Incitement to violence, harassment or intimidation against those of different creeds, lifestyles or  beliefs should not be regarded as acceptable in a modern liberal democracy. The challenge comes in deciding what should be regarded as incitement, and what should not. I believe that a tiny minority of animal rights extremists have crossed the lines of acceptability and to this end I provide two examples – one recent, and one from some years back.

Case 1: Incitement to murder

Jerry Vlasak is an influential player within the extreme end of the animal liberation movement. As press officer of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office he has become one of the mouthpieces of the Animal Liberation Front and the Animal Rights Militia. His position as a role model has not appeared to bring upon any sense of responsibility for his words.

I think there is a use for violence in our movement. And I think it can be an effective strategy. Not only is it morally acceptable, I think that there are places where it could be used quite effectively from a pragmatic standpoint.

For instance, if vivisectors were routinely being killed, I think it would give other vivisectors pause in what they were doing in their work — and if these vivisectors were being targeted for assassination … — and I wouldn’t pick some guy way down the totem pole, but if there were prominent vivisectors being assassinated, I think that there would be a trickle-down effect [...]

And I don’t think you’d have to kill — assassinate — too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. (Source)

Now I have little doubt that Vlasak does not intend to murder anyone himself. However it would take only one young, idealistic activist trying to build his reputation and strike a blow for animal liberation to follow Vlasak’s twisted logic into the unthinkable.

Vlasak is not the only person to call for violence against animal researchers (and their families). If the unthinkable was to happen, there would be many animal rights extremists whose words will have played a part in its creation. Nonetheless, surely, there is a moral line in the sand which few if any would be willing to cross, after all the animal rights movement is fundamentally in the business of saving lives (albeit not human ones)? Surely….?

May 31^st, 2009, a doctor is shot dead at a church service. It is not the first time he has been shot for his beliefs and line of work, individuals have already called for the death of doctor’s in the same line of work.

The above is not the actions of animal rights activists, but that of anti-abortion extremists. In 2009 Scott Roeder crossed the lines of acceptability and morality and murdered Doctor George Tiller. Such actions were roundly deplored, but little time is spent considering the impact of those that had called for Tiller’s death, and the death of other abortionists. Sadly, many similarities can be found between the tactics of the animal rights extremist movement, and those of the anti-abortion extremists.

Where do we draw the line between Freedom of Speech and Incitement to Violence? This fire at the house of a Pharmaceutical Executive was started by animal rights extremists

Case 2: Naming the targets

The second situation further strains the relationship between freedom of speech and freedom from harassment. What if a known extremist movement does not directly call for the death of its enemies, but instead provides the information necessary to target them. They may not have put the gun in anybody’s hand, but they are certainly showing them where to point it.

Negotiation is Over, a fringe animal rights extremist group has provided such information on a number of occasions. Providing names and contact information for a variety of researchers. NIO’s words are reminiscent of our earlier discussion.

Every time a vivisector’s car or home — and, eventually, the abuser him/herself — blows up, flames of liberation light up the sky [...]

The only effective approaches to veteran abusers appear to be through incendiaries, intimidation, and violence.

Bear such words in mind when you consider that on January 8th 2012 NIO decided to publish floor plans for research facilities at the University of Florida. No threats were published alongside it, but then with a website full of calls to harass and intimidate researchers, they hardly needed to put them in the same post.

Is free speech a sufficient barrier to hide behind when distributing such potentially risky materials. When does one person’s freedom of speech justify infringing on another’s right to live free from harassment?

Before I decided to write this post I received an email from a colleague of a researcher who was under threat. One paragraph particularly stuck with me:

I actually cannot believe a court of law would allow documents of this nature containing names of people who work at an institution to be given to a group of people sworn to kill, torture and terrify them. Their site is already filled with people licking their lips about harassing families and even people discussing murder. I have counted a fair number of people who made implications of going to schools where their kids studies. These clearly are a lot of idle threats but it takes just one person to turn an idle threat into a tragedy.

Just one person.

The comments made by Vlasak and others, the documents and finger pointing of groups like Negotiation is Over, are permitted under the guise of free speech. The effect is a generation of researchers who do not dare to speak up for what they do lest they become the next target. Even though many researchers are not aware of characters like Vlasak, or the particulars of the threats made to fellow colleagues in science, these extremists contribute to a general awareness of a dangerous animal rights movement whom many scientists would prefer not to cross. Furthermore, fear may cause some aspiring scientists to choose different career paths at a time when science plays such a crucial role in the economic prosperity and health of a nation.

The Freedom of Speech Paradox is thus – when people misuse this right, as provided by the First Amendment, in order to intimidate others away from being able to use their same right to defend and justify their work.

Tom Holder

Do you agree or disagree with medical and scientific research that requires lab animals?

The results showed  a similar outcome to that of other recent polls.

About 52% of the population approve of animal research in various degrees, about 27% disapprove in various degrees, 15% are neutral and 6% are unsure about their position.

Despite the many polls done on the subject it remains unclear on what grounds do some people object to the use of animals in science.

Is it perhaps that they find the work morally wrong?  Is it that they believe all living beings have the basic rights to liberty and freedom?

Some insight into these questions can be gained by asking the same group of people what would the do in the following scenario.

Suppose you suffer from a leaky heart valve, and that doctors say you have two years left.   You could have a valve replacement surgery that might save your life.  But, in order to obtain the replacement tissue necessary for a surgery, a pig must be killed.

Which of the following statements best reflects what you would do if faces with a similar situation?

Statement A: I would have the surgery.  I think it is ethical.
Statement B: I would have the surgery, but I think it is unethical.
Statement C: I would not have the surgery, but I think it is ethical.
Statement D: I would not have the surgery because I think it is unethical.

Here are the results from the same poll:

Now, if one believes animals have rights they surely ought to be respected.  If you believe a pig has the same basic rights to life and freedom as your neighbor, then you ought to refuse the surgery for the same reason that you would not kill your neighbor to save your own life.

However, only a mere 3% of those asked appear ready to act in a way consistent with such a position.  It is interesting to note that also about 3% of the US population are vegetarian, although most of them do it for health reasons and not ethical objections to the use of animals as food.

Thus, those that oppose research do not appear to do so because of belief that all living beings have the same basic rights to life as that of fellow humans.

Another small minority, 2%, would not have the surgery despite the fact they think such surgical intervention is ethical.  It would appear this group simply is uncomfortable with the notion that pig tissue would be implanted in their human hearts.

About 12% of the group would opt to save their lives despite having ethical objections.  It appears this group feels there is something inherently wrong in killing an animal to allow them to survive and yet, if faced with the situation they would nonetheless go ahead with the surgery.  Arguably, this group realizes that the pig is a living being that we owe moral concern, but that when human and animal lives are at stake, opting to save the human is morally permissible.  Alternatively, they may genuinely opt for behaving in an immoral fashion when it comes to saving their own lives.

Finally, the vast majority, 73% of them, will opt for the surgery without having any moral concerns whatsoever.   None at all.   That is roughly 3 out of 4 people in the US population.

A natural question is then why wouldn’t the same group, at the very least, be in favor of animal research that advances medical knowledge and human health?

One likely possibility is that they fail to see the direct link between research and the therapies and medicines that it produces.  They fail to see that the medicine that will save their lives next time they visit the emergency room will be, in all likelihood, the result of animal research.  They may wrongly perceive basic and translational research as two being completely different things.  The contribution of basic knowledge to human health may be lost in translation.

So, what can be done?

Aside from scientists and physicians reaching out to educate the public on this matters, we could begin by labeling each and every single medication that resulted from basic research in animals with such basic information.  Note that I am not talking about safety testing in animals — which is required by the law.  Instead, I am referring to medicines developed through the identification of molecular targets or the discovery of specific mechanisms with the use of animals in basic research.  In other words, I propose to label medicine as derived from animal research if it actually produced the knowledge that actually allowed scientists to understand how a particular therapy could be developed.

Shouldn’t the public be entitled to know where their medicines come from? Shouldn’t the public be entitled to understand the range of benefits produced by their tax dollars?

What do you think?

Apparently, by 2050 we can expect the complete elimination of animal use in science.

At least, this is the prediction made by Dr. Andrew Rowan, Chief Scientific Officer of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in a recent article that appeared in The Scientist.

The title of the piece was “Avoiding Animal Testing.  Advances in cell-culture technologies are paving the way to the complete elimination of animals from laboratories”.

The first half of the article focuses on the development and adoption of alternatives to the use of animals in toxicology.  Our public health officials and the FDA have long made the sensible decision to require any company that introduces new chemicals or drugs into the market to provide an initial experimental assessment of their potential toxicity to humans.

This use of animals for such safety screening is typically called animal testing.

Dr. Rowan correctly points out that advances in the development toxicology methods may allow us eventually to relax the regulations that require the use of animals in testing.  But he rapidly moves to insinuate such advances imply that by 2050 we could see the end of animal use in laboratories:

This overall decline in animal use can be attributed to the advent of novel technologies such as improved cell-culture systems and micro-analytic techniques; more sophisticated model systems; improved understanding of signaling and metabolic pathways; and a host of other new methods that allow scientists to answer important questions about the functioning of healthy and diseased tissues without subjecting whole animals to harmful procedures. With a 50 percent decline in animal research since 1975, we are roughly at the halfway point towards the complete elimination of animal research. Thus, we argue that, by 2050, we might finally see the last of animal use in the laboratory, particularly if all stakeholders put their minds to it.

First, the assertion that the total use of animals is systematically declining is not supported by the data.  The slide below, for example, was taken from a recent talk Dr. Rowan gave at the University of Wisconsin.  It shows the total number of animals used has been stable since the mid 80s, with the number of non-genetically modified (Non-GM, faint dashed line) animals decreasing and stabilizing in the 90s (see also data here), while the number of  genetically modified (GM) animals, which are largely mice, has been systematically increasing.

Second, even if correctly asserting that we can expect a diminished need for animals in toxicology testing, Dr. Rowan’s generalization of such trend from a such narrow field to all of biomedical research is groundless and misleading.

Let us be clear, our universities do not engage in animal testing, but in animal research.

What’s the difference?

Scientists are largely concerned with elucidating the basic mechanisms of biological processes in health and disease.  We want to study how cells in our bodies work, how they communicate, how they develop, how they age and how they die.   We want to understand how the brain, our immune system, and internal organs work and how they fail.  And so on…

Why is it critical we develop such an understanding?

Because without this knowledge there will be no hope to combat disease. Indeed, the mission of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recognizes this fundamental fact in its opening statement,

NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.

Implicit in such declaration is the acknowledgment that it is basic knowledge that drives advancements in human health and well-being.  Basic knowledge of nature is what drives progress.  This point is critical –   translational or applied research would not exist without basic knowledge as the raw material.  Without knowledge there would be nothing to translate nor apply.

Those that declare an imminent end to the use of animals in science are effectively implying that they envisage all basic knowledge needed will be acquired by a certain date, or that we will have methods that would allow us to proceed with studies non-invasively in human volunteers. Dr. Rowan’s statement that “Advances in cell-culture technologies are paving the way to the complete elimination of animals from laboratories” is nothing short of utter scientific nonsense.

Is it possible for Dr. Rowan to be ignorant of the role of animals in scientific research?  Could he legitimately be confused about the difference between safety testing on one hand and the development of therapies and basic research on the other?

This seems highly unlikely giving his academic credentials and the fact that he has served on IACUCs before.  In fact, another slide from his talk, shows him delineating these different uses of animals, and illustrating that animal testing for human safety accounts for merely ~25% of total animal use.

No, Dr. Rowan is not confused at all.  He knows what he is talking about.  This is unfortunate as one can only conclude his article is simply a misguided attempt to deceive the public about the fields in which we might realistically expect science to successfully replace animals in the near future.

And I emphasized science above for a good reason.

As difficult as it is for animal advocates to understand, scientists also believe we will see a day when we can eliminate the use of animals in all animal research.  And the day will arrive because of the hard work, progress and achievements of dedicated scientists, such as this one, and not because of deception of those that want to oppose animal research at all cost.

For HSUS to suggest that all animal research could be eliminated by 2050 is  flatly wrong from a scientific point of view, and utterly irresponsible from a public health perspective.

Humans can transcend their biological lives in ways that other animals cannot. Humans can study, understand and challenge nature by means of technological might, in ways other animals cannot. Humans can store knowledge in perpetual form and secure its benefits for all future generations, in ways other animals cannot.

Evolution resulted in our species developing the skills to be the stewards of our planet, its environment and all living creatures within it.   This realization carries a tremendous responsibility that we must accept and face.  It seem clear that both human and non-human animals stand to gain from such recognition.

Human abilities also challenge us with ethical dilemmas we cannot ignore.

When confronted with the incredible suffering caused by disease on one hand and faced with the ability to challenge such maladies on the other, humans can feel morally compelled to act.

Under normal circumstances nobody wants to cause unnecessary harm to animals.  But anyone who has seen a loved one suffering recognizes that human patients and their families live extraordinary circumstances. In some instances, we do not see any other way to help without advancing medical knowledge and science through regulated and responsible research with animals.

To attack the acceptance of our differences and the associated responsibilities as discriminatory, or more specifically, as speciesist, is misguided.

As Bernard Williams  wrote:

 The word “speciesism” has been used for an attitude some regard as our ultimate prejudice, that in favor of humanity. It is more revealingly called “humanism,” and its is not a prejudice. To see the world from a human point of view is not an absurd thing for human beings to do. It is sometimes said that such a view implies that we regard human beings as the most important or valuable creatures in the universe. This would be an absurd thing to do, but it is not implied. To suppose that it is, is to make the mistake of identifying the point of view of the universe and the human point of view. No one should make any claims about the importance of human beings to the universe: the point is about the importance of human beings to human beings.

A concern for nonhuman animals is indeed a proper part of human life, but we can acquire it, cultivate it, and teach it only in terms or our understanding of ourselves. Human beings both have that understanding and are the objects of it, and this is one of the basic respects in which our ethical relations to each other must always be different from our relations to other animals. Before one gets to the question of how animals should be treated, there is the fundamental point that this is the only question there can be: how they should be treated. The choice can only be whether animals benefit from our practices or are harmed by them. This is why speciesism is falsely modeled on racism and sexism, which really are prejudices. To suppose that there is an ineliminable white or male understanding of the world, and to think that the only choice is whether blacks or women should benefit from “our” (white, male) practices or be shared by them: this is already to be prejudiced. But in the case of human relations to animals, the analogues to such thoughts are simply correct.

Our arguments have to be grounded in a human point of view; they cannot be derived from a point of view that is no one’s point of view at all. It is not, as the strongest forms of ethical theory would have it, that reason drives us to get beyond humanity. The most urgent requirements of humanity are, as they always have been, that we should assemble as many resources as we can to help us to respect it. 

In other words, being humane means, in large part, being capable of treating others in ways that other animals cannot.  It means seeing the world through human eyes from a human perspective. It means accepting our role and responsibility as stewards of the animals and our planet.

Begin humane is to assume the responsibility endowed by our human condition.

It is not speciesism.

Speaking of Research welcomes and applauds this statement.  We hope the new year will only expand the circle of those open to civil dialogue and public debate.

The Animal People’s board resolution reads in its entirety:

While Best has been open in his enthusiasm for Marino’s campaigns of harassment and intimidation, and Marino has in turn peppered her “Negotiation is Over (NIO)”website with his videos and essays, he has appeared to limit his involvement to moral support.

Until now…

In a fine report on the online newspaper “Death and Taxes” entitled “Why Is a UT Professor Collecting Donations for an Animal Rights Group that Targets College Professors?” , journalist Carlton Purvis has uncovered evidence that Best’s support for Marino’s campaigns goes well beyond moral support, writing that:

The NIO membership section directs members to a small PayPal button on the right column of the page if they wish to donate. The group also sells annual memberships for $20 and lifetime memberships for $50.  Since that appeal for money, the site has been rapidly pushing out content.”

Why do they need money? Other than website upkeep let us remember that NIO has been offering $100 to anyone who can provide information on biomed undergraduates. See the poster below.

Nonetheless, the article continues:

Click on NIO’s donation button and it takes you to a donation page set up to send money to an account managed by someone using a Road Runner provided email address – the kind that you get for free when you sign up for Internet service.

A quick Google search of the email address reveals the owner of the address, none other than Steven Best, isn’t shy about putting his contact information on everything he touches.”

Oops…providing practical support for a campaign against fellow academics clearly isn’t a good career move for Best, and Marino’s next move proved that they realized this, as Carlton Purvis picks up the story:

Within hours of my email contact with Best on Friday night, the PayPal donation button had been removed from the Negotiation is Over website. Unfortunately, if someone was trying to cover Best’s tracks, they forgot to remove text on the membership page that says, “Please use the Paypal link in the right sidebar of this site or send your enrollment fees through PayPal to sbest1@elp.rr.com.””

DOH!!

The question is now what disciplinary action the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) will take against Best for actions, for although Universities are traditionally – and correctly – very keen to protect their staff’s freedom of expression, it is difficult to argue with the view that:

…despite the university’s policy to not get involved with what faculty do on their personal time, it seems like it would be problematic for a university to employ someone who is affiliated with a bounty program that funds harassment targeting university students and faculty.”

We will be watching this developing story with interest, and welcome Carlton Purvis’ tweet that “Rogue animal rights group stops selling memberships after I uncover a #UTEP professor behind the curtain w/this story”.  While we have our doubts about the popularity of NIO memberships, it is always good to see an extremist funding stream closed down.

UTEP President Diana Natalicio will need to think hard about whether her administration can afford to turn a blind eye to behavior directed against other students and staff at other universities that they would never tolerate if it was targeting their own staff and students.

We were also pleased to learn over the weekend that a federal judge has upheld an ordinance that has been critical to UCLA’s efforts to protect its researchers, their families, and their neighbors from harassment by anti–animal research extremists. This ruling makes it clear that there is a difference between legitimate protest and harassment, and shows that society will not stand by and allow citizens to be intimidated and threatened by those who disagree with their work.

All in all a bad week for those who favor harassment and intimidation over dialog and democracy!

Speaking of Research

08/12/11: Facts must inform discussion of future of chimpanzee research.

10/13/11: Joseph M. Erwin, PhD Efforts to ban chimpanzee research are misguided.

11/21/11: A closer look at the Great Ape Protection Act.

Previous posts and other discussions of chimpanzee research have focused on ethical questions, animal welfare, and ongoing evaluation of the role chimpanzees do play, or should play, in scientific research.  These are the most important issues to address in discussion of the future of great apes in the U.S. At the same time, this year’s version of the Great Ape Protection Act has included a new focus, with addition of the phrase “and Cost Savings.”  The new language and the calculations given as basis for its assertions have received relatively little careful broad discussion or evaluation.

According to cost analysis for the legislation compiled by the Humane Society of the United States, the majority of cost-savings from GAPA – 76% – would result from ending federal grants for projects involving chimpanzees.  Of the “nearly $30 million saved annually” over $22 million reflects funds committed to support research projects that involve chimpanzees and are funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

HSUS GAPA Cost Analysis

It appears that this number was arrived at by summing the cost of all NIH grants that involve chimpanzees, regardless of their topic or the types of activities in which the animals are engaged. Whether this number could reflect the total funds invested in what is commonly considered invasive research is not readily apparent. Some of these grants may involve noninvasive studies, others may be dedicated to studies that require as little as samples of DNA—something commonly done in human studies. It does appear that the underlying assumption for the cost analysis is a complete block on any NIH research grants that involve chimpanzees. (We welcome correction if this is not an assumption of the HSUS analysis or any cost analysis used to support the claims associated with GAPA.)

The remaining savings are projected from reduction in care costs if the animals were moved to sanctuaries.  Whether sanctuaries provide lower-cost care than research facilities is subject to some debate, in part because care costs vary across facilities. This is illustrated in the most recent data published by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) October 31, 2011 “Costs for Maintaining Humane Care and Welfare of Chimpanzees:”

Based on the most recent awards and payments, NIH is spending an average of $35 per day per chimpanzee in research facilities; $67.00 per day per chimpanzee in the research reserve facility at Alamogordo Primate Facility (APF); and $47 per day per chimpanzee in the federal sanctuary facility operated by Chimp Haven. The average for research facilities becomes $44 per day if the research reserve facility at APF is included. See Table 1 for detailed figures.”

The reasons for variance in costs are complex. Among other things, they do not reflect differences in housing, clinical care, or health status of the animals (e.g., older animals or animals with chronic health problems may require more expensive treatment and care). But overall, the numbers reported by NCRR show a rough equivalence in care costs at the federal sanctuary and many research facilities.

Table 1 “Costs for Maintaining Humane Care and Welfare of Chimpanzees, October 31, 2011“

What is not shown by these numbers or by most of the discussion of GAPA are the number of other issues that should accompany thoughtful consideration of the long-term care and housing of chimpanzees.  Dr. Joseph Erwin provided commentary on many of these in a previous guest post, among them concerns about ensuring the highest quality of care for the animals:

Most chimpanzees in scientific and educational institutions (research colonies and zoological gardens) live in spacious, social, and secure environments, where they are provided with excellent professional healthcare, and are afforded protection under the Animal Welfare Act, through inspection by the USDA, and publicly available reports of those inspections. The legislative ban would require removal of chimpanzees from decent facilities that were built at great public expense, and would deposit hundreds of chimpanzees in “sanctuaries” that provide no assurance of competent professional care, are not subject to Animal Welfare Act protection, and are not publicly transparent.”

One of the biggest unanswered (and virtually unmentioned in public spheres) questions surrounding the effects of this legislation is where it is that these chimpanzees would go? Is the intent that they would stay in current facilities? That new facilities would be constructed? While some animal rights groups have advocated for moving chimpanzees from their current research facilities to Chimp Haven, there is little information that would indicate that is a feasible option. Nor do the discussions of cost-savings and future plans include information about projected costs to build sufficient sanctuary space that could accommodate the number of animals currently housed in research facilities.

This is a non-trivial issue. For example, the publicly-available NCRR cost information informs us that the cost to construct the only federally-funded chimpanzee sanctuary, Chimp Haven, was $11.8 million. Chimp Haven houses 130 animals.  In other words, the initial construction cost was just over $90,000 per chimpanzee.

There are an additional 594 NIH-supported chimpanzees currently housed in research facilities. There are also hundreds of privately-owned chimpanzees. Thus, on even rough calculation based on the construction cost of Chimp Haven, it would appear that at least many millions of dollars would be required to extend the capacity for sanctuary housing to these animals. 

The cost, feasibility, and plan for constructing additional facilities that could provide care for these chimpanzees does not seem apparent in the cost calculations for the current legislation. Nor is it an issue raised much in public discussion.  It is a relatively easy thing to call for an end to chimpanzee research and to encourage public support by appealing to fiscal conservatism. What is far more challenging is to include consideration of real factors that significantly influence the outcomes for the animals, including an accurate assessment of where they can be housed, how best practices for care can be supported, real costs and dedicated sources of funding for long-term maintenance and facilities. Those details matter and deserve far more attention than they currently receive by those claiming to have chimpanzees’ welfare as the utmost priority.

Allyson J. Bennett

The story involves the landing of an aliens on Earth.  Robert calls them “The Gorgons.”

The Gorgons are an extremely advanced civilization only a few light years away from Earth. It is nearly impossible for humans to grasp the vast cognitive gap that separates our species.  Suffice it to say, our most magnificent cities are to them as ant mounds are to us.  Our artistic masterpieces are to their sophisticated senses as dull and mundane as a blank wall is to our eyes. They consider our greatest achievements in mathematics and physics nothing more than child’s play.

The Gorgons also have a deep scientific interest in learning about the nature of the Universe.  It is not surprising that, upon landing on Earth, they debate the use of humans in harmful invasive experiments as a means to learn more about aspects of galactic biology.

Would such experiments be ethically permissible?

What would a Gorgon think?

In order to answer the question we need more information than a statement about the Gorgons’ intellectual superiority.

Namely —  Do the Gorgons have a moral society?

Perhaps not.

Perhaps the Gorgons are like the Borg in the Star Trek series — a race of cybernetic organisms designed to adapt and efficiently assimilate any other civilization they encounter, but considerate enough to warn their victims that “resistance is futile”.

An amoral, technologically advanced civilization (the Borg) attempts to assimilate humans.

The Borg is capable of acquiring the technological knowledge of other civilizations, but incapable of absorbing any of their moral principles.  There is no doubt the Borg is highly intelligent and technologically advanced.  There is also no doubt that the Borg is amoral.

The Borg sees the assimilation of a civilization as neither right nor wrong — assimilation is simply what the Borg does.  It is its nature.  The same is true for a lion killing a gazelle.  The lion has no concept of his killing being right or wrong — that’s just what lions do.

If the Gorgons are an intellectually advanced but amoral civilization (like the Borg), then the question “What would a Gorgon think about harmful human experimentation?” is meaningless.  Gorgons are simply unable to pose themselves such question and we cannot answer for them.  What is certain is that if we were to run into amoral Gorgons the result would be the same as if we were to run into the Borg… or a hungry lion for that matter.

Of course there is another possibility.  The Gorgons may happen to be a race with moral principles.  In this case, one may argue the inferior intellectual capacities of our species would not be as important to them as the fact that we are share basic moral principles, such as the golden rule.

Basic rules of reciprocity among moral agents are expected to be shared among intelligent, rational life in the universe.  If the Gorgons are a moral society, we would expect they will recognize us as one too and treat accordingly under the self-evident (and now expanded) principle that:

 “All moral agents in our universe are created equal…”

This is a natural outcome in many fictional encounters with other worlds we read about in the science fiction literature, where different versions of a “prime directive” are at work — a binding principle of non-interference by humans with other less developed cultures and civilizations.

If mere humans can concoct such a prime directive, it is difficult to see how the more advanced, intelligent, rational and moral Gorgons would fail to reach the same conclusion.  No; a moral Gorgon civilization would not experiment on a moral human species.

But lets consider for completeness the remote possibility that the Gorgons will actually be a malevolent species and attack Earth in what develops to be an Independence Day scenario.

Here, Bernard Williams, wrote there is only one question left to ask.

Which side are you on?

He continued:

[...] hopes for self-improvement can lie dangerously close to the risk of self-hatred.  When the hope is to improve humanity to the point at which every aspect of its hold on the world can be justified before a higher court, the result is likely to be either self-deception, if you think you have succeed, or self-hatred and self-contempt when you recognize that you will always fail.  The self-hatred, in this case, is a hatred of humanity.  Personally I think that there are many things to loathe about human beings, but their sense of their ethical identity as a species is not one of them.”

*I thank Robert C. Jones for pointing out the science fiction story “To Serve Man” and the work of Bernard Williams and Hugh LaFollette on this topic.

The disease has claimed over 25 million lives.  Worldwide, over 33 million people are now living with HIV/AIDS.

This year marks the 30^th anniversary of the first report of the disease, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of June 5, 1981. By 1984 scientists had isolated the virus that caused the disease – human immunodeficiency virus, HIV.

It was a terrifying and frustrating time.  A diagnosis was considered a death sentence.  There were few treatments and little hope.   “All our patients died – 100 percent,” said one clinician about the era.

In 1985 the first diagnostic test was licensed and in 1987 AZT, the first anti-HIV drug, was approved. Over the past two decades, scientific progress in developing new treatments has been steady as dozens of new drugs were developed and several new methods of prevention were proven to be effective.

Jeff Getty - a hero of the fight against HIV/AIDS

In a bold experiment in 1995, Jeff Getty, a prominent HIV/AIDS activist and research advocate, received the first bone marrow transplant from a baboon.  The hope was that the animal’s natural resistance to HIV-1 would develop in his system.

I’m going to die anyway,” Jeff told a reporter. “Let’s get on with finding some answers about the disease.  If this saves me, then I got lucky.”

Despite approval by the FDA after extensive deliberation, many researchers had concerns about the procedure.  The physician who carried out the marrow transplant, Steven Deeks, an HIV/AIDS researcher at UCSF acknowledged, “We have been accused of being desperate, and to some extent we are,” he said. “We’re seeing people die every day and the therapies that are currently available and those that are predicted to be available over the next several years aren’t going to substantially slow that down.”

Ultimately, the baboon cells did not engraft, but Jeff’s health improved greatly.  His doctors thought some treatments, including radiation and chemotherapy, that he received in preparation for the transplant, were likely responsible for his upswing. Jeff felt the procedure ‘bought some time’ – and indeed, he lived long enough to benefit from another novel treatment he was receiving at the time: combination antiviral therapy.

The development from the mid-1990’s of the first generations of antiviral drug combinations known as Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART) was a breakthrough  that was to have a profound effect on the prognosis for HIV positive people, and was spurred by the arrival of HIV protease inhibitors, whose development depended in part on animal studies.

Jeff lived with HIV/AIDS for a total of 26 years, until October, 2006 when he died of heart failure.

While he was recovering in San Francisco General Hospital in December 1995 after the transplant, Jeff received a number of death threats from animal rights activists.  Jeff perceived PETA and other animal rights groups that opposed the use of laboratory animals as a direct threat to AIDS research.  He was not wrong: at the time PeTA had allied itself with ACT UP San Francisco* a malevolent organization that embraced HIV/AIDS denialism and attacked both HIV/AIDS researchers and other AIDS activists, including Jeff.

The following June, Jeff travelled to Washington DC  to work with Americans for Medical Progress in effectively speaking out against PETA’s anti-research stance, and the hypocrisy of Hollywood celebrities who supported PETA while wearing red ribbons in support of HIV/AIDS research.

He wrote the following commentary for the Wall Street Journal during that visit, and we reprint it in his honor on this World AIDS Day.

Sadly, while the options for successfully treating HIV/AIDS have improved dramatically since 1995 thanks to the efforts of scientists and of activists like Jeff, the animal rights anti-research agenda remains unchanged.

THE TRAGIC HYPOCRISY OF ‘ANIMAL RIGHTS’

by Jeff Getty
The Wall Street Journal, June 13, 1996

Without animal research there will be no cure for AIDS. My life and the lives of millions of people with HIV/AIDS depend on scientists working with animals to develop new therapies.

Every single drug we are taking right now to stay alive until a cure is found has come about only because of animal research. Yet the advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment for Animals (PETA) says it would oppose any cure for AIDS that involved research with animals.

Such extremists do not simply make animal research a matter of polite debate. One need not look far to find people with HIV or AIDS who have been targeted by the animal rights zealots. When I was fighting for my life in the hospital this winter, I received death wishes from so-called animal lovers. Cleve Jones, founder of the Names Project, received death threats after being a grand marshal for a gay rodeo. Peter Stahley of Treatment Action Group recently said that PETA is a direct threat to his life. He is right.

Using tactics of distortion, intimidation, harassment and in some cases even violence, animal rights extremists have effectively delayed significant AIDS research. Here are some examples:

• AIDS researchers at Stanford University in California were forced to build labs and complexes underground following attacks on university property carried out in the name of animal rights. According to one researcher there, the violent tactics of the animal rights fanatics’ violent tactics have added great costs to AIDS research, slowed certain projects and blocked other AIDS experiments from happening altogether due to high costs.

• Recently, a prominent immunologist in the Northeast who is researching important immune restoration therapies for people with AIDS said that the biggest obstacle to his research was over-restrictive animal rights laws. In his research, this AIDS scientist is transplanting thymus tissue from infants to adults. After transplants are performed on animals, researchers are prohibited from conductnig further biopsies on any of these animals. On the other hand, human study subjects can and will receive biopsies over and over, as needed.

• An animal rights group’s complaint to the National Institute of Health (NIH) about the appropriateness of the xenotransplant I received in December led to an expensive, time consuming paper chase for researchers. The NIH responded that there was no wrongdoing and that the experiment was approved to move forward. This bogus complaint caused people with AIDS needless waste of time and money.

• The Progressive Animal Welfare Society, an animal rights group, targeted a Washington State researcher and successfully shut down, for a time, research involving mother-to-child transmission of simian immunodeficiency virus among macaque monkeys. This work later turned out to be the foundation for treatment of human newborns with AZT to block HIV. How many children are now needlessly dying of AIDS because information that could have prevented their disease was obstructed by animal rights extremists?

Certain Hollywood celebrities like to wear red AIDS ribbons while also supporting groups like PETA. It is time for the hypocrisy to end. You can’t be for AIDS, breast cancer and diabetes research and also support militant animal rights groups.

The only productive research approach is intensive, well-funded biomedical experimentation performed by scientists free to use animals in their work. Contrary to PETA’s rhetoric, computers have not replaced animals for drug safety testing and research. It will be many years before such a computer is ever programmed, simply because we now only dimly understand how the immune system works.

Meanwhile, animal rights groups continue to take donors’ money, promising to fight “for the animals.” In fact, their agenda is to stop all animal research forever, no matter what the human cost. Dan Mathews, an openly gay employee of PETA, has said publicly that he agrees with the group’s opposition to a cure for AIDS if it came through animal research. When asked about the fate of those currently dying of the disease, he said “Don’t get the disease in the first place, schmo.” Dan does not have AIDS, but he has shown that he has contempt for the men, women and children who do.

Many of the cures for diseases that are now long gone and out of the way came from animal research. If PETA had it way 50 years ago, we’d be talking today about hundreds of thousands of people dying from polio, as well as AIDS.

*ACT UP San Francisco should not be confused with the other groups within the ACT UP network who did much and more to raise awareness of the HIV/AIDS crisis, drive forward research on new therapies, and improve access to effective treatment.

Speaking of Research

“Would you forgo medical treatment developed through animal research?”

We can safely assume that the vast majority of those that oppose animal research do not have any qualms about vaccinating their children and companion animals or that, in case of an accident, would rush to the nearest emergency room to be treated with the benefits of animal research.

Are they not hypocrites?

Mr. Bogle doesn’t think so.  In response he writes that to live true to our own challenge scientists must refuse all benefits obtained in ways we consider unethical as well.

Namely, he challenges us back with: (a) not traveling on roads built by slaves — if we really oppose slavery, (b) refusing the care of a doctor whose education was based partly on knowledge obtained by  Nazi physicians — if we truly oppose the Holocaust, and (c) for our daughters and wives to forgo gynecological care — as many of its techniques were apparently developed by Dr. J. Marion Sims using non-consenting human subjects.

This is a flawed argument.

It is clear that none of the unethical practices Mr. Bogle mentions are accepted nor widespread today.  Thus, by traveling on a road built by slaves one is not actively supporting slavery.  By accepting gynecological care, one is not actively supporting experiments in non-consenting human subjects.  And so on.

In contrast, the use of animals in medical research today is ubiquitous.  Animal research provides medical benefits that translate into longer and healthier lives.  There is a public demand for such benefits. If the desire for living longer and healthier lives vanished tomorrow, so would animal research, along with the rest of medical research.

Mr. Bogle’s challenge rests on a false analogy.

A proper analogy would be the following.  Suppose you oppose child and forced labor practices and you discover that a particular US company manufactures its products overseas under such labor conditions.

Would you still buy form such a company?  Is there any way in which you can rightfully say that you morally oppose forced labor but are nevertheless entitled to benefit from the cheap prices the company has to offer?

Of course not.

If you buy from such a company you are a hypocrite to the full extent of the word, as you are actively supporting, financing and perpetuating a practice you consider immoral.

Ethical principles are supposed to guide one’s moral judgements.  If you have strong moral principles you want to impart on the rest of society, you better be the first to be prepared to accept the consequences of such principles.

Mr. Bogle and his ilk should stop benefiting from our research immediately.

They should live by their beliefs, and we can help.

Until then, they are nothing more than hypocrites.