Thursday, August 21, 2008

Conversation with Eric Sandgren

In my post featuring the image of the marmoset in the long-term restraint device developed by vivisectors at the University of Wisconsin, I brought up Ei Terasawa’s push-pull perfusion studies and mentioned some of Eric Sandgren’s statements about the matter. Eric left the following comment:

Eric Sandgren said...
You should know, Rick, that a paper published in 2007 uses data collected sometimes years earlier. As I correctly stated, push-pull perfusion experiments are not being used now. Second, your blog demonstrates that we do discuss this sort of procedure in public--you have provided the citations, to which you had free access. Thank you for proving that point. Third, regarding oversight, you say its broken, I say its not broken. We both use evidence to back up our convictions. Where does that leave us? In the real world, where things are not packaged up so neatly, as you would have us believe. Forth, I'm responding to correct an error of fact in your blog (that I had made a misstatement). I'm not interested and won't take part in a typically pointless back-and-forth blogging match. Maybe you could invite me to one of your meetings and we can have another of our face-to-face conversations. Finally, why do activists have such a problem spelling my name consistently? August 19, 2008 9:37 AM
Rick said...
As you know Eric, and as you stipulated in correspondence with Terasawa, she was to stop using the term “push-pull perfusion” and begin using “micro-dialysis.” In any case, she has now, apparently, actually switched over, in spite of her essay explaining that micro-dialysis is a scientifically inferior method. The difference between the two procedures is the design of the tip of the tube. The restraint, surgical preparation, cannulization, and brain structure being probed are the same. It’s unlikely that the monkeys undergoing the ordeal could differentiate between the two.

You write: “Third, regarding oversight, you say its broken, I say its not broken. We both use evidence to back up our convictions.” You have no evidence. There isn’t evidence on your side of this particular point. Evidence looks like the USDA IG’s report and Plous and Herzog. If I’m wrong, please do cite a reference or two.

You must not understand just how unusual an illustration like this is in today’s journals. The university doesn’t discuss the details of its animal research in public. You know that as well as I do.

Thanks for pointing out the typo.

For the record, you stopped coming to our meetings on your own. You’ve never been turned away. August 19, 2008 12:20 PM
And then, for a reason I can’t fathom since there seems to be nothing confidential in it, Eric sent me the following email:
from Eric P. Sandgren
to Rick Bogle
date Aug 20, 2008 9:51 AM
subject Rick, Rick, Rick
mailed-by rarc.wisc.edu

There you go again. Want some evidence for oversight working? Its posted on your own web site in the two pieces about Ei Teresawa. Your whole discussion about Dr. Teresawa always starts by describing the "identification" of problems by the USDA. Well, according to documents posted on your site, Teresawa's protocol already had been suspended before the USDA visit. We had reported that suspension to OLAW and to USDA. You actually have the gall to suggest that the USDA VMO put the wrong date on the report? The IACUC worked in its job of oversight. As you prove. Thanks.

Regarding push-pull versus perfusion, you state that the animals likely don't know the difference. Do you realize that you've just said there is no difference between 12 hours of restraint and over 3 days of restraint? Wow. See how your fellow activists feel about that statement. To me, that's a very significant difference.

Regarding your meetings, I attach below an email from you to me on 10-16-07 when I asked to meet with your group after the second debate. I'll also forward it to you:

"Thanks for the update.
Eric

Rick Bogle wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> After some discussion, we've decide that we'll have to get back to you at a
> latter date. We will discuss a possible meeting with you at our next
> meeting.
>
> Rick Bogle
>"

You never did get back to me.

Rick, you should write novels because you are so good at Historical Fiction. Do you see why a number of people might find it hard to take you seriously when your work is so sloppy? Come on. You can do better than this. Don't trivialize your own cause.

I guess I don't expect to read any acknowledgment of these points anywhere, but I can hope.
Eric, I can't see any reason not to have this discussion in public.

I’ll address each of your points.
There you go again. Want some evidence for oversight working? Its posted on your own web site in the two pieces about Ei Teresawa. Your whole discussion about Dr. Teresawa always starts by describing the "identification" of problems by the USDA.
Well, according to documents posted on your site, Teresawa's protocol already had been suspended before the USDA visit. We had reported that suspension to OLAW and to USDA. You actually have the gall to suggest that the USDA VMO put the wrong date on the report? The IACUC worked in its job of oversight. As you prove. Thanks.
You contend that the problem was discovered by the university rather than APHIS.

You should review the minutes of the May 12, 2003 Graduate School IACUC.

This document makes it clear that the problem was discovered by APHIS and that that is what brought the matter to the committee’s attention.

Further, Terasawa (you should learn to spell her name correctly) had been using this method – the method you said was too risky – for seventeen years. The university’s oversight, in spite of the involvement of what must have been many people over this long period, had failed to notice the problem for nearly two decades. This is what you cite as evidence that the oversight system works.

On this point we will just have to disagree about what the evidence demonstrates.
Regarding push-pull versus perfusion, you state that the animals likely don't know the difference. Do you realize that you've just said there is no difference between 12 hours of restraint and over 3 days of restraint? Wow. See how your fellow activists feel about that statement. To me, that's a very significant difference.
Just to clarify: Push-pull is perfusion. The procedures you are trying to contrast are push-pull perfusions and micro-dialyses. In any case, any judgment regarding the monkeys’ experiences should be based on a full accounting of what is done to them. In both the push-pull perfusion and the micro-dialysis, the build up to the actual procedure appears to be identical and spanned many weeks and in some cases, months. I do agree though, that 12 hours of constraint is better than 3 days, much like losing a finger is better than losing a hand; neither of which is a good thing.

We will just have to disagree as to whether this is a significant difference. To anyone observing the procedures and the events leading up to them, it would be very difficult, maybe impossible, to distinguish one from the other.
Rick Bogle wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> After some discussion, we've decide that we'll have to get back to you at a
> latter date. We will discuss a possible meeting with you at our next
> meeting.
>
> Rick Bogle
>"

You never did get back to me.

Rick, you should write novels because you are so good at Historical Fiction. Do you see why a number of people might find it hard to take you seriously when your work is so sloppy? Come on. You can do better than this. Don't trivialize your own cause.
Sorry. You are though, being selective here. Don’t forget that you asked me to get together with you to discuss this blog and to just “jaw.” I agreed, and you left it hanging. You even apologized for this recently when we spoke to each other before we taped “For the Record.”

Again, I apologize for not getting back to you on your wish to meet with the entire group. I spoke with them about this again, and you are welcome to attend a meeting. We meet on Thursday evenings but will switch to Wednesdays beginning in September. Email me and I will send you the time and location and put you on the agenda.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

and meanwhile animals suffer in labs with seemingly no end in sight to their suffering which is my suffering. i'm aghast every day at the insensitivity, the justification, the anthropocentrism, the greed, the egos. i don't know why so many humans don't see or care about our abuse of animals, why humans evolved in this ugly way. i'm chronically heartbroken about it.

Anonymous said...

The discussion is useless. Rick is not interested in any one particular procedure. He is of the mind that having an animal caged already amounts to torture.

No matter if the animals are housed in groups; no matter if they have toys and enrichment; no matter if the research is invasive or not.

Discussing the size of a needle of the length of a procedure with him makes no sense. It makes people think that he is concerned about specific experiments. He is not.

Rick said...

"The discussion is useless."

This is the mentality of essentially the entire vivisection industy. (Eric Sandgren is a very rare exception.)

This has been the position of the vivisectors forever. The antivivisection movement is a history of critics trying to have open public discussion and debate with the opposition.

Discussion and debate, as even the most cursory glance at today's politics shows clearly, need not be based on the idea or pretense that one party will convince the other (Obama isn't going to change parties.)

The value lies in the public discussion itself. This is a key element of democracy. But vivisectors don't invite public discussion about the things they do; they don't want the issue widely debated. Democracy threatens them.

So, very little discussion takes place. I think this is a significant factor in most of the illegal actions associated with animal rights.

"The discussion is useless."

Anonymous said...

I meant to say "discussion with YOU is useless".

"The value lies in the public discussion itself. This is a key element of democracy."

Look, you either live by the rule of the land or you do not.

One one hand you argue that debate is a key element of democracy on the other you justify violence to achieve your goals.

You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.

Anonymous said...

debate is a key element of democracy but no one has said its the ONLY element. violence and direct action has been one of the most important and effective tactics in achieving democratic goals that could never have been achievable by simply debating the issue. (these historical events rick goes into extensively in past blogs. and i also suggest you read the book "terrorists or freedom fighters" before you make too many assumptions).

as long as violence and oppression is unleashed on millions of innocent creatures (human and non-human) each day you will see humans AND non-humans(such as fighting dogs who have been bred to suffer) fight back with violence. also for example, it would have been foolish for black panther party members to not take up arms while their houses and meetings were being raided by armed officers ready to murder them and/or lock them all up in jail.

debate is no doubt a key element of democracy but to say that violence is never justified seems naive and the all too common view of privileged upper-middle class, non-minorities(of course there are exceptions). can you even imagine what it feels to live out the suffering "life" of a lab animal or to be beaten by thugs in uniforms protected by a badge??

theres a quote "its easy to love thy enemy when theyre not actually your enemy."...well there needs to come a time when we speak out for those who do not have a voice. just because we as humans are not the ones being torn away from our families and stuck in these wretched labs, does not mean that their suffering is not ours. as long as we continue to reamin silent, ignorant, naive, capitalisitc, cruel we are just as much in cages.

(oh and id like to mention i dont condone any iilegal activity)

Anonymous said...

All I am saying is that it is hypocritical to ask for discussion and debate during the day and put a ski mask and bomb people during the night (or agree that doing so is fine).

Rick said...

It would be hypocritical only if one claimed that the matter of animals being harmed and killed can never rise to the level of importance of humans being harmed and killed.

That is, unless one argues that force is never justified. I don't, and neither does the vast majority.