what we were saying either.
What Walton may not have noticed in his apparent puzzlement over why people keep dogs, is that the mentality of a dog is sort of frozen at the level of a smart 2 year old child
Walton is concerned with the dog being "HUGE and solid muscle" -- that and "the terrible twos" would not be a good combination, but dogs are very different from two year old humans. Walton apparently can't imagine something so muscular being "a total sweetheart", even though there are numerous examples among humans. Armchair psychology suggests that he was bullied and abused, and associates muscularity with hostility, control, and pain.
Walton, I have said it as a joke, said it as snark, and said it for real and now repeat it for real as advice - seek counseling. There are people who can help, not magically and not without pain - see my blog for thoughts on this, no one else needs to bother reading it. I also repeat my offer to take you out for a drink and listen to you from a different perspective (three times your age, from the US, veteran, overweight, ugly as homemade sin, and an overconfident and occasional snarky asshole). I do not bite, certainly not on a first date. (smile)
And yes, this blog provides lots of support to people willing to meet halfway. I got a lot of support when I needed it, even when I was not aware I needed it - yeah, I am a bit stubborn. It comes from being a perfectionist.
Ciao y'all
I look like I could be the result of an experiment to create someone who looked like a combination of Gene Wilder, Christopher Walken and the kid that plays Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter films.
Actually, except for Gene Wilder, that sounds kind of hot...
JeffreyD,
As someone who was seriously fucked up in my late teens I really wanted to read your blog but clicking on the link took me to utter blankness. Anything you can do?
The regulations regarding housing, water access, enrichment plans, etc are under the Animal Welfare Act, which is under the USDA. These things can be found mostly in C.F.R. § Part 3, subpart D, Section 3.7 & 3.8.
thanks, I've never been able to locate that particular piece of info before.
arrgh. This thread has become too big for my poor little internet connection in this backwater swamp ;)
other comments I have will have to wait till another day.
Nothing's sacred:
No, I wasn't (at least not in the sense to which you refer). I have, however, always been afraid of dogs since childhood. (I don't know why, since I've never been bitten by one.)
Kel:
I know. Once I re-read what I'd written, I realised how absurd it sounded. These things always make more sense in my head than they do out in the open, and, in all honesty, it was more of a stream-of-consciousness rant than an intellectually rigorous analysis (as I'm sure everyone noticed).
Maybe. Thanks for the offer, in any case.
I genuinely appreciate the support I've received from some people here. I realise this really isn't the place to share my personal problems, but from time to time it just spills out.
I'm sure a lot of us have been there before, I know I have. The problem I've found with such rants is that even with the realisation that they are stupid, they tend to stick and exacerbate the next time an "episode" comes on. It's not a matter of acknowledging that it was stupid, one needs to make an effort to remove that kind of thinking out of your brain. Otherwise, you are doomed to keep rationalising that stupidity time and time again. It's scary just how irrational thinking can get when one is depressed. I was stupid enough to not listen to those who were telling me that I was being an idiot because in my head it all made sense - it was them who couldn't understand... :P
This thread has been,shall we say,interesting to read in many ways.
maureen Brian,
JeffreyD's blog is here:
http://keltixx.blogspot.com/
Windy wrote:
The Gene Wilder part is the hair. But thanks to hardworking hair product scientists there are substances which help me deal with that.
Awww - personally I've always rather liked the wirey-haired look on guys (although bear in mind this is the opinion of a woman who has been trying and failing for years to see exactly what it is about Brad Pitt that turns so many other apparently sensible women into drooling teenagers).
Lilly de Lure,
care to link to a pic of a "wirey-haired" individual so i can see what that means or whether I qualify LOL?
:-)
And Brad Pitt,well,yeah,*yawn*
Rorschach and Wowbagger, OM, I am in Charleston, SC, as is the highly esteemed Rev Chimp, so a beer in Melbourne is probably a bit iffy. (grin) That said, if either of you are near Charleston, said beer(s) and much seafood can be arranged. That goes for the rest of the denizens of PZ's Funhouse as well. I am traveling a bit for pleasure and work, but should be in country July/Aug at least. (Rev, would much like to finally meet you and your far better half sometime this summer.)
I am returning to the UK in the first week of May for some further research on a couple of history books and should be on ground for a couple of months, less time at end of May and to circa mid-June when I am having the spousal unit visit. While there, already planning a trip to Aberdeen to see one of the regulars. Available to travel in country for dinners and drinks, will even buy the first round - such a deal!
Well, time to head out for some crab at a local house of delight. Have to build up my seafood reserves before I return to the UK.
Ciao y'all
See, that's the kind of insight you got your Molly for.
Good-looking? I keep being surprised at how many remarkably ugly people are in a stable relationship. Shows how much tastes differ. I'm not happy either over the asymmetries in my face... Oh, BTW, someone brought up Angelina Jolie; despite her middle name ("pretty" in French), she's ugly. I mean, she's got lips all over her face!
Socially competent? Who cares? Just hang out with scientists more. :-|
Bright? You clearly are. You just don't always take enough facts into account.
Knowledgeable? That comes with time. Just keep reading everything that's interesting; that's what I do, and here I sit at age 26 with 3 papers published, 1 submitted with revisions, and 2 more in preparation (went amazingly fast).
I'll jump on the "seek counseling" bandwagon (though with the warning that you might have to try several psychologists in a row; where I come from, most are surprisingly ignorant, as I can tell from experience... I had to tell the last one what Asperger's was!). Also, I'll be in Bristol in September for this congress; that's at least on the same island – if you're close enough, we could of course meet.
Oh, and, why do you study law? Do you really find that interesting? If so, keep going; if not, run.
JeffreyD, if your beard were white, you'd look like Darwin, minus Darwin's huge brow ridges. :-) I can't judge male beauty, but, really, "ugly as homemade sin"* is something else!
* Still laughing at that wording. Saved my day. :-D
I forgot: Walton, someone has recommended you get a dog. Perhaps try a cat instead. Cats are more libertarian than dogs, but they'll still come to you and stroke themselves against your hand. And perhaps more importantly, they'll never try to kill you, because they know they're too small for that. I've encountered tiny dogs whose self-image was evidently not even in the right order of magnitude.
David Marjanović, OM at #656 - The beard has whitened quite a bit more in the nearly two years since that picture was taken. Oh, and I have to pluck my eyebrows some or I cannot look up without feeling like I have a hedgehog on my forehead. Hmmm, maybe I should cultivate the brows and beard and an English accent and go on the road given one man Darwin shows to rural schools. Yeah, that should be a safe job. (grin)
"Ugly as homemade sin" is an old southern expression, and I am an old southerner. Ugly as a mudfence is another favourite of mine.
So you will be in Bristol in late September, eh? If I am back in the UK by then, let us get together for a jar of something alcoholic. My email is on here somewhere, or just remind us online. I check PZ's funhouse most days.
Ciao
@652
[quote]We have a ready pool of test subjects. If medicine and science advances are to used for human betterment, then use humans. Our jails are full of candidates who are incorrigible and will never see the light of day. Use them. After all, they are sucking tax dollars out of my pocket to feed and house them Let them pay for it by doing some good for humanity, something they obviously didn’t care about before they wound up incarcerated.[/quote]
And perhaps more importantly, they'll never try to kill you, because they know they're too small for that.
More like - they won't try to kill you, because the screams you emit as they claw the skin off you forearms are just far too entertaining. ;-)
Is it me or are Chihuahua's particularly prone to this? I've lost count of the number of times that I've been out with my two dogs and seen one of the wretched things trying it on with a perfectly well-behaved Rottweiler while its owner stands by wittering about how brave it is rather than actually doing anything to stop it before said Rottie's patience snaps.
I Love Bacon!
Once I re-read what I'd written, I realised how absurd it sounded
Then go back and look at what your bogus response was a response to. You have a habit of this: you dismiss a valid point with some BS, later admit that it was BS, but never go back and acknowledge the valid point -- which often undermines some fundamental position you have taken. The tossing out of such BS is a symptom of cognitive dissonance.