Tag Archives: animal rights extremism

Animal rights activism and medicine 100 years ago

Posted on May 21, 2013 by | 4 Comments

There is a rather interesting book, Animal Experimentation and Medical Progress by William Williams Keen, published in 1914, which describes some of the incidents in the animal research debate during the early 1900s.  What is  striking about this book is that it illustrates very clearly how little (if at all) the arguments and tactics of animal rights proponents have changed over the last 100 years.

Consider the kind of letters that scientists received because of their work with animals:

letter2

Sometimes, animal rights activists also felt it was also important in making their point to include other members of the scientist’s family in their missives.

letterThe language is nearly identical to the anonymous emails or web-postings attacking scientists today.

A century ago those opposed to the use of animals in medical research were already using deceptive, calumnious imagery, suggesting animals underwent surgical procedures without anesthetic,  which evoked the following, unanimous response from the English Royal Commission:

Image

And a hundred years ago, the scientific  community was already expressing  disbelief and regret at the lack of understanding of the work, and the activists’ willful ignorance of those that denied its benefits –

faseb_v2Scientists were not alone in their outrage.  One hundred years ago medical professionals from all over the world were prompted to issue a  statement at the International Medical Congress supporting animal research:

Image

Of course, Charles Darwin himself, had these famous words to offer some 30 years earlier:

Fortunately, some things have in fact changed over the last 100 years.

Back then we did not have antibiotics, nor vaccinations for terrible childhood diseases.  We do today.  Vaccines that save more than 3 millions people per year, and prevent millions of others from suffering from disease and permanent disabilities.

Back then X-rays machines were just being created, the machines were bulky and access was extremely difficult.  Today X-rays, doppler ultrasound, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, are all widely available providing some of the most useful diagnostic tools.

1901 Bayer Heroin ad

Back then Heroin was used in children’s syrup to treat cough and bloodletting was still used to treat fever and inflammation. Today, effective pain relievers and anti-inflammatories are widely available in the pharmacy at the corner.

Back then premature babies almost invariably died.  Today, the development of lung surfactants is saving the lives of babies across the world every day.

And the list of the benefits of animal research goes on and on…

Perhaps it can all be summarized by the fact that that back then life expectancy in the US was 52 years.  Today, we are living an average of 80 years.  In other words, in merely 3 generations, we increased our life expectancy by 60%.  This is time we all now enjoy with our loved ones, children and grandchildren.  Thanks to science.  Thanks to scientists. Thanks to responsible, animal research.

That is why one cannot help but keep repeating Darwin’s famous words “…he who retards the progress of physiology is committing a crime against mankind.”

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

European Storm Clouds gather over Italy

Posted on April 24, 2013 by | 6 Comments

There has been a rise in animal rights extremism across much of Europe for some time. Movements have increasingly focused on the breeding and transporting of Beagles used in animal experiments, however some seem to be broadening to all research.

While the UK has locked up the worst extremists (and those who have since been released have been under strict control orders (ASBOs) to prevent them from causing further trouble), the rest of Europe has not been as effective at tackling these problems. Furthermore, scientists in the UK have worked hard to explain the importance of the research they do to the British public, resulting in regular mentions of animal research within science-based stories (e.g. on potential medical breakthroughs). The Pro-Test movement in Oxford, UK, also did much to push the important contribution of biomedical research into the media spotlight.

In February activists began to campaign against AstraZeneca to release dogs being moved from a Swedish facility to a British one. The pharmaceutical agreed to rehome 80 dogs after approval from the veterinarian, however the remainder were considered important to continued medical research efforts. If AZ were to release the remaining animals, it would only require them to breed more later, negating any possible welfare benefit. Nonetheless activists tracked the shipment, protesting at both the departing flight and arrival hours later. This shows signs of increasing international cooperation between animal rights groups.

Elsewhere, five activists broke into a breeding facility in the Netherlands and stole six of their dogs. The activists promptly turned themselves into the police, but we must be concerned by this new found confidence in breaking the law by European activists.

The pressure on airlines also continues, with Vietnam Airlines joining the large number of airlines that publicly refuse to transport animals for research. This pressure has tended to be a mix of “mass communication” (emails, tweets, FB messages, letters) and office protests – activists were at the London office of Vietnam airlines only days before they caved.

However, it is in Italy where there is most concern.

In April 2012, activists stormed the Marshall Green Hill beagle breeding facility and “liberated” dozens of beagles – handing them over the fence as the police did little more than watch.

In March 2013, activists blockaded the transport of 8 beagles to an Italian pharmaceutical, Menarini. Menarini caved and decided to give away the eight beagles in hope of placating the activists. Clearly all this does is show the activists that if they keep pushing the boundaries of legal activism, they will get what they want.

In April 2013, during World Week for Animals in Laboratories, activists broke into the University of Milan’s animal labs (hundreds more protested outside). They purposely mixed up the records of the animals, effectively destroying much of the research being done on psychiatric diseases. Activists chained themselves to emergency exit doors, and demanded the release of the animals, occupying the facility for 12 hours. Incredibly, the University caved – they agreed to give almost 100 of the animals over (mice and rabbits) then and there, and promised to negotiate the release of hundreds more (though the Rector of the University has since released a public statement saying that there is no agreement with the extremists, that no more animals will be handed over, and that the University will be taking the extremists to court and seeking damages).

All of this comes under a backdrop of poor policing of protests, and a legal system and media which seems hell bent at turning its back on science.

A Silver Lining?

There are glimmers of hope. Our previous post mentioned the scientists and researchers who are standing up against extremism in Italy. Around 60 people rallied under the banner of Pro-Test Italia, the third such movement to appear around the world (after the original Pro-Test in Oxford, and Pro-Test for Science in California. Pro-Test Italia stood in defence of important research using animals. As Italian researchers say enough is enough, there is a real chance that the balance of the animal research debate can be redressed. Hopefully more people will now begin to speak up about why animals are used – without this, there is little hope of changing the mind of the Italian public.

Speaking of Research

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, News

Tagged , , , ,

Threats and Hypocrisy, A Steve Best Story

Posted on November 5, 2012 by | 119 Comments

We get plenty of emails from people supporting the use of animals in research. We sometimes get an email from those against. Yesterday we got an email from Prof. Steve Best. Indeed, in the last few days it appears that a number of scientists have also been receiving emails and voicemails from him. Among his comments he states that “[we] are violating [his] academic free speech rights with these false unproven claims, and [he] will take the most aggressive legal action against all of [us]“. Let’s take a closer look.

Best, an associate professor in philosophy at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) (though he now only runs online courses), hasn’t been very happy with Speaking of Research in the last few days – not since we wrote an article exposing him for the hypocritical animal rights extremist he is.

In the comment section of that post, several people posted personal information about Prof. Best, his girlfriend and her child, making allegations about his conduct. The text of these comments had been copied from a post by Camille Marino (another animal rights extremist whom Steve Best is currently taking legal action against) on the Negotiation Is Over website (These allegations have been up several times for hours at a time on the NIO website). Because at Speaking of Research we condemn such personal attacks and the publishing of personal information the comment was removed and the thread blocked from further comments.

However, Best’s outrage does appear to smell of double standards when you consider that:

In April 2010, he posted on NIO a video of himself attempting to confront a man rumored to trap and poison cats that wandered into his yard. The man wasn’t home, but his wife and small daughter were. “If I hear he’s hurting cats, I’m going to be all over his office,” Best told them. “You tell him I’ll have a thousand people all over this place. You tell him Steve Best dropped by. You remember that name.”

Best posted the man’s phone numbers and addresses, along with pictures of his wife and children, beneath the video. In an update the next day, he thanked “all who called and expressed concern” for letting the alleged cat-poisoner know “he is being watched.”

Prof. Best feels some tactics are perfectly fine when directed at others but not himself and his loved ones.

But this is not all.  Prof. Best now takes issue with a statement made by Speaking of Research saying that Steve Best helped to fund Marino’s campaign against students at UF. This campaign, starting in early June, involved putting up flyers offering students money to provide details on fellow students who were carrying out animal research. He is now threatening to take legal action against Profs. Dario Ringach and David Jentsch (who, incidentally, is no longer writing for Speaking of Research as he focuses on his own blog “The Unlikely Activist“)

As a reminder, this campaign, starting in early June, involved putting up flyers offering students money to provide details on fellow students who were carrying out animal research.

Some of the facts on this campaign, including Best apparent financial assistance to NIO, were first reported in Carlton Purvis’ article, “Why is a UT professor collecting donations for an animal rights groups that target college professors” which we followed up in our post.  Sadly, the scientific community also blogged about one instance where a student, Alena Rodriguez at FAU, was successfully driven away from a life of research by such campaign by NIO and its associates:

Steve Best’s answer in his email:

I was not involved in Marino’s student campaign in any way except to give her a dormant account I was not using

So it is perfectly clear, by his own admission, that Prof. Best did help Marino fund Negotiation is Over and its campaigns by providing Marino with his PayPal account.  And let’s not forget that such support comes from a man who has implicitly called for the death of scientists (“Let every motherfucking vivisector be vivisected and thrown away like the shit they are“) and posted the address and pictures of those he wanted targeted by his followers (see above), and a man that co-founded the North American Animal Liberation Press Office.

Best now claims that after the campaign he withdrew the PayPal account from Marino and “began to distance [himself] more and more from NIO“. However, he was still co-authoring articles with Marino several months later and left Marino in charge of the PayPal account for almost 6 months after her original campaign. Furthermore, NIO and Best’s blog were also simulposting for most of early 2012.

Steve Best and Camille Marino Co-authoring an article in October 2011

According to Best’s email his opinion on Marino’s campaign was “I disagreed with [it] and when I got wind of it, it [sic] told her to find another PayPal account“. As previously mentioned, it took him six months to get wind of it! Indeed in November 2011 Best’s email address was still linked to NIO campaigns.

Steve Best’s email for NIO PayPal Donations

“and yet you have not one shred of proof beyond my my dormant email account” – Best writes.

Let’s see what used to be on NIO then:

“Please use the Paypal link in the right sidebar of this site or send your enrollment fees through PayPal to sbest1@elp.rr.com.”

and the email sent to us at SR…

The email above is definitely Steve Best’s email

Very dormant email account Steve. But maybe he just revived it for us – however it seems in May 2011 he was also actively using this account in his own blog (middle content removed):

Despite the weight of evidence, Best hammers home his threat when he says:

you are violating my academic free speech rights with these false unproven claims, and I will take the most aggressive legal action against all of you, just as I have against Marino, who is soon to go down on federal charges for further violations of my PPO.

Absolutely not.  We are not acting against his academic freedom. If anything we are merely defending the academic freedom of those of his academic colleagues at UTEP and elsewhere that Prof. Best wants “to be vivisected and thrown away like the shit they are.”  Most universities have an ethical code of conduct that make such speech unacceptable academic behavior.  One must wonder if UTEP has one or not.

Prof. Best is free to speak up his mind and support animal rights extremists and their actions, but he must understand that such freedom does not entail freedom from the consequences of such speech or acts. Here and elsewhere, we have simply explained and documented the connection between Negotiation is Over, their campaigns to harass and intimidate students, the PayPal account they used to accept donations, and its link to Prof. Best email account.

Speaking of Research

Update: Janet Stemwedel has blogged about this story in Adventures in Ethics and Science. PalMD has added his perspective in White Coat Underground.  Orac bring all these points together in Respectful Insolence.  Popehat has commented as well.

→ 119 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Prof. Steven Best gets a taste of his own medicine… and doesn’t like it

Posted on October 23, 2012 by | 1 Comment

“Every motherfucker who hurts animals is gonna feel the fear!”  The words come courtesy of Dr. Steven Best, from the Philosophy Department at the University of Texas, El Paso, in the YouTube video below.

Among the “motherfuckers” one will find a medical scientist searching for cures to terrible diseases such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, a farmer raising animals for food, and a gardener eating a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch. It is no secret, however, that the ultimate target of his moral philosophy is more ambitious — “May this upside down world be set right … and the human voice never again be heard” he declares.  Such expressions of deep, self-hatred for mankind as a whole are commonly shared among animal rights extremists.

For a number of years the UTEP Professor and co-founder of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office has been widely known for endorsing violence in his quest for “total animal liberation” under the concept of “extensional self-defense.”  Acting as a “proxy agent” for the animals, Best and his associates have concluded they (or preferentially someone else that can be solicited for the crime) are justified in using violence to impart their views of morality on the rest of society.  For these groups, “justifiable homicide” becomes an acceptable way to deal with moral disputes.

And what about the law?

In Dr. Best’s words: “Fuck the law. When the law is wrong, the right thing to do is break it”.

There are three points to clarify here.  First, he is not simply talking about civil disobedience or property damage.  “Let every motherfucker who shoots animals be shot; Let every motherfucker who poisons animals be injected with a barrel of battery acid; Let every motherfucking vivisector be vivisected and thrown away like the shit they are,” he wrote in 2011.  Second, it appears the premise is that Prof. Best is the one to decide if the law is wrong or not (society does not really have much of a say).  Third, Prof. Best thinks that event if the law is right, he is entitled to take it into his own hands. For example, it has been reported that:

In April 2010, he posted on NIO a video of himself attempting to confront a man rumored to trap and poison cats that wandered into his yard. The man wasn’t home, but his wife and small daughter were. “If I hear he’s hurting cats, I’m going to be all over his office,” Best told them. “You tell him I’ll have a thousand people all over this place. You tell him Steve Best dropped by. You remember that name.”

Best posted the man’s phone numbers and addresses, along with pictures of his wife and children, beneath the video. In an update the next day, he thanked “all who called and expressed concern” for letting the alleged cat-poisoner know “he is being watched.”

His hateful rhetoric has been duly noted by UK’s Home Office which barred him from ever entering the UK in the future, and by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), one of the largest nonprofits dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry. The SPLC recently ran an article highlighting Best’s connection and support of the animal right extremists group “Negotiation is Over”. The leader of this group, Ms. Camille Marino, follows her mentor’s teachings when she writes about a UCLA professor in the following terms:

If you spill blood, your blood should be spilled as well. [W]e’re no longer playing games. We will print your information. And we’ll be at your homes. We’ll be at your work. We’ll be at your country clubs and golf courses. We’ll see you at your manicurist and we’ll be kneeling next to you when you take that next holy communion wafer on Sunday. If I have my way, you’ll be praying to us for mercy.

Prof. Best not only provided the ideological basis for Marino’s hate campaign, but as we learned last year, he helped to fund her harassment of scientists and students.

Prof. Best clearly relishes a bit of harassment and intimidation.

Up to a point, that is.  When the same acts are directed his way then he prefers to have the law of the land enforced.

Camille Marino (left) and Steve Best (right)

In Steve Best – Animal Rights Activist vs Camille Marino he wrote that she “apparently has a fondness for blackmail, cyberstalking, harassment, threats, intimidation and slander for she has targeted a number of prominent people she considers her enemies in the US animal rights movement, me above all” (emphasis Best’s).  In the petition Dr. Best alleges verbal, mental and emotional abuse and wrote

She is crazy and she has done this to others so she will not stop with me.  She is suicidal but she told me she won’t go alone and she tastes my blood,  She is very dangerous and I fear for my life.

He adds:

I hope you see how little regard this woman has for the law, I want a full cease and desist order to stop her from ever again contacting me in any way, including ever mentioning my name in any public forum or context whatsoever, including her website and Facebook.

I hope you see how little regard this woman has for the law, for the rights and respect of others [...]

I am a Dr. Professor at UTEP and I can’t have her slandering my name and the threats she is posting. Please help me.

So finally Dr. Best gets a taste of his own medicine… and doesn’t like it.

And now, he begs for help from the same organized society he hates and wants to see destroyed.

Really?

[Update: Nature is blogging on this ongoing developing story]

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Animal Rights News, News

Tagged , , , ,

University of Leicester shows how it’s done as new animal research facility opens

Posted on September 28, 2012 by | Leave a comment

In a ceremony at the University of Leicester today City Mayor Sir Peter Soulsby opened the new Central Research Facility, marking the beginning of a new era for animal research there.  Speaking at the ceremony, the Mayor welcomed the University’s investment, saying:

The University of Leicester has a well-deserved, worldwide reputation for its pioneering research, which has been key to many life-saving medical advances. The opening of this new facility shows the University’s continued commitment to breaking new ground. This is something that the whole city can take pride in.”

Leicester City Mayor Sir Peter Soulsby at the opening of the University of Leicester’s new Central Research Facility.

Professor Mike Barer, Director of Research in the School of Medicine, Biological Sciences and Psychology and a noted expert on tuberculosis, highlighted the past achievements of Leicester scientists, before commenting on the benefits that the new laboratory would bring to both scientific research and animal welfare at the university.

The University of Leicester is recognised nationally as a leading centre standing up for animal research for medical benefit conducted within a clear moral and ethical framework balancing consideration of humans and animals.

The facility provides an exceptional environment for both animals and investigators. Of particular note are the new facilities for imaging applied to animals such that many less subjects will be required to achieve valid results.”

Some examples of this work were included in a series of case studies of recent and current animal research published by the University of Leicester.

A few hours before the opening ceremony  Tom Feilden from the BBC’s flagship “Today” news program (item begins at 08.49) noted the University’s unusual openness about the new animal research facility, as Professor Mike Barer and Dr Claire Gibson showed him around and discussed the research bring undertaken there.

Should we be surprised at this openness? Well, perhaps not.

Back in 2010 in a post entitled “Leicester – The New British Battleground?” we reported on how an animal rights campaign called “Stop the Leicester Animal Lab” had launched a campaign against the new laboratory, complete with false allegations about secret unlicensed research involving dogs (seriously, we’re not making this up…they did). The University responded in an unusually forthright way by inviting a local journalist to tour their existing medical sciences building (which the new lab will replace), talk to scientists working there and see for themselves the conditions in which the animals are kept.  The outcome of this visit was an article in “This is Leicestershire” that was overwhelmingly positive towards the scientists who work there, and lambasted the animal rights campaign for being “economical with the truth” (which was putting it mildly).  “Stop the Leicester Animal Lab” appear to have run out of steam soon afterwards, and construction of the new laboratory continued. In the end Leicester did not become a battlefield, and the credit for this must go to the University for taking a strong stance in support of the work its scientists do.

The University of Leicester taught us an important lesson in 2010, that “No comment” is never the right response to animal rights campaigns. By engaging positively with the press and the public the University dispelled the animal rights lies and misinformation, and helped people to understand the value of animal research and its crucial role in advancing medicine. It’s great to see the University of Leicester continue to show how it’s done!

With public support for animal research in the UK remaining high one might be tempted to ask if universities, research institutes, charities and individual researchers still need to do more to engage with the public around the issue of animal research.

The answer couldn’t be clearer. Yes!

While some organizations have greatly improved their communication on animal research, many others can do a lot more. Despite the substantial decline in animal rights extremist incidents in the UK over the past decade, other threats to biomedical research remain. A worrying trend is the increasing number of transport companies that have declared the will no longer carry animals that are destined to be used in research, as noted in a guest post on this blog by Eric Raemdonck and a strong editorial published in Nature only last week.  While such limits on laboratory animal transport may now appear to be more a nuisance than a real problem, and affect only a small proportion of studies directly, the reality is that if this trend continues it may greatly hinder an increasingly international biomedical research community. As the Nature Editorial states:

If individual scientists wait until they are personally affected — until the day when that mouse carefully bred in Shanghai or Singapore or Stockholm cannot be had for love nor money in San Francisco — it will be long past too late to mount the vigorous, public campaign in defense of animal research that is so sorely called for at this moment.

As researchers join this battle — and join it, they must — they should, as a first step, work through their institutions, academic societies and umbrella groups to make an urgent, articulate, unified case to UPS and FedEx that the shipping of animals, mammalian and other­wise, is essential for both biomedical research and scientific education.”.

We strongly echo that call for coordinated action by the international scientific community, and add that institutions, academic societies and individual scientists also need to follow the great example set by the University of Leicester and celebrate the endeavours and accomplishments of animal research and the scientists who undertake it. Only by ensuring that the public fully appreciates the importance of animal research to medical progress in the 21st century will we be able to safeguard that progress.

Paul Browne

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Animal Rights News, News, Outreach News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Defending science and countering falsehood at the University of Wisconsin Madison

Posted on September 20, 2012 by | 22 Comments

PeTA celebrated a victory the past week when they obtained photographs of cats that are part of medical research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  The work involves a small number of cats in studies that provide better understanding of hearing and that are relevant to improving treatment for human deafness.

An explanation of the purpose of the research, the care of the animals, and the reason that cats make unique contributions to this work are all clearly addressed in a university statement:

The research develops a better understanding of how the brain combines information from the two ears, including sound localization. Cats are used because of their extraordinary talents at localizing sounds. Feral cats likely do most of their hunting at night because that is when their rodent prey is most active. Because vision at night is limited, hearing is the primary sensory cue for the cat to localize its prey. The cat auditory system is very similar to that of humans, making it relevant to clinical studies of humans with bilateral cochlear implants.

An op-ed written by UW-Madison Department of Neuroscience professors Donata Oertel and Peter Lipton on behalf of 65 UW faculty members provides a voice of reason among a sea of emotive, rather than factual, accusations.

Widely recognized and respected in the biomedical research community, this research benefits hundreds of thousands of people who suffer from hearing loss. It is being mischaracterized by animal rights militants for their own purposes.

By spreading misinformation and outright falsehoods, PETA bypasses our system of justice and promotes harassment and attacks on the people and institutions that engage in important biomedical research.

Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison also seem less than impressed by PeTA’s allegations, and were not afraid to say so when interviewed by the Badger Herald and Daily Cardinal during a PeTA protest yesterday. Speaking to the Daily Cardinal about research she is involved in, biochemistry major Kelsey Corrigan rejected PeTA’s claims concerning the treatment of animals:

“We are not vicious toward them or treat them poorly, instead we use them in an effort to gain knowledge about cancer treatments.”

While PeTA used these photographs effectively to attract media and public attention, as is often the case, the images did not tell the whole story about the research.  Nor did PeTA.

That is not surprising. The point of PeTA’s three year quest to obtain these photographs—or really, any photographs at all that might be novel and useful in their campaigns—is absolutely straightforward.  Their goal is to provide the public with a negative view of animal research. The more sensational the photographs, the better they are; better for attracting media coverage, better for persuading others that laboratory animal research is inhumane without actually providing the facts, context, and accurate information.

What is surprising is the relative ease with which this tactic continues to work for groups like PeTA. Part of the reason that it works is that activist groups know they are unlikely to be countered immediately by effective presentation of the facts and explanation that the public or media would need to put the photographs into appropriate context. We have written previously about exactly this type of campaign and the continuing need for a much more public, immediate, and specific response that can provide reasonable people with answers to the questions that are raised by photographs provided without any context at all.

We were glad to see that the University of Wisconsin did in fact address each of PeTA’s claims with specific information in a point-by-point response that shows just how far PeTA went to misrepresent the facts about research at the University.  We hope that those who are interested in knowing more about the cats and the research will go beyond the PeTA pictures and give thoughtful consideration to the university’s detailed explanation of what those pictures show and why the research is performed.

The research community can do little to change the minds of those committed to ending animal research and that is not the goal of providing a public response to misrepresentation.  What the research community and their institutions can do, however, is to acknowledge the importance of contributing the factual information that is so urgently needed for the informed dialogue that a serious topic deserves.

It is an unfortunate reality that groups like PeTA will use sensational tactics and stunts as part of their agenda. In a time of continuing increases in transparency of animal research in the U.S., along with rapidly evolving communication tools, it is also an unfortunate reality that the old-school approach of institutions offering no comment, or offering blanket statements in response to public and media queries, will simply not work.  We need responses– like those of the UW-Madison faculty, administrators, and students– that support the science, address misrepresentation, provide facts, and promote civil dialogue.

Allyson J. Bennett

Addendum October 11, 2012 : The USDA inspection report has now been published and confirms that no non-compliant items were identified during the focused inspection at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in late September and early October.  In his story “Feds Clear UW of Wrongdoing Following PeTA Complaint”, Capital Times reporter Todd Finkelmeyer posts the USDA inspection report  and this summary:  “’This officially closes this matter for us,’ USDA spokesman David Sacks said in an email to the Cap Times. Sacks added that this was a ‘focused inspection — not a full facility inspection,’ and was designed to look specifically at the allegations leveled by PETA.”

→ 22 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, Campus Activism, News, Outreach News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Safeguarding medical progress means supporting animal transport

Posted on August 16, 2012 by | 2 Comments

The following guest post is from Eric Raemdonck, who has a background in the aviation transport industry. Eric recently launched the Advancing Animal Research blog, whose purpose is to ” establish bridges between the aviation world, the life sciences, health care, pharmaceutical, animal research industries,  educational institutions and their  affiliate or representative associations as well as Governmental organisations”.

Facing a virulent campaign by animal rights activists, a growing number of airlines around the world now refuse to transport certain species of research animals, chiefly non-human primates (NHPs).  This worrisome development not only threatens medical progress, but also puts the health and welfare of those animals at risk.

Animal rights extremists are trying to put a chokehold on the airline industry’s service to biomedical research via social media write-in campaigns, demonstrations at airline offices around the world, and even protests at the homes of airline executives.

Everyone concerned with the future of biomedical research must actively reject these tactics of intimidation and harassment, and stand in support of those airlines that continue to transport animals safely, comfortably and quickly to where they are needed to advance the quest for treatments and cures.

As a former secretary of the International Air Transportation Association’s Live Animals and Perishables Board, I can attest that airlines that transport animals employ highly skilled specialists and focus on finding the quickest routes possible to ensure the health of the animals en route to research institutions.

Animal research remains a small but vital component of the research and development process for new medicines.  Without the ability to move research models from one country to another, or from breeder to research institution, crucial scientific research seeking new treatments for heart disease, cancer, spinal cord injuries, epilepsy and numerous other ills could come to a halt.

As things stand, almost every commercial airline in the world, save but a handful, now refuses to transport non-human primates for research, even though many have policies in place allowing for the transport of NHPs for other purposes.

The United Kingdom has perhaps the most stringent laws and oversight on the use of animals in research, yet no U.K.-based air carrier is willing to transport NHPs destined for research into the country.  In the United States,  very few commercial carriers remain to do the job.  Airlines of other nations, upon which research institutions are increasingly relying for their animal transportation needs, are also feeling the pressure from activists and some have already given way to demands that they no longer carry laboratory animals.

Why is this happening?  Why are airlines targets?

As research institutions themselves become increasingly adept at blunting the impact of activists’ campaigns, leaders in the animal rights movement are now looking toward those companies with whom the research community works or relies upon for services.  ‘Stop research animal transportation and you stop animal research’ is the thinking behind the actions of animal rights extremists in targeting airlines.

Animal extremist campaigns against the airlines, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection’s Primate Cargo Cruelty and various Internet petitions attract thousands of signatures.   PETA also has an action alert on its web site, calling on readers to “Ask Airlines to Stop Shipping Monkeys to Be Tortured.”

Social media tools such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are used extensively in these campaigns to solicit support, donations, and calls for immediate action to change airline policy to include a ‘no-fly’ regulation for research animals.

The message to their followers is clear: only a few airlines remain, and by working together activists can put a stop to this practice.  The message to the airlines is equally clear: change your transportation policy or we will tell the public to no longer fly with you.  Through email campaigns alone,  some lasting only a few hours, several airlines have made the decision to stop transporting research animals.  This was done without any consultation with the companies involved and without  any notice.  This has occurred while airlines continue to transport animals for other industries and passengers.

Straightforward security steps taken by airlines and research institutions alike can blunt the impact of many of the activists’ campaign tactics, and protect the airlines and others involved in the global supply chain. Additionally, there are steps that concerned individuals may take to help ensure that safe and humane transport of laboratory animals will continue.

1/Stand by the airline industry and voice your support through associations such as AALAS – American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (www.aalas.org),   CALAS—Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Science (www.calas-acsal.org) ICLAS – International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (www.iclas.org) and other scientific and professional organizations that advocate for both biomedical research and laboratory animal welfare.  Ensure that the issue of protecting humane research animal transportation is on their agendas.

2/Ensure that your elected officials appreciate the importance of animal research, and ask them to look into the problem of the declining pool of available airlines for the continued transport of research animals.

3/Inform others as to the humane and judicious nature of animal research, and why it is still needed.  Underscore its achievements and the medical progress to which it has contributed.  Information and links to resources to get you started are here on the Speaking of Research site, and on my Advancing Animal Research blog at http://research4drugdiscovery.blogspot.ca/

Eric Raemdonck

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Animal rights activists protest Curiosity driven research

Posted on August 7, 2012 by | 9 Comments

The last couple of days was nothing but jubilation at NASA/JPL after the landing of the rover Curiosity on Mars.  President Obama congratulated scientists on the occasion by stating:

The successful landing of Curiosity — the most sophisticated roving laboratory ever to land on another planet — marks an unprecedented feat of technology that will stand as a point of national pride far into the future.”

However, the atmosphere changed dramatically this morning. As JPL scientists came to work, they were perplexed to be greeted by a group of noisy animal rights protestors at the entrance to the Jet Propulsion Labs in Pasadena, California.

Michael Bunkie, from Stop Alien Exploitation Now, told a group of reporters gathered at the scene that:

 These experiments have been done before and nothing came out of them. How many times do we have to land on Mars to just look at rocks?  I mean, all of them look the same! We already have space junk on Mars.  Why do we need more? This is clearly duplicative research done at the taxpayer expense and it must stop.”

Mr. Bunkie said he will FOIA every employee at NASA to obtain more information on what he called “an outrageous waste of resources.”

Dr. Maximus Ego, a retired physician and long-time scientific advisor to Bunkie, added:

“There is really nothing we can learn on Mars that will help humans.  Chaos theory and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle guarantee that even if life originated first on Mars, nothing we learn about its evolutionary history will be applicable to us.  I have published a 300-page long proof of this obvious statement (available from Amazon for $12).  After all, they are Martians and we are humans. Isn’t this obvious to NASA and its so-called scientists?”

When asked about the potential benefits of the research claimed by the space agency Dr. Ego added:

Gimme a break! This is clearly curiosity-driven research.  Nothing else, nothing more. They even named the rover ‘Curiosity’!  It is unacceptable for them to keep misleading the public by saying the questions at hand have any significance for advancing well-being on Earth. This type of research is worse than the discovery of the Higgs Boson!”

As JPL scientists quickly walked past, Dr. Ego ran after them screaming “I challenge you to a debate! Come on, I challenge you to a debate!  Do you know what a hypothesis is? Do you?!” 

Meanwhile, Rick Bungled, of the Alliance for Microbial Ethics, stood by silently holding a sign that read “How like us are they?”  When asked about its meaning Mr. Bungled explained:

How can we be invading Mars when we know there is a chance there might be life there? We must give these hypothetical organisms the benefit of the doubt, and assume they are sentient and conscious life forms just like us. For humans to gratuitously invade other planets is nothing more than a sign of our decadence. We have already destroyed Earth and now we are going to destroy the rest of the Universe. Humans are nothing but evil monsters (except me, of course). The Universe would be a better place if we all killed ourselves (I mean, if you killed yourselves).”

Nearby, Dr. Andrew Smoothtalk, from the Humane Planetary Society, said his organization held a much more moderate position.

“Of course we support science.  But we are now in the 21st century and have developed advanced computers, such as IBM’s Watson which can defeat you at Jeopardy. Clearly, we have the technology to simulate the origin of the solar system. We could send a virtual rover to a simulated Mars and explore simulated life in this simulated planet. We could even give scientists 100 bonus points for a good landing!  Given these new methods, which these NASA scientists are completely unaware of, we think time has come for NASA to switch these type of space exploration with more cost-effective methods than studying the real thing”  Waving out a piece of paper he pulled form his pocket he exclaimed “Here, I have with me a pledge that NASA can sign which already counts with the support of about 800 Raelians.”

NASA/JPL reacted to the criticism by circulating an email to the press this morning stating that they have serious and important work to do and are not planning on wasting precious time in responding to the activist’s allegations.

A masked activist, after being told of the NASA statement, said the activist will continue their relentless work to make space exploration stop “by all means necessary” — and walked away with a Molotov cocktail under his arm.  “To educate the neighbors” — he clarified.  Mr. Bungled, standing next to him, sighed deeply and explained that “the continued refusal by scientists to engage with activists can only lead to violent actions by the underground. Don’t tell us we didn’t warn you.”

Disclaimer: Although this may look like a real story you might have read over the past year or two,  it is in fact satire. Any resemblance to actual living persons is…err…purely coincidental and not to be taken (too) seriously.

Speaking of Research

→ 9 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,