Threats and Hypocrisy, A Steve Best Story

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”

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 thoughts on “Threats and Hypocrisy, A Steve Best Story

  1. Here’s an interesting public commentary excerpt from the good “Dr. Professor.” Marino’s demented and criminal campaigns against The University of Florida were publicly denounced and Best who now contends he knew nothing about her antics weighed in:

    “Utterly enfeebled in spirit and creativity, the only “activism” that potluck passifists can undertake is to attack those who grasp the urgency of planetary crisis, to malign (in the discourse, no less, of the corporate-state complex) someone who stopped baking cookies and started cooking up resistance; a woman (Camille) who possesses the courage and vision to elevate this war against life to something other than a tea party and parlor game.”

    His entire academic thesis may be viewed here:

  2. I don’t think this is a question that anyone should have to answer.

    In principle, Alafair’s philosophy, (correct me if I’m wrong – that the lives of humans and non-human animals have equal value), would prevent her from accepting a blood transfusion. However, asking anyone to make the extreme statement that they would die for their beliefs, proves nothing and is not productive.

    People re-evaluate their beliefs all the time, especially if they are faced with death, either their own or that of a loved one. There are many factors at play here, and people should have the freedom to moderate their beliefs in response to reality. They should not be forced (literally with the threat of death) into an extreme position to avoid being labelled a hypocrite.

    I do not agree with Alafair’s philosophy, but I do think she is free to have it, to discuss it, and even to change it in light of new evidence. What she is not free to do however, is to force it onto others.

    1. If the animal was not harmed, allowed to live a natural life in a natural setting, allowed to behave in natural ways, does not have pain inflicted upon them then i would consider it maybe i would have to evaluate all the details.

  3. Good point … and if he were to refuse anti-venom or a transfusion, every medical person I know would say “OK, sign the refusal form here” and let him live or die without the treatment.

    (they would still try to save him, within the limits he imposed)

      1. Sorry; Alafair is not a name that’s familiar to me. Funny how we make assumptions about people isn’t it?

      2. You are dodging the question: Does your desire to do away with the use of animals extend to the ongoing, everyday use of animals in medicine? Are you willing to die of blood loss rather than accept a transfusion that uses rabbit and cow-derived proteins for the crossmatch?

      3. And regardless of your gender, you are still dodging the question:

        Does your desire to do away with the use of animals extend to the ongoing, everyday use of animals in medicine? Are you willing to die of blood loss rather than accept a transfusion that uses rabbit and cow-derived proteins for the crossmatch? (the blood itself comes from volunteers)

  4. Ron and Alafair – You seem to be ignoring my questions about the ongoing non-research use of animals in medicine.

    Here’s an example of animal products and animal research used in medicine:

    Should the girl die because goats are used to produce the antibodies in those vials?

    BTW, that’s the same anti-venom that a vet would use to save a dog that blunders into a snakebite, or a dog that gets bitten protecting a human:

        1. If by opposing animal research you had prevented the development of vaccines, for example, you would also be picking who lives and who dies because of their biological makeup. How do you justify your decision? As for “find another way”. Indeed, scientists are finding other ways.

      1. Find a non animal way to make the antibodies” …. it’s probably being researched. But they are huge molecules, and each venom type requires its own set of antibodies. Also – how does the producer find out what the antibody receptor site should look like in this artificially produced antibody? Animal research, of course.

        When researchers did get a plant to produce antigens for a vaccine, they were screamed at for producing unnatural things, “GMO” plants, monstrous things, etc. I can imagine the furor if the anti-rabies serum or the tetanus anti-toxins were produced in something genetically modified.

        The currently used scorpion and snake anti-venom in the USA is produced in horses … if you were bitten and showing severe symptoms, would you stand by your principles and refuse treatment?

        Does your desire to do away with the use of animals extend to the ongoing, everyday use of animals in medicine? Are you willing to die of blood loss rather than accept a transfusion that uses rabbit and cow-derived proteins for the crossmatch?

        1. I think it’s entirely possible that Alafair would be prepared to die rather than receive a blood transplant. That’s fine. Some religious groups would do the same. However, that’s not the point. The point is, he does not have the right to impose that choice onto others.

          To put it into his own rather emotive language, he does not have the right to pick and choose who lives or dies because of a philosophy about the rights of non-human animals.

        2. interesting fact – insulin for diabetics is now made by genenitcally modified bacteria were before hand it was sourced from pig pancreas’s. Though this method of production has two majour drawbacks 1. insulin is a large molecule so large that it needs more than one batch of modified bacteria to make the complete molecule. 2. there are quite a few differences of how proteins are synthesised in bacterial (prokaryotes) and animal (eukaryotes) cells. This video will explain them- I knew my animal science degree will come in handy.

  5. Suffering and pain can be subjective as in different indviduals (humans and animals) can tolerate pain at different levels and there is the problem that the assesment of pain and suffering and thus what can be deemed acceptable and unacceptable can often be anthropomorphised and thus not related to the animal in question. The animal in question may experience pain in a different way to humans. A link to a good research journal on the subject, which I had to look at as part of my animal science degree (BSc Hons) can be found below.

  6. @Earthboundvegan Im predicting that your a non extremist supportor of animal rights who most likely uses non violent methods to gain support.whilst people like Steve Best and Camille Marino actively support and encourage violent and crimnal methods to get there way. Thus who what to distance your self away from them?

  7. @Earthboundvegan “Camille Marino’s actions have nothing to do with animal rights. … Camille Marino does NOT represent the animal rights movement.” Does Steve Best represent the animal rights movement? What are your criteria for sorting who represents it and whose actions are unacceptable?

    1. You keep throwing Steve Best into the mix in this discussion. What does your specific dislike for Steve Best have to do with the real problem, which is this writer’s promotion of the idea that Camille Marino is not fully responsible for her own actions because she is some sort of Frankenstein’s monster created by Steve Best? Camille Marino made her own decisions and I have no intention on allowing your subversion to take attention away from that, simply because you wish to turn responsibility for all of her actions toward Steve Best. How irresponsible can you be? This woman needs real psychiatric help and she doesn’t need to be walking the streets, nor does she need vivisectionists making excuses for her, because they want to keep her on the streets, as they know so long as she is, she gives animal rights activists a bad name. That is the truth of it, isn’t it?

  8. Ron – why don’t you link us to a video (just one to start with) that was taken in the US in the last 5 years.

      1. It’s disgusting. As far as I know the lab workers in question were fired and the lab was shut down. Good. Such rare circumstances are shocking – but the exception not the rule.
        I can’t defend what I see, but I can say that the same exists in many fields – you will (very rarely) see a video of similar problems in a hospital (particularly dealing with the elderly) – we would not suggest it is a common occurrence in those places. Some people slip through the net and we need to be vigilant to catch them.

        1. With all due Tom; sadists sociopaths and psychopaths flock to these type of jobs slaughterhouses, factory farms, working with the elderly and this is part of the problem these are innocent victims without a voice they have no choice to be experimented on regardless of what you think about them and your feelings toward them or your philosophy towards them you don’t have the right what right do you have because you say so because some committee said so. Its wrong. There are so many other ways to get this information and if there isn’t you’re the scientist invent something. Hell you can experiment om me i will take the animals place.

        2. With all due respect Tom; sadists sociopaths and psychopaths flock to these type of jobs slaughterhouses, factory farms, working with the elderly and this is part of the problem these are innocent victims without a voice they have no choice to be experimented on regardless of what you think about them and your feelings toward them or your philosophy towards them you don’t have the right what right do you have because you say so because some committee said so. Its wrong. There are so many other ways to get this information and if there isn’t you’re the scientist invent something. Hell you can experiment om me i will take the animals place.

      2. What was uncovered at Covance in 2005, and PLRS in 2010 was criminal and abhorrent and resulted in prosecutions and closures. Unfortunately, there are criminals and sociopaths in society, and when they end up in positions of responsibility, for example as animal or human carers, they abuse those placed in their trust. A recent example of this happened at the Winterbourne View hospital in the UK.

        However, these atrocities reflect neither the norm of patient care in mental health facilities, or animal care in research laboratories. The questions that Ron proposed above were based on the premise that scientists have to “tune out compassion for [these] animals” and “block out, for example, the screaming of an animal”, that animals are “struggling to be freed and their faces are in terror”. His scenario is a fiction: Scientists do not have to “tune out compassion”; they are compassionate. They do not have to “block out animals’ screaming” because when necessary, they take measures to prevent animals from experiencing distress.

        If one believes, as Ron seems to (based on “hundreds of videos”), that all research is essentially animal torture, and everyone who works with research animals is a sadistic sociopath, then it would be legitimate to condone closing down every lab and prosecuting them all. However, this would be like saying that everyone who works in a care center for the mentally ill or elderly is a cruel psychopath, and all these facilities should all be closed.

        Alafair also makes the point that we humans do not have the right to use animals in research, regardless of how they are treated. This is a totally valid point of view, and a completely different issue. You do not need to demonize every researcher and distort the truth about animal research facilities to make this point. Alafair, you may believe that it’s wrong, but at present, our society disagrees with you. The alternatives you allude to do not yet exist (and yes, scientists are working on them), and though I respect your altruism, society considers it unethical to use you, or a prisoner, or a mentally handicapped person, or any other human, instead of an animal as a research subject.

      3. Alafair, you say ” There are so many other ways to get this information and if there isn’t you’re the scientist invent something. ”

        What you fail to accept is that the information needed is information about the way living things work, from the molecular level all the way up to the sum of the complex systems that makes a whole organism. The only way to get that information is to study living organisms … as molecules in a test tube all the way up to the whole organism.

        Those “somethings” that have already been developed (molecular biology, genetic studies, cell cultures, tissue cultures, etc.) already minimize animal testing until it reaches the point of having to test on a whole animal to make sure that what happens in a test tube, or fixes the problem in a cell culture doesn’t have bad effects elsewhere.

        As far back as the 1970s, computer simulations and non-whole-animal lab tests were being used to select the most likely materials as candidates for artificial skin for burn treatment. We used cell cultures to test permeability to narrow the selection, and the cells were of course from an animal, in this case the popular HeLa cell line. However, although it cut the number of candidate materials from several dozen to about 6, those materials had to be tested in a whole system.

        When alternatives to using whole animals are introduced, the changeover is extremely fast. Before 1972, pregnancy tests were done by injecting concentrate urine into animals (rabbits, white mice or frogs) and seeing the changes the pregnant woman’s hormones produced in the animals. Yes, the rabbits died, as did the mice (frogs could be re-used, and were). When the “Paper Rabbit” – an immunological test that used animal-produced antibodies to HCG on a disposable slide – was introduced, it took less than a year for hospitals to make the switch. The current generation of pregnancy tests still uses animal-produced antibodies (monoclonal mouse antibodies). Modern chemistry is still not up to the task of synthesizing the proteins of an antibody.

        “Hell you can experiment om me i will take the animals place.” … So, how many clinical trials have you volunteered for?

  9. Happy to answer that one Ron. Suffering isn’t the norm. A typical experiment might be to inject an animal like a rabbit with a substance and take its temperature. It’s a lab animal, so it’s comfortable with all this – the lab setting, being handled etc. There is no fear in the eyes, there is no screaming, it feels a lot like putting your cat in a carrier to take to the vet or administering its flea treatment. Bear in mind that well over 90% of lab animals are mice or fish not known for their self-awareness – the Nobel prize was given this year for work using frogs that showed how stem cell work. The animal part of the experiment was to take a cell from a frog and make a clone frog. If you have been consuming propaganda that makes you believe otherwise, then I’m sorry for you – your sources aren’t representative or accurate and may well derive from other countries that don’t value animal life. To point at that as the norm is like saying you’ve seen someone break the speed limit, therefore everybody speeds and we shouldn’t have driving.

    As for your style of discourse, you seem to have cast yourself as a sort of crusading Luke Skywalker as part of your hero myth, which is why you’re running around accusing other people of being like Hitler. Really? Hitler? For breeding a mouse missing a gene? It shows you’re not a man it’s possible to reason with as you’re appealing to dogma over evidence. Who in their right mind could conclude that animal research isn’t supported by the scientific community! Who in their right mind could see a child with Cystic Fibrosis and not think “I would inject a mouse to save her life”.

    1. Easy SJ, I am not Luke Skywalker, that was a film. It is make believe. Why do you that suffering is not the norm please? Have you been involved with alot of experiments? Have you seen alot of experiments? On average, how many animals do you test on a day? As I have explained clearly above, I have seen videos taken inside the labs. They were not “propaganda”, many of them were released by doctors themselves to show the results of the testing. The animals were clearly suffering. Do you recognize suffering in an animal? Do you believe animals can suffer? I appreciate you answering these questions.

      1. Ron, the premise of your question is false. Any compassionate human like you, would find it hard to understand, as you do, how a fellow human could justify making a living out of torturing animals. I’m not surprised by your outrage, given that you hold this belief. Of course you would demonize the scientists that you believe engage in these horrifying practices; anyone would. To be consistent with your beliefs, they would have to be psychopaths. However, the fact is that scientists do not enjoy inflicting pain on animals; they avoid it at all costs. Animals are not abused, but treated with respect. Suffering is avoided. Anesthetics and modern veterinary medicines are used. There is a very strict system of regulations, measures, and inspections to make sure that experimental animals do get treated humanely. In fact, I would say that experimental animals get better heath-care than most Americans.

        There are films online of research animals suffering. There have been abuses of the law. These instances are rare, and in many cases, these rogue animal abusers have been rightly prosecuted. However, crimes are not representative of how animals in research are treated in a modern laboratory.

        There are also films of animals who have been terrified by AR activists breaking into their cage rooms in the night to ‘liberate’ them.

        I would join Tom in asking you to post links to documented cases of the kind of animal abuses you describe, that occurred in the last say, 5 years in a US laboratory.

  10. Bottom line here is Steven Best and Camille Marino, like all vegan ARA people are unhinged freaks.Their minions of brainless followers are now at each others throats all over social media. I am not in any way associated with the animal research industry but watching these two freaks of nature collapse themselves and their “movement” is some of the greatest joy and humor I have ever witnessed

    .Camille will soon be locked away for a very long time which will end with her in total mental collapse, The good Dr. Best will soon be close behind as his life is unraveling rapidly both emotionally and financially.These days he is wishing that plane had crashed just a bit harder and Camille is wishing that motorcycle accident had been just a bit worse. These people always talk about karma, and they are certainly getting it now.

    1. You have alot of anger toward vegans. Surely there must be someone you can talk to about it. I would hate to see you hurt anyone.

  11. I have a valid question I would like to pose to everyone here who is involved with vivisection. I have never asked this question before to people who test on animals, so I may fumble this question a bit so please be patient. This is not an attack in any way, shape or form. My question is this: I would really like to know how, or what it is that you do, in order to actually go through with the process of vivisection practices? I mean, how do you, or what do you do, to tune out compassion for these animals that are being tested on by all of you? What do you do to block out, for example, the screaming of an animal? Do you play music? Do you talk over the animal? Do you think about what you want for lunch? Or what goes through your minds when they are struggling to be freed and their faces are in terror? I am sincerely asking these questions and would appreciate an honest answer please. It is just that I have seen videos of the animals screaming in agony while being tested on, clinging to each other, clinging to the bars of their cages and I have often wondered what goes through the minds of people who do this? How is this being justified in your minds? Do you look at them as lives? Or do you see them as just things? Do you know that they feel pain? Do you recognize the fear in their eyes when they look at you? do they look at your eyes? I have more questions about this, but I would like to open the floor to your responses now please. You won’t be attacked for your replies. I am sincerely asking how people who do this can do this. And what is the thought process, or the emotional distancing that is done in order to do it. Or is there any distancing being done? Have any of you ever felt sorry for any of the animals that have looked at you and pleaded for you to stop, pleaded to you for mercy?

      1. Indeed. I see many a few of the people have commented elsewhere on this thread after I posted these questions, and yet not one of them has come forward to answer these questions. I state again, no one will be attacked for their answers. I am sincerely asking the questions because I really would like some answers to the questions that I and many others have pondered after seeing such horrific videos of what goes on inside those facilities. And the response has been the sound of crickets indeed. I am hopeful that some will respond.

      2. Forgive my spelling, it is very late and I must catch some sleep. I shall look in on this later today. I meant to write, I see a few of the people have commented elsewhere on this thread after I posted these questions,and yet not one of them has come forward to answer these questions.

    1. What do you do to block out, for example, the screaming of an animal? There is no screaming if you are doing it right.

      I have done animal research. None of them were “screaming”, none of them were looking at me in fear, none were clutching the bars of their cages. Research animals are anaesthetised for any procedure for which a human would be anaesthetised. The usual practice for other procedures is to get cooperation with rewards and careful handling.

      I suggest you take a course in Laboratory Animal Management, and read the USDA rules and regulations for lab animals. And then read the rules and regulations for any research institute. You may find that you have been misled.

      BTW, please read this, and explain to me why you will or will not accept the use of any of the laboratory tests I list.

      Are you willing to die of blood loss rather than accept a transfusion that uses rabbit and cow-derived proteins for the crossmatch? Skip the quick test for strep throat because it requires the death of mice?

      1. The hundreds of videos do not lie. When you are injecting the animal with a a substance that you know will harm the animal, do you have any remorse? Have animals died in your care? Suffered? (Again I am asking without accusing, as I really do want to know). have you ever seen animals in great distress? What were your feelings please? If any?

      2. Ron … I answered one of your questions, now you answer one of mine. Does your desire to do away with the use of animals extend to the ongoing, everyday use of animals in medicine? Are you willing to die of blood loss rather than accept a transfusion that uses rabbit and cow-derived proteins for the crossmatch?

        If you get tetanus, will you accept the antiserum (made in horses or goats)? If you are snakebit, will you accept the antivenom (made in horses or goats)?

  12. I came kinda late to the conversation so I don’t know all of the players. I can pretty well identify the scientists. But Ron, what exactly do you do for a living? It is obvious that you care dearly for cats and dogs and rats and mice. But some contribution to human society must sustain you and put bread on the table. What, may I ask, is that endeavor?

  13. SR has, as usual, posted facts. Unfortunately facts are often lost on those who believe in a cause, be it religion, creation vs evolution or AR. Or maybe there is no worse blind that the one who does not want to see…. Thanks SR for posting facts and keeping the debunking of blind faith alive.

    1. the only facts here are that most of you engage in causing suffering to others. And the other facts here are that you are using the derangement of Marino to 1) gloat 2) use and 3) perhaps wishfully think that she will “take out” some activists you do not like.

  14. Word has it your little blog here reached her unhinged ears. Nice work. She has gone public about wanting to go after yet more activists. (posted on her FaceBook Status: “A part of me really wants to respond in kind”). I suppose that only makes all of you happy with yourselves. After all, you have all spent so many years with the blood of animals on your hands, I guess it makes little difference if the blood now being added to it is human. Good job James and company. It seems to many of us that you people won’t be happy until she does kill activists and possibly even their kids.

    1. It’s very kind of you to be worried and to post these neat and pietistic walls of text, too bad I haven’t read your suggestions to protect both the AR movement and universities from her wishes of violent “heroism”.
      Will you never learn that the blahblah itself is only a mild excuse, (and maybe a cute epitaph, why not?) when you’re endangered by someone who states that the blahblah is over?
      Yup, someday nobody will believe in a legend called “self-defense”, but not today, kiddo.

      1. The only worry I have in connection to you Theodore is that you will start going after people and shouting “retard” in the streets as you so easily seem to do in your above posts.
        So far as you protecting anything Theodore, that thought sincerely never crossed my mind. The words caring, compassionate, ethical, integrity…those words too, never entered my mind with regard to you Theodore, and I am willing to bet they do not often plague you when you chose an action that will hurt other beings.

    2. Oh for crying out loud! Steve Best encouraged and supported Camille Marino for years, including preriods when she was targeting students and profesors with just the kind of violent language that you now complain she is using against other animal rights activists. That she is doing so comes as no surprise to me, as I well remember a couple of years back when Steve Best and Camille Marino joined forces to harass Gary Francione (This SPLC article refers to it

      You just don’t get it, do you? This is about Best and his support for violent extremism. It is people like Best and Vlasak who have been justifying arson attacks on scientists and campaigns of harassment, and even murder (though fortunately no-one has been killed so far). They can’t escape responsibility when their words create the environment for an unhinged personality like Marino to conduct campaigns of harassment and intimidation against good people. And in Best’s case he can’t escape responsibility for supporting and encouraging Marino for years when he knew exactly what she was and what she was up to.

  15. Are you so sure that everything you stated is completely accurate, James? How do you know how close Camille Marino “worked with” Steve Best? It isn’t like she hasn’t publicly lied about other people in the movement, even going so far as to publicly say that they support her when really, they don’t even know her. One person that she said supported her even told me that they just let her talk because they didn’t want to publicly state that they didn’t support her, then be attacked by her and the small band of crazies that make up her cult. Don’t you think that you could possibly be even slightly mistaken?
    Stacy, stop taking a few examples and pinning them on the whole of animal rights activism. I am not a member of PETA just because I believe that animals deserve to not be exploited. Christ, you people actually torture primates and innocent little animals and you have the audacity to attempt to label all animal rights activists as violent?
    Many activists have denounced her. She has a small following, a merry band of lunatics. I don’t want to see any of them hurt one of your kids, that is why I am speaking up here. Stop fueling her. All you are doing is trying to help her and remove the responsibility from her by blaming it all on Steve Best. Camille Marino made her own choices.

    1. Agree Earthboundvegan. And in addition, we activists are not the ones who solicited the Nazi “doctors” during Nuremberg Trials, had them exonerated, and in addition had them brought to America so they could continue with their “research”. I believe that was the “scientific community working in collusion with the Government at the time to do that.

      1. Fatuous comment. It’s as weak as saying “Hitler was a vegetarian” which is largely why he endorsed experimenting on humans. Animals make better test subjects in many ways such as their short gestation periods and lifespans.

        Honestly, saying that “you have the blood of animals on your hands” ignores the fact that the “blood” of many more animals and humans are on the hands of those who oppose this work. We’re having to make a tough decision here – giving a life to save many lives. It doesn’t make it any easier taking that life, but it is worth it. Grow up. Stop pretending there’s an equivalence between a mum with breast cancer with a couple of dependent kids and a mouse, which will eat its young if the mood takes it.

        Disney lied to you. Deal with it.

      2. Fatuous does sum up this blog and the supporters of it nicelt si. The word I would apply to your post however, is sociopathic. And you are not making tough choices as in order for you to do so would imply you are examining your conscience. Of which you are not. You are taking other species and imposing pain and suffer on them all for the sake of a science that even most scientists are in agreement with is cruel and should be stopped. The only tough choice you make is where to spend the Grant money when you go out on weekends si.
        Your comment is remarkably close to the remarks most Nazi’s said about their test subjects. Which were human. Its a short hop and a skip to subjugate life forms and take away any value to those beings si, and you managed to prove that point spectacularly.

      3. What? The nazi doctors were tried after the war, it’s known as the “Doctors trial” and led to most of the defendents being executed or given long prison sentences, and ultimately led to the drafting of the Nuremburg code, Declaration of Helsinki and subsequent national regulations.

    2. @Earthboundvegan – “Many activists have denounced her. She has a small following, a merry band of lunatics. I don’t want to see any of them hurt one of your kids, that is why I am speaking up here.”
      If you truly believe that she is likely to harm someone, speaking up on a blog comment is a pretty weak response.

    3. Both Marino and Best were open about their collaboration on their blogs, it’s not as if they kept it secret in any way.

  16. James,
    You are justifying trying to gloat over this situation. Again.
    Many times people have worked with others and have had no notion as to their intent. Every single account of known serial killers who had families and children and co-workers ALL expressed having no idea of the killers true intent. The only person(s) using this situation and using Marino as a tool to further their gain, is you.

    1. @Ron, So your defense of Prof. Best is that he had no idea what Marino was up to? Really?! He was her inspiration!

      1. Stacy, Marino states that Charles Manson was her inspiration. And at what point did you think a rebuttal was a defense? Sounds to me like you may be getting slightly incensed over people writing in and asking you people to stop acquitting her of her actions. Camille Marino is responsible for her own actions. Stop trying to make this about Steven Best.
        And exclamation marks? Really? What is next? All caps?

      2. You know, that really is the heart of this matter, isn’t it? Why is the vivisection community hell-bent on blaming Camille Marino’s actions on Steve Best? Are all of you hoping that she wins her court cases and remains a potential physical threat to both vivisectionists and activists, alike? Lets be honest, we all realize that she isn’t an actual threat to the vivisection industry, so what is actually going on here?

  17. Stacy, again you are attempting to make a case as to taking the accountability off of Marino. And again, you people ignore the real issue of Marino, except when you wish to use it to your advantage.

    And I hardly would call any of you here the “scientific community”. You have a FaceBook Like page where you mostly just post your ridiculous tactics in support of vivisection practices by skewing the results of obscure animal testing polls, then claim “victory” in regard to garnering public support for vivisection. Activists, as well as countless physicians who have spoken out against animal testing have been saying for ages, if results garnered from vivisection practices were accurate, then you wouldn’t need to engage in such underhanded, Machiavellian tactics to try legitimizing your position regarding said horrific and useless endeavors.

    And I am seeing the same tactics employed here. You are using the Marino case as a way of going after Steve Best. Shame on you indeed. This woman Marino is clearly a danger to everyone, and you sit here and gloat about it. And find ways to turn it into your advantage. And that again, makes you no different than Camille Marino.

    1. @Ron. Same tactics? Whoever called for animal activists to be killed? Whoever called for their children to be targeted? Nonsense. Marino is responsible for her own actions. And Best responsible for his. Scientists did not create Marino. The philosophy of Best and other animal rights extremists did.

      1. Well, you have part of that right at least now. Nice to know you have been reading what we all have been stating. This is not a situation that you and your pals should be gloating about. Nor is it Steve Bests fault. It is Marinos fault.
        Now the last two sentences are in direct contradiction of the fifth sentence you uttered: “Marino is responsible for her own actions”
        Agreed Stacey.
        “…did not create Marino. The philosophy of Best and other animal rights extremists did.”
        The Movement did not create Marino. She was unbalanced before she slapped the label “activist” onto her straight jacket. She is not a representation of the animal rights community and even animal rights activists have repeatedly said so. So you can twist that anyway you wish to, it does not alter the facts.

      2. Wow, someone who supports vivisection is twisting facts. I’m shocked, but not really.

      3. Nothing shocks me, Ron. The information coming out of the vivisection industry has always been twisted and distorted for one reason or another, whether it is for the benefit of insurance issues or for collegiate grants, its all hell for the animals. None of the testing on animals proves a great deal because in the end, no matter what the results are regarding animal trials, everything still has to be tested on a human being to see if the reaction is the same. Vivisection is all about money, not logic and most certainly, not about real compassion.

    2. Actually, the great majority of scientists support animal research. The same is true for the medical community. Major medical and scientific societies publicly acknowledge and support the importance of animal research for progress in science and medicine. For example, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that 93% of scientists favor the use of animals in scientific research.

      No one is “using” the Marino case to go after Best. Simply pointing out that he has previously endorsed similar tactics and now appears to find them objectionable. More broadly, that her tactics– which were long ago of concern to many others– appear to only have reached a threshold of concern for some in the animal rights community when they are directed to those within.

      1. Anyone can find an article which hazes facts or bends an argument toward their side of that argument. The “great majority” of ethical scientists do not support animal research and once again, you are wrongfully generalizing in regard to the stance of animal rights activists. The majority of the animal rights community do not even see Camille Marino as being a part of the animal rights community. We see her as a raving lunatic.

      2. Earthbound – do you have any evidence whatsoever that suggests that the majority of ethical scientists do not support animal research – because we gave some pretty solid evidence and you simply denied it without showing any proof.

      3. Tom, I have no interest in debating you or the issue. I am here to offer clarity in regard to the stance of animal rights and its view of Camille Marino, as well as the danger of enabling of her, but if you need a few sentiments from physicians against vivisection practices…here:

        “The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn’t work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that.”
        – Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinios, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine.

        “Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon…The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything – no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will ‘prove’ a point….The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer.”
        – Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.

        “Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby.”
        – Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller, M.D., 1976.

        “Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery: and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray.”
        – Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., 1899, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (F.R.C.S.), Edinburgh & England. Hailed as the most distinguished surgeon of his day, the originator of many of surgery’s modern techniques, and recipient of numerous awards for medical excellence.

        “Experiments have never been the means for discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions.”
        – Sir Charles Bell, M.D., 1824, F.R.C.S., discoverer of “Bell’s Law” on motor and sensory nerves.

        “Atrocious medical experiments are being done on children, mostly physically and handicapped ones, and on aborted foetuses, given or sold to laboratories for experimental purposes. This is a logical development of the practice of vivisection. It is our urgent task to accelerate its inevitable downfall.”
        – Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D., 1988, internationally renowned researcher, former vivisector.

        “Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress. I learned how to operate from other surgeons. It’s the only way, and every good surgeon knows that.”
        – Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988, surgeon of thirty years, President of German League of Doctors Against Vivisection (GLDAV).

        “Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect.”
        – Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany.

        “Experiments on animals lead inevitably to experiments on people…As if an animal experiment could ever predict the same result on a person. And as if an experiment on one human being could enable us to foresee the reactions of another human being, whose biology and metabolism are different, whose blood pressure is different, whose lifestyle and age and nourishment and sensitivity and genes and everything else are different…We recognise that each single organism, whether human or animal, has its very own reactions…Today’s orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery don’t understand the purpose of disease and therefore don’t know how to treat it. A real doctor’s experience derives from his natural intuition coupled with his observation at the sickbed, but never from invasive, violent experiments on people, and much less on animals. Instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation or reconstruction of health by natural means and shuns all use of degrading, destructive chemicals, today’s medical students are only taught to manipulate poisons and mutilate bodies. We demand that this be changed.”
        – Prof. Andre Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D.Psyc., 1989, Faculty of Medicine of Paris, then President of the International League of Doctors Against Vivisection (ILDAV).

        “Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it.”
        – Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

        “Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.”
        – Linus Pauling, PhD, 1986, two time Nobel Prize Winner.

        “Not only are the studies themselves often lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs.”
        – Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Washington.

        “All our current knowledge of medicine and surgery derives from observations of man following especially the anatomical-clinical method introduced by Virchow: symptoms of the patient while alive and the alterations found in the dead body. These observations have led us to discover the connection between smoking and cancer, between diet and arteriosclerosis, between alcohol and cirrhosis, and so on. Even the RH factor was not discovered on the macasus rhesus. The observations of Banting and Best on diabetes, attributed to experiments on dogs, were already well-known. Every discovery derives from observations on humans, which are subsequently duplicated in animals, and whenever the findings happen to concur, their discovery is attributed to animal experimentation. Everything we know today in medicine derives from observations made on human beings. The ancient Romans and Greeks gained most of their knowledge from epidemiological studies of people. The same goes for surgery. Surgery can’t be learned on animals. Animals are anatomically completely different from man, their reactivity is completely different, their structure and resistance are completely different. In fact, exercises on animals are misleading. The surgeon who works a lot on animals loses the sensibility necessary for operating on humans.”
        – Prof. Bruno Fedi, M.D., 1986, Director of the City Hospital of Terni, Italy, anatomist, pathologist, specialist in urology, gynaecology and cancerology.

        “My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity.”
        – Dr. G.F. Walker, 1933.

        “Why am I against vivisection? The most important reason is because it’s bad science, producing a lot of misleading and confusing data which pose hazards to human health. It’s also a waste of taxpayer’s dollars to take healthy animals and artificially and violently induce diseases in them that they normally wouldn’t get, or which occur in different form, when we already have the sick people who can be studied while they’re being treated.”
        – Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical magazine editor, USA.

        “It is well known that animal effects are often totally different from the effects on people. This applies to substances in medical use as well as substances such as 245y and dioxin.”
        – A.L. Cowan, M.D., 1985, Acting Medical Officer of Health, New Plymouth, N. Z.

        “The growing opposition to vivisection is understandable both on ethical and biological counts. However, a certain scientistic culture says they serve to save human lives. But reality is quite the opposite. Let’s take the case of pesticides. These dangerous products, used in agriculture, are classified according to their acute toxicity, graduated with the Lethal Dose 50% tests on animals. This represents not only a useless sacrifice of animals, but it’s an alibi that enables the chemical industry to sell products which are classified as harmless or almost harmless, but are in reality very harmful in the long run, even if taken in small doses. Many pesticides classified as belonging to the fourth category, meaning they can be sold and used freely, have turned out to be carcinogenic or mutagenic or capable of harming the fetus. Also in this case, animal tests are not only ambiguous, but they serve to put on the market products of which any carcinogenic effect will be ascertained only when used by human beings – the real guinea-pigs of the multinationals. And yet there are laboratory tests that can be used, which are cheaper and quicker than animal tests; in vitro tests on cell cultures, which have been proving their worth for years already. But the interests of the chemical industries which foist on us new products in all fields may not be questioned.”
        – Prof. Gianni Tamino, 1987, biologist at Padua University, a Congressman in the Italian Parliament.

        “Animal model systems differ from their human counterparts. Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human beings, are likely to delay progress, mislead, and do harm to the patient. Vivisection, or animal experimentation, should be abolished.”
        – Dr. Moneim Fadali, M.D., 1987, F.A.C.S., Diplomat American Board of Surgery and American Board of Thoracic Surgery, UCLA faculty, Royal College of Surgeons of Cardiology, Canada.

        “Experiments on animals do not only mean torture and death for the animals, they also mean the killing of people. Vivisection is a double-edged sword.”
        – Major R.F.E. Austin, M.D., 1927, Royal College of Surgeons, Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians.

        Cawadias (1953) has said that “The history of medicine has shown that, whenever medicine has strayed from clinical observation, the result has been chaos, stagnation and disaster.”
        (British Medical Journal, October 8 1955, p.867.)

      4. Earthbound – Sabin hated the misconstrual by animal rights activists like yourself. Here is a full explanation:

        I’m also afraid that 19 doctors comments from the last 100+ years doesn’t constitute a scientific movement. However 2,300+ scientists out of 2,500+ scientists saying animal research is crucial does suggest a lot more about the scientific consensus.

      5. Tom, I simply don’t have time to waste on you. There are countless links all over the internet and I’m not going to pretend that you are important enough to get into a link posting “pissing contest” with. No offense but, I just don’t have time for the specific debate that you are attempting to steer this conversation toward here. Again, I came here to explain to all of you the damage that you are doing to EVERYONE by enabling Camille Marino to further threaten ALL OF US. We have kids too, you know? We have jobs. Just because we’re activists, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do laundry and pay the bills or have to worry if we anger someone like Camille Marino and her followers. I don’t want to have to fear some kind of reprisal being placed against someone that I love because I don’t agree with her craziness. Again, this is about Camille Marino being a psychopath and I’m not here to debate the pro’s/con’s of vivisection practices with you. I’m telling all of you that you’re irresponsible. What are you even giving Camille Marino publicity for? An article like this is fuel for her. It makes her happy. You aren’t dealing with a balanced human being. What part of that are all of you missing? This person actually DOES belong in an asylum.

      6. Yet you support Best – a man who has published the address of people’s homes and pictures of their children.
        We would all love to see Marino jailed – fine – thank you for condemning her alongside us (see our many, many posts condemning her activities) – however, this post was about Steve Best (and how he has supported Camille).

      7. At what point have I ever posted anything here about supporting Steve Best’s philosophies? What are you even talking about? I am not here to debate the ideologies of Steve Best, either.

      8. I apologise Earthbound – I got your post mixed with another commenter. I take back the statement that you were supporting Best.

      9. Well, honestly, if what you are saying in your last paragraph here is accurate, shouldn’t you be happy that Steve Best is denouncing said action? Or, do you like what Camille Marino is doing and want it to continue being promoted to other nut cases who merely think that they are being animal rights activists? Animal rights activists do not threaten lives and I have been in the community for a number of years. I have never promoted violence and neither have the many wonderful people in the community that I have always looked up to for so long. Again, you are generalizing in a big way by stating that this appears “to only have reached a threshold of concern for some in the animal rights community when they are directed to those within”. That is so far from reality that it doesn’t even make any sense. Once again, you are blaming the actions or reactions of a few people on the whole of the movement. Understand this, there may be a small cult of people who avidly support the violent things that Camille Marino promotes, but there are millions of activists. Stop generalizing.

      10. We reported on a spat between two animal rights activists (yes, they both call for harm of people, but are both animal rights activists in that they both protest on behalf of the rights of the animals). It was fairly noticed that Steve Best is a hypocrite in calling out others for what he himself promotes.

        Steve Best threatened to sue us – we evidenced our allegation in another post.

        I couldn’t care less who Steve Best condemns while he continues to advocate violence. I do care that the animal rights community should condemn them both – some do – some don’t

  18. Ron, the thing about Best is that he did not “discusses the merits or detriments to violence” he openly and repeatedly encouraged it. Whether or not Marino is responsible for her actions is not that important to this discussion, what is important is that she is taken off the streets and either put behind bars or put in a secure hospital…that’s up to the court and qualified mental health professionals to decide. Speaking of Research have published a dozen blog posts (including one linked to in this post) condemning Marino’s activities over the past couple of years, their position on her is pretty clear!

    The thing you don’t seem to understand is that Best knew Marino for at least 3 years, and worked very closely with him for most of that time. He had ample time to realise how crazy or evil she is, but rather than encouraging her to seek professional help he used her as a weapon in his campaign, and only turned against her this summer when Marino was jailed and wanted him to take the stand in his defence (I guess he didn’t fancy the prospect of being cross examined on his activities). He was absolutely fine with Marino threatening and harassing others, it was only once she turned on him that her behavior became a problem for him, and that is why Speaking of Research are absolutely correct to point out what an odious hypocrite he is!

    1. I am a friend of Steve Best’s and I have asked him why he was friends with her for so long if he knew she was disturbed and he said that he always knew she was a little off but her obsession for him became apparent a year ago and he has since then tried to distance himself from her and make suggestions that she get help. The more he distanced the more she obsessed and now she is in full blown Fatal Attraction. She wanted him to take the stand to lie about something she did. These are facts.

      1. Thank you for the clarification. So the fact is that he distanced himself form Marino because of her obsession with him but not really because he disagreed with her campaigns of intimidation and threats.

      2. I read through Alafairs comment, at what point Stacey, does Alafair state “but not really because he disagreed with her campaigns of intimidation and threats.”
        I read it twice to be sure. I did not see that in her post. I only see those words in your comment to Alafair, Stacey.

      3. Those are unsupported assertions, not facts, and seem to be meant as a distraction from the issue at hand, which is about Best issuing threats of violence rather than working through democratic process to achieve his goals.

    2. I believe Earthboundvegan said it best in the reply to you James:
      @JamesAre you so sure that everything you stated is completely accurate, James? How do you know how close Camille Marino “worked with” Steve Best? It isn’t like she hasn’t publicly lied about other people in the movement, even going so far as to publicly say that they support her when really, they don’t even know her. One person that she said supported her even told me that they just let her talk because they didn’t want to publicly state that they didn’t support her, then be attacked by her and the small band of crazies that make up her cult. Don’t you think that you could possibly be even slightly mistaken?
      Stacy, stop taking a few examples and pinning them on the whole of animal rights activism. I am not a member of PETA just because I believe that animals deserve to not be exploited. Christ, you people actually torture primates and innocent little animals and you have the audacity to attempt to label all animal rights activists as violent?
      Many activists have denounced her. She has a small following, a merry band of lunatics. I don’t want to see any of them hurt one of your kids, that is why I am speaking up here. Stop fueling her. All you are doing is trying to help her and remove the responsibility from her by blaming it all on Steve Best. Camille Marino made her own choices.

  19. I find it extremely irresponsible of vivisectionists who are making a huge joke out of this, for the sake of all who might fall in the sights of Camille Marino. That woman does not represent any real part of the animal rights movement. She’s a mental case and needs to be locked up in an asylum. She may be attempting to create some kind of cult of her very own, but whatever she is doing, it has nothing to do with animal rights.
    By you posting this article with the spin that you’ve placed on it, you give her fuel to keep targeting people on both sides. I personally wouldn’t put it past this woman to hurt someone’s kids and you are here making a mockery of this, fueling the fire? What is wrong with you? Shame on you.

    1. Of course she is part of the animal rights movement. So is Steven Best, Jerry Vlasak, Pam Ferdin, Rick Bogle, Gary Yourofsky, Dan Mathews, and Ingrid Newkirk… among many others who are the first in line to fuel the hate and lunacy of Marino and others like her. To claim scientists are the ones fueling the hate is truly laughable. If you didn’t want them to be part of your movement then you should have collectively decried your outrage long time ago…

      1. No, she is not. Advocates have been speaking out against her publicly for quite some time. But much like the polls you people like to skew, you will ignore that fact.

      2. How is distancing from a maniac being opportunistic David? (And again, you using the word opportunistic is …well laughable considering the animals that suffer under your hands). How many animals you cause unimaginable suffering to wanting to distance themselves from your hands would be called opportunistic David? Many activists have never 1) heard of her (keep in mind David, activists are global) and 2) those that have, the majority had nothing to do with and 3) those who did know her did not realize how dangerous she actually is. And 4) this was discussed earlier today (yesterday for me now) regarding people knowing, living with and even being married to serial killers and the such. Many have stated later that they had no clue that the person was capable of doing what they were accused of. So nice attempt to justify your gloating, and rage David. But not very convincing.
        And David…Hypocritical? Really? You really want to discuss being a hypocrite David? You’re funny.

        1. It is opportunistic because you decide to distance from her today. Why not yesterday? Or the day before? Or a year ago? Marino has not changed one bit. And this is all besides the point. The point is that both Marino and Best can be fairly criticized for their speech and actions in their joint venture. In the case of Prof. Best, moreover, his conduct must be acceptable by the standards of academia.

      3. @ darioringach I do not know you, and you assume that I have ever been close to her? I never was. I have also stated that clearly in the comments here. If you are going to use such words as judging, perhaps you should also apply the same standards to yourself before loftily declaring them toward others. Your primary interest is blaming other people for Marinos insanity. Marino is responsible for her own actions. You trying to use her actions to justify your dislike of Steve best has no bearing on the case.

        1. My primary interest is to defend the responsible use of animals in medical research that advances medical knowledge and human (and non-human) health. Both Marino and Prof. Best are grown ups. If they want to defend their speech and actions in public they should definitely do so. You write in defense of Prof. Best as if he was watching all this from the sidelines. Not really. He was not.

          As for your valid question. Yes, doing animal research is by no means easy — nobody said it ever was. There is a clearly toll on both the animal and the investigator (although I am sure you prefer to believe scientists or our students do not experience or deny their emotions during the process). The reason the work is done is because of our conviction that the alternative is worse. Not doing the research would result in medical advances coming to a stop and the consequent suffering of animals and humans alike. Imagine a world without vaccines for example. Thus, animal research involves a moral dilemma. One that animal rights activists would rather reject than confront. See:

    2. How can you possibly say it has “nothing to do with animal rights?” Her activities are centered around animal rights. She has been cheered by others focused on animal rights. It appears the animal rights community did not think her behavior was a problem at any point until recently, certainly not to the extent that it required any intervention. Why is that? Where were the expressions of concern prior to this?

      1. @a scientist that is like saying all Germans were responsible for Nazism. There are many unstable people in the world, just because one of them (Marino) uses the AR Movement to express that instability does not mean all activists the world over are like her.

      2. Camille Marino’s actions have nothing to do with animal rights. They have everything to do with garnering attention and money to support herself. Also, the majority of the animal rights community MOST CERTAINLY never supported Camille Marino and many have always denounced her, even publicly, however, again, a lot of people are actually afraid of her. She is viral and small sect of loonies who do support her are even more viral. Camille Marino does NOT represent the animal rights movement.

    3. @darioringach “My primary interest is to defend the responsible use of animals in medical research that advances medical knowledge and human (and non-human) health.” You have no right to use other life forms on this planet. None.
      Takes a toll on the animals? Yes it does. And you should be ashamed.

      1. ” You have no right to use other life forms on this planet.”
        Have you ever had a throat culture taken? Received a vaccine? Had your blood typed? Taken an antibiotic or any OTC medication? Used sunscreen?

        Then you are benefiting from the use of “other life forms”, and you should be ashamed.

  20. Prof. Best was a “Senior Editor” at Negotiation is Over until 2011, as reported by the SPLC

    Thus, he must have been a Senior Editor of he web site during the infamous “chalk outline” directed towards Prof. Jentsch:

    or the attempted targeting of Prof. Ringach’s children at their school:

    The best case scenario is that he joined NIO with full knowledge of what the organization campaigns entailed.

    What is truly mind-boggling is that when asked about Best association with NIO the university had this to say:

    “What faculty does outside the university is a First Amendment issue,”

    Well — most of the time. But, as this post makes it clear, this is not the case if the his activities were designed to interfere with students’ learning and/or faculty research. Then it becomes an issue of ethical faculty conduct.

    We must then agree with Carlton Pruvis, when he wrote in the original article 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.

    Problematic indeed.

    At the very least, one would like to get an explanation from the UTEP administration.

    What about a petition form the scientific community to the UTEP President to this effect? It is time for UTEP to explain its lack of action in this case.

  21. James, Be happy to. You are gloating over her attacking Steve Best and the general atmosphere here is one of delight that this lunatic is going after him ( ie: ” It is a pleasure working with him.”) You seem to be having trouble with the concept that gloating is not in fact speaking out against her. In fact, your blog here is only fueling her rage . Whether you like Steve Best or not is irrelevant. Whether he discusses the merits or detriments to violence is irrelevant as well. Those here trying to take away her accountability in her actions (ie: “In this circumstance, someone with common sense should understand that they are responsible for those actions”).by making it appear that she had no control or responsibility in her own actions is clearly irresponsible.

    Hope I managed to make clear the concept that you were having trouble understanding there James.

    1. And how about the mental health of the animals you torture? Express any concern about that? No. I did not think so.

      1. Dear Ron, please go sit in on an IACUC committee sometimes. I can assure you a great deal of concern is expressed by both the committee and the scientists themselves.

  22. Ron, could you explain exactly how Speaking of Research are encouraging Marino? You seem to have trouble with the concept that Speaking of Research might be glad to see Marino locked up and/or committed to receive appropriate therapy, and to see Best (who really did encourage and support her while it suited him) exposed for the scumsucking bastard that he is.

    Janet Stemwedel has some great commentary on this affair on the Adventures in Ethics and Science blog

  23. So it seems that the scientists who make animals howl, also howl themselves in delight when a psychopath like Camille Marino goes after blood from humans as well. Good job on bolstering her already insane mind. What a bunch of idiots you psudo-scientists are. You relish and delight in the agony and suffering of animals and would have shook hands with Ted Bundy if he could have given you a step by step guide on how the human female anatomy reacted to being gutted with a hunters knife and you’d call it out-sourced research and file a grant for it for him to continue to do so. You people are encouraging her to continue on with her insanity and in fact are gloating over it. Yes, real upstanding people you all are. You are dealing with a psychopath in Marino and you are enjoying it and you are also encouraging it. Which makes you no better than Marino.

    1. Dear Ron, there’s only one group encouraging Marino and I’m pretty confident it isn’t the scientists who she’s threatening with violence.

  24. Prof. Best must have missed the memo — scientists ain’t going to take his threats and that of other extremists any more.

  25. Someone with common sense knows that, when you allow your own email account to be used by someone with a history of engaging in threatening and harassing behavior, there is a good likelihood that they will use your account to do exactly that which they have been expressing a propensity to do all along. In this circumstance, someone with common sense should understand that they are responsible for those actions.

    I obtained a permanent restraining order against Camille Marino in the fall of 2010 – long before this paypal account was donated to Ms. Marino. From that point forwards, anyone with common sense would know that there is a chance their email address could be used to commit further inappropriate behavior and that they could (and should) be held responsible for it.

    1. That is rich coming from you David. How about your history of engaging in abusive behavior towards animals? You call that science? Many scientists are actively speaking out against vivisection. It will take time though for those still delighting in the Dark Ages of torture to other species to evolve, we all know that, however you stating the behavior of Marino without you being able to draw any parallels to your own deeply disturbing behavior toward other species is..well, deeply disturbing.

  26. “just as I have against Marino, who is soon to go down on federal charges for further violations of my PPO.”

    I’d like to personally thank Dr. Best for all of his efforts to get rid of Marino for us. We’ve had a pretty tough time getting rid of her by ourselves. It is a pleasure working with him.

    By the way, Tom, would you mind asking the good doctor where we vivisectors can get one of those federal PPOs?

    1. David, your complete lack of humanity is showing. This is not about Steve Best, this is about a woman who is unhinged and a threat to everyone. She and she alone is responsible for her own actions. So while you find humor in this, many people do not. Are you a vivisector by any chance David? Because then it would make sense your callous humor and complete disregard for all life.

  27. This poor retard is suffering for your threats against his legitimate right to consider himself some kind of hero for the same scum who support him.

    1. Theodore, your comment made no snese what so ever. So I won’t address it. What I am addressing is your use of the word “retard”. Have you no sense of compassion for those who are disabled? (you might be actually talking to one right now who is confined to a wheel chair for example). Do you mock children at the SPecial Olympics as well Theodore? Are you by chance a vivisectionist Theordore? Because your use of the demeaning word “retard” would be explained if you cut into living beings every day. It is interesting to note that most people who commit animal abuse (and if you are a vivisector, you get paid to hurt and torment animals, so there is a perk for you right there), also subjugate others. One way of doing that is calling disabled people “retards” or just using it in everyday speech, thus de-humanizing your target. So, I do suspect you may indeed by a person who abuses animals for a living.

      1. I apologize: because neither Steve Best will never gain the common sense even the worst macrocephalic would attempt to reach in three decades of pain and tricks of the sons of the same ones who waste a morning a week to hope in a clean soul (as in a temple, as protesting for the cruelty of his/her favourite association’s misinformation), nor any retarded newborn will never reach the astonishing purity of the Knight Timmons, green as the fertile lawn where the beagles run, with his only words of the good, but instead, we hope, they will someday by “bleedingly torturing with no whatsoever purpose poor and innocent and pretty pretty petties”;
        I apologize because the vegans do, but I cannot get a Ph.D. in vivisection with the only magical guessings of the poisoned tongue of the Knight Timmons, yellow as the ears of wheat on the fields of those who pleased the Holy Pet. I really can’t.
        I apologize, because vivisection hasn’t had no use in medical research for years, and even stated that, the Knight Timmons, white as the food of the purest (tofu), dashes in every part of the net, bothering to death any evil-hearted weirdo who dares to laugh at the vaudeville of the better ones, who fight for the right to Fight with the weapons of nonsense.
        I also apologize ’cause this jerk haven’t read any single fucking line of my post, replying only to the “retard” word, because I wasted his, which is the best, the Steve Best, of the time a man can spend.
        And in the end I apologize because this bigot with horse and spear will waste some other minutes to expatiate about my puerility and immoral irony of the real, evil, violent, fascist vivisector.
        I’m really sorry.

    2. Somehow you just do not come across as sincere Theodore. Just like you enjoy calling people “retards”, you probably also enjoy beating up animals and getting paid for it.

Comments are closed.