...
Due to a drop in support for heinous cruelty and slavery of our animal comrades suffering in laboratories, biomedical industry front group "The Foundation for Biomedical Research" has started a campaign to spread lies about the significance of the torture of nonhumans to humans.
Aside from the fact that these millions of dollars could be going to actual human based methods that could save lives- the campaign itself doesn't even have a shred of realism in it. Part of it involves putting up bill boards that say:
"Ever had leprosy? Thanks to animal research, you won’t."
Here's a little bit on how treatments for leprosy were developed. The first leprosy wonder-drug that worked in other animals quickly became useless in humans due to a resistance to its effectiveness. Another, clofazimine, found successes in vitro, so nonhuman animal suffering was not needed (even though they used them anyways). Rifamycin also showed promise in in vitro studies aside from it beig used in other animals. The need for nonhuman animals in the discovery of these drugs is completely fabricated.
Let's not forget that vivisection only ever came about due to the rule of the Catholic church and their insistence on making human cadaver dissection and other methods illegal. Oh so scientific!
Also keep in mind that the majority of animal testing is not done to cure diseases. It involves force feeding puppies household cleaning products or opening the heads of monkeys to record from brain cells. Animal testing is done to make money, to protect corporations from chemical and product toxicity suits, and to fulfill research interests of real life mad scientists will to learn what they wish to learn at any cost to human or nonhuman animal life.
On the bright side, the animal research medical-industrial complex is terrified. They're losing support every day and people are waking up to the reality of the cruel nature of nonhuman animal research as well as the detrimental effects it has on humans and the ecosystem. We must remain strong during this time as many of us do not have millions of dollars for bill boards. But, we do have the truth, solidarity, and compassion on our side. Keep it out there. Don't stop.
Other entries or news stories on this (see original link for links):
Please write about this as well. Feel free to add your link to the comments section and I will edit this entry to post it here.
The following is a letter just released by one of the lawyers defending the AETA 4, Bob Bloom. The letter captures both the absurdity of the charges, and the significance of the case for the animals and all of us. For a blunt and succinct explanation of how far the FBI is willing to go to crush the more effective tactics employed by the animal liberation movement, read on.
-Peter Young
A new client of mine, a young man named Joseph Buddenberg, is one of four principled, dedicated, and non-violent animal rights activists who have been indicted in federal court in San Jose, California under a new federal statute that was intended by Congress to target unlawful and violent conduct.
The statute, effective as of 2008, is known as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), and each of the four defendants is facing five years or more in federal prison because they are alleged to have engaged in, literally, picketing at the homes of researchers they believe cause laboratory animals to be subjected to inhumane experimentation that causes suffering, pain, and death.
Congress was cautioned that the statute would be subject to overreaching by the FBI and by prosecutors. Predictably, this case that targets non-violent and non-criminal speech is the very first prosecution the government has chosen to initiate under this new statute. (The statute can be found by Googling 18 U.S.C. 43).
I do not understate or attempt to mis-state the allegations against the defendants. One of the documents I enclose is an affidavit sworn to by the FBI agent in charge of this case. The affidavit sets forth the worst of what the FBI claims the defendants did (in fact, the affidavit mis-states the facts as to one event). As you will see from reading the affidavit, the defendants are accused of identifying and locating animal researchers and then loudly picketing on the sidewalks in front of their homes. The intent was, and is, to stop the torture and other mistreatment of animals by speaking out in a non-violent manner to shame the researchers by exposing them and their conduct to their neighbors.
This kind of activity, speaking out to expose wrongdoers, is the very essence of the First Amendment. But the offending research laboratory, the University of California, is politically very powerful, and it has apparently lobbied federal law enforcement officials to bring this prosecution. The right of non-violent activists working to protect animals is under threat, and the First Amendment rights of all of us are threatened by this prosecution as well, as the animals suffer and die painful deaths every day.
The defendants are all good people, and courageous people. I have come to know Joe, and I can tell you that he cares deeply about protecting innocent creatures and putting an end to the mistreatment and the suffering. He is not a violent person, and he is not a criminal. And he certainly is not a terrorist.
Many animal lovers and civil libertarians believe that this is an extremely important case for a number of reasons. I have been engaged in civil rights law for more than forty years, and I am truly offended by, and worried by, this prosecution. Needless to say, it impacts the four defendants, but it also imperils the rights of all of us, as well as the lab animals who are being subjected to horrific mistreatment.
The case is complex and labor-intensive. It involves a maze of legal questions regarding the constitutionality of the statute, the validity of search warrants, potential issues regarding wiretapping, and other challenging issues, including the intricacies of the law of conspiracy (one of the two counts in the indictment). The facts of the case are also complicated, encompassing some fourteen incidents in at least three counties, and there are literally dozens of witnesses for whom we must prepare............The following is a letter just released by one of the lawyers defending the AETA 4,... more
Scratch that $11.2 million underground animal research facility the University of Iowa's interim vice president for research, Jordan Cohen is probably saying to his Board of Regents right about now.
Related Stories on Scoop
A 35,000-square-foot underground vivarium where researchers could move mice, sheep, pigs, rabbits and primates without ever coming above ground made a lot of sense in 2004--when activists breached Iowa labs, opening cages and ruining research.
But it doesn't make a lot of sense when the enemy is, gulp one of one's own.
The Yale community might be breathing a little easier now that a suspect is in custody in connection with the murder of graduate student Annie Le who was killed inside a high security lab in September, but the animal research community isn't.
What good are electronic surveillance, code cards and high tech security when the foe is in your own household in the form of a laboratory technician like suspect Raymond Clark III some are asking?
Did he euthanize one too many decorticated cats? See too many primates pinned in stereotaxic devices? Spend too long under the ether hood?
Or was Clark "off" before he became a lab technician--even becoming a technician because he was off? (Does the job description read, "most love animals but not get too attached to them"?)
Whatever Clark's reasons if found guilty, animal researchers now have two new fears: depraved technicians--and the public peeling back the Plexiglas curtain on the secretive, pork-ridden world of animal research.
There's a reason for the security that keeps Beagle burn videos from surfacing like egg farm videos. Animal research is too lucrative for the university/government/pharma complex to risk macaques on YouTube and the public judging the asinine and repetitive experiments many researchers know they live on.
Do you think Northwestern University--or the National Institutes of Health (NIH)--want to acknowledge that every year from l978 through l985 Associate Professor Dr. Charles Larson fused monkeys' necks to their skulls and deprived them food five days per week to make them cry out in a specific manner according to Concerned Citizens for Ethical Research? At a tax payer cost of $472,370? To "gain insights into some of the neurological disorders affecting vocalization?" Even as his colleagues scoffed?
Thanks to the Stimulus Bill, NIH has a 2009 budget of $39.9 billion--think a year of the war in Iraq--and much of it goes to animal research.
University of Washington, for example, scored a cool $1 billion this year according to the Seattle Times for research, topping all public universities, despite its little incident with assistant professor of immunology Chen Dong in 2003.
Dong withheld food from mice, removed tips of their tails without anesthesia, failed to let babies wean and failed to euthanize suffering mice per the established mouse-pain scale said the university, barring him from animal research. Dong was also charged with falsifying his scientific articles and the Journal of Clinical Investigation asked for a retraction, reported the Times.
Nor does the University of Iowa seem to be hurting financially with its plans for a $122.5 million Iowa Institute for Biomedical Discovery which will connect to the underground vivarium mentioned earlier with its state of the art animal housing facilities, cage washing facilities and aseptic surgery space.
No, for animal researchers the bigger fear from Le's murder than technicians like Clark is the public seeing the heaps of unsupervised government pork behind their Plexiglas curtain. No wonder the research community wraps a "saves lives" cloak around its work whether falsified journal articles or Larson's "speech" studies.
It keeps the public from saying YOU'RE FUNDING WHAT? For how many years? With what results? about its tax dollars.by Martha Rosenberg
Scratch that $11.2 million underground animal research facility... more
TERRORIST - SHAC 7 chronicles the journey of a group of grass-roots activists up to and through their trial for Domestic Terrorism. Dark truths about The Patriot Act, the First Amendment, questionable science and political activism all come to light as we live, laugh and fear with the defendants, attorneys, witnesses and law enforcement professionals involved in this precedent setting case. Produced in partnership with Finngate Pictures.
A northwest Missouri hospital is switching to high-tech mannequins for medical training classes after an animal rights group protested its use of live cats.A northwest Missouri hospital is switching to high-tech mannequins for medical... more
BOSTON, Sept. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A recent study documents the severe emotional trauma chimpanzees suffer as a result of laboratory use and confinement. Developmental Context Effects on Bicultural Post-Trauma Self Repair in Chimpanzees was published in the September issue, Vol. 45 (5), of the American Psychological Association journal Developmental Psychology.
Psychologists G.A. Bradshaw, Ph.D., Ph.D., Theodora Capaldo, Ed.D., Lorin Lindner, Ph.D., and Gloria Grow, Fauna sanctuary director, examined the case histories of three chimpanzees -- Billy Jo, Tom, and Regis -- all used in research before rescue into sanctuary. The study underscores the ethical implications of cross-fostering nonhuman primates and their use in research.
Says Dr. Capaldo, president of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS): "A federal bill to end the use of chimpanzees in research (the Great Ape Protection Act, H.R. 1326) has been introduced. Studies like ours expose the reality of what it is like for approximately 1000 chimpanzees languishing in U.S. labs. Chimpanzee research must stop if we are to end the suffering caused by decisions -- both scientifically flawed and ethically unjustifiable -- to use them as living test tubes."
Billy Jo lived like a human child from infancy to his teenage years when he was sent to a lab. He spent his next fourteen years alone in a 5'X5'X7' cage, enduring hundreds of procedures. He was rescued into sanctuary at age 29 and died only 8 years later.
Tom's family was killed in Africa in order to capture him. He spent decades in three different labs undergoing multiple procedures including 369 "knockdowns" -- anesthesia by dart gun. Every morning, Tom gags uncontrollably -- the result of repeated intubations.
Regis, born in a lab, was only 2 years old when he was treated for his first stress-related injury -- he had chewed his finger nail completely off. Regis, fearful if left alone, suffers severe anxiety attacks in which he nearly stops breathing.
The chimpanzees' symptoms are consistent with traumatic stress, depression, and other psychological conditions. Post-Trauma Self Repair in Chimpanzees follows Building an Inner Sanctuary: Complex PTSD in Chimpanzees (published April 2008 in the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation), which represented the first time human psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses were applied to chimpanzees, demonstrating that psychological suffering crosses species lines. Together, the papers provide irrefutable arguments to the growing ethical imperative to end the use of chimpanzees in U.S. research.
SOURCE New England Anti-Vivisection SocietyBOSTON, Sept. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A recent study documents the severe... more
MADISON, Wis. - The University of Wisconsin plans to expand its primate research labs using the same land where animal rights activists had wanted to build a museum.
University Research Park, a partner of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, bought the lot for $1 million in July.
Activists had wanted to buy land from the previous owner, Roger Charly, but Charly decided to sell the land to the university instead.
Animal rights activist Rick Bogle calls the outcome a "sad irony." The museum would have protested experimentation on monkeys.
But university officials say the expansion means researchers can provide bigger and safer living quarters for the monkeys.
________________
And I am sure also to add more monkeys and more cruel research facilities... Sad day for nonhuman primates and those who sought to protect them.MADISON, Wis. - The University of Wisconsin plans to expand its primate research labs... more
This article basically proposes that, rather than eliminate (or at least reduce) meat consumption, stop nonhuman animal testing, and stop genetic engineering and its massive negative effects on animals and the environment, that we should instead genetically engineer animals not to feel pain so that factory farming (which makes up 99% of animal product production) may continue.
Wait, it gets worse...
The neuroscientists proposing such measures did their work using animals they created various forms of brain damage in (by way of lesions, surgeries, or genetic engineering) and then placed them in electrical shock chambers to see which ones could tolerate the shocks the longest or the most frequently. Countless animals suffer in these painful and cruel experiments every day for these kinds of ideas. The researchers then speak of how it would not be economic to give cows brain surgery in mass amounts, so they must find a way to engineer them to have brain damage that will reduce their ability to feel pain.
Basically, rather than encourage a vegan diet, or at least one with less animal products, which would solve the animal factory farming problem, they want to engineer animals without certain abilities to feel pain, ignore the fact that suffering is based on far more than physical pain, and create animals who would make their consumers feel less guilty about consuming them, because they would be genetically engineered to "suffer" less.
These scientists and theorists completely ignore a few very important factors. Let us ignore the ethical and environmental problems with genetic engineering, simply because they would take far too long to discuss and because I believe it is popular to be against genetic engineering. Instead, let's examine the psychological factors involved in this.
1. Animal suffering is not caused by physical pain alone. If a female cow experienced no physical pain while being placed on a "rape rack", repeatedly impregnated by farmers, only to have her babies taken from her to be made into veal, while she was hooked up to machines, she would still suffer greatly.
2. The brain is full of connections. To eliminate one part of the brain's functioning is impossible without also affecting most if not all of the rest of the functioning in the brain. There is no feasible way to remove the "pain areas" of the brain alone without causing deficits elsewhere.
3. Pain is a necessary part of functioning and survival for all animals. Pain teaches us when we are hurt, when we need to reposition ourselves, when we have something wrong with us, and so on. Removing physical pain from an animal would likely cause MORE suffering than allowing an animal to feel pain as the animal could and would likely suffer multiple problems and injuries which s/he could not identify as well as suffer other cognitive deficits in areas that are closely connected to areas of the brain which respond to pain.
To do something so insane to these animals who are already suffering the imprisonment, exploitation, objectification, and commodification of farming simply for human over consumption, would also involve massive amounts of nonhuman animal testing involving a lot of pain. This proposal can be seen as nothing more than a fraud and a money-making scheme in which those who seek to profit from animal exploitation may continue on, and increase their activity, while confusing the public into believing that they are actually helping animals.Nothing in the world of animal cruelty tends to surprise me these days. However, once... more
Animal Liberation is Human Liberation. Humans are animals. Accepting these first two sentences is critical not only to aid other animals, but to create a framework that will most efficiently lead to the evolution of humanity. However, this seems to be something very difficult for people to grasp, even from the most passionate of backgrounds.
...
While some acknowledge that other animals deserve to be treated with "respect" they still seek to support their commodification and exploitation through food, clothing, testing, and so forth (therefore missing the meaning of "respect" entirely).
Let's start by dissecting some of this reasoning people use of why nonhuman animals should have to wait and the hypocrisy involved in these reasons. I will not go into the longer explanations of these, but simply seek to address how they specifically interact with other movements these people do support.
BIOLOGY. Biology has been used as an excuse against humans and other animals since before any study of biology existed. Skin color (a trait that is purely biological) is a reasoning people use for someone being inferior in other ways, even if they are not relevant to the biology of skin color. Gender and sexuality, things that are both biological and social constructs, are other things that people have used- claiming women are weaker and irrational, ignoring that there are more than two genders, and claiming that non-heterosexuality is some form of disease. All of these things are using one biological frame of reference for the worth of another human being.
This is also what humans are doing to other animals. Anti-animal rightsists go against their own belief systems in claiming that the biology of other animals makes them less worthy than ourselves. They use humans and only humans as a (speciesist) starting point for measures of intelligence, skill, and worth. For instance, one study put out recently showed that dogs were "as smart as 2 year old children". The study showed that dogs had the language abilities of 2 year olds, the arithmetic abilities of 4 year olds, and the social lives of teenagers. Still, they moved the intelligence measure to that of human language- 2 years- despite the fact that they have lives much richer and more intelligent as well as have other abilities and senses that far outweigh humans. Another study showed that animals have the ability to appreciate various types of music. This is one excuse people have used for years that separates us from other animals- art appreciation. There are species of animals whose memory capabilities far outweigh that of any human, and even though memory is a construct of human intelligence, we ignore this attribute in other animals because it does not fit our own reference of domination. The instances are endless. Animals have all of the same brain areas we do allowing them to have similar experiences, they just have less of them. This however, is not reason to use their biology as an excuse to treat them as commodities (whether we are nice to them or not).
RELIGION. Let's pretend for a moment that I believe in religion. Some religions give man dominion over other animals while others hold some species of animals to be sacred. To be brief, these religious texts also said many things that were oppressive towards women, other races, sexualities, and so on. So, to take what they say about animals as rock-hard truth while being able to toss out the massive prejudices placed against women, races, nationalities, other religions, and so on is simply irrational, and convenient for those who seek to exploit other animals.
POLITICAL/SOCIAL. Quite frequently, I hear that we can help the animals only when we have fixed everything going wrong with humans. The big misconceptions here are that humans and animals are separate entities...
Full article at link...
Animal Liberation is Human Liberation. Humans are animals. Accepting these... more
WASHINGTON – Scientific advancements in medical testing may reduce the need for animal subjects, eliminating the heated debate without another fight.
Although scientists are already carrying out many of the alternatives in major research, some believe there is still plenty of room for progress.
Dr. John Pippin, senior medical and research adviser of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said animal experimentation should be completely banned for medical reasons as well as for the obvious ethical concerns.
According to Pippin, animal testing for human conditions can be misleading, and even dangerous, as the human anatomy is different from other animals – even our closest relatives – the great apes.
“There have been at least 85 successful vaccines to either cure or prevent HIV infection in animal models, mostly in monkeys,” said Pippin, a cardiologist. “Those vaccines… have been tested in approximately 200 human clinical trials. They have all failed.”
Additionally, Pippin said a recent trial conducted by Merck showed that people who received HIV vaccines that were originally tested on animals were more likely to contract HIV after taking the vaccine than people who took the placebo.
“That is fundamental proof that you’re on the wrong track,” said Pippin.
Theodora Capaldo, president of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, also known as NEAVS, said many people have the dangerous misconception that experimenting on animals such as chimpanzees, who share many genetic similarities with humans, will help find cures for human-related ailments. In reality, Capaldo said he believes if animal experimentation was outlawed, humans would benefit.
“Yes, the genetic similarities between Homo sapiens and chimpanzees is even as little a difference as 2 to 3 percent, but it is enormous when it come to how disease occurs, progresses and what the outcome is,” Capaldo said.
Looking at HIV for example, Capaldo said chimpanzees are extremely poor models for testing for human cures. Chimpanzees cannot contract HIV, but only a virus similar to it. Additionally, because of our genetic differences, what does not effect a chimpanzee adversely may cause critical harm to a human.
And the evidence doesn’t stop there.
“There are more than two dozen cures for diabetes in animals; there is nothing successful in people,” Pippin said.
Once a professor of medicine at Harvard University, Pippin testified before the FDA and the Institute of Medicine in 2005 on the repercussions of animal experimentation, stating that such research led to life-threatening products, such as Vioxx, being released on the market.
Pippin admitted to once using animal models, mostly dogs, in his cardiovascular research. However, he stopped using them, he said, once he realized that caninesweren’t the most reliable models when trying to discover new ways to help people.
Fortunately, Pippin said there are many new, more humane and effective ways to conduct research. For example – using stem cells.
“You can already create human cell cultures and tissues that can be used for testing drugs in a way that’s more accurate than animal testing,” he said.
Additionally, Pippin said scientists can use microdosing, where humans are administered low, non-life threatening doses of a chemical that are still high enough to study how it is effective on a cellular level. The goal is to figure out what dose of a certain chemical should be added to new drugs.
In-vitro testing is also a popular alternate method, where human cells are placed in a test tube or Petri dish along with a chemical of choice to measure everything from toxicity to effectiveness.
These are only a few examples of the new and improved research methods, according to Pippin.
But not everyone agrees.
...full article at link.WASHINGTON – Scientific advancements in medical testing may reduce the need for... more
Police in Hannover on Wednesday removed 26 protestors from a site where a pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim is slated to build a lab to test animal vaccinations.
Two women had to be dug out of the ground after entombing their feet in concrete at the site. Three other protestors trying to hide on the roof of a nearby structure, as well as a young man attempted to climbing 10 metres up an oak tree, were also taken into custody.
Since the beginning of last month, the protestors have occupied the site in protest to the construction of the lab by the pharmaceutical company. A police spokesman said Wednesday they were removed because their demonstration was “no longer a peaceful assembly.”
Police said the animal rights activists were aggressively trying to claim the territory for themselves by digging pits, building barricades and stone deposits on the grounds. They are there as part of a citizens initiative to keep labs that conduct tests on animals out of populated areas.
Other sites in the area are also being targeted by animal rights groups. On July 27, Hannover mayor Stefan Weil’s house was attacked with paint. Last week, a building of a veterinarian school was painted as well. Police are still investigating any possible connection to the Boehringer Ingelheim protest.Police in Hannover on Wednesday removed 26 protestors from a site where a... more
For years, actresses, reality TV stars, even porn stars have been stripped down and sexed up for PETA, all in hopes of protecting the rights and the lives of animals everywhere.
In this photo gallery we see why PETA’s slogan might as well be “Exploiting Animals, Bad. Exploiting Women, Good.” http://stilettorevolt.com/?p=982For years, actresses, reality TV stars, even porn stars have been stripped down and... more
Animal rights group PETA has posted a new online game designed to spotlight the use of animals in breast cancer research.
Breasts, Not Tests is a Whack-a-Mole clone. Players click on cleavage shots and try to avoid clicking the animals and, oddly enough, fruits that appear. As play progresses, tiles vanish with ever-increasing speed. High scores can unlock rewards such as wallpaper and banners.
So what message is PETA pushing with Breasts, Not Tests? From the game's web page:
"We all know that breast cancer is a serious disease that affects most of us in some way (either personally or through someone we know), but did you know that it also affects animals?
It's true. Monkeys, rats, mice, rabbits, cats, dogs, and other animals often suffer and die because of horrific tests that are conducted in the name of breast cancer "research." Besides being cruel, the "research" is also ineffective..."
---
I hate giving PETA attention, but exchanging the freedom of an animal for the life of a human is a fair trade in my opinion.
What do you think?Animal rights group PETA has posted a new online game designed to spotlight the use of... more
If you care anything about primates, hypocrisy or justice, you’re going to want to read this blog entry from Priscilla Feral, President of Friends of Animals.
In a nutshell, PeTA is, for the third time, again suing Primarily Primates, Inc., a non-profit animal sanctuary in San Antonio, Texas that is managed by Friends of Animals (FoA) and operates solely to house and rehabilitate various non-native animals, such as primates, birds and an African lion.
These animals are typically the throwaways from pet trade and biomedical research facilities and without PPI’s intervention would have had an uncertain future – if any at all.
After two unsuccessful lawsuits, both of which were dismissed for unsubstantiated claims, one would think PeTA would not only examine its own agenda for legitimacy, but seriously reconsider wasting further donation dollars on giddy court cases. But, as Feral writes in her blog;
“As a $30 million per year organization, PETA can afford to file all the frivolous lawsuits it wants, hire as many lawyers as it wants, and make all of the frivolous arguments it wants. However, PETA is hard-pressed to explain how this lawsuit helps any of the animals in PPI’s care…”
The mission statement of Friends of Animals is to ‘cultivate a respectful view of nonhuman animals, free-living and domestic.’ They engage in nationwide spay and neuter campaigns, strongly support veganism and are staunch advocates for animal care, activism and compassion. Funny, but according to PeTA’s PR machines, they do, too.
So, we’ll be watching this case closely in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we hope you will send a letter to PeTA expressing your outrage that donation dollars are being spent on eating one of their own.
Personal Note:
I have always been a strong supporter of PETA. I have also supported Friends of Animals and many other organizations that promote animal rights, animal welfare legislation and environmental ethics. So, readining a post like this is disturbing.
I can't imagine where PETA would expect them to go. It would think the primates are in the best place possible. If this news is true, it would be disappointing on many levels...If you care anything about primates, hypocrisy or justice, you’re going to want to... more
A look inside Huntingdon Life Sciences over the past 9 years. They are still doing this as we speak. For more information, go to www.shac.netA look inside Huntingdon Life Sciences over the past 9 years. They are still doing... more
By Daniel Engber
Updated Friday, June 5, 2009, at 7:19 AM ET
My research monkey had a pink face, dark eyes, sandy fur, and a 2-inch titanium rod screwed into the top of his skull. His name was Clayton.
It's customary to name research macaques in alphabetical order according to when they arrived at the lab. Clayton showed up after Axel and Bongo and ahead of Duper, Einstein, and Freud—but whatever institutional seniority he had meant little in the monkey room. Clayton, a juvenile, was skittish and shy, submissive as a rule, and generally afraid to leave his cage. When I'd finally manage to coax him out, he would leap straight into the "monkey chair," preferring enclosure in a small, plastic box to the thought of ambling across the laboratory floor.
Though he hardly needed it, Clayton was leashed even for these short trips from cage to chair. I'd hook a chain to his collar and slide it through a loop at the end of a 3-foot pole so he couldn't get close enough to bite or scratch. Macaques can harbor the deadly herpes B virus, and it's generally forbidden to approach one that's unrestrained and un-anaesthetized. Though Clayton and I spent hours together every day, I never so much as touched his fur during an experimental session. If he came to recognize me—and I believe he did—it was despite the surgical mask, goggles, hair net, and other safety accoutrements of any visit to the monkey room.
The monkey chair wasn't much bigger than the animals themselves, and Clayton's head poked out through sliding panels at the top. I'd roll him in front of a computer monitor and fasten his protruding metal post to an external frame. With his skull fixed in place, only his eyes could move to follow the targets that zipped across the screen. (By tracking the direction of Clayton's gaze, I'd hoped to learn something about how smooth pursuit eye movements are controlled in the brain.) His eyes would follow me, though, as I loaded up the software and filled his juice dispenser; sometimes I'd place a jelly bean or a raisin delicately on the edge of his mouth, which he'd gobble up before flashing his gums in the deferential gesture of silent bared teeth. I talked to Clayton, too, trying to keep him entertained. But every once in a while he'd show his impatience with a gesture that was disturbingly human: I remember the day he crossed his legs on the shelf of the chair and started strumming his fingernails against the wall.
The one time I held Clayton in my arms, he was asleep and swaddled in a blanket. He'd just undergone a minor surgery, probably to repair a broken eye coil. (Most of the monkeys in the lab had a thin wire implanted under one eyelid that could be used to track their eye movements.) As a junior graduate student, I wasn't allowed to do more than observe the procedure, but when it was done, one of the postdocs lifted Clayton off the table and beckoned me over. I was to carry him back to the monkey room and deposit him gently into a cage before the anesthesia wore off.
For the first time, I felt the shape of his body—the outline of his little shoulders and spindly legs. For weeks we'd interacted across bars and through thick plastic; now I had him cradled him against my chest, his eyes closed and his head tucked into the crook of my arm. He was about the size and weight of a newborn baby; with the blanket wrapped around him, only his pink face was showing, and his eyelids fluttered as I carried him down the hall.
...full article at linkBy Daniel Engber
Updated Friday, June 5, 2009, at 7:19 AM ET
My research monkey... more
We recently looked at why the government and the press (outside of some bloggers and opinion columnists) have not labeled the murder of an abortion provider as “terrorism.” It’s important to remember, though, that this isn’t an isolated incident. The word terrorism is used by the FBI and Department of Justice only when it fits a certain political agenda.
The government has systematically labeled animal rights and environmental activists who have never harmed anyone as “the number one domestic terrorism threat.” Yet the term is not applied to individuals who have committed much more serious (and often violent) crimes either for personal gain or for right-wing motives.
Here are 30 cases that the government has chosen to not label as “terrorism”:
Plotting to assassinate the president.
Beating African-American voters because they voted for Obama.
Threatening to assassinate the President and detonate C4 at the Mall of America.
Making death threats against biologists to “kill the enemies of Christian society.”
Attacking a black man with a chainsaw because of his race.
Using a noose to assault a black man at the Pentagon.
Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party.
Smuggling “shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and other military weapons.”
Leaving an incendiary device at a federal courthouse.
Placing a pipe bomb near a hotel and then calling in a bomb threat.
Making bomb threats on an airplane.
Impersonating an armed federal agent.
Shooting at FBI agents in a drive-by.
Threatening federal agents with an assault rifle.
Offering to sell your own child for sexual purposes.
Attempting to buy a 9-year-old girl for sex.
Selling a 5-year-old for sexual purposes.
Forcing a young woman to engage in prostitution through force, fraud and coercion.
Kidnapping 3 children.
Sending white powder to John McCain’s presidential campaign with a note reading, “Senator McCain, If you are reading this then you are already DEAD! Unless of course you can’t or don’t breathe.”
Mailing 65 threatening letters to financial institutions with white powder.
Mailing the Social Security Administration and saying ““I’m going to blow up your office and the IRS office as well.”
Sending more than 25 threatening letters to federal, state, and local governmental agencies containing fake Anthrax.
Sending a white powder through the U.S. mail to the Internal Revenue Service with a note that says “YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ANTRAX DIE!”
A former sheriff’s deputy forcing a teenage girl to perform sexual acts in his patrol car.
Three police officers shooting a 92-year old woman at her home “during the execution of a search warrant obtained by the defendants based upon false information.”
Using “deadly weapons including firearms, baseball bats, machetes, bottles or knives in the commission of numerous murders, attempted murders and assaults…kidnapping; obstruction of justice; and witness tampering.”
Stealing cattle for personal profit.
Setting fire at a petting barn and killing more than 40 animals.
Setting dozens of fires that caused “incalculable suffering.”
Of course we could keep going, there’s no shortage of examples to draw from. To be clear, I am not arguing that all of these examples are in fact “terrorism” (I’ll be outlining what I think are the top criteria for defining acts of terrorism in a future article). But if the government defines “terrorism” so broadly as to include releasing mink from fur farms and protesting legally while wearing masks, then why don’t any of these qualify?We recently looked at why the government and the press (outside of some bloggers and... more
The BUAV, the UK’s leading organisation campaigning to end animal experiments, welcomes the announcements made by the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green parties to pledge to include a ban on the testing of household products on animals in their manifestos for the next election. The announcements were made at a BUAV Parliamentary Reception in Westminster on Tuesday 2 June.
The announcements follow a high profile political and public campaign by the BUAV as part of its Clean Up Cruelty campaign. The campaign aims to eliminate the cruel and unnecessary use of animals in the testing of the ingredients for household products such as washing-up liquid, bathroom cleaner, floor polish and air fresheners.
Major high street retailers are increasingly responding to public concern about this issue and signing up to the BUAV’s Humane Household Product Standard (HHPS) – the only internationally recognised scheme that enables consumers to easily identify and purchase household products whose ingredients have not been tested on animals. Already, all household products made by the Co-operative and Marks and Spencer have been approved under the HHPS. This clearly illustrates that it is unnecessary to test on animals to manufacture and sell safe and effective household products.
In 1997 the UK government made a small amendment to policy which instantly saved thousands of animals from suffering in needless cosmetics testing. The Clean up Cruelty campaign aims to do the same for household products.
Ian Cawsey, MP said: “I have been asked by Gordon Brown to look at all aspects of animal welfare policy and I am convinced that the ban we introduced on testing cosmetics on animals can be extended to cover household products. It will be central to my report to the Prime Minister and will be widely supported in the Labour Party to be in our manifesto for the next election.”
Andrew Rosindell, MP said: “Animal testing is one of the most significant and controversial areas of the animal welfare debate. It is crucial that, step by step, we make concerted efforts to reduce the numbers of animals used and the number of procedures undertaken.
“Following the successful ban on testing for cosmetic products, we must now look to see where we can extend this further. We are pleased to support the BUAV's Clean up Cruelty campaign and it is the Conservative Party’s view that we are now in a realistic position to ban the use of animals in testing on household products.
“This is the first step in the Conservative approach to continually reducing animal experimentation, there is still much ground to cover, and we will continue to press the case for greater emphasis on development into alternative methods of testing.”
Roger Williams, MP said: “The Liberal Democrats have had a long held belief that it is totally unnecessary to use animals for the testing of household goods and I am happy to support the BUAV’s campaign to ban their use.
“The British are a nation of animal lovers and the Government should reflect that by implementing steps that will lead to the eventual ban of unnecessary testing on animals. This has already happened with cosmetics and I see no reason why similar moves should not be made in the case of household goods.”
Caroline Lucas, MEP said: “The Green Party has pledged to continue campaigning to end the cruelty inflicted upon animals in the name of ‘safety’ and it is certainly timely for the progress that has been made with regard to cosmetics testing to be mirrored, and improved upon, with regard to household products.
“The Green Party fully supports BUAV’s campaign for a total ban on all testing of household products and I will be doing my utmost to press for a ban across Europe, as well as in this country.”
...full article at linkThe BUAV, the UK’s leading organisation campaigning to end animal experiments,... more
Before long, we will each have an alter ego to assess the medication we need. That's the vision of Natalia Alexandrov, winner of the New Scientist/NC3Rs "Beyond animal research" essay competition.
A QUIET night in December 2050. Small town anywhere on Earth. In the hospital, little Peter has just made his appearance in the world. As the happy family takes pictures of mother and baby, the thought that his birth is incomplete is far from their minds. And the birth will not be complete for a few hours, until hundreds of miles away his virtual twin is born.
While Peter is dreaming his first dreams, samples of his blood and tissue are analysed and the resulting data transmitted to the simulation and modelling department of the regional medical centre.
It is expensive and time-consuming to build a virtual human from scratch, so a library of averaged mathematical models of newborns is maintained. The initial models differ by sex, ethnicity, geographic origin, basic genetic make-up and other salient characteristics. When Peter's data arrive, they are integrated with a model whose attributes most closely resemble Peter's. The vast resulting computational model is as unique as Peter himself.
Throughout Peter's childhood his parents take him for medical check-ups, inoculations and treatment for a broken arm and colds. All this information makes his virtual twin grow. When the boy is 10, flu leaves him with a complication - severe bronchitis. Which antibiotic to prescribe? The family doctor downloads Peter's virtual twin, updates it with the latest tests, and runs simulations for the range of available antibiotics to anticipate short-term and long-term effects. This identifies both the perfect drug and one that would have had a life-threatening, long-term effect on Peter's blood-clotting ability, possibly leading to a future stroke.
Why an individual twin? The laboratory animals used to develop drugs do not always represent humans adequately, and even well-tested drugs can cause adverse reactions in some people.
How far are we from building useful and practical virtual twins? There are many sophisticated models of individual organs and systems, such as network models of the metabolic, immune, nervous and circulatory systems; computational fluid dynamics models of blood flow; structural models of the heart and other muscles. These models will continue to grow in fidelity, but the behaviour of a complex system is a function of its complexity, and the biggest barrier is, arguably, the integration of subsystem models into one systemic model.
As well as the difficulty of modelling every aspect of the organism in terms amenable to computation, the challenges are in combining disparate models and the sheer volume and complexity of the information needed. However, in this writer's opinion, the situation is by no means hopeless. Moore's law of growing computational resources will provide the necessary storage and speed. The complex mathematics involved will be more challenging, but by no means prohibitively so.
...full article at linkBefore long, we will each have an alter ego to assess the medication we need. That's... more
The University of Oklahoma Medical Center just confirmed to PCRM that it has stopped killing goats in its trauma training course and now employs nonanimal training methods. But sheep at Massachusetts General Hospital still need your help. Despite thousands of messages from people like you, the hospital killed sheep in its trauma training course this May. Help us end animal use in all upcoming courses at the hospital.
sheepLast year, PCRM filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture citing the University of Oklahoma (OU) Medical Center for violating the Animal Welfare Act by using goats in its Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course. After the complaint was filed, the medical center obtained the American College of Surgeons (ACS)-approved TraumaMan System simulator and is now using it—instead of animals.
OU Medical Center’s wise decision puts additional pressure on Massachusetts General, which recently used and killed sheep in its ATLS course.
“The current use of live sheep is a violation of the Animal Welfare Act because educationally equivalent nonanimal training methods exist,” wrote PCRM cardiologist John Pippin, M.D., in a formal request asking Massachusetts General’s Subcommittee on Research Animal Care to deny the use of animals in the hospital’s ATLS course.
The Animal Welfare Act’s implementing regulations “require that a principal investigator—including course instructors—consider alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to any animal used for research purposes.”
Mass General already uses TraumaMan to teach ATLS procedures to medical students—but it needs to start using the animal-free method in all ATLS courses. When physicians take ATLS courses at Mass General, they insert tubes into the chests of live sheep and the animals’ tracheas are cut open. These procedures and others subject the sheep to the trauma of confinement, shipping, and preparation.
“Massachusetts General Hospital needs to catch up to the current standard of trauma training,” says Dr. Pippin. “Cutting into living animals is a substandard way to teach emergency procedures that will be used on humans. The course instructor already uses simulators to teach the same procedures also taught with live sheep. Massachusetts General should use state-of-the-art, nonanimal teaching methods, including human patient simulators, for all such trauma courses.”
The vast majority of U.S. ATLS courses—including Berkshire Medical Center in Pittsfield, Mass. and Beth Israel Hospital in Boston—use the TraumaMan System for ATLS surgical skills training.
ATLS courses teach procedures designed to respond to acute trauma injuries. These procedures include cricothyroidotomy (an incision in the neck to relieve an obstructed airway), pericardiocentesis (removing fluid from the sac that surrounds the heart), and chest tube insertion (draining blood, fluid, or air to allow the lung to fully expand). But teaching these procedures using animals is cruel and ineffective.
According to a study published in the November 2002 edition of the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, study participants misplaced 30.2 percent of cricothyroidotomies (emergency surgical airway) when performing the procedure on live animals compared with only 3.6 percent when using human cadavers. The ACS also previously approved the use of cadavers.
PCRM’s ongoing survey of ATLS programs in the United States and Canada has found that 188 of the 201 programs (more than 90 percent) that have responded exclusively use nonanimal models for instruction. The vast majority of those 189 programs exclusively use the TraumaMan System.
Contact Massachusetts General Hospital’s ATLS course instructor, Susan Briggs, M.D., today and politely ask her to end animal use in the institution’s ATLS program before the October course.The University of Oklahoma Medical Center just confirmed to PCRM that it has stopped... more
