Research with animals

Today Americans for Medical Progress has announced two recipients for academic year 2010-2011 of the Michael D. Hayre Fellowship in Public Outreach, designed to inspire and motivate the next generation of research advocates. This year, I'm especially wowed by their project. From the AMP press release: Two Ph.D. candidates in neuroscience have been selected by Americans for Medical Progress as the 2010-11 Michael D. Hayre Fellows in Public Outreach.  Elizabeth Burnett and Scott Dobrin are in the Neuroscience Program at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North…
I want to apologize for the infrequency of my posting lately. Much of it can be laid at the feet of end-of-term grading, although today I've been occupied with a meeting of scientists at different career stages to which I was invited to speak about some topics I discuss here. (More about that later.) June will have more substantive ethics-y posts, honest! Indeed, to tide you over, I want to ask for your responses to a case study I wrote for the final exam for my "Ethics in Science" class. First, the case: Peter is a graduate student in a laboratory that does a variety of research projects…
Making good ethical choices in the real world is hard, in large part because it requires us to find the best balance in responding to interested parties whose legitimate interests pull in different directions. The situation is further complicated by the fact that as we are trying to make the best ethical decision we can, or evaluating the ethical decision-making of others, we can't help but notice that there is not universal agreement about who counts as a party with legitimate interests that ought to be taken into account, let alone about how to weight the competing interests in the ethical…
(Click to embiggen) Tomorrow, April 8, 2010, Pro-Test for Science will be holding its second rally in Los Angeles in support of humanely conducted, ethical animal research and the people who conduct it. Their first rally last April drew approximately 700 people to the streets to support the scientific research that offers hope to patients (both human and veterinary) and their families. Speaking of Research has details on tomorrow's rally: This rally, on the UCLA campus seeks to: Communicate a better understanding of animal research to the public, its importance to medical progress, and…
In a post last month, I noted that not all (maybe even not many) supporters of animal rights are violent extremists, and that Bruins for Animals is a group committed to the animal rights position that was happy to take a public stand against the use of violence and intimidation to further the cause of animal liberation. On Wednesday, Kristy Anderson (the co-founder of Bruins for Animals), Ashley Smith (the president), and Jill Ryther (the group's advisor) posted a critical response to my post. In the spirit of continuing dialogue, I'd like to respond to that response. They write: AR…
Because there are some conversations you have to have with your kids even if you wish you didn't have to have them: Dr. Free-Ride: I wanted to talk to you about a situation that has come up for a friend of mine and is a little worrisome. So, you know I went down to UCLA the other week, right? Younger offspring: Yeah. Dr. Free-Ride: Do you know what I was there for? Elder offspring: A conference? Dr. Free-Ride: Nope, it wasn't a conference. It was an event, a dialogue, where people were discussing scientific research with animals. In particular, some people were discussing why they support…
I take it that a good number of animal rights supporters feel that their position is philosophically well-grounded, intuitively appealing, and compatible with the flourishing of humans as well as of non-human animals. As such, I would argue that animal rights supporters can, and should, advance their position without resorting to tactics that depend on harassment, intimidation, or violence. (At least some animal rights supporters agree.) Especially since the hope is to win the hearts and minds of the larger public to the cause of animal rights, supporters of this position might want to hold…
Earlier this week, I related a situation I found alarming in which a scientist and his children were targeted for harassment because he dared to express the view that research with animals plays an important role in answering scientific questions that matter to scientists and to the public. I was not alone in decrying these tactics. At least one animal rights group also condemned them. Given that the post was pretty clearly directed at the question of tactics, I am frankly puzzled by this comment from Douglas Watts: When I see mainstream "science" commit itself to a program which phases…
We don't have to agree about whether animal research is ethical or scientifically valuable to agree that some tactics for pursuing your view are harmful to civil society. Bruins for Animals, the student organization at UCLA that was instrumental in organizing the recent dialogue about the science and ethics of animal based research, understands this, and they are not afraid to call out the people "on their side" who opt for threats and intimidation: Joint Statement by Bruins for Animals and Pro-Test for Science In an effort to establish a dialogue between those holding different opinions on…
When I told you about the infuriating tactics extreme animal rights activists are turning against Dario Ringach for even daring to express his view that animal research can be important, a number of you asked in the comments, "What can we do besides signing petitions and writing blog posts?" David Jentsch offers some concrete ideas about where to start making your stand: For those that support research or researchers, I offer a number of possibilities that will allow you to become involved in this struggle: 1) Participate however you can in supporting science and scientists. This may…
I need to share with you a situation that is infuriating. It's infuriating to me, and I believe it should be infuriating to anyone who values a civil society worth the name. Harassment drove UCLA neurobiologist Dario Ringach out of primate research in 2006. This was not just angry phone calls and email messages. We're talking about people in masks banging on the windows of his house in the night, scaring his kids. Without support on this front from other scientists or from UCLA, Dario abandoned research that he believed to be important so that he could keep his family safe. Since then,…
As promised, here's the video of the February 16, 2010 panel discussion at UCLA about the science and ethics of animal-based research, sponsored by Bruins for Animals and Pro-Test for Science. UCLA Panel on Science and Ethics of Animal Research from Dario Ringach on Vimeo. The video runs for about 2.5 hours, so you might want to grab a glass of water or a cup of coffee before you launch it.
The panel discussion took place, as planned, on the evening of Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at UCLA. The hall was well-populated, if not completely packed, with members of the UCLA community. (Honestly, for week 7 of a 10-week quarter, during a spell of lovely weather, I'm impressed they had such a high turnout of students.) There was also a serious security presence (which the university felt was needed in light of past instances where strong feelings have been displayed in more than just words). Both Pro-Test for Science and Bruins for Animals deserve huge props for all the work they put…
For those of you who have heard me issue calls for dialogue (not debate) on the subject of research with non-human animals -- especially if you're in the Los Angeles area -- I'm pleased to announce that there's an event coming up in February that's aimed at fostering just such a dialogue, in the three-dimensional world. Here's the announcement: Save the date! Perspectives on the Science and Ethics of Animal-Based Research UCLA, Covel Commons, 6pm-8:30pm, February 16th, 2010 With the goal of opening an on-going dialogue between individuals who are in favor or opposed to the use of animals in…
In a recent post, I issued an invitation: I am always up for a dialogue on the issue of our moral relation to animals and on the ethical use of animals in scientific research. If folks inclined towards the animal rights stance want to engage in a dialogue right here, in the comments on this post, I am happy to host it. (I will not, however, be hosting a debate. A dialogue is different from a debate, and a dialogue is what I'm prepared to host.) That post has received upward of 250 comments, so there was certainly some sort of exchange going on. But, did we manage to have something…
This, in turn, means that members of the public who strongly disagree with your stand may decide to track you down and let you know they disagree with you. Apparently, this may become an issue for those who signed the Pro-Test petition in support of ethical and human scientific research with animals. From an email sent to signatories: [A] few websites hosted by animal rights activists have encouraged their readerships to visit the list of Pro-Test signatories in order to find names and to contact those persons to express their opposition to animal research. While your email addresses on the…
I don't usually go looking for a fight, but there are some cases where I'll make an exception. You know, of course that I'm a big fan of DonorsChoose. And you'll recall that PETA's tactics make them a problematic organization as far as I'm concerned regardless of what your views on animal welfare or animal rights might be. So, when PETA takes a swing at DonorsChoose, of course I want to jump in off the ropes and swing back. What's PETA's issue with DonorsChoose? DonorsChoose.org is a nonprofit organization with a noble mission - to help teachers purchase materials for classroom lessons.…
On my earlier post, "Dialogue, not debate", commenter dave c-h posed some interesting questions: Is there an ethical point at which engagement is functionally equivalent to assent? In other words, is there a point at which dialogue should be replaced by active resistance? If so, how do you tell where that point is? I think many activists fear that dialogue is a tactic of those who support the status quo to co-opt them into a process that is unlikely to lead to any real change because the power is unevenly divided. What the commenter says about the activists' fears sounds about right to me…
At the end of last week, I made a quick trip to UCLA to visit with some researchers who, despite having been targets of violence and intimidation, are looking for ways to engage with the public about research with animals. I was really struck by their seriousness about engaging folks on "the other side", rather than just hunkering down to their research and hoping to be left alone. The big thing we talked about was the need to shift the terms of engagement. The mode people seem most used to -- and the one that seems to make the least difference -- is the debate. In a debate, the point is…
The other day, while surfing the web, my better half came upon this semi-official looking symbol for psychohazards: The verbiage underneath the symbol seem to indicate conditions that might have serious consequences for one's picture of the world and its contents, or for one's ability to come to knowledge about the world. A philosopher who was so inclined could go to town on this. However, while this particular icon was new to me, this isn't the first time I've seen the term "psychohazard" in use. A long time ago, I was an undergraduate with an internship working in a cancer pharmacology…