One of the goals of Speaking of Research and Pro-Test for Science is to communicate facts and information about the responsible use of animals in biomedical research. A second, equally important goal, is to try to understand the impediments to dialogue and establish a two-way conversation with animal activists and members of the public that are truly interested in an honest and open discussion.
What have we done in this regard?
In 2010 Drs. David Jentsch and Dario Ringach, along the student group Bruins for Animals, organized a discussion panel at UCLA that was considered a good first step at establishing some sort of meaningful dialogue with opponents of animal research. The event was marred by multiple attempts from animal extremists to derail these first efforts to open a conversation. They were unsuccessful.
It is clear that despite much calls for open debate on the use of animals in scientific experimentation some animal extremists do not want such conversation to takes place. As an example, after the panel discussion a local group of animal activists led by Pamelyn Ferdin (wife of Jerry Vlasak, press officer for the Animal Liberation Front) continued their outrageous home demonstrations targeting the very same UCLA faculty that organized the event. This outrageous behavior resulted in a decreased willingness from many among the UCLA community to continue planning additional meetings.
Despite such state of affairs, in Feb 2011 Dr. Ringach and Robert C. Jones (an animal rights philosopher from California State University at Chico and a participant in the our 2010 discussion panel), organized a one-day symposium on the similarities and dissimilarities of human and non-human primate cognition. This was done with the agreement that any ethical debate on animal experimentation must start with clear scientific understanding of what is known about animal minds. The symposium featured a very interesting set of presentations and discussions. Video of this event is available online.
In the last two years Dr. Ringach participated in two debates on the use of animals in research. The first one at the Institute for Human Values in Health Care at the Medical University of South Carolina, where he debated animal rights philosopher Dr. Nathan Nobis. Manuscripts resulting from this symposium will be published by the American Journal of the Medical Sciences shortly. A second debate took place at Rutgers Law School, where he debated animal rights scholar Prof. Gary Francione. A video of this event will also be made available online by Rutgers University in the near future.
We are often asked by colleagues and institutional officials if these efforts have been worthwhile. The results have been mixed. One one hand, despite all the associated problems, these activities have served to establish personal lines of communications with animal activists that are truly willing to listen to the other side, and the public get the message that all those involved in the responsible use of animal research are ready explain their side of the story. On the other hand, these activities have certainly drawn increased threats and violence from animal rights activists that disapprove of civilized engagement. True, such behavior from a minority of animal rights extremists was anticipated. What was not anticipated was the nearly absolute silence from the rest of the animal rights community on this issue.
As the scientific community reflects as a whole on the value of holding such events we cannot help but wonder — where are the animal rights activists and organizations that deplore violence and are interested in an honest and open dialogue? Please step forward and tell us — what have you done to foster dialogue?
Regards
Speaking of Research
“What was not anticipated was the nearly absolute silence from the rest of the animal rights community on this issue.”
I think you have fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of dialogue. Notice that most of your events are “debates.” These debates are precisely the wrong tactic for your goals. You won’t persuade people by rehashing Cohen’s 1988(?) article in public or by trotting out the facile arguments that Ringach depends upon. This is not dialogue, nor even good debate.
If you want to find real dialogue then you would do better to focus on areas of agreement and work with your opponents to solve problems that fall under that umbrella. Here’re some suggestions:
1) Better would be spending your time leading for reform of animal experimentation regulation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14232061
http://animalrights.about.com/b/2011/07/19/uk-to-ban-animal-testing-for-household-products.htm
Maybe the US could catch up to European models of regulation of this industry if the “moderates” in the biomedical community would work with animal welfare agencies to accomplish things.
2) Police your own activities so that “extremists” don’t have to do it for you
http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2011/07/06/lab-workers-indicted-on-felony-cruelty-charges.aspx
3) Maybe if Iresearchers stood up against those scientists with records of animal welfare violations (rather than rallying around their friends) you would find dialogue easier
http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/05/02/letters_reveal_uw_re.php
4) How about a dialogue about the cynical UW move to insert exemptions from animal cruelty law into a state budget. Surely there is a better way than this.
http://www.aldf.org/article.php?id=1759
5) Hell, how about starting by not eating meat, then you might be a non-risible dialogue partner. I can’t see why I should sit down and talk about race relations with someone who belongs to a racist club, or feminism with a sexual predator. 99.999% of the animal welfare-rights community abhors violence–yours and the extremists.
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=5035&blogid=140#ixzz19QP0rM6z
7) How about a dialogue about the damage to civil liberties being done by labeling animal rights activists “terrorists.” Hell, even if you guys would stop continually implying that animal rights activists are all terrorists that would be a step forward.
But, the fact that no one reads the blog or is persuaded by the bad arguments is not the “animal rights community’s fault.” The blog is often tendentious and the arguments are littler more than warmed over Carl Cohen which we’ve all read. Occasionally I learn about a bit of science here, but there are better less tendentious sources for that.
There is a lot of work that can be done by people who are really concerned about dialogue (HSUS and the recent egg industry cage agreement might be an example). If you want a dialogue with the moderates in the movement, you need to become a moderate yourself. If you want to win the “debate” well, I’d start by finding some people who understand the ethical issues and can write seriously on them.
“I think you have fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of dialogue.”
We seek dialogue, but scientists have often been accused of not wanting to debate our opponents. We think both can be productive types of engagement. Debates present the public to different viewpoints and the reasons behind our positions. The public can then take informed positions on the use of animals for the advancement of medical knowledge and science. Dialogue seeks to engage with animal activists interested in making progress in areas where we can reach common ground.
“Maybe the US could catch up to European models of regulation of this industry if the “moderates” in the biomedical community would work with animal welfare agencies to accomplish things.”
Are you saying you consider the EU model acceptable? In other words, do you approve of EU’s animal research program but you feel the US is substantially behind? Or do you disapprove of EU’s animal research as well?
“Maybe if researchers stood up against those scientists with records of animal welfare violations (rather than rallying around their friends) you would find dialogue easier.”
We have condemned violations in the past and, as a group, we have adopted a statement in this regard… See our “Guiding principles” page.
“How about a dialogue about the cynical UW move to insert exemptions from animal cruelty law into a state budget.”
The UW has created a series of speaker presentations where different viewpoints are presented. This in another way for the public to hear both sides. The move by the university regarding amendment to the laws appears a reaction to a misguided initiative by PeTA to use an obscure and ambiguous legislation to file criminal charges against scientists.
“Hell, how about starting by not eating meat, then you might be a non-risible dialogue partner.”
Come on… Really? How about you stop driving and polluting the environment which kills animals needlessly? How about you stopping using electricity at your home, which does the same.
“How about a dialogue about the damage to civil liberties being done by labeling animal rights activists “terrorists.””
You are confused. Bombing, harassing, threatening and intimidating are no civil liberties. Yes, there are terrorists among your movement. We never implied all animal rights activists are terrorists. We merely point out the fact that those of you who are not, often fail to condemn those that are. Your comment here provides one additional example.
“There is a lot of work that can be done by people who are really concerned about dialogue (HSUS and the recent egg industry cage agreement might be an example). If you want a dialogue with the moderates in the movement, you need to become a moderate yourself.”
In which way are we extreme? In that we are not animal rights activists? No, we are not — we are animal welfarists.
“Are you saying you consider the EU model acceptable? In other words, do you approve of EU’s animal research program but you feel the US is substantially behind? Or do you disapprove of EU’s animal research as well?”
I approve of all improvements to the unethical treatment of animals leading ultimately to the abolition of all unethical “use” of animals. I am appalled at the hypocrisy of supposed “welfarists” who opposed the creation of IACUC’s and now hide behind them and confuse bureaucracy and compliance with ethics. If research scientists (i.e. you guys as far as I can tell) had had their way for the last 100 years we would have little or no regulation. Your multi-million dollar industry lobbying organizations obstruct any improvement to the conditions of animals in research labs (“rats aren’t animals in the AWA” is a cheap shot, but it is illustrative of the cynicism and moral hypocrisy omni-present in your industry). Get your organizations to advocate for improved regulations and then we’ll talk.
“Come on… Really? How about you stop driving and polluting the environment which kills animals needlessly? How about you stopping using electricity at your home, which does the same. ”
Man, always with the cheap fallacies at Speaking of Research. Dig out your undergraduate logic textbook, turn to the chapter on fallacies, and tell me which one this is! You, characteristically, ignore the argument and use cheap rejoinders to side-step the issue. The argument that is used to justify animals research seems to entail that eating of animals (for most people who have alternatives available and under current system of production) is immoral. This is a matter of rational consistency. Your tu quoque response (oops, gave away the answer to the quiz) and false analogies are not, and are risible at best (though obviously there are interesting moral issues here, but there is a difference between a serious dialogue on these issues and this cheap sophistry).
Please resist the urge to spam the wall (I’m afraid your IP shows who’s posting).
Doubtful that it does but in any case I don’t really care if you know I posted those videos Dario. People have a right to know what it really looks like. And I will “spam” who ever I want with the truth. It’s not illegal.
You got the wrong person. I didn’t comment on your posting of the video. I am not surprised though… After all, animal rights extremists are keen on making assumptions rather than finding out what the facts truly are.
Wow. Really guy? Unbelievable.
Yes, really.