tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81583199866029523492024-03-14T00:59:57.150-05:00Primate FreedomA blog about animal experimentation.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger822125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-2888683653101005962023-11-29T12:18:00.003-06:002023-11-29T12:31:46.727-06:00Viewing this on a phone?Be sure to scroll to the bottom and click "View Web Version."<br>
Or, try this: <a href="http://primateresearch.blogspot.com/?m=0">http://primateresearch.blogspot.com/?m=0</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-6773180272118802042023-09-23T12:42:00.000-05:002023-09-23T12:42:42.275-05:00The Creative Lives of Animals (New York University Press: 2023) Thumbs -up.<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCiib8Nm95gk-E40bARcVTco1TelRKoNZtWMzZapaJpQ5c5EYOgwOSr0odtkmf-kqMAWnUj3ME3Cyhwt26z7j78nr05Qzuy_7kSX1vJMfAidFzduxLaC_rDPC5eCdWs3QZbb1qS--qbCmlGMtKtrW7RwKCzw0qcUX9Jgv8Sc4nLmYx2yFznEj-MdpCa1Y/s641/creative%20lives.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="200" data-original-height="641" data-original-width="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCiib8Nm95gk-E40bARcVTco1TelRKoNZtWMzZapaJpQ5c5EYOgwOSr0odtkmf-kqMAWnUj3ME3Cyhwt26z7j78nr05Qzuy_7kSX1vJMfAidFzduxLaC_rDPC5eCdWs3QZbb1qS--qbCmlGMtKtrW7RwKCzw0qcUX9Jgv8Sc4nLmYx2yFznEj-MdpCa1Y/s200/creative%20lives.jpg"/></a></div>
<br>
<br>
Carol Giglioti's <i>The Creative Lives of Animals</i> (New York University Press: 2023) held my interest from the first to the last page. I am of two minds about the book though. On the one hand, I think she provided ample and conclusive evidence for her proposition that other animals are creative. They invent new ways of doing things and those new ways get handed down through multiple generations. Human observers commonly perceive those invented, taught, and practiced behaviors as gene-regulated characteristics rather than the culturally embedded activities and ways of living that they actually are.
<br>
<br>
If you have an interest in why animnals do some of the things they do and how they may have come to do some of those things, I think you too will enjoy and find much to think about in <i>The Creative Lives of Animals.</i>
<br>
<br>
But the book also left me more depressed about our treatment of them. It seems that no matter what we learn about animals, that knowledge is only rarely sufficient to cause us to stop hurting them, let alone genuinely help them, or even just leave them alone. Throughout history, and still today, what we know about them is often used to exploit them, to take advantage of them, and is sometimes the reason that we hurt them even more.
<br>
<br>
In that sense, <i>The Creative Lives of Animals</i> probably won't be any more successful than any of the many other books by authors who probably hoped that the stories they told, the facts they cited, would at least nudge us in a more humane direction. Some of them have, a little, but on balance those changes have been slight. I hope <i>The Creative Lives of Animals</i> will have more success. It's worth a read and a recommendation to those you know who still don't give a damn.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-67967398466418370832023-06-24T11:14:00.001-05:002023-06-24T11:14:20.173-05:00628 Pieces of Primate Research Garbage“We all operate in the same way,” said acting Wisconsin Primate Research Center director Joe Kemnitz in the midst of a long and embarrassing scandal over protected monkeys at the local zoo. But little did anyone realize just what a liar he was. No other primate laboratory comes even close to operating like Wisconsin.<br /><br />In an industry where violations of federal law and regulation are the norm, where deceiving the public is high art, and animals are routinely neglected, tortured, and killed, it is nearly impossible for an institution to distinguish itself. But the University of Wisconsin, Madison has proven itself truly exceptional.<br /><br />This time it has to do with the destruction of <em>hundreds</em> of videotapes.<br /><br /><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150922001032/http://madisonmonkeys.com/UW_data_destruction.htm">Read more...<br /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-85664451976809720922023-04-24T14:08:00.002-05:002023-04-24T14:59:03.714-05:00Some follow-up on the Basso et al articleThe authors write:
<br>
<br>
"When the morning sickness drug thalidomide came to market in Europe in the 1950s regulators failed to identify that it caused serious congenital malformations in pregnant women. In the USA, FDA reviewer Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey rejected the drug’s application on the grounds of insufficient preclinical pregnant animal data and pregnant human data."
<br>
<br>
But this does not appear to be accurate. <a href="https://uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/biological-sciences-articles/courageous-physician-scientist-saved-the-us-from-a-birth-defects-catastrophe%20">An essay about her career</a> is available from the University of Chicago.
<br>
<br>
It is true that William S. Merrell Co. was seeking approval to market thalidomide in the U.S. and that Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey was the FDA reviewer. And, it is true that thalidomide could cause tragic birth defects. But Basso et al's claim is false:
<blockquote>When the morning sickness drug thalidomide came to market
in Europe in the 1950s regulators failed to identify that it caused
serious congenital malformations in pregnant women. In the
USA, FDA reviewer Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey rejected the drug’s
application on the grounds of insufficient preclinical pregnant
animal data and pregnant human data.</blockquote>
In the articles about Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey's concerns that I have been able to locate, it wasn't the animal data that worried Oldham Kelsey; in fact, animal data was available and was (false) evidence that the drug was harmless.
<br>
<br>
See for instance <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/washtech/longterm/thalidomide/keystories/071598drug.htm">'Heroine' of FDA Keeps Bad Drug Off Market By Morton Mintz</a>
Washington Post Staff Writer. July 15, 1962. To wit:
<blockquote>The drug had come into widespread use in other countries. In West Germany, where it was used primarily as a sedative, huge quantities of it were sold over the counter before it was put on a prescription basis. It gave a prompt, deep, natural sleep that was not followed by a hangover. It was cheap. It failed to kill even the would-be suicides who swallowed massive doses.
<br>
<br>
And there were reports on experiments with animals. Only a few weeks ago the American licensee told of giving the drug to rats in doses of 6 to 60 times greater than the comparable human dosage. Of 1510 offspring, none was delivered with "evidence of malformation."
<br>
<br>
In a separate study, one rat did deliver a malformed offspring, but the dosage had been 120 times the usual one. Rabbits that were injected with six times the comparable human dose also were reported to have produced no malformed births.
<br>
<br>
... she said she could not help regarding thalidomide as a "peculiar drug." It troubled her that its effects on experimental animals were not the same as on humans – it did not make them sleepy.
</blockquote>
At every turn, it seems that Basso et al get almost everything wrong. This seems to be a relatively common phenomena in many professions and walks of life. Our preconceptions and beliefs color our perception.
<br>
<br>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-2472999936012731792023-04-23T12:40:00.001-05:002023-04-24T12:31:14.110-05:00Vivisectors Say the Darndest Things.
<i>FDA no longer needs to require animal tests before doing human drug trials.</i> <i>Science</i> 1-23-2023.
<br>
<br>
<i>The FDA no longer requires all drugs to be tested on animals before human trials.</i> <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148529799/fda-animal-testing-pharmaceuticals-drug-development">NPR</a> 1-12-2023.
<br>
<br>
This change in policy is the result of years of effort by groups like <a href="https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/">PETA</a> and <a href="https://www.caareusa.org/">CAARE</a>.
<br>
<br>
It has shaken the vivisection industry. The notion that zillions of animals might not be bred, hurt, and killed could translate into a significant financial loss for them. Even those not directly involved in safety testing are worried that this could be the camel’s nose; it could lead to less public funding for the harmful use of animals in college and university labs across the country.
<br>
<br>
A June 23, 2023 editorial in <i>Drug Discovery Today</i> (Volume 28, Number 6) caught my eye because of the title: “The ethics of animal research and testing: A US perspective,” and because one of the authors’ unethical behavior is the subject of Chapter 16 “Michelle Basso” in my book <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjLvOSIscD-AhWiIzQIHVhDCmYQFnoECCQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FAll-Operate-Same-Way-Wisconsin-Madison%2Fdp%2F0692865470&usg=AOvVaw2u15ka-_w7lk-0BoJM4hrG"><i>“We All Operate in the Same Way.” The Use of Animals at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.</i></a> (Virginia Smith Books: 2017)
<br>
<br>
Basso had numerous problems involving her use of monkeys while she was at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The numerous written concerns by senior veterinary staff led to her suspension, which led to her departure and move to the University of California, Los Angeles, notable for being the homebase of the radical anything-goes vivisectors’ club, <i><a href="https://speakingofresearch.com/">Speaking of Research</a></i>. She is currently the Director of the University of Washington, Seattle’s tax-payer-funded Washington National Primate Research Center. It may not be a coincidence that the management of the Washington National Primate Research Center’s monkey farm in Arizona deteriorated after she took the job. See: <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/report-us-health-institute-probing-uw-primate-center-in-arizona/">Report: NIH probing UW primate center in Arizona.</a> Dec. 20, 2021. <i>Seattle Times</i>.
<br>
<br>
The <i>Drug Discovery Today</i> article includes this humorous claim:
<br>
<blockquote>Declaration of Competing Interest.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.</blockquote>
The authors’ livelihood is dependent on hurting and killing animals.
<br>
<br>
The article starts off with an oddly ignorant assertion:
<blockquote>The burgeoning field of adjunct and complementary methods for animal research and testing, including computer simulations and micro-physiological systems, has given rise to a debate about the ethics of animal research and testing.</blockquote>
In fact, the debate has been going on since at least the late 1800s. In 1875, the National Anti-Vivisection Society was started by Frances Power Cobbe. The American Anti-Vivisection Society was founded in 1883. What the authors could have said, more accurately, is that technological advances have made it harder to defend the cruel things done to animals in the labs in the name of human health.
<br>
<br>
(A nice overview of some of those advances is available from <a href="https://www.caareusa.org/humane_science">Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Research and Experimentation</a>.
<br>
<br>
The authors’ argument that the use of animals is still needed starts with an appeal to two cases of new drugs harming users. The first was “The Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster of 1937,” which led directly to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, in 1938.
<br>
<br>
They paradoxically seem to believe that the science of toxicology has not progressed in the ensuing 86 years. They are clearly wrong, as the CAARE link above and a Google search for “nonanimal toxicology” both demonstrate.
<br>
<br>
The authors continue: “The 1960s brought about greater FDA oversight over preclinical animal research… Ethical considerations and new scientifically validated animal behavior insights led to the passage of the 1966 Animal Welfare Act (AWA).”
<br>
<br>
But, again, they are wrong. Do they know they are wrong? The plain facts are an embarrassment to the animal research community. The impetus behind 1966 Act was an article in the November 29, 1965 <i>Sports Illustrated</i> by Coles Phinizy about a dog who was stolen and sold to a laboratory and killed. (“The Lost Pets That Stray to the Labs.” <i>Sports Illustrated</i>, 29 Nov. 1965.) Scientists in labs across the country knew they were buying stolen and lost dogs.
<br>
<br>
In fact, the USDA reports:
<blockquote>August 24, 1966<br>
Passing of the (Laboratory) Animal Welfare Act (Public Law 89-544)<br>
Rep. Resnick's efforts lead to the passage of the (Laboratory) Animal Welfare Act, [AWA] of which the stated intention is "…to protect the owners of dogs and cats from theft of such pets, to prevent the sale or use of dogs and cats which have been stolen, and to insure that certain animals intended for use in research facilities are provided humane care and treatment…". The new law establishes licensing for dog and cat dealers and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the transport, sale, and handling of animals pre-research or “for other purposes”. The Act covers six species: dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits.</blockquote>
How is it that Basso et al don’t know this? Or, maybe they do, are embarrassed by it, and are knowingly misleading their readers? Either way, ignorant or willful, this error of fact demonstrates one of the reasons it is best to question the claims of those who make their living hurting and killing animals.
They continue with a citation that an uncritical or uniformed reader is likely to interpret as evidence of progress or researchers’ concerns for the animals they use:
<blockquote>“The 1985 AWA Amendment instituted federal requirements for enriching the lives of research monkeys and established the federal Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC). Along with the 1985 Public Health Service Act for federally funded research, it also required the establishment of an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at every institution that conducts animal research and testing in the USA to ensure the humane and responsible use of animals.”</blockquote>
But, in fact, the 1985 Amendment was a direct response to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnecessary_Fuss">documentation of hideous conditions at the City of Hope in Duarte California and videos of extreme cruelty to monkeys at the University of Pennsylvania.</a>
<br>
<br>
Basso et al write: <blockquote>In the 1980s and thereafter the scientific and veterinary communities gave renewed attention to the ‘3Rs’ principles: reduction, refinement and replacement, established in 1959. Professional research societies like Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science and the AAALAC International published position statements on the importance of improving animal welfare, minimizing pain and distress and developing adjunct methods.</blockquote>
But the history and current activities of these organizations strongly suggests that they were intended to be (and in practice are) public relation tools for entities like colleges, universities and contract laboratories that become members. Animal welfare violations don’t result in a loss of membership.
<br>
<br>
Basso et al write: “In a June 2022 meeting of its Science Board, the FDA’s Alternative Methods working group said the agency is reviewing micro-physiological systems, cellular assays and computer models to complement and in <i>some cases</i> reduce animal use (my emphasis) in drug safety and efficacy research and testing.”
<br>
<br>
But, the FDA’s Alternative Methods working group <a href="https://www.fda.gov/science-research/about-science-research-fda/advancing-alternative-methods-fda">actually said</a>: “I am proud to highlight in this report some of the activities in which FDA is engaged that are moving us closer to the goal of replacing, reducing, and refining the use of animals in medical product development while continuing to advance disease modeling, toxicology, and pharmacology in support of FDA’s mission.” Stephen M. Hahn, M.D. Commissioner of Food and Drugs
<br>
<br>
And, the FDA says in its <i><a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/109634/download">Predictive Toxicology Roadmap</a></i>: “Breakthroughs in many areas of science are generating new tools and methods that are being incorporated into the science of toxicology. … Also critical is the potential of these advances for replacing, reducing, and/or refining animal testing.” It seems that replacing the use of animals remains one of their goals. This seems to be what is worrying vivisectors.
<br>
<br>
Basso et al also appeal to the National Academies’ 2022 workshop series <a href="ttps://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/nonhuman-primate-model-systems-state-of-the-science-and-future-needs">"Nonhuman Primate Model Systems: State of the Science and Future Needs"’</a> https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/nonhuman-primate-model-systems-state-of-the-science-and-future-needs
<br>
<br>
The fact that a group of primate vivisectors and others with a vested interest in the continuation of animal use concluded that we will just have to keep using monkeys doesn’t seem too surprising. I don’t see how it bolsters the authors’ claim that the use of animals is genuinely needed. Whether or not it is, of course, says nothing about whether it is moral.
<br>
<br>
Evidence to support their claims is hard to find, this might be why they cite <a href="https://ysjournal.com/ethics/in-vivo-modelling-within-pharmacological-research-its-limitations-and-alternative-methods-of-research/">a webpage produced by students</a>, who, it seems, aren’t too up to date either. For instance, the author says, “Chimpanzees, which share 99% of their DNA with humans respectively, also serve as reliable models for researching diseases due to their similar genetic makeup. Studying them enables scientists to explore how the disease affects the body and the kind of immune response that is triggered, which then makes it possible for scientists to develop potential therapies.” [Cites 2 articles from 2014.]
<br>
<br>
Maybe the students haven't heard that chimpanzees are no longer used in medical research anywhere in the world. Basso et al must know this, and yet they try to bolster their asserions with an appeal to these out-of-date or poorly researched claims.
<br>
<br>
Basso et al are ethically blind, money can do that to a person. They write:
<blockquote>When it comes to research leading to understanding and treating neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental diseases, nonhuman primates are essential because they are the only animal species with a prefrontal cortex similar to humans. Their central nervous system is more complex than other mammals and they experience similar cognitive and sensory symptoms of disease.</blockquote>
To paraphrase: They suffer like we do.
<br>
<br>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-87966730901830697262023-04-07T09:21:00.002-05:002023-04-07T09:21:49.113-05:00An early essayREVIEW ESSAY
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230407141942/https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/69083340/s12142-003-1026-520210905-23813-pnmhot-libre.pdf?1630866185=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DAntimal_experimentation_and_human_rights.pdf&Expires=1680880609&Signature=JyZTuaq5gSpL3L1LxWEZmeA4hermwHh56eYYZtITR-9uFawmr3C1C8efFGgGaK54QIVbQ~8t1i51UFD-HJv7WtxfqMtb~KmObD~0FuG-u-ZoG74b5c4k4hjLvD2rRFl8AzZ9SSD3nXLl0jAlyBNdTYUeaDRmo2yBKwnQNLcrgQzS4Oaktt79HXeFw5thU3NBQ9kS9-q-MISvXPZtMtEzWTmW~mDN5lbaWoo7rqsXmEHIbFX9UhuM8OEgL2g4Ez~YVKELhEJfF9wcdSg9YcrQeaFJZhywfD~Mwi8IffnBbwMNSeGQkFoaXFssLZZ4U2wTuWDB0UkbAJiWUmmTXmGyzw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA">Animal Experimentation and Human Rights</a>
Rick Bogle
Ellen Frankel Paul and Jeffrey Paul, editors,
Why Animal Experimentation Matters:
The Use of Animals in Medical Research
(The Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation
and Transaction Publishers), 2002. Paperback. 224 pp.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-27115594616358132022023-03-23T13:25:00.002-05:002023-03-25T14:02:58.518-05:00Let’s disenfranchise men.This is a work in progress.
<br>
<br>
“For thirteen days in October 1962 the world waited—seemingly on the brink of nuclear war—and hoped for a peaceful resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In October 1962, an American U-2 spy plane secretly photographed nuclear missile sites being built by the Soviet Union on the island of Cuba.” JFK Library. Web-retrieved 3/23/2023.
<br>
<br>
I was 9 years old. We were living in Houston. My parents stockpiled food and water; we had a plan for huddling in the hallway and putting our mattresses against the walls to protect us in case they came tumbling down. A futile hopeless plan, but it made the tension very real. At school, we had recurring drills; we got under our desks and covered our eyes and the back of our necks and prayed for the all-clear bell; prayed that it really was just a drill.
<br>
<br>
My father had told me in a very serious talk, that if I thought it was the real thing, that I should ignore the teacher and run home as fast as I could. All largely because of Allen Dulles, John F. Kennedy, and a few other men.
<br>
<br>
It feels to me that we are closer to nuclear war than we ever have been. The situation in Ukrane seems like it could easily go nuclear. Almost every day, it seems, North Korea announces some an additional nuclear capability. Iran is enriching uranium.
<br>
<br>
There’s a common factor lurking there; it is stamped into just about every war, violent crime, and cruelty throughout history. The crimes, wars, and cruelty are overwhelmingly carried out by men. Men are the problem. Let’s disenfranchise them.
<br>
<br>
I’ll wager that a world governed by women would be a better place for just about everyone. No matter the activity, if it involves harming others, men dominate.
<br>
<br>
80% of the US armed forces are men. 90% of inmates in federal prisons are men. The U.S. Dept. of Justice reports that only 14% of violent offenders are women.
<br>
<br>
According the <i>Alaska Dispatch News</i>, only 21% of hunting licenses are purchased by women. Hunting is very popular in Alaska.
<br>
<br>
Data is spotty, but <a href="https://www.zippia.com/animal-scientist-jobs/demographics/">one source</a> reports that 40% of animal scientists are women.
<br>
<br>
Even in the kitchen, only 25% of chefs are women, but 79% of vegans are women. More female chefs could lead to kinder kitchens.
<br>
<br>
The Women’s Professional Rodeo Association has 3,000 members throughout the United States & Canada; the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association has “nearly 7,000 members.”
<br>
<br>
More women in every field would mean less harm and a better life for everyone.
<br>
<br>
Let’s disenfranchise men.
<br>
<br>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-27746467342538451592023-03-12T15:52:00.000-05:002023-03-12T15:52:49.324-05:00Invent Ways to Hurt Animals and Become a Millionaire.
One of the news feeds I subscribe to sends me scientific papers written by researchers experimenting on monkeys. A recent one was titled <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.674127/full">"A Rhesus Monkey Model of Non-suicidal Self-Injury."</a> It was written by <a href="https://www.umass.edu/ruddchair/people/melinda-novak-phd">Melinda Novak</a> and <a href="https://www.umass.edu/cns/directory/jerrold-s-meyer">Jerrold S. Meyer</a>. Meyer: "Much of our recent work has involved the use of a rat model to determine the mechanisms of cocaine action on the developing brain and the neurochemical and behavioral consequences of chronic prenatal cocaine exposure...". What a dick.
<br>
<br>
It caught my eye, not only for the title, but also because Melinda Novak was one of Harry Harlow's last PhD students, and I am somewhat familiar with one of their co-authored publications. Many of her papers are indexed <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Melinda+Novak&page=5&sort=pubdate">here</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004724847490013X">here</a>, and <a href="https://neurotree.org/beta/publications.php?pid=56872">here</a>.
<br>
<br>
Her career has largely been a study of the damaging impacts to monkeys from being kept alone in a cage and being hurt and frightened throughout their lives. None of her work seems to have benefited the monkeys in the labs, let alone any abused human children. It is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6385863/">estimated</a> that self-injurious behavior "in the form of self-biting is observed in approximately 5–15% of individually housed rhesus monkeys."
<br>
<br>
She has brought in the big bucks. Her NIH-funded project SELF INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR AND PRIMATE WELL BEING (Project Number1R24RR011122-01) received $7,863,045 in taxpayer dollars from 1996 to 2006.
<br>
<br>
Data is hard to find, but the 2016 paper, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4914436/">Survey of 2014 Behavioral Management Programs for Laboratory Primates in the United States</a>, reported that of 59,636 primates in the 27 facilities they surveyed, 83% were socially housed. So, 17% weren't. That means that more than 10,000 monkeys in U.S. labs are probably being kept in conditions widely acknowledged to cause multiple psychiatric maladies.
<br>
<br>
Novak is now claiming that further study of these mentally ill monkeys might lead to some benefit to adolescents and young adults manifestiong non-suicidal self-injury. But the study of monkeys raised in environmentally deprived conditions has never led to a benefit to human children or adults. Her claim that even more study is called for is particularly odious.
<br>
<br>
I'm particularly disgusted by her claim because of her history with Harry Harlow. They, probably her -- some research suggests that university professors commonly attach their names to their graduate student's research papers -- invented a device intended to terrify young monkeys. It is likely that they were already disabled as a result of their isolation.
<br>
<br>
[Unless otherwise noted, the passages quoted below are from "Isolation", <a href="https://allanimals.org/RB/Chapter%205%20Isolation-9-13-16.pdf">Chapter 5</a> of <i>"We All Operate in the Same Way." The Use of Animals at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.</i> Rick Bogle. Virginia Smith Books: 2017. See too: Harlow, Harry F.; Novak, Melinda A. (1973). <a href="https://sci-hubtw.hkvisa.net/10.1353/pbm.1973.0022">Psychopathological Perspectives.</a>
<blockquote>Harlow and Novak reported on the use of a novel device they designed and characterized as "diabolical" and intended to "produce turmoil and terror." The apparatus had two main parts, a small cage positioned above a larger unit. The larger lower unit was divided into two parts. The small cage could be lowered between them so that the monkey inside the cage was more or less surrounded by them. Harlow said it was like an elevator. The idea was to put frightening objects in the two bottom parts and then lower the monkey so that he or she was confronted on both sides by the objects. They write:
<blockquote>... and after a 1-minute delay [the monkey] was lowered into the fear apparatus to face the assault of arm-flapping, light-flashing, buzzing, or shrieking monsters -- one on each side of him.
They say that the device was "extremely successful in producing terror in monkeys," and report that several of the monkeys clung to the top of the cage for as long as 15 minutes. They reported that monkeys balled up in the bottom of the cage. Others, they say "many," screamed the entire time they were in the apparatus, "... or until they became hoarse from the violence of their vocalization." They reported that all the monkeys developed intense phobias.
<br>
<br>
... in the case of Novak frightening monkeys in an effort to induce any sort of interesting behavioral aberration, she wanted to use monkeys similar to each other and who had had similar life experiences. So she first used four six-month-old monkeys who were all semi-isolates -- monkeys raised alone in a bare wire cage in a room with other individual monkeys in other bare wire cages -- and put them into the device, called by Harlow and Novak the "terror trap," for 15 minutes every day, for six weeks.</blockquote>
Now, 50 years later, she is still claiming that the study of profoundly emotionally damaged young monkeys will shed light on mental illness in humans. But why not? These claims, the willingness of scientific journals to publish these claims, the willingness of federal funding agencies and university's to support such cruelty, do, at the end of the day, pour more money into her bank account.
<br>
<br>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-83015840902795833252023-02-14T13:02:00.005-06:002023-02-14T13:29:37.244-06:00Again with NussbaumHer book, <i>Justice For Animals</i>, (Simon & Schuster, 2022) continues to irk me. It would not get a high mark if it were being graded. Consider this passage (p 180-181 passim):
<blockquote>More recently, Aysha Akhtar brings a growing body of scientific literature to bear on this question, arguing that we know for sure by now that a lot of animal-based research is unreliable and in that way imposes large costs on humans, through misguided treatments and the abandonment of others that might have proven superior.... In the same special issue [from 14 September 2015] ... Andrew Rowan concludes that the predictive value of animal testng is on average only 50 to 60 percent, but that in rodent studies it falls to below 50 percent, less accurate than a coin toss.
<br>
<br>
<b><i>If this new line of argument is correct, research using animals does not pose a tragic dilemma, because nothing is gained from it.</i></b> [my emphasis] But it seems unlikely that such a sweeping conclusion is correct.</blockquote>
Jeepers. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, maybe this is just a case of extremely poor editing. But the absence of scholarship displayed in the characterization of Akhtar's [important] documentation of the failures of animal models as a "new line of argument" exposes Nussbaum as simply an unread neophyte.
<br>
<br>
For instance, Henry Salt, in his 1894 <i>Animals' Rights</i> [Macmillan & C.] quotes Lawson Tait, "one of the most eminent surgeons of our time": "The conclusions of vivisection are absolutely worthless."<br>
<br>
Antivivisection groups and independent scholars have challenged the purported science underpinning the use of animal models of human illness and drug response for well over a century; how could she, a lauded scholar, not know this? See too: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070203114620/http://www.curedisease.com/resources.html">https://web.archive.org/web/20070203114620/http://www.curedisease.com/resources.html</a>
<br>
<br>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-26495924193851430432023-02-10T16:50:00.004-06:002023-02-14T11:40:01.594-06:00Justice For Animals, a review<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVQ0g0QDbx9Gw3ojgFz5p_rm8JGQZljMuK811h6XmvZBStN0tbFuDjgWHwUqX6adMWvgIOpPrn9Ajg1rANEksZR0W4Y4qdrLVkTD0JrYPc6psQnobz3tuqshak01paVKN8oIpP23bX6mGX_PLw0RJPBBg_bVbJYdGM7MxCCvEmZepTU626UJgsoZyW/s800/justice%20for%20animals.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="244" data-original-width="161" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVQ0g0QDbx9Gw3ojgFz5p_rm8JGQZljMuK811h6XmvZBStN0tbFuDjgWHwUqX6adMWvgIOpPrn9Ajg1rANEksZR0W4Y4qdrLVkTD0JrYPc6psQnobz3tuqshak01paVKN8oIpP23bX6mGX_PLw0RJPBBg_bVbJYdGM7MxCCvEmZepTU626UJgsoZyW/s800/justice%20for%20animals.jpg"/></a></div>
Martha Nussbaum's new book, <i>Justice For Animals, Our Collective Responsibility</i> (Simon & Schuster 2022) has gotten some notice. It seems to be a gift of sorts to her recently deceased daughter who was active in the animal rights movement.
<br>
<br>
It's an interesting book with much to say about our treatment of animals. A considerable bit of it rubbed me the wrong way.
<br>
<br>
Suggestions about how we ought to treat animals from people who eat them have to be taken with a grain of salt. Nussbaum claims that she "tried" a vegan diet, but it made her tired. Poor her. It's like someone saying that they tried to give up pedophilia.
<br>
<br>
Another thing that really irks me is college/university faculty members like Nussbaum who voice some concern for animals yet don't serve on their institution's Animal Care and Use Committee(s), the legally required animal experimentation oversight committees. If they did, I don't think we'd see claims like Nusbaum's that the 3R's (reduction, refinement, and replacement) have "become the watchwords of all regulatory bodies." Even a cursory review of what's being done in the labs exposes the naivety of such claims. For instance, Nussbaum is a Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago. At her institution, vivisectors are putting electrodes in monkeys' brains. These "watchwords" mean little to the animals in the labs. See:
<br>
<br>
The interplay between kinematic and force representations in motor and somatosensory cortices during reaching, grasping, and object transport
Project Number <a href="https://reporter.nih.gov/search/rvpK1Gde-UG_O8LTRk9WnA/project-details/10546486">5R01NS125270-02</a>
Contact PI/Project Leader HATSOPOULOS, NICHOLAS G Other PIs<br>
Awardee Organization UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
<br>
<br>
She also challenges the use of arguments that point to the ethically salient similarities between us and other animals. She thinks that doing so appeals in some way to the <i>scala naturae</i> or Great Chain of Being. But no one pointing to the similarities between us (the only species with legal rights) and other species does so because they believe that there is some devine ordering of creation. Oddly, she, at times, makes this argument herself. Indeed, it can't be avoided when arguing on behalf of animals, <a href="https://primateresearch.blogspot.com/2017/06/how-like-us-need-they-be.html">just as I have done</a>.
<br>
<br>
In spite of these and numerous other criticisms I have, her prominence might help draw some attention to the terrible things we do to other animals. The book is worth reading if for no other reason than to be able to talk about her claims with those who might read the book and want to talk about something she says.
<br>
<br>
PS: Another thing that really irked me was her <i>use</i> of Jonathan Balcombe and Peter Singer to defend her mixed-up position. In the case of Balcombe, author of <a href="https://jonathan-balcombe.com/what-a-fish-knows/">What a Fish Knows</a>, she claims that he eats fish. He doesn't. She points to <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/12/04/did-peter-singer-back-animal-research">Singer's comment</a> that experimenting on 100 monkeys to help 40,000 humans with Parkinson's could be justified. She makes these claims to defend her fish-eating and support for some animal research.
<br>
<br>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-75072176221713452262023-01-25T13:03:00.001-06:002023-01-25T13:03:50.441-06:00Suomi Reading<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCPrNlYOmj4">Suomi Reading</a> (YouTube)
<br>
<br>
Suomi was Harry Harlow's star pupil. His doctoral thesis recounts his use of the "vertical chamber" to induce chronic depression.
<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTmu2wR2AbqoMG7GR2-cp6h5e7wq0uT0-jPVOdlaFnmrh3Xb-RzI0SIabZZ1s-SuYbUrWnluVnzIC8eD9NBS7Ho7kzkfQ7DqZbgJw1eLOecZjSTvFBUWSM27mdMF2v7SQriQOOPzbYXotzd51I9bYfKSJW8BAFIAERiWoNZqMthpPhTIWlX6iFFOR7/s5000/vertical%20chamber%20Harlow.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="257" data-original-width="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTmu2wR2AbqoMG7GR2-cp6h5e7wq0uT0-jPVOdlaFnmrh3Xb-RzI0SIabZZ1s-SuYbUrWnluVnzIC8eD9NBS7Ho7kzkfQ7DqZbgJw1eLOecZjSTvFBUWSM27mdMF2v7SQriQOOPzbYXotzd51I9bYfKSJW8BAFIAERiWoNZqMthpPhTIWlX6iFFOR7/s320/vertical%20chamber%20Harlow.jpg"/></a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-84977617425927830212023-01-25T12:45:00.004-06:002023-01-25T12:45:45.624-06:00Primate Research at UW - For The Record 2008<a href="Primate%20Research%20at%20UW%20-%20For%20The%20Record%202008">Primate Research at UW - For The Record 2008</a> (YouTube)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-11290615052483529972023-01-25T12:44:00.002-06:002023-01-25T12:44:29.809-06:00ALS-Diagnosed Dr. Helene Dwyer Speaks Against Animal Experimentation<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cf_rKqhGoU&t=5s">ALS-Diagnosed Dr. Helene Dwyer Speaks Against Animal Experimentation</a> (YouTube)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-89464385692422373442023-01-25T12:43:00.001-06:002023-01-25T12:43:04.764-06:00UW Caught Lying - Vilas Zoo Monkey Scandal<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07aagu10snE&t=19s">UW Caught Lying - Vilas Zoo Monkey Scandal</a> (YouTube)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-42539395611280640782023-01-25T12:41:00.001-06:002023-01-25T12:41:24.510-06:002010 Forum on Ethics of Animal Research<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNcvwQ1qeyI">2010 Forum on Ethics of Animal Research</a> (YouTube)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-7024602374619145202023-01-25T12:37:00.005-06:002023-01-25T13:08:46.535-06:00The Vilas Zoo Monkey Scandal<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAAVAVYV5Es&t=43s">Remembering the Vilas Zoo Monkey Scandal</a> (YouTube)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-61823136825811096002023-01-16T10:37:00.000-06:002023-01-16T10:37:31.409-06:00Veterinarians: An Ironic Impediment to Progress for AnimalsMany new medical doctors <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html">swear an oath</a> to treat their patients with care and respect. New veterinarians swear to use their knowledge and skills "for the benefit of society."
<br>
<br>
I've known a number of veterinarians who have cared deeply for animals and have spoken out on their behalf. Such veterinarians seem to be quite rare.
<br>
<br>
Thinking of veterinarians as animals' <i>doctors</i> likely contributes to the public's mistaken belief that they are M.D.s for animals and that they also treat their patients with care and respect. And certainly, some do.
<br>
<br>
But in many, maybe all organizations involved with using or selling animals, veterinarians are involved in and defend whatever it is that their organization, employer, or industy does to animals.
<br>
<br>
Some examples:
<blockquote><a href="https://www.beefboard.org/2022/11/01/stewarding-success-with-veal/">Today</a>, there are approximately 400 veal farms in the U.S., and many are Amish or Mennonite families. Each farm family raises about 400 head per year. Out of all the formula-fed calves marketed each year, 95 percent come from Veal Quality Assurance (VQA)-certified farms. All VQA certifications are verified by a veterinarian.
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3kOtwKr76kxr8vVnJso8BB7bwi8ZUACek35jv4tCOGLsiPypgQnW4oAvjgYcUvq5HM_dHv8Odaw7g10cwjCFBFAwCd4TQm9udJqV-mJSRhzTpAAZF3du-YQ8FFXuYQRbW_DP80Zkg7ZvmGN2L4bGjNWMgJYAtlfqoM5u_1xykrmeMvdptBcl-v25V/s399/veal.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="275" data-original-width="399" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3kOtwKr76kxr8vVnJso8BB7bwi8ZUACek35jv4tCOGLsiPypgQnW4oAvjgYcUvq5HM_dHv8Odaw7g10cwjCFBFAwCd4TQm9udJqV-mJSRhzTpAAZF3du-YQ8FFXuYQRbW_DP80Zkg7ZvmGN2L4bGjNWMgJYAtlfqoM5u_1xykrmeMvdptBcl-v25V/s320/veal.jpg"/></a></div>
<blockquote><a href="https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2016-09-01/after-circus">The care that’s given</a> is really unprecedented, even for a zoo.
-- Dr. Dennis Schmitt, head veterinarian, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation</blockquote> It was pictures like this one from Barnum and Bailey's elephant training farm that even the vets couldn't whitewash.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOAewcPTEWfBDPOrVxmG8iD8gWoJPI5mZd3WL9XVJf-YCv5swZ_GM75jspz2Z-cRXahedNyws8b0jpPacfq9rJ7vKFb06bVLQPQDZlWd8DxAcaNSzs3j-MFY6qNBeT6emNergOQBncWjp60B4vhLUpswQBr3H6LSIiyiSr5I9cun-oaySEbEGX2cjp/s792/baby%20elephant%20bandb.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="585" data-original-width="792" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOAewcPTEWfBDPOrVxmG8iD8gWoJPI5mZd3WL9XVJf-YCv5swZ_GM75jspz2Z-cRXahedNyws8b0jpPacfq9rJ7vKFb06bVLQPQDZlWd8DxAcaNSzs3j-MFY6qNBeT6emNergOQBncWjp60B4vhLUpswQBr3H6LSIiyiSr5I9cun-oaySEbEGX2cjp/s320/baby%20elephant%20bandb.webp"/></a></div>
<blockquote><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6179843/">Laboratory animal veterinarians</a> serve as a unique bridge between the humane use of laboratory animals and the advancement of scientific and medical knowledge.
<br></blockquote> But every company and institution experimenting on animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act is required to have a committee -- an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, an IACUC (sometimes called an ACUC) -- that is supposed to make sure that the regulations of the Animal Welfare Act are being followed, and one of the committee's members must be a veterinarian. At the University of Wisconsin, Madison, a senior veterinarian served on the committee that oversees the use of monkeys. That vet, "Buddy" Capuano argued that the committee did not have the right or power to stop or force certain modifications to a project involving maternal deprivation.<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSE_nBsErKN2UNs2mP8xB5oU6OJhQVJElV-jjzxhci9te9FBPzHKDbPvdXoqiCf38ZNOwUpedDr-ZsYoytbqDrl7Wx6fo5iBIkLIvMlwO1mGHVqrzDCTsHvukiSF3VaFdtTbN-8p4oeDFq4IjdAiAILBcLr7JMY4s4iMwu7YQ7Z4KsaJcZMzBFNgp5/s470/deprived-pair.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="248" data-original-width="470" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSE_nBsErKN2UNs2mP8xB5oU6OJhQVJElV-jjzxhci9te9FBPzHKDbPvdXoqiCf38ZNOwUpedDr-ZsYoytbqDrl7Wx6fo5iBIkLIvMlwO1mGHVqrzDCTsHvukiSF3VaFdtTbN-8p4oeDFq4IjdAiAILBcLr7JMY4s4iMwu7YQ7Z4KsaJcZMzBFNgp5/s320/deprived-pair.jpg"/></a></div>
What this means for the animals is that whenever concern over the care and use of animals finds its way into consideration by the public, there are always veterinarians who come forward and claim that the animals are well cared for, even respected and loved. And, because they are "animal doctors" those listening to their poppycock are hoodwinked.
<br>
<br>
Veterinarians are not medical doctors. They take no oath to protect and try to do what is best for their "patients". In cases involving the use of animals or their sale, there are no <i>patients</i> involved; there are only <i>victims</i>.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-80962819640231943512022-07-19T13:59:00.012-05:002022-07-19T14:06:03.621-05:00The Michelle Basso CaseIf by some miracle society doesn't implode as a result of climate change, ecological collapse, and/or nuclear war, humans might at some point in the future acknowledge that other animals are as deserving of basic rights as we are. Perhaps historians and philosophers in the future will look back on the history of our terrible treatment of other animals in an effort to understand why we behaved so badly.
<br>
<br>
It makes sense that they might since they already consult history to try and understand why we have and still often do treat other humans very badly. Studying the history of our predjudice and its effects seems to help us embrace the inclusion and protection of those we have hurt and maligned.
<br>
<br>
Though still a work in progress, we are beginning to acknowledge our sins and aggressions against those of other races, genders, sexual orientations, religions, abilities, and disabilities; we are trying to overcome our predjudices. Some of us are ahead of the curve; we recognize that humans aren't the only animals whose lives can be miserable as a result of our predjudice toward them.
<br>
<br>
The Michelle Basso Case might be of value to those with an interest in understanding the prevailing predjudice.
<br>
<br>
The Michelle Basso Case shows clearly that one can rise to a position of authority responsible for the care and treatment of thousands of monkeys (in this case, the 1000s of monkeys at the Washington National Primate Research Center in Seattle and a smaller number at the university's breeding colony near Mesa, Arizona) even after veterinary staff (at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center) documented exceptionally poor treatment of the monkeys in her lab.
<br>
<br>
Those reports were probably Basso's motivation for leaving Wisconsin. Currently, a vivisector's poor treatment of animals is clearly not an impediment to rising to a position of power in those ranks.
<br>
<br>
Basso's duplicity is clear when <a href="https://allanimals.org/RB//Chapter16%20for%20Basso%20Case.pdf">her problems in Wisconsin</a> are considered against the claims she makes in her interview. The link is to Chapter 16 of my book, "We All Operate in the Same Way."
<br>
<br>
<a href="https://speakingofresearch.com/2022/06/27/interview-with-the-director-the-importance-of-the-washington-national-primate-research-center/">Interview with the Director: The importance of the Washington National Primate Research Center
<br>
<br>
June 27, 2022<br>
Chris Petkov and Renee Hartig</a>
<br>
<br>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-67782918999315642222022-06-20T14:17:00.000-05:002022-06-20T14:17:21.170-05:00Are You Doing the Devil’s Work?<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGpsF54f2j-ukq81hbrlq9L7kLKTzAbXKFhSiYfJiI3mdetN1ogWTy-7hEdwP8PI61IrMAr4L_iSVhXvgRdmbZMkGyZwywgQFll5WAok6zipxIZHu7Ym20zQ6rUBIa8ma0MW8dbf2ogN316dDv0jbRdso85OpuJTcqLrIqpe_N4OqwKhvSQXcFbLls/s5000/devil%20copy.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="288" data-original-width="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGpsF54f2j-ukq81hbrlq9L7kLKTzAbXKFhSiYfJiI3mdetN1ogWTy-7hEdwP8PI61IrMAr4L_iSVhXvgRdmbZMkGyZwywgQFll5WAok6zipxIZHu7Ym20zQ6rUBIa8ma0MW8dbf2ogN316dDv0jbRdso85OpuJTcqLrIqpe_N4OqwKhvSQXcFbLls/s5000/devil%20copy.jpg"/></a></div>
What if Satan is real?
<br>
<br>
Maybe it tricks us into doing bad things to others because it is nourished by fear, pain, and grief. If this were so, it would do all in its power to get us to hurt each other.
<br>
<br>
Maybe this is why we raise so many animals in such terrible conditions and wage war on each other. Maybe Satan is nourished by this suffering. Maybe the animals squirming and crying out when being experimented on, going insane in their tiny cages, dogs spending their lives on a chain, cows standing in knee-deep filth in a feed lot, or soldiers dying slowly in a ditch somewhere are the sort of things that sustain Satan.
<br>
<br>
It would explain a lot.
<br>
<br>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-15466976364276638152022-05-03T10:49:00.000-05:002022-05-03T10:49:35.073-05:00Academic Freedom and Democracy
<blockquote><a href="https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-wins-lawsuit-protecting-academic-freedom-and-scientific-process">UC Davis has prevailed</a> in a civil lawsuit brought by activists under the California Public Records Act. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, had filed the suit in January 2019, seeking access to unpublished research data, in the form of video recordings, from work by two researchers at the California National Primate Research Center. The Superior Court of California, County of Yolo, ruled that releasing the material did not serve the public interest and would undermine academic freedom and the scientific process while increasing the risk that researchers could face physical harm and harassment from activists. </blockquote>
The court's ruling was seemingly celebrated by the University of California's National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement which tweeted the news and pointed to the university's <a href="https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-wins-lawsuit-protecting-academic-freedom-and-scientific-process">press release</a>. The most interesting passsage to me and the one that raises questions about the Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement's implicit bias was this:
<blockquote>the court ruled that the public was better served by not disclosing the videos because there was minimal value to the public in seeing the videos, and to the contrary, great risk that the videos could cause the public to misunderstand the purpose and methodology of the research at the California National Primate Research Center.</blockquote>
This begs the question of whether or not ignorance is an impediment to civic engagement. I suspect that those involved with the University of California's National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement would generally agree that an informed citizenry is a key element in civic engagement. Ignorance imposed by government undermines and curtails free speech. You simply can't talk about or practice civic engagement regarding things that are hidden from you.
<br>
<br>
In 1997, I spent a few days in the Yolo County jail for protesting the terrible things being done to monkeys at the California National Primate Research Center which is part of the University of California-Davis's campus. I was simply sitting on public property across the street from the entrance to this hell-hole with a couple signs. Seemingly, vivisectors have the academic freedom to hurt and kill monkeys but the public risks going to jail if they criticize them for doing so or to share details about their hideousness with other citizens.
<br>
<br>
It seems clear that the university and a judge believe that "academic freedom" allows those who are being paid by the public to keep what they are doing a secret from the public. This notion is apparently shared by the University of California's National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement There is no claim of national security or potential intellectual property theft, it's all about the potential (and unlikely) repercussions of the public learning about a tiny few of the terrible things being done to animals in their name.
<br>
<br>
Democracy is severely weakened, threatened even, when government keeps secrets from the citizens when those with the power to do so believe those secrets might cause some concern about what the government is doing or paying to have done. And that potential concern is the only reason that UC-Davis fought to keep video recordings of monkeys taken from their mothers by two researchers at the California National Primate Research Center hidden from the public.
<br>
<br>
Oddly, or maybe not, they don't care if the public reads about what they are doing -- details are generally spelled out in published papers; they are simply freaked out by the potential blow-back if the public <i>sees</i> what they are doing.
<br>
<br>
This isn't something unique to the University of California, they all operate in the same way when it comes to trying to keep the unsettling details secret. Keeping the darkest details secret is woven into the fabric of government-sponsored vivisection.
<br>
<br>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-7149884139092064892022-03-31T17:33:00.000-05:002022-03-31T17:33:11.051-05:00Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) Misleads the PublicMy news feed sends me articles about the use of animals in laboratories. One that recently popped up was a "Guest Post" titled <a href="https://speakingofresearch.com/2022/03/08/guest-post-what-animal-rights-groups-dont-tell-you-about-non-animal-models/">"What Animal Rights Groups Don't Tell You About Non-Animal Models"</a> written by Naomi Charalambakis, PhD., Associate Director of Science Policy, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). Not surprisingly, it was on the extremist group Speaking of Research’s webpage.
<br>
<br>
Characterizing Speaking of Research as extremist is fair. They seem never to have encountered anything having to do with experimenting on animals that they find even a little bit questionable. Whenever some lab-related hideousness gets reported in the news, they stand mute. Like the recent USDA reports about Envigo’s beagle breeding farm in Virginia. Even the journal <i><a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi4ht6X8_D2AhUdAp0JHXL2B7gQFnoECAgQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.science.org%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2Fleading-breeder-beagles-research-slammed-animal-welfare-inspectors&usg=AOvVaw3H43lTW_JeMHQq4lG8raB2">Science</a></i> wrote about it. But nothing seems hideous enough to motivate a comment from Speaking of Research.
<br>
<br>
FASEB is a much older organization. It promotes an extreme weakening of standards, regulations and oversight of the use of animals in laboratories. You can read FASEB’s recommendations <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210415033527/https://www.faseb.org/Portals/2/PDFs/opa/2017/FASEB-Animal-Regulatory-Report-October2017.pdf">here</a> and Peta’s response <a href=""><a href="https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PETA-Rebuttal-to-the-FASEB-Report-Feb-8-2018.pdf">here</a></a>.
<br>
<br>
Ms. Charalambakis’s article was an attack on those who expose or criticize the industry’s dark, usually hidden details.
<br>
<br>
Nevertheless, I found parts of the article sadly humorous. It starts out with this: “… animal rights groups make a concerted—and often aggressive—effort to misrepresent the truth about scientific research with animals.” And then she misrepresents the actual oversight of the research:
<br>
<blockquote>“Multiple people, including scientists, veterinarians, and members of the public that participate on institutional review committees evaluate researchers’ literature search—as well as the overall study design—to verify that proposed studies are using animals only when non-animal models cannot provide the answers. By scrutinizing research projects from every angle, institutional review committees notify investigators if a more appropriate method exists.”</blockquote>
<br>
The institutional review committees she refers to – Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) – are required by law, but the quality of their decision-making isn’t.
<br>
<br>
Reproducibility is a fundamental tenet of the scientific method. When a scientist makes a discovery, comes up with an explanation, reports something new, it isn’t generally accepted as true until the result or claim has been replicated in other labs.
<br>
<br>
One might suppose that an element so central to the claim that there is meaningful oversight of animal use in the labs would be regularly evaluated and even improved. But that isn’t the case.
<br>
<br>
Seemingly, the only effort by scientists to evaluate these committees' decision-making is the report: Plous, S., Herzog, H. 2001. Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research. Science 293(July), 608-609.<br>
<blockquote>A random sample of 50 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees participated in a study of the protocol review process. Each committee submitted three animal behavior protocols it had recently reviewed, and these protocols were reviewed a second time by another participating committee. The result showed that approval decisions were statistically unrelated. On most cases, proposals that were disapproved by one committee were approved by the second committee. All told, 61% of [150] protocols were judged as either not very understandable or not understandable at all, as having poor research designs and procedures, or as justifying the type and number of animals in a way that was deemed not very convincing or not convincing at all.</blockquote>
<br>
There seems to have been no published follow-up research. No one involved in animal research seems to care enough about the failure of this key component to do further research or to have done anything to fix it.
<br>
<br>
The element in the Animal Welfare Act pointed to by the Associate Director of Science Policy, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) as evidence of meaningful oversight, doesn’t do what it was seemingly intended to do and Charalambakis is undoubtedly familiar with the regulations.
<br>
<br>
Pointing to these committees as evidence of meaningful oversight is clear evidence of being intentionally misleading. Talk about misrepresenting “the truth about scientific research with animals.” Charalambakis continues:
<br>
<blockquote>The decision to use a canine or nonhuman primate model versus a mouse or zebrafish is not taken lightly. When communicating about animal research, it is important to emphasize not only the public health implications of this work but also the meticulous review process that occurs before research begins.</blockquote>
<br>
That's ridiculous. Those using dogs tend to keep using dogs. Career primate vivisectors keep using monkeys. The more senior the vivisector, the less likely that anyone looks carefully at their methods. Moreover, “the meticulous review process is frequently, maybe usually, anything but. The NIH explains:
<blockquote><a href="https://olaw.nih.gov/resources/tutorial/iacuc.htm#5c">Protocol Review</a>
The IACUC oversees the specific use of animals by formally reviewing animal use protocols and granting approval prior to the work commencing. The 2 valid methods of protocol review are either full committee review (FCR) or designated member review (DMR). (PHS Policy IV.C.2.)
<br>
<br>
FCR may only be conducted at a convened meeting with a quorum (simple majority) of members present. A majority vote of the quorum present is needed to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or withhold approval of a protocol. When substantive modifications are required in a protocol to secure approval, the resubmitted protocol must be reviewed using either FCR or DMR.
<br>
<br>
DMR may occur only after all IACUC members have been provided with a list of the protocols to be reviewed and have an opportunity to call for FCR. If FCR is not requested, at least one member of the IACUC qualified to conduct the review is designated by the Chair. DMR may result in approval, require modifications in (to secure approval), or request FCR. DMR may not result in disapproval.</blockquote>
So, in actual practice, experiments on animals, no matter how hideous, can be approved by as few as two people. Both of them can be vivisectors; participation in the decision-making by the so-called member of the public is not required.
Ms. Charalambakis might be simply mistaken, but it’s more likely that she’s knowingly misleading the public.
<br>
<br>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-73329029446672944492022-02-26T11:25:00.004-06:002022-02-26T11:28:00.140-06:00A letter to the USDA
2/22/2022
<br>
<br>
USDA/APHIS/AC<br>
920 Main Campus Drive Suite 200<br>
Raleigh, NC 27606-5210
<br>
<br>
To Whom It May Concern,
<br>
<br>
On April 15, 2020, USDA issued a citation and imposed a monetary fine on the University of Wisconsin-Madison for multiple violations of the Animal Welfare Act which occurred from March 4, 2015 through April 25, 2019. See:
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/USDA%20fine%204-15-2020.pdf">Reference Number: WI160011-AC, WI170003-AC
Issuance Date: April 15, 2020
Version: Final</a>
<br>
<br>
The cited violations occurred over a period just short of four years: from March 4, 2015 to April 25, 2019. The violations involved at least 67 animals of covered species; the overwhelming majority were monkeys injured during routine housekeeping and husbandry. The last reported violation involving monkeys stated that three monkeys were left without water for four days. One was euthanized as a result.
<br>
<br>
The citation and fine have not had a noticeable effect on the rate or severity of violations occurring at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
<br>
<br>
Since April 25, 2019, to January 18, 2022 a period of just under 3 years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has reported additional violations involving 50 animals of covered species to the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW). The frequency and severity of the violations has remained constant.
<br>
<br>
Presumably, the citation and fine were imposed to encourage the University of Wisconsin-Madison to improve its animal care and compliance with the Animal Welfare Act and the applicable regulations and standards. This has not happened.
<br>
<br>
I trust you will revisit the intent of April 15, 2020 citation and look carefully at the continuing violations occurring at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. That fine did not lead to a reduction in violations.
<br>
<br>
Please take all necessary steps to persuade the University of Wisconsin-Madison to comply with the applicable regulations and standards of the Animal Welfare Act.
<br>
<br>
Sincerely,
<br>
<br>
Rick Bogle<br>
5133 Maher Ave<br>
Madison, WI 53716<br>
rick.bogle@gmail.com<br>
<br>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-9103380744651743662022-02-22T12:59:00.000-06:002022-02-22T12:59:38.932-06:00University of Wisconsin-Madison's Violations of the Animal Welfare Act Keep Coming2/22/2022
<br />
<br />
On April 15, 2020, the United States Department of Agriculture cited the University of Wisconsin-Madison for <a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/USDA%20fine%204-15-2020.pdf">multiple violations of the Animal Welfare Act</a> (AWA)* and fined the university $74,000.
<br />
<br />
The cited violations occurred over a period just short of four years: from March 4, 2015 to April 25, 2019. The violations involved at least 67 animals of covered species; the overwhelming majority were monkeys injured during routine housekeeping and husbandry. The last reported violation involving monkeys stated that three monkeys were left without water for four days. One was euthanized.
<br />
<br />
The last violation in the citation was dated April 25, 2019. It involved three cages of mice who were left unfed for three days. One mouse had been partially cannibalized; that mouse had hair, paper, and bedding in their stomach. A second mouse was euthanized. (The overwhelming majority of mice used are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. The mice in the citation were members of a species that is covered.)
<br />
<br />
Since April 25, 2019, to January 18, 2022 a period of just under 3 years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has reported <a href="https://primateresearch.blogspot.com/2020/01/uw-madisons-self-reported-animal.html">additional violations</a> involving 50 animals of covered species.
The frequency and severity of the violations has remained constant. The USDA Office of the Inspector Generals has reported that large institutions using animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act see these fines as a mere <a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/33002-03-SF.pdf">“cost of doing business.”</a>
<br />
<br />
*United States Department of Agriculture, U. States Department of Agriculture, & Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, A. and Plant Health Inspection Service. (2017). USDA Animal Care: Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations.
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-36603693898910759152022-02-19T13:03:00.003-06:002023-11-29T11:20:46.334-06:00PHS self-report(s) 11A to 11ZUW-Madison's <br>
PHS self-reports<br>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11A.pdf">11A</a><br />
6/1/2021
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that on March 26, 2021, an adult macaque that was one-day post-op recieved its analgesic dose five hours later than scheduled when a veterinary technician tasked with administering the dose failed to remember the treatment.
<br />
<br />
"Corrective and preventative measures include the WNPRC considering how missed treatment alerts can be communicated in a timelier fashion via text to reduce the chance of similar events occurring in the future."
<br />
<br />
"The consideration of this matter by the University of Wisconsin-Madison was consistent with the philosophy of self-regulation. Similarly, the pending action to resolve the issue and prevent recurrence is appropriate."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11B.pdf">11B</a><br />
6/1/2021
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that on March 18, 2021, a macaque sustained an injury that required veterinary intervention when it exited its enclosure while an animal caretaker was transferring the animal for cage sanitation.
<br />
<br />
"Corrective an preventative measures include WNPRC making improvements to transport devices to reduce the chance of a similar even occurring in the future."
<br />
<br />
"The consideration of this matter by the University of Wisconsin-Madison was consistent with the philosophy of self-regulation. Similarly, the pending action to resolve the issue and prevent recurrence is appropriate."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11C.pdf">11C</a><br />
7/20/2021
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that over a 6-day period, an adult macaque received once daily doses of expired insulin."
<br />
<br />
"The consideration of this matter by the University of Wisconsin-Madison was consistent with the philosophy of self-regulation. Similarly, the pending action to resolve the issue and prevent recurrence is appropriate."
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NvLTOOPQL0kP-YVJJz1tKWxeTdRrOsIm/view?usp=drive_link">11D</a><br />
9/1/2021
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that an infant macaque in the WNPRC nursery received its [<i>sic</i>] last PM handfeeding via bottle, but the caretaker forgot to provide the remainder of the bottle in the incubator for overnight self-feeding."
<br />
<br />
"Corrective and preventative measures included adding a new column to the Infant Care sheet to document that the bottle has been placed in the incubator...".
<br />
<br />
"The consideration of this matter by the University of Wisconsin-Madison was consistent with the philosophy of self-regulation. Similarly, the pending action to resolve the issue and prevent recurrence were appropriate."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11E.pdf">11E</a><br />
9/3/2021
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that on May 29, 2021, at the WNPRC, after handfeeding a 3-day old infant marmoset, an animal caretaker returned the infant to the nest box with its [<i>sic </i>throughout] sibling and mother but failed to return the the nest box to the home enclosure. Upon discovery the next morning, the nest box was returned to the home enclosure. During the overnight period the dam and offspring had no access to water but both infants had access to their mother overnight. One infant was euthanized later that day due to a poor prognosis for survival. The other infant is alive and healthy. In-room checks had already been performed prior to the last suplimental feeding."
<br />
<br />
"The consideration of this matter by the University of Wisconsin-Madison was consistent with the philosophy of self-regulation. Similarly, the pending action to resolve the issue and prevent recurrence were appropriate."
<br />
<br />
11F Missing (These missing cases are "open cases." That is, OLAW is still involved in conversation with the university regarding the problems they reported or that OLAW became aware of as a result of the undercover investigation. See <a href="https://allanimals.org/RB/10K.pdf">Case 10K</a>.
<br />
<br />
11G Missing
<br />
<br />
11H Missing
<br />
<br />
11I Missing
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11J.pdf">11J</a><br />
9/15/2021
<br />
<br />
This case was opened in response to a complaint to OLAW by <a href="https://riseforanimals.org/" target="_blank">Rise for Animals</a> (previously the New England Anti-Vivisection Society) regarding WNPRC's failure to adequately monitor blood-draw volumes. The project appears to be a privately funded project involving the Zika virus which means that the screw-ups were probably in Thomas Friedrich's lab. There are multiple documents in the file.
<br />
<br />
11K Missing
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11L.pdf">11L</a><br />
12/3/2021
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that several corrective and preventative measures were taken. A new SOP was created detailing requirements for proper labeling, checking, and disposal of expired drugs.... Retraining was also provided...
<br />
<br />
"In this incident, for 36 days two adult macaques received doses of expired oral acetaminiphen because the expiration date written on the bottle was mislabeled.
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11M.pdf">11M</a><br />
10/18/2021
<br />
<br />
From a letter to OLAW from from Daniel Uhlrich, School of Medicine and Public Health and SMPH IACUC, and Nadine Connor, associate vice chancellor for research policy and compliance in the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education:
<br />
<br />
"A laboratory was performing a non-surgical procedure on rabbits to infect their eyes with an experimental agent. The protocol calls for the use of topical anesthetic drops on the eyes. However, the team discovered that their topical anesthetic had expired. Since the experiments were in-progress, the lab decided to withold the topical anesthetic rathter than use the expired drug."
<br />
<br />
"OLAW appreciates the prompt consideration of this matter by the University of Wisconsin-Madison which is consistent with the philosophy of institutional self-regulation."
<br />
<br />
This file includes a copy of the university's "Animal User Orientation" on-line brochure.
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11N.pdf">11N</a><br />
10/15/2021
<br />
<br />
"... this Office understands that the University of Wisconsin Animal Care and Committee (ACUC) determined that instances of noncompliance occurred with respect to ... lack of food in cage housing animals.... A room housing six <i>Peromyscus leukopus</i> mice was identified with a door husbandry sheet that was not checked off by laboratory personnel from June 26 to 29, 2021. It is stated that one cage did not have food present but no animals appeared harmed and no deaths occurred.
<br />
<br />
Retraining of the laboratory personnel and PI was completed by the Research Veterinatian and facility supervisor....\
<br />
<br />
We appreciare being informed of the matters and find no cause for further action by this Office."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11O.pdf">11O</a><br />
11/10/2021
<br />
<br />
"... this Office understands that the University of Wisconsin Animal Care and Committee (ACUC) determined that an adverse event occurred with respect to: a nonhuman primate that sustained an injury to its hand within its enclosure ... An adult macaque was discovered with its left hand caught between a perch and the wall... In response, the animal was extricated and required amputation of two digits on the left hand....
<br />
<br />
We appreciare being informed of the matters and find no cause for further action by this Office."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11P.pdf">11P</a><br />
11/10/2021
<br />
<br />
"... this Office understands that the University of Wisconsin Animal Care and Committee (ACUC) determined that an adverse event occurred with respect to: the actions of inexperienced animal care personnel resusulting in the injury of a nonhuman primate (adult macaque.) The final report states than an adult macaque sustained an injury to the tip of its tongue. The animal was inadvertently placed in a new enclosure ... which was equipped with a mesh divider rather than a solid divider. As a result the animal was able to make contact with another macaque, which resulted in the injury. It was determined that the animal care technician (ACT) was in training and ... believed they knew what to do. ... the ACT was immediately trained...
<br />
<br />
We appreciate being informed of the matters and find no cause for further action by this Office."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11Q.pdf">11Q</a><br />
1/4/2022
<br />
<br />
"OLAW understands that in August 2021, a macaque received an overdose of an agent prescribed for diabetes mellitus when a more concentrated formulation of the agent was given than what was prescribed. ... this occurred because a more concentrated version of the agent was ordered, but the concentration was not changed in the electronic health records (RHR) system... The animal was not adversly affectged by the inadvertent overdose.
<br />
<br />
We appreciate being informed of the matters and find no cause for further action by this Office."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11R.pdf">11R</a><br />
1/4/2022
<br />
<br />
"OLAW understands that four rats died approximately 10 minutes following administration of a combination of ketamine and xylazine being used to anesthetize animals for a protocol-approved procedure. The dose, and route of the administration were the same as had previously been given successfully and followed the protocol description. After remixing the drug, four rats underwent anesthesia with no complications. ...it was determined that the likely cause was a mixing error. The veterinary technician involved underwent retraining... Appoximately three weeks later, two rats died in a similar incident. ...
<br />
<br />
"The veterinary technician involved has undergone further retraining...
<br />
<br />
"The consideration of this matter by the University of Wisconsin-Madison was consistent with the philosophy of self-regulation. Similarly, the pending action to resolve the issue and prevent recurrence were appropriate."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11S.pdf">11S</a><br />
2/1/2022
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that on 11/10/2021, a water line was found to not be properly secured to a mouse rack. The flexible line was attached to give the appearance of being properly in place, and there was no water leakage at the attachment point. Howeve, the line not secured sufficiently to supply the rack with an appropriate amount of water. Ten mice were reported dead secondary to the incident.
<br />
<br />
The animal facility supervisor re-checked all the water lines in the facility after the event and provided retraining to animal care staff on properly securing and checking water line attachments.
<br />
<br />
... The consideration of this incident by the University of Wisconsin - Madison was consistent with the philosophy of institutional self-regulation.... We... find no cause for further action by this office."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11T.pdf">11T</a><br />
1/4/2022
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that an infant macaque received an overdose of midazolam during a 24-hr procedure due to miscommunication between veterinary personnel....
<br />
<br />
... The consideration of this matter by the University of Wisconsin - Madison was consistent with the philosophy of institutional self-regulation.... We... find no cause for further action by this office."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11U.pdf">11U</a><br />
1/4/2022
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that an adult female macaque was reported for trauma to her tail which required nonsteroidal anti-inflamatory treatment as well as primary closure with sutures. Several days after primary closure, some of the sutures dehised [the wound opened inspite of the sutures] and antibiotics were added to the treatment regimen. The animal received antibiotics for the first three days, but the final two days of antibiotic were administered to the the animal's cage mate. Despite missing the last two days of treatment, the animal's tail wound healed well.... the veterinary technician responsible for the antibiotic treatment for the wrong animal no longer is employed by the WNPRC.
<br />
<br />
... The consideration of this matter by the University of Wisconsin - Madison was consistent with the philosophy of institutional self-regulation.... We... find no cause for further action by this office."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11V.pdf">11V</a><br />
1/4/2022
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that on October 26, 2021, an adult make macaque received an IV infusion of an immunologig agent as described in the protocol. At the end of the infusion, the IV catheter was supposed to be flushed with saline but was inadvertently with a small portion of of the same animal's anti-retroviral theropy dose which was supposd to be delivered subcutaneously.
<br />
<br />
... The consideration of this matter by the University of Wisconsin - Madison was consistent with the philosophy of institutional self-regulation.... We... find no cause for further action by this office."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11W.pdf">11W</a><br />
1/4/2022
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that an adult make macaque did not receive its prescribed valium treatment for self-directed behavior. The one missed treaatment did not result in an increase in the self-directed behavior as the animal was currentlty receiving more than one agent to combat the unwanted behavior.
<br />
<br />
... The consideration of this matter by the University of Wisconsin - Madison was consistent with the philosophy of institutional self-regulation.... We... find no cause for further action by this office."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11X.pdf">11X</a><br />
1/18/2022
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that two macaques were treated with an antiobiotic for for experimental reasons as suggested by a veterinarian. This antibiotic treatment was not indicated in the protocol....
<br />
<br />
The consideration of this unfortunate incident by the University of Wisconsin - Madison was consistent with the philosophy of institutional self-regulation.... We... find no cause for further action by this office."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11Y.pdf">11Y</a><br />
1/18/2022
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that on December 7, 2021, an adolescent macaque escaped it' primary enclosure when the animals living in the enclosure defeated the welds on the feeding door. While out of the enclosure, the animal sustrained superficial injuries that required veterinary intervention with a non-steroidal anti-inflamitory. The animal recovered....
<br />
<br />
The consideration of this unfortunate incident by the University of Wisconsin - Madison was consistent with the philosophy of institutional self-regulation.... We... find no cause for further action by this office."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allanimals.org/RB/11Z.pdf">11Z</a><br />
1/18/2022
<br />
<br />
"... OLAW understands that an adolescent macaque was found entrapped within an enrichment device. The animal was immediately removed upon discovery and CPR was initiated but was unsuccessful....
<br />
<br />
The enrichment device in question and similar devices at the facility were removed from the large social enclosures to prevent recurrence of a similar event....
<br />
<br />
The consideration of this unfortunate incident by the University of Wisconsin - Madison was consistent with the philosophy of institutional self-regulation.... We... find no cause for further action by this office."
<br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-43301409031337451822022-01-23T15:17:00.000-06:002022-01-23T15:17:37.180-06:00There are 15 described races of the dark-eyed juncoAccording to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, there are <a href="https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Dark-eyed_Junco/id">15 described races</a> of the Dark-eyed Junco.
<br>
<br>
I worry that the idea promoted by Critical Race Theory - that there is no such thing as <i>race</i> - is a detriment to the advancement of animals' rights.
<br>
<br>
From what I’ve read about Critical Race Theory (The American Bar Association’s <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/">article</a> was helpful), the gist is that racial discrimination is baked into American society and law which results in the perpetuation of the status quo, i.e. racism. I agree.
<br>
<br>
Anyway, I’m writing to criticize a key tenant of Critical Race Theory because it undermines the notion that the lives and experiences of every non-human sentient being matter. The tenant that alarms me is the notion that “race” is a construct of racist thinking.
<br>
<br>
This from the American Bar Association:
<blockquote>Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) refutes the idea of biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality.</blockquote>
That assertion just isn’t accurate. Scientists who study organisms in nature have long recognized that sometimes there are not well-defined borders or lines of delineation between populations of the organisms they are studying. As the title of this essay notes, there are 15 described races of the Dark-eyed Junco.
<br>
<br>
<i>Race</i> is a synonym of <i>ecotype</i>.
<br>
<blockquote>OxfordDictionaries.com: ec·o·type noun Botany•Zoology
noun: ecotype; plural noun: ecotypes
<br>
a distinct form or race of a plant or animal species occupying a particular habitat.</blockquote>
There is no agenda, hidden, unrecognized, or otherwise, in the Cornell Lab of Ornithology's observation. Every species changes over time. These changes occur in local interbreeding populations. When, for whatever reason, two populations no longer interbreed these non-interbreeding populations can develop distinct differences. When these variations lead to an inability of members of one group to breed with members of another group, they are considered to be separate species. This is how speciation occurs. This would happen in humans if two populations were unable to interbreed for a long enough period of time. The plain fact that more-or-less isolated groups of humans have diverged in appearance over time is no different than populations of Dark-eyed Juncos looking a little different from each other.
<br>
<br>
Because of the history of using the word <i>race</i> to justify doing terrible things to others, it might seem smart to coin a new term, but bigots would simply latch on to the new word.
<br>
<br>
What's clear is that humans are not a homogenous group. Variations exist and the more isolated a group is, the more distinct its members are from other groups.
<br>
<br>
Here's an interesting article about the ease at which genomes can diverge between isolated groups of humans:
<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.sanger.ac.uk/news_item/huge-genetic-diversity-among-papuan-new-guinean-peoples-revealed/">Huge genetic diversity among Papuan New Guinean peoples revealed</a>
<br>
<br>
Rather than denying the variations in human groups around the world and basing an argument for equal rights and justice on the denial of race, we might be further along if we pointed to the ethically important characteristics and features of what we have in common. Things like wanting to feel safe; to feel that our family is safe. We don’t want to be hurt or imprisoned. We want clean water and a comfortable abode, and good healthful food to name just a few.
<br>
<br>
The denial of race worries me because it erects another barrier between the acknowlegement of the ethically important similarities shared with us by other species. It is as if we should think of ourselves as being outside of nature. As not being just another animal. This carries dire consequences for those not in the in-group. Consequences that are constantly on display.
<br>
<br>
What we need to do right now is to fully embrace the Golden Rule and recognize that the others are all those who can suffer. Admittedly, most of us deny that other animals really can suffer or that their suffering matters. Most of us never pause to think about the 20 million chickens killed each day just in the US, but like us, no matter our race, they can and do suffer greatly. Most of us never think about the (literally) trillions of fish caught every year. Most of us don’t give the mice and rats, the dogs and monkeys, the rabbits, hamsters, and all the rest being experimented on every day in the labs even a moment's thought.
<br>
<br>
In light of our shared ability to be hurt, to be sad, to be frightened, to be happy, to be content, we should stop thinking about our unimportant differences and embrace our commonalities. Therein lies the path to happy residents of a healthy planet.
<br>
<br>
The unfairness and discrimination some of us face everyday isn't caused by our differences or our race, they are caused by those who want to feel like they are better, more powerful, and more deserving. Denying our differences won't stop mean people from being mean or bullies from bullying, or bigots from being assholes. Our differences make us all richer, we ought not deny them.
<br>
<br>
The plain fact that humans aren't all exactly the same makes us richer. It would be a profound loss if we no longer noticed or denied our myriad varieties.
<br>
<br>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0