The Risks of Empathy, a Novella
Chapter 14
Richard Selling had recognized the risk to Stan and Earnie as soon as he understood the government's intention toward the animal TEs. Selling had the inventors moved quietly into a new, well-hidden laboratory. When federal agents swooped in to take the scientists into custody, all they found was an empty building and a single TE recording disc.
-----
Karen awoke when the sedan hit the rough road. The slight odor coming from the litter box down on the floorboard made her think of Harlow, and she started as she realized he wasn't lying on or next to her. But her slight worry disappeared as she sat up and saw the big orange cat curled up between the two people in the front seat. Out her window she saw sagebrush reaching to the horizon, while the other window and the front windshield framed forested mountains.
Karen turned and looked out the rear window and saw that they were being followed by large truck.
"How much longer?" Karen asked.
"Well, good morning," said the passenger who turned and put out her hand to Karen. "It'll be a couple more hours before we reach the camp, but we'll stop at one of the rodent barns first. My name's Sarah."
Karen shook her hand and caught the driver's eye in the rearview mirror. The man nodded to her and said, "I'm Harry. Harry Mahoney," but kept his eyes on the ruts and stones in the road.
Sarah leaned over and hit Harry in the shoulder. "Harry's an ex-cop. All business. You'll get used to him."
Karen looked out the window again saw half a dozen silhouettes on a low hill. "I think I just saw some ostriches!"
"It could have been the emus," said Sarah, "but they probably were ostriches. There are almost two hundred here now. They've been pretty easy to rescue. Most of the big ranches don't have guards and the birds are really docile at night and are easily herded into a truck. They seem to like it here, but I don't think anyone has listened in to one of them yet. Have they Harry?"
"I don't know," answered Harry.
They drove around another low hill and then stopped. Karen noticed that the road had stopped abruptly and she wondered what was going on. "I though we were stopping at a barn."
"This is it," said Sarah and as she was explaining that the hill in front of them was actually the top of a dome sunken into the earth, a large door opened and they drove into an expansive room that appeared to be a warehouse. The truck pulled in behind them and the door slid shut.
"You worked with rodents in that lab, didn't you Karen?" asked Sarah. "Come on, I'll show you around. You're going to love this."
"But what about Harlow?"
"He seems to like me OK," answered Harry. "He can hang out here with me until you get back."
As they walked along people said hello to Sarah and she introduced Karen to many of them. Karen saw carts loaded with plastic boxes with pale blue lids. The boxes held guinea pigs and hamsters and were being pushed along and toward a set of double doors. "Those are some of the animals you helped rescue Karen," said Sarah. "These guys were on a truck ahead of us. They'll be quarantined and spayed before they are released into population. Come on."
They stepped into a small room and the door closed behind them. A lock clicked, and a door on the other side of the room opened. "We have a double door system to keep them from getting out, but some of the little buggers manage to escape every now and then no matter what we do," laughed Sarah. "Watch where you step."
A dirt path greeted them as the entered, and almost immediately a small brown body scurried across and along a much narrower path that disappeared into the grass. "Let's sit over here," said Sarah and led them to a wooden bench. As soon as they sat down two squirrels appeared and one of them jumped up on the bench. "There's a rule about not hand feeding them, but it's pretty clear that not everyone follows it."
The squirrel sat for a while, seemed to give up and jumped down and vanished into the grass with the other squirrel close behind.
Karen was surprised by the sheer size of the park. Park seemed to describe it best. There were bushes, small trees, paths and well-mown grass. She noticed holes and little mounds of earth here and there. "Are those burrows?" she asked.
"Yes. The gerbils, hamsters, ground squirrels, and rabbits all burrow. The rats prefer to nest in the buildings, and the guinea pigs have nest boxes."
"What buildings?"
"Come on. Remember to watch your step."
As the women walked along the path, Sarah explained that the grass, which really wasn't mowed after all, and small plants, served to feed most of the dome's residents, but that grains and fruits were provided daily. Water flowed through a small shallow artificial stream, but sprinklers provided "rain" two days a week and kept the plants lush. The light was artificial. A population of flies, ants and other insects had established themselves and were eaten by some of the rodents.
"How many animals are in here?" asked Karen as two more squirrels stopped in the path and seemed to check out the possibility that the women had treats.
"About a hundred thousand in this barn. There is another barn about the same size nearby, but the big barn holds almost a million."
"Oh my God. I never imagined..."
"We don't have room for them all. Mr. Selling is trying to establish other sanctuaries around the world, but the number of refugees surpasses anything we might be able to provide. It's a real mess, and the fucking labs, the ones that haven't been burnt down yet, keep breeding more. No one knows what we are going to do."
A small flock of birds zipped by Karen's head. "What in the world?"
"They're larks. Some asshole was experimenting on their brains trying to discover how they learn their songs. He raised some in complete isolation and discovered that if they don't learn their songs early in life that they can't learn them later on. Big deal. Just what we need to know. There're about thirty of them in here. We didn't know what else to do with them. They don't know how to live in the wild anymore, but they seem to relish flying. Here're the rat buildings."
Buildings seemed like a funny word for the things Karen was looking at, but she could not think of a better one. The rat buildings were about six feet high and seemed to have nine or ten stories or levels. They were made of wood and no two looked alike. A new one was under construction. Karen saw balconies and holes in the walls leading to inner compartments. Some were blind alleys and some were interconnected. It was a village, or town with about a hundred or so of the buildings arranged rather randomly. Arial walkways connected some of them. The odor was exquisite.
"They are constantly gnawing and remodeling. We give them a new one every so often. Look over here." Sarah walked through the town and stopped at one of the, apparently, older buildings. "I know the rat who lives here, unless he's moved." She looked down at her watch, "It's still a little early-you won't believe how busy it gets in here at night; except for some of the squirrels, almost everyone is nocturnal-but Ratty might be willing to get up if he recognizes my voice."
Sarah knocked on one of the walls. She looked into a dark hole and called gently, "Ratty. Are you in there? Come see me."
A black nose appeared and twitched this way and that. A large black rat stepped out on the balcony, stretched, yawned widely displaying his long yellow teeth, and walked over to Sarah and sniffed her nose. "There you are!" said Sarah as she stroked his body. She put out her hand, and with no hesitation the rat crawled into her hand, up her arm and onto her shoulder. She took him in both hands and kissed him on top of the head. "Want to hold him?" she said to Karen and offered the rat to her.
Karen had understood, both intellectually and emotionally, the implications of the rat TE she had experienced over and over again in her apartment. Her understanding had led to her willingness to help these people break into Yu's facility and steal as many of the animals as they could. But she had never handled a rat or even a hamster or a guinea pig for any reason other than picking one up to break its neck. This big black rat that seemed anxious to get to her frightened her. "I don't know if..." she began, but it was too late. Sarah pushed the rat to her, and without effort the rat crawled up her chest and on to her shoulder and began rooting around in her hair and sniffing her ear. Karen was frozen.
Sarah watched for a few moments, seemed to understand Karen's reaction, and took the rat back. "He's great isn't he?" She set him on the balcony in front of his hole. He yawned again. "Come scratch his side. He loves it."
Sarah showed Karen where he liked to be ticked and Karen summoned up the courage to scratch the big rat. As she scratched around his ears and on top of his head, he closed his eyes and seemed to drift off. She thought back to her days in the lab, looked around rat town and around the park and then to the small animal who was trusting her to scratch his neck. Her life had taken a large u-turn.
"We better go," said Sarah, "you'll need to get your stuff and grab Harlow before we find you a place to bed down." The she reached into her pocket and pulled out a peanut still in the shell.
"Here, give him this, but don't tell anyone," she grinned. "By the way, if you come back here on your own later on, be very careful around the rats. Most of them will bite you as soon as look at you. Rat bites hurt like hell." She kissed Ratty on top of the head, said goodbye, and led Karen back along the path.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
40 Years of Veganism
I stopped eating animals during the summer of 1972. I think it fair to say that it's had a positive effect so far, and that the ramifications of my life choices will have incalculable future benefit. Unfortunately, I'm only 1 six billonth of the problems associated with having so many people on the planet.
Depending on where you look, figures on meat consumption in America can differ a little. But here's a fairly average report:
Each year, the average American eats about 110 lbs of red meat, including 62.4 lbs of beef and 46.5 lbs of pork. The average American eats 16.1 lbs of fish and shellfish and 32.7 lbs of eggs, and 63 lbs of chicken.
The average American eats about 31.4 lbs of cheese each year and drinks about 181 lbs of milk.
Cows going to slaughter weigh on average 900 to 1400 lbs. According to thebeefsite.com, "... suppose that an animal delivered to the packing plant weighs 1300 pounds. After being killed, the hide, head, feet and gut are removed. The carcass then weighs 767 pounds. The dressing percent of this animal would be 767 divided by 1300 multiplied by 100 equaling 59 percent. This '59 percent' represents the meat and skeletal portion of an animal compared to its live weight."
But then, the meat has to be cut from the bone. Roughly speaking, the weight of the meat from a cow, after cut up and made ready to sell at the grocery store is about half the weight of the live cow.
So, a little arithmetic: If the average American eats about 62.4 lb. of beef a year, and that is equivalent to about (62.4 lb. X 2) 124.8 lbs of live cow, then, the average American eats about 9% of a cow each year, assuming the average cow sent to slaughter weighs about 1150 lb (900 lb + 1400 lb / 2).
Because I stopped eating animals in 1972, it means that as of today, I have saved the lives of somewhere in the neighborhood of (40yrs X 9% of a cow) 3.6 cows, or about 4,992 lbs of beef.
According to National Geographic, that 4,992 lbs of beef I didn't eat, saved 8,980,608 gallons of water.
Using similarly Internet-based cobbled together figures like these: "With a market weight of 250 pounds and yield of 73.6 percent, the typical hog will a produce a 184-pound carcass. The carcass will yield approximately 140 pounds of pork and 44 pounds of skin, fat, and bone," I figure I've saved about one third of a pig's life a year, or 1860 lbs of pig overall, or about, 7.44 pigs. Not eating these pigs also saved 1,071,360 gallons of water.
I saved approximately 720 chickens and in so doing saved an additional 336,960 gallons of water.
By not drinking any milk, I saved an additional 5,491,367,619 gallons of water and about three fourths of a dairy cow. The cheese I didn't eat probably brought that up to more than a whole cow and adds in about another 700,000 gallons of water.
By not eating my 32.7 lbs of eggs every year, and figuring that the average egg weighs about two ounces, I didn't eat (32.7 X 16 / 2) about 261.6 eggs a year, or 10,464 over 40 years, and in the process, saved about 554,592 gallons of water and about 35 chickens.
This means then, that in the 40 years I've been a vegan, I've saved almost 5 cows, 7 pigs, 755 chickens, and about 6 billion gallons of water. And this is a conservative estimate that doesn't include any of the other costs associated with meat and animal by-product production.
What's more, because I decided a very long time ago that the major cause of most environmental problems is the number of people on the planet, I elected not to have any children. Assuming just for a moment that I had been an average American and had my two average children who hadn't been vegan, then by not having them, I also saved all the above times 2, and if each of them had 2 average kids, it would be that number of saved animals and water times 4, or, 42 billion gallons.
It's a small thing to some perhaps, but to the unnamed and abstract 5 cows, 7 pigs, and 755 chickens who would otherwise have been killed so that I could dine on their flesh, it probably isn't.
Depending on where you look, figures on meat consumption in America can differ a little. But here's a fairly average report:
Each year, the average American eats about 110 lbs of red meat, including 62.4 lbs of beef and 46.5 lbs of pork. The average American eats 16.1 lbs of fish and shellfish and 32.7 lbs of eggs, and 63 lbs of chicken.
The average American eats about 31.4 lbs of cheese each year and drinks about 181 lbs of milk.
Cows going to slaughter weigh on average 900 to 1400 lbs. According to thebeefsite.com, "... suppose that an animal delivered to the packing plant weighs 1300 pounds. After being killed, the hide, head, feet and gut are removed. The carcass then weighs 767 pounds. The dressing percent of this animal would be 767 divided by 1300 multiplied by 100 equaling 59 percent. This '59 percent' represents the meat and skeletal portion of an animal compared to its live weight."
But then, the meat has to be cut from the bone. Roughly speaking, the weight of the meat from a cow, after cut up and made ready to sell at the grocery store is about half the weight of the live cow.
So, a little arithmetic: If the average American eats about 62.4 lb. of beef a year, and that is equivalent to about (62.4 lb. X 2) 124.8 lbs of live cow, then, the average American eats about 9% of a cow each year, assuming the average cow sent to slaughter weighs about 1150 lb (900 lb + 1400 lb / 2).
Because I stopped eating animals in 1972, it means that as of today, I have saved the lives of somewhere in the neighborhood of (40yrs X 9% of a cow) 3.6 cows, or about 4,992 lbs of beef.
According to National Geographic, that 4,992 lbs of beef I didn't eat, saved 8,980,608 gallons of water.
Using similarly Internet-based cobbled together figures like these: "With a market weight of 250 pounds and yield of 73.6 percent, the typical hog will a produce a 184-pound carcass. The carcass will yield approximately 140 pounds of pork and 44 pounds of skin, fat, and bone," I figure I've saved about one third of a pig's life a year, or 1860 lbs of pig overall, or about, 7.44 pigs. Not eating these pigs also saved 1,071,360 gallons of water.
I saved approximately 720 chickens and in so doing saved an additional 336,960 gallons of water.
By not drinking any milk, I saved an additional 5,491,367,619 gallons of water and about three fourths of a dairy cow. The cheese I didn't eat probably brought that up to more than a whole cow and adds in about another 700,000 gallons of water.
By not eating my 32.7 lbs of eggs every year, and figuring that the average egg weighs about two ounces, I didn't eat (32.7 X 16 / 2) about 261.6 eggs a year, or 10,464 over 40 years, and in the process, saved about 554,592 gallons of water and about 35 chickens.
This means then, that in the 40 years I've been a vegan, I've saved almost 5 cows, 7 pigs, 755 chickens, and about 6 billion gallons of water. And this is a conservative estimate that doesn't include any of the other costs associated with meat and animal by-product production.
What's more, because I decided a very long time ago that the major cause of most environmental problems is the number of people on the planet, I elected not to have any children. Assuming just for a moment that I had been an average American and had my two average children who hadn't been vegan, then by not having them, I also saved all the above times 2, and if each of them had 2 average kids, it would be that number of saved animals and water times 4, or, 42 billion gallons.
It's a small thing to some perhaps, but to the unnamed and abstract 5 cows, 7 pigs, and 755 chickens who would otherwise have been killed so that I could dine on their flesh, it probably isn't.
The New Watered-Down Version of Oversight of U.S. Government-Funded Experimentation on Animals
Challenge a vivisector on the horrible things they do to animals and like an electric-shock-induced conditioned response they immediately regurgitate undigested gibberish about the "stringent" oversight they are subject to.
A key element in their practiced litany is always a small book-length document named the Guide for the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. This document is so fundamental to the publicly-funded system of oversight that most institutions receiving public funding are required to promise in writing that everyone at their institution will adhere to the document's guidelines. This written promise is called the "Animal Welfare Assurance." You can read a slightly outdated version of UW-Madison's here.
The Guide for the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, generally referred to as the Guide, was recently revised. The previous edition contained clear unambiguous language regarding an institution's responsibility to adhere to state and local laws and regulations governing the care and use of animals.
Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (1996)
p. iii: "A footnote added to page 2 and referred to in three places reminds readers that the Guide is written for a broad international audience some of whom are not covered by either the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals or the Animal Welfare Regulations but that those who are covered by these rules must abide by them even when the Guide recommends a different approach. That admonition is provided throughout the Guide, but its placement in the Introduction was thought important."
Indicating that the authors intended that statements in the Introduction are important.
-----
p. 2: Introduction: "Animal facilities and programs should be operated in accord with this Guide, the Animal Welfare Regulations, or AWRs (CFR 1985); the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, or PHS Policy (PHS 1996); and other applicable federal (Appendixes C and D) state, and local laws, regulations, and policies." [my emphasis throughout]
-----
p. 8: Chapter 1. First sentence of paragraph 2: "Each institution should establish and provide resources for an animal care and use program that is managed in accord with this Guide and in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations..."
Again and clearly -- and at the very outset -- stating the paramount importance of compliance with all applicable laws.
-----
p. 10: "After review and inspection, a written report, signed by a majority of the IACUC, should be made to the responsible administrative officials of the institution on the status of the animal care and use program and other activities as stated herein and as required by federal, state, or local regulations and policies."
This seems to imply that the IACUC is required to let the administrative officials of the institution know whether or not the program is operating in accord with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
But this hardly matters given the clear statements above and their prominent placement in the document.
-----
All reference to state, and local laws and regulations regarding animal use have been stripped from the new edition. A free pdf is available. You can search through it yourself.
If you search using the phrase local laws you will discover that the use of the phrase is reserved for references to local laws concerning the health and safety of the humans working around animals. I mentioned this on Rock Talk, Dr. Sally Rockey's blog. Rockey is the NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research. The response was that an institution's required adherence to state, and local laws and regulations is still implied. And then that short discussion was deleted.
The loss of clear language about having to adhere to state and local laws and regulations guts the Guide. Just prior to the rewrite's adoption we discovered that the University of Wisconsin, Madison had been violating the state law for a number of years -- clear unambiguous cases of not following the Guide as they promised to do year after year in their PHS "Animal Welfare Assurance." They staged fights between animals and killed others by means of decompression -- both outlawed in Chapter 951 of the Wisconsin Statutes. After having their long term violations exposed, the university ordered the state legislature to exempt them from the statute, and of course, they did. But the federal government didn't bat an eye over their repeated violations of state law, making it clear that an Assurance, and thus the system that rests upon it, doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
And while the governments apparent lack of concern over an institution's failure to adhere to their Assurance that it will follow the Guide could be construed to mean that any changes to the Guide are unimportant, this particular change officially gets vivisectors off the hook and releases institutions from even having to continue pretending to be familiar with state and local laws and regulations.
I was going to go on here about the problems that plague the oversight system and expose it as a sham, but in the process of looking something up, one of the first hits I got was to something I wrote a few years ago, so rather than continue here, I direct you to my essay: "Oversight".
A key element in their practiced litany is always a small book-length document named the Guide for the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. This document is so fundamental to the publicly-funded system of oversight that most institutions receiving public funding are required to promise in writing that everyone at their institution will adhere to the document's guidelines. This written promise is called the "Animal Welfare Assurance." You can read a slightly outdated version of UW-Madison's here.
The Guide for the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, generally referred to as the Guide, was recently revised. The previous edition contained clear unambiguous language regarding an institution's responsibility to adhere to state and local laws and regulations governing the care and use of animals.
Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (1996)
p. iii: "A footnote added to page 2 and referred to in three places reminds readers that the Guide is written for a broad international audience some of whom are not covered by either the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals or the Animal Welfare Regulations but that those who are covered by these rules must abide by them even when the Guide recommends a different approach. That admonition is provided throughout the Guide, but its placement in the Introduction was thought important."
Indicating that the authors intended that statements in the Introduction are important.
-----
p. 2: Introduction: "Animal facilities and programs should be operated in accord with this Guide, the Animal Welfare Regulations, or AWRs (CFR 1985); the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, or PHS Policy (PHS 1996); and other applicable federal (Appendixes C and D) state, and local laws, regulations, and policies." [my emphasis throughout]
-----
p. 8: Chapter 1. First sentence of paragraph 2: "Each institution should establish and provide resources for an animal care and use program that is managed in accord with this Guide and in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations..."
Again and clearly -- and at the very outset -- stating the paramount importance of compliance with all applicable laws.
-----
p. 10: "After review and inspection, a written report, signed by a majority of the IACUC, should be made to the responsible administrative officials of the institution on the status of the animal care and use program and other activities as stated herein and as required by federal, state, or local regulations and policies."
This seems to imply that the IACUC is required to let the administrative officials of the institution know whether or not the program is operating in accord with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
But this hardly matters given the clear statements above and their prominent placement in the document.
-----
All reference to state, and local laws and regulations regarding animal use have been stripped from the new edition. A free pdf is available. You can search through it yourself.
If you search using the phrase local laws you will discover that the use of the phrase is reserved for references to local laws concerning the health and safety of the humans working around animals. I mentioned this on Rock Talk, Dr. Sally Rockey's blog. Rockey is the NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research. The response was that an institution's required adherence to state, and local laws and regulations is still implied. And then that short discussion was deleted.
The loss of clear language about having to adhere to state and local laws and regulations guts the Guide. Just prior to the rewrite's adoption we discovered that the University of Wisconsin, Madison had been violating the state law for a number of years -- clear unambiguous cases of not following the Guide as they promised to do year after year in their PHS "Animal Welfare Assurance." They staged fights between animals and killed others by means of decompression -- both outlawed in Chapter 951 of the Wisconsin Statutes. After having their long term violations exposed, the university ordered the state legislature to exempt them from the statute, and of course, they did. But the federal government didn't bat an eye over their repeated violations of state law, making it clear that an Assurance, and thus the system that rests upon it, doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
And while the governments apparent lack of concern over an institution's failure to adhere to their Assurance that it will follow the Guide could be construed to mean that any changes to the Guide are unimportant, this particular change officially gets vivisectors off the hook and releases institutions from even having to continue pretending to be familiar with state and local laws and regulations.
I was going to go on here about the problems that plague the oversight system and expose it as a sham, but in the process of looking something up, one of the first hits I got was to something I wrote a few years ago, so rather than continue here, I direct you to my essay: "Oversight".
Sunday, July 22, 2012
James Holmes was apparently a vivisector
No surprises here:
James Holmes was rejected for gun-range membership
Originally published: July 22, 2012 2:50 PM
Updated: July 22, 2012 5:07 PM
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
.... In a resume posted on Monster.com, Holmes listed himself as an "aspiring scientist" and said he was looking for a job as a laboratory technician.
The resume, first obtained in Holmes' home state of California by The Press-Enterprise in Riverside, paints a picture of a brilliant young man brimming with potential: He worked as a summer intern at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla in 2006 and mapped the neurons of Zebra finches and studied the flight muscles of hummingbirds while an undergraduate at the University of California, Riverside.
2500 Beagles Bred to be Experimented on are Seized by Italian Authorities
First, review some background info here:
1000+ Italian Activists Liberate Beagle Puppies in Daylight Raid
Now this. Wow.
There has been very little and only spotty coverage of this event by the English-speaking media. Here's a secondary source of info, and another with photos from inside Green Hill during the seizure.
1000+ Italian Activists Liberate Beagle Puppies in Daylight Raid
Now this. Wow.
There has been very little and only spotty coverage of this event by the English-speaking media. Here's a secondary source of info, and another with photos from inside Green Hill during the seizure.
Risks. Chapter 13
The Risks of Empathy, a Novella
Chapter 13
Karen placed her hand on the palm reader and heard the door’s automatic lock slide open. She held the door as the five darkly clad figures slipped inside. She knew, and had told them earlier, that there was nothing she could do about the video surveillance in the halls.
She led them quietly and surely to the security center where one of them placed a small plastic explosive on the door, even as the guard inside was calling for help on the intercom. The door blew open, two people rushed inside and Karen heard a muffled pop. She never heard a word from the guard.
Karen left them and ran through the hall to the employee locker room to grab her few belongings. As she was passing Yu’s office, the door opened and the scientist looked out to see what was causing the commotion. Without thought and not knowing why she was doing it, she put her hand on Yu’s chest and pushed him back into the office and closed the door behind her.
“You better stay in here Dr. Yu. There are terrorists in the building, and I think someone’s already been hurt.”
Yu looked at Karen with some confusion, then he seemed to understand what she said.
“Yes. I will stay here. Security must be called.”
“They’ve been called already, Dr. Yu.”
Karen and Yu heard shouts and what sounded like a gun. “I don’t know what these people are thinking,” said Yu. “This is a scientific laboratory. We are scientists!”
“We’d better hide! Let’s get under your desk,” said Karen as she pulled out the chair.
Yu and Karen got down on their hands and knees and crawled into the space under Yu’s large desk. They were both fairly small, and once under the desk, they had room to sit across from each other. It was close and intimate, but they weren’t crushed together. They heard more shouts and more gunshots. Karen noticed that Yu was sweating and that his normally immaculate combed-back black hair had become a bit disheveled. Yu seemed to be aware of this and kept trying to smooth his hair down by using his fingers as a comb. His hand was getting oilier with every pass through hair.
“If we just stay here I am sure we will be safe,” said Yu, but his jerky response to the noises that seemed now to be coming from the hall outside and the floor above belied his spoken assurance.
“What do they want, Dr. Yu? Why are they here?” asked Karen, wondering what was going through Yu’s mind.
“They are the animal people,” said Yu, as if this answered everything.
“But what do they want, doctor?”
“The animals. They think the animals are people. They are crazy. It is those animal TEs.”
“What are you talking about?”
“Haven’t you seen them? Karen? Your name is Karen?” Yu seemed finally to realize who she was.
“Yes Dr. Yu. I’m your lab assistant, Karen Brown. I’ve been your assistant for the past four months.”
“Of course, “ said Yu. “Sometimes I have a hard time remembering names. You are the one who asked be about liver transplants.”
“That’s right, but no, I haven’t seen the animals TEs,” Karen lied. “Have you? What are they like?”
Yu looked at his knees folded and just touching Karen’s. “They are... interesting, but little more. I watched one about a rat. The rat was in the dark, it was a dull creature, there was a fight with another rat. It meant nothing.”
“I heard there were many of them,” she coaxed.
“Yes. There were nine made. Dog, cat, cow, pig, chimpanzee, rat, elephant, dolphin, and chicken. I watched them all.”
“So they were nothing?” asked Karen.
Yu kept his attention on their knees. He continued to readjust his coiffure. He appeared to be in meditation.
“Dr. Yu?”
Yu started and seemed to refocus on Karen’s question. “The chimpanzee was a little surprising. She was alone and seemed almost unaware of all the people who walked by her cage. She thought of the forest and seemed to remember other chimpanzees that might have once been her family. She didn’t seem to realize that she chewed on her arm all of the time.”
Yu cleared his voice and bumped his head on the bottom of the desk when a small explosion shook the building gently.
“One thing that surprised me was that she seemed to be able to read a little...”
“What do you mean?”
“Well, this is odd, but she knew that the popcorn boxes said Popcorn on them. It wasn’t that she knew there was popcorn in the boxes, which she did, but that she actually read the word. She heard ‘popcorn’ in her mind when she took the time to notice the people starring at her and what was in their hands. It was very human-like.”
Karen didn’t know what to say, and didn’t know why she was under the desk with Yu. “Aren’t there monkeys here at the Institute?”
Yu snapped to, “Yes. Of course there are. We are using them in the transplantation experiments. You know that.”
“Well, after what you have told me about the chimpanzee...” her voice quavered slightly, “don’t you think that, maybe, we shouldn’t be using them in the experiments?”
Yu looked Karen in the eyes, “We are scientists. Even if these animals are like us, what does that matter? We must learn. We must progress. We are human they are animal!”
Yu’s eyes seemed to be bugging out, he had given up on his hair; a small bit of spittle was foaming in the corner of his mouth. Karen thought he was about to explode when the door burst open and a guard was shouting into the room, “Dr Yu! Dr. Yu! Are you in here?”
Yu yelled back, “Yes we are here!”
Yu crawled out first and Karen heard the guard say, “It was one of the junior scientists who let them in, most of the animals are gone.”
Karen crawled out behind Yu, and bolted through the door even as the guard yelled after her, “Hey! That’s her! Stop her!”
But she was gone and down the hall and out the door before anyone could. A dark car drove up and she jumped through the open door into the back seat. The door slammed shut and the car drove away at an unconcerned and unremarkable pace. Harlow crawled into her lap and began to purr; a voice from the front said, “Good job. We wondered why you took so long though. Try to get some rest now. We won’t get to the ranch until morning.”
Chapter 13
Karen placed her hand on the palm reader and heard the door’s automatic lock slide open. She held the door as the five darkly clad figures slipped inside. She knew, and had told them earlier, that there was nothing she could do about the video surveillance in the halls.
She led them quietly and surely to the security center where one of them placed a small plastic explosive on the door, even as the guard inside was calling for help on the intercom. The door blew open, two people rushed inside and Karen heard a muffled pop. She never heard a word from the guard.
Karen left them and ran through the hall to the employee locker room to grab her few belongings. As she was passing Yu’s office, the door opened and the scientist looked out to see what was causing the commotion. Without thought and not knowing why she was doing it, she put her hand on Yu’s chest and pushed him back into the office and closed the door behind her.
“You better stay in here Dr. Yu. There are terrorists in the building, and I think someone’s already been hurt.”
Yu looked at Karen with some confusion, then he seemed to understand what she said.
“Yes. I will stay here. Security must be called.”
“They’ve been called already, Dr. Yu.”
Karen and Yu heard shouts and what sounded like a gun. “I don’t know what these people are thinking,” said Yu. “This is a scientific laboratory. We are scientists!”
“We’d better hide! Let’s get under your desk,” said Karen as she pulled out the chair.
Yu and Karen got down on their hands and knees and crawled into the space under Yu’s large desk. They were both fairly small, and once under the desk, they had room to sit across from each other. It was close and intimate, but they weren’t crushed together. They heard more shouts and more gunshots. Karen noticed that Yu was sweating and that his normally immaculate combed-back black hair had become a bit disheveled. Yu seemed to be aware of this and kept trying to smooth his hair down by using his fingers as a comb. His hand was getting oilier with every pass through hair.
“If we just stay here I am sure we will be safe,” said Yu, but his jerky response to the noises that seemed now to be coming from the hall outside and the floor above belied his spoken assurance.
“What do they want, Dr. Yu? Why are they here?” asked Karen, wondering what was going through Yu’s mind.
“They are the animal people,” said Yu, as if this answered everything.
“But what do they want, doctor?”
“The animals. They think the animals are people. They are crazy. It is those animal TEs.”
“What are you talking about?”
“Haven’t you seen them? Karen? Your name is Karen?” Yu seemed finally to realize who she was.
“Yes Dr. Yu. I’m your lab assistant, Karen Brown. I’ve been your assistant for the past four months.”
“Of course, “ said Yu. “Sometimes I have a hard time remembering names. You are the one who asked be about liver transplants.”
“That’s right, but no, I haven’t seen the animals TEs,” Karen lied. “Have you? What are they like?”
Yu looked at his knees folded and just touching Karen’s. “They are... interesting, but little more. I watched one about a rat. The rat was in the dark, it was a dull creature, there was a fight with another rat. It meant nothing.”
“I heard there were many of them,” she coaxed.
“Yes. There were nine made. Dog, cat, cow, pig, chimpanzee, rat, elephant, dolphin, and chicken. I watched them all.”
“So they were nothing?” asked Karen.
Yu kept his attention on their knees. He continued to readjust his coiffure. He appeared to be in meditation.
“Dr. Yu?”
Yu started and seemed to refocus on Karen’s question. “The chimpanzee was a little surprising. She was alone and seemed almost unaware of all the people who walked by her cage. She thought of the forest and seemed to remember other chimpanzees that might have once been her family. She didn’t seem to realize that she chewed on her arm all of the time.”
Yu cleared his voice and bumped his head on the bottom of the desk when a small explosion shook the building gently.
“One thing that surprised me was that she seemed to be able to read a little...”
“What do you mean?”
“Well, this is odd, but she knew that the popcorn boxes said Popcorn on them. It wasn’t that she knew there was popcorn in the boxes, which she did, but that she actually read the word. She heard ‘popcorn’ in her mind when she took the time to notice the people starring at her and what was in their hands. It was very human-like.”
Karen didn’t know what to say, and didn’t know why she was under the desk with Yu. “Aren’t there monkeys here at the Institute?”
Yu snapped to, “Yes. Of course there are. We are using them in the transplantation experiments. You know that.”
“Well, after what you have told me about the chimpanzee...” her voice quavered slightly, “don’t you think that, maybe, we shouldn’t be using them in the experiments?”
Yu looked Karen in the eyes, “We are scientists. Even if these animals are like us, what does that matter? We must learn. We must progress. We are human they are animal!”
Yu’s eyes seemed to be bugging out, he had given up on his hair; a small bit of spittle was foaming in the corner of his mouth. Karen thought he was about to explode when the door burst open and a guard was shouting into the room, “Dr Yu! Dr. Yu! Are you in here?”
Yu yelled back, “Yes we are here!”
Yu crawled out first and Karen heard the guard say, “It was one of the junior scientists who let them in, most of the animals are gone.”
Karen crawled out behind Yu, and bolted through the door even as the guard yelled after her, “Hey! That’s her! Stop her!”
But she was gone and down the hall and out the door before anyone could. A dark car drove up and she jumped through the open door into the back seat. The door slammed shut and the car drove away at an unconcerned and unremarkable pace. Harlow crawled into her lap and began to purr; a voice from the front said, “Good job. We wondered why you took so long though. Try to get some rest now. We won’t get to the ranch until morning.”
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Risks. Chapter 12
The Risks of Empathy, a Novella
Chapter 12
The backlash began almost immediately. An underground network dealing in copies of Selling TEs and Selling TE receiver clones popped into existence almost before the government got their replacement broadcasts on the air. Just like the old days when alcohol and narcotics were illegal, prohibition brought with it a black-market boom. Prior to the ban, black-marketers were dealing only in the seediest recordings: murders, rapes, torture; and the market was limited to the same sliver of humanity that has always found such immorality scintillating.
And, as with all the other failed attempts at prohibition, its result was the exposure of good people to the dark undercurrents of human behavior, crime, and depravity.
And people were recognizing that the truth behind the Selling ban had nothing to do with any medical risk; the ban was aimed entirely at limiting access to the Selling animal TEs.
And more people were pointing this out.
And more people were asking questions.
And the government’s credibility was further undermined.
And the violence spread....
-----
The open stock truck turned off the shimmering asphalt highway onto a gravel road and stopped. The road showed the effects of much recent travel. A washboard of gravel and dust stretched into the distance ahead and pointed toward a range of mountains with their peaks still brushed with snow.
Two camouflage fatigue-dressed people with mean-looking assault weapons in their hands appeared and approached the truck, one on the driver’s side and one on the passenger side. Their faces were hidden by the netting that hung down from their helmets.
The window on the driver’s side lowered and a woman leaned out. "Hey, how y’all doin'? These guys must be mighty thirsty by now. I need to get 'em some water pretty soon."
In the back of the truck fifty or so obviously nervous ostriches were crammed together. Their eyes were wide and they all had their beaks open and appeared to be panting.
"Sarah," said the guard on her side, "I can’t believe you make these runs alone. You’re just asking for trouble." The guard pulled the netting up over his helmet and gave her a big grin. "You know the way. Get those birds out of here."
And with that, the ostriches began the last bumpy leg of their journey to refuge within the reaches of the HtH Timber and Cattle Company.
Chapter 12
The backlash began almost immediately. An underground network dealing in copies of Selling TEs and Selling TE receiver clones popped into existence almost before the government got their replacement broadcasts on the air. Just like the old days when alcohol and narcotics were illegal, prohibition brought with it a black-market boom. Prior to the ban, black-marketers were dealing only in the seediest recordings: murders, rapes, torture; and the market was limited to the same sliver of humanity that has always found such immorality scintillating.
And, as with all the other failed attempts at prohibition, its result was the exposure of good people to the dark undercurrents of human behavior, crime, and depravity.
And people were recognizing that the truth behind the Selling ban had nothing to do with any medical risk; the ban was aimed entirely at limiting access to the Selling animal TEs.
And more people were pointing this out.
And more people were asking questions.
And the government’s credibility was further undermined.
And the violence spread....
-----
The open stock truck turned off the shimmering asphalt highway onto a gravel road and stopped. The road showed the effects of much recent travel. A washboard of gravel and dust stretched into the distance ahead and pointed toward a range of mountains with their peaks still brushed with snow.
Two camouflage fatigue-dressed people with mean-looking assault weapons in their hands appeared and approached the truck, one on the driver’s side and one on the passenger side. Their faces were hidden by the netting that hung down from their helmets.
The window on the driver’s side lowered and a woman leaned out. "Hey, how y’all doin'? These guys must be mighty thirsty by now. I need to get 'em some water pretty soon."
In the back of the truck fifty or so obviously nervous ostriches were crammed together. Their eyes were wide and they all had their beaks open and appeared to be panting.
"Sarah," said the guard on her side, "I can’t believe you make these runs alone. You’re just asking for trouble." The guard pulled the netting up over his helmet and gave her a big grin. "You know the way. Get those birds out of here."
And with that, the ostriches began the last bumpy leg of their journey to refuge within the reaches of the HtH Timber and Cattle Company.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Slimy Institutions Have Similar M.O.s
Penn State to renovate showers, locker room where Sandusky abused boysReaders of this blog and other informed people may notice the parallel between PSU and UW-Madison razing the scene of a crime.
By NBC News and msnbc.com news services
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Penn State plans to renovate the building where Jerry Sandusky sexually molested boys, a university spokesman said Friday.
David La Torre said that Penn State plans to remodel the football shower and locker room area as a direct result of Sandusky's crimes.
PR spin-doctors understand the media and public's chronic amnesia after evidence and reminders of wrong doing are swept under the rug.
At PSU, no one will be able to point out the spot in the shower where Sandusky sodomized young boys over the years. At the Dane County Vilas Zoo, visitors see no reminders of UW-Madison's repeatedly broken written promises to the County promising not to use monkeys from the very large monkey house (the Roundhouse, it was called) because -- after the university broke its promises yet again by shipping the monkeys to a lab -- they bulldozed the building to the ground.
Slimy unethical dickheads tend to act in similarly slimy dickhead ways in similar situations. What a surprise.
Friday, July 13, 2012
The Penn State Lesson
or, What Most People Won't Learn From the Penn State Affair...
Here's the question: If university officials are willing to cover up and even facilitate the serial sexual predation of children, how likely is it that they give an iota of thought to the vivisection occurring on their campus? I'll wager that the answer is obvious.
Why would presumably otherwise decent people cover up years of sexual predation on children? The answer ought to jump out and bite you. The reason is money. Money. That's it. Money... the undeniable corrupter of everything good.
If senior and other staff at Penn State were willing to protect a serial child sex preditor for so long, how likely is it that university ACUC members, university senior staff, and everyone else involved are willing to cover up the hideous cruelty occurring in university labs? I'll wager that it is certain. 100% likely.
What this ought to suggest to most informed observers is that no one associated with the massive inflow of tax dollars flowing into the nation's universities can be trusted. No one. The amount of money is simply overwhelming. Completely overwhelming.
I think a very few people might be able to stand up to such a compelling enticement and do the right thing, but not very many. And people who consistently acquiesce to, sanction, and defend clearly worthless "science" and thereby condone matter-of-fact cruelty, aren't part of that very tiny group of stiff-spined people.
UW-Madison recently hyped the fact that it broke the $1 billion level in research funding. Penn State's football program brought in less that 7% of that amount.
If a university president and a university culture are willing to shelter child sexual predators for such a relatively small amount, how likely is it that they would defend a program bringing in so much more?
The factual conclusions of the investigation of Pennsylvania State University’s cover-up of serial sex crimes by one of its former football coaches are searing enough: the university’s leaders did nothing for nearly a decade and a half — from the late-1990s until just recently — while a predator trawled for children in their midst, using the school’s football program as a lure. Worse than that ... the school’s leaders worked diligently to conceal significant facts about the case from the authorities, the board of trustees, the university community and the broader public.The quote above is from a New York Times story.
But the exhaustive investigation by Louis J. Freeh, a former federal judge and F.B.I. director, goes much further. It shows how slavish devotion to some institutional imperative can trump everything, including the law, basic human decency and the bedrock obligation we all have to protect defenseless children from harm. At Penn State, the imperative was protecting a storied football program and its legendary coach. In another huge institution betraying children under its protection, the Roman Catholic Church, it was the sanctity of the priesthood....
Here's the question: If university officials are willing to cover up and even facilitate the serial sexual predation of children, how likely is it that they give an iota of thought to the vivisection occurring on their campus? I'll wager that the answer is obvious.
Why would presumably otherwise decent people cover up years of sexual predation on children? The answer ought to jump out and bite you. The reason is money. Money. That's it. Money... the undeniable corrupter of everything good.
If senior and other staff at Penn State were willing to protect a serial child sex preditor for so long, how likely is it that university ACUC members, university senior staff, and everyone else involved are willing to cover up the hideous cruelty occurring in university labs? I'll wager that it is certain. 100% likely.
What this ought to suggest to most informed observers is that no one associated with the massive inflow of tax dollars flowing into the nation's universities can be trusted. No one. The amount of money is simply overwhelming. Completely overwhelming.
I think a very few people might be able to stand up to such a compelling enticement and do the right thing, but not very many. And people who consistently acquiesce to, sanction, and defend clearly worthless "science" and thereby condone matter-of-fact cruelty, aren't part of that very tiny group of stiff-spined people.
UW-Madison recently hyped the fact that it broke the $1 billion level in research funding. Penn State's football program brought in less that 7% of that amount.
If a university president and a university culture are willing to shelter child sexual predators for such a relatively small amount, how likely is it that they would defend a program bringing in so much more?
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Cruel Gibberish Masquerades as Science...
or, What Idiot Thinks this Cruel Nonsense Ought to be Supported with Taxpayers' Money while People Go Without Healthcare, and are Forced to Live in their Cars?
It was just over five years ago, Saturday, June 23, 2007, to be exact, that I first referenced the work of Allyson Joy Bennett. I mentioned a presentation/poster at the 2007 annual meeting of the American Society of Primatologists she co-authored. It was titled LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF EARLY REARING ENVIRONMENT ON BEHAVIORAL ACTIVITY IN ADULT MALE RHESUS MONKEYS (MACACA MULATTA).
I mentioned her again on May 11, 2012, in an essay titled Mothers Day Canceled. In that essay I mistakenly accused her of maternally depriving baby rhesus monkeys for her currently funded project at UW-Madison. I followed up with two essays on May 28, Speaking of Research and morality and Speaking of Research? Not so much.
Then, on June 3, I explained the events that contributed to my confusion and shared some of the university's responses to my still unfulfilled request for the approved protocol that insiders say does indeed include maternally depriving infant rhesus monkeys of maternal contact and care. That essay is Bennett, Kalin, Maternal Deprivation, and Me.
The rest of this particular essay is a criticism of Bennett's currently funded project as described in her currently approved protocol which you can view here.
There are two distinct elements of most basic research using animals that should be considered when trying to arrive at an informed conclusion about a particular project: 1. Is the science sound? 2. Are the animals harmed, and if so, is the information being sought significant enough to counterbalance the harm being done to them.
Question number 2 is polarizing; the answer may lay outside any commonly-held moral calculus. In my opinion, the only fair measure of the experimental use of most commonly used species would have to include an equal willingness to perform the same experiment on a human if the results would be more applicable by doing so. In the opinion of most supporters of the status quo, any funded study -- by definition -- is seeking information significant enough to warrant any approved use of animals.
Question number 1 ought to be less polarizing, but in fact often isn't. Nevertheless, certain elements in question 1 can be examined more or less dispassionately and some reasonable observations concerning it can be made.
Bennett explains her justification for this project:
She says that human studies provide strong evidence of the deleterious consequences of early childhood stress and that's very true. Real life events have provided an overwhelmingly larger more meaningful body of evidence of the deleterious consequences of early childhood stress as well as insights into "the consequences of additional, or cascading, adverse events." The best known most widely written about and studied examples are the so-called Ceausescu orphans. I urge readers to Google this topic: Romania orphans.
Scientific studies of the children from the Romanian orphanages abound. The Bucharest Early Intervention Project has resulted at least 23 papers since 2003, including these titles:
Recovering from early deprivation: attachment mediates effects of caregiving on psychopathology.
Early adversity and neural correlates of executive function: Implications for academic adjustment.
Alterations in Neural Processing and Psychopathology in Children Raised in Institutions.
Effect of foster care on language learning at eight years: Findings from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project.
When is research socially valuable? Lessons from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project: commentary on a case study in the ethics of mental health research.
The Bucharest Early Intervention Project: case study in the ethics of mental health research.
Genetic sensitivity to the caregiving context: The influence of 5httlpr and BDNF val66met on indiscriminate social behavior.
Commentary: handling long-term attrition in randomised controlled field trials: lessons from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project and reflections on Fox et al. (2011).
Effect of foster care on young children's language learning.
Telomere length and early severe social deprivation: linking early adversity and cellular aging.
Psychiatric outcomes in young children with a history of institutionalization.
The effects of severe psychosocial deprivation and foster care intervention on cognitive development at 8 years of age: findings from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project.
Modification of depression by COMT val158met polymorphism in children exposed to early severe psychosocial deprivation.
Effects of early psychosocial deprivation on the development of memory and executive function.
A new model of foster care for young children: the Bucharest early intervention project.
Cognitive recovery in socially deprived young children: the Bucharest Early Intervention Project.
Language acquisition with limited input: Romanian institution and foster care.
The discrimination of facial expressions by typically developing infants and toddlers and those experiencing early institutional care.
An event-related potential study of the impact of institutional rearing on face recognition.
Attachment in institutionalized and community children in Romania.
Others have and continue to study the people who spent their early years in these institutions:
5HTT genotype moderates the influence of early institutional deprivation on emotional problems in adolescence: evidence from the English and Romanian Adoptee (ERA) study. Kumsta R, Stevens S, Brookes K, Schlotz W, Castle J, Beckett C, Kreppner J, Rutter M, Sonuga-Barke E. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2010 Jul;51(7):755-62. Epub 2010.
Dopamine transporter gene polymorphism moderates the effects of severe deprivation on ADHD symptoms: developmental continuities in gene-environment interplay. Stevens SE, Kumsta R, Kreppner JM, Brookes KJ, Rutter M, Sonuga-Barke EJ. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2009.
A longitudinal study of the physical growth and health of postinstitutionalized Romanian adoptees. Le Mare L, Audet K. Paediatr Child Health. 2006.
Influence of institutionalization on time to HIV disease progression in a cohort of Romanian children and teens. Ferris M, Burau K, Constantin AM, Mihale S, Murray N, Preda A, Ross M, Kline MW. Pediatrics. 2007.
Abnormal brain connectivity in children after early severe socioemotional deprivation: a diffusion tensor imaging study. Eluvathingal TJ, Chugani HT, Behen ME, Juhász C, Muzik O, Maqbool M, Chugani DC, Makki M. Pediatrics. 2006.
Daniela's legacy. Nurturing Romanian orphans. Farruggia M. J Christ Nurs. 2003.
Local brain functional activity following early deprivation: a study of postinstitutionalized Romanian orphans. Chugani HT, Behen ME, Muzik O, Juhász C, Nagy F, Chugani DC. Neuroimage. 2001.
Romania's forgotten children. SoRelle R. J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care. 1998.
The Romanian pediatric AIDS initiative. Kline MW. J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care. 1998.
Analysis of environmental deprivation: cognitive and social development in Romanian orphans. Kaler SR, Freeman BJ. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1994.
Foster care and adoption policy in Romania: suggestions for international intervention. Johnson AK, Edwards RL, Puwak H. Child Welfare. 1993.
Caring for the Romanian orphans. Vigilante K. R I Med. 1993.
Neuropsychiatric assessment of orphans in one Romanian orphanage for 'unsalvageables'. Rosenberg DR, Pajer K, Rancurello M. JAMA. 1992.
Chronic hepatitis B in adopted Romanian children. Zwiener RJ, Fielman BA, Squires RH Jr. J Pediatr. 1992.
Lighting a candle in the Romanian darkness. Gallagher T. Med War. 1992.
Literally hundreds of children born and raised in severely socially and environmentally deprived conditions have been and are being studied in a variety of environments. The notion that Bennett's study of six monkeys will or even could lead to "strategies to improve human health" that haven't been already discovered or will be more likely to be discovered more readily as a result of longitudinal studies of humans is ludicrous in the face of the flow of information resulting from the longitudinal studies of the Ceausescu orphans.
If such a large number of children born and raised in severely deprived conditions are already being studied, why doesn't Bennett either study those individuals or leave the research to others? How does she justify a need for monkeys as stand-ins for socially deprived humans? She was required to answer this question in her protocol: "Specifically justify the use of animals for this research." This is what she said:
The only thing she is doing to the monkeys that would be unethical to do to humans is keeping them in solitary confinement. She claims that doing this won't cause them more than momentary slight distress, but this too is wrong. In fact, a wealth of data demonstrates unequivocally that individually housing rhesus monkeys has deleterious consequences. In one study of 362 individually housed rhesus monkeys, 321 exhibited at least one abnormal behavior. (Stereotypic and self-injurious behavior in rhesus macaques: a survey and retrospective analysis of environment and early experience. Lutz C, Well A, Novak M. Am J Primatol. 2003.)
Bennett continues trying to support her claim that her six monkeys will be better more productive subjects of study than the hundreds of people being studied over their lifetimes who were raised in the Romanian orphanages:
I particularly like her statement: "[T]he results of our studies contribute important information..." Such hubris.
What's even more pitiful than her wild claims is the fact that people who themselves claim publicly to carefully evaluate the importance of a project before approving the use of animals signed off on this repetitively cruel wasteful nonsense.
I'll give Allyson Joy Bennett the last word:
It was just over five years ago, Saturday, June 23, 2007, to be exact, that I first referenced the work of Allyson Joy Bennett. I mentioned a presentation/poster at the 2007 annual meeting of the American Society of Primatologists she co-authored. It was titled LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF EARLY REARING ENVIRONMENT ON BEHAVIORAL ACTIVITY IN ADULT MALE RHESUS MONKEYS (MACACA MULATTA).
I mentioned her again on May 11, 2012, in an essay titled Mothers Day Canceled. In that essay I mistakenly accused her of maternally depriving baby rhesus monkeys for her currently funded project at UW-Madison. I followed up with two essays on May 28, Speaking of Research and morality and Speaking of Research? Not so much.
Then, on June 3, I explained the events that contributed to my confusion and shared some of the university's responses to my still unfulfilled request for the approved protocol that insiders say does indeed include maternally depriving infant rhesus monkeys of maternal contact and care. That essay is Bennett, Kalin, Maternal Deprivation, and Me.
The rest of this particular essay is a criticism of Bennett's currently funded project as described in her currently approved protocol which you can view here.
There are two distinct elements of most basic research using animals that should be considered when trying to arrive at an informed conclusion about a particular project: 1. Is the science sound? 2. Are the animals harmed, and if so, is the information being sought significant enough to counterbalance the harm being done to them.
Question number 2 is polarizing; the answer may lay outside any commonly-held moral calculus. In my opinion, the only fair measure of the experimental use of most commonly used species would have to include an equal willingness to perform the same experiment on a human if the results would be more applicable by doing so. In the opinion of most supporters of the status quo, any funded study -- by definition -- is seeking information significant enough to warrant any approved use of animals.
Question number 1 ought to be less polarizing, but in fact often isn't. Nevertheless, certain elements in question 1 can be examined more or less dispassionately and some reasonable observations concerning it can be made.
Bennett explains her justification for this project:
The goal of this research is to determine how different experiences in infancy affect aspects of behavior, cognition, brain morphology and health across the lifespan.She goes on to say that:
This work is important for advancing our understanding of factors that contribute to individual differences in both human and laboratory animal health. Human studies provide strong evidence of the deleterious consequences of early childhood stress. What is far less clear—but critically important to research aimed at developing strategies to improve human health—is the specific mechanisms by which these changes occur, how they unfold across the lifespan, and which changes are long-lasting in absence of additional, or cascading, adverse events. Understanding these and other aspects of the consequences of a range of childhood adverse experiences is essential to developing treatment and intervention strategies.This has to be read with the actual question she is answering in mind:
In straight-forward, nonmedical, nontechnical language that would be understandable to a layperson (aim for a high school-senior reading level), outline the specific scientific goal(s) and significance of this research. Be convincing as to why this work is important for advancement of knowledge, improving human or animal health, or for the good of society...Bennett's answer -- her effort to be "convincing" -- isn't.
She says that human studies provide strong evidence of the deleterious consequences of early childhood stress and that's very true. Real life events have provided an overwhelmingly larger more meaningful body of evidence of the deleterious consequences of early childhood stress as well as insights into "the consequences of additional, or cascading, adverse events." The best known most widely written about and studied examples are the so-called Ceausescu orphans. I urge readers to Google this topic: Romania orphans.
Scientific studies of the children from the Romanian orphanages abound. The Bucharest Early Intervention Project has resulted at least 23 papers since 2003, including these titles:
Recovering from early deprivation: attachment mediates effects of caregiving on psychopathology.
Early adversity and neural correlates of executive function: Implications for academic adjustment.
Alterations in Neural Processing and Psychopathology in Children Raised in Institutions.
Effect of foster care on language learning at eight years: Findings from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project.
When is research socially valuable? Lessons from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project: commentary on a case study in the ethics of mental health research.
The Bucharest Early Intervention Project: case study in the ethics of mental health research.
Genetic sensitivity to the caregiving context: The influence of 5httlpr and BDNF val66met on indiscriminate social behavior.
Commentary: handling long-term attrition in randomised controlled field trials: lessons from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project and reflections on Fox et al. (2011).
Effect of foster care on young children's language learning.
Telomere length and early severe social deprivation: linking early adversity and cellular aging.
Psychiatric outcomes in young children with a history of institutionalization.
The effects of severe psychosocial deprivation and foster care intervention on cognitive development at 8 years of age: findings from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project.
Modification of depression by COMT val158met polymorphism in children exposed to early severe psychosocial deprivation.
Effects of early psychosocial deprivation on the development of memory and executive function.
A new model of foster care for young children: the Bucharest early intervention project.
Cognitive recovery in socially deprived young children: the Bucharest Early Intervention Project.
Language acquisition with limited input: Romanian institution and foster care.
The discrimination of facial expressions by typically developing infants and toddlers and those experiencing early institutional care.
An event-related potential study of the impact of institutional rearing on face recognition.
Attachment in institutionalized and community children in Romania.
Others have and continue to study the people who spent their early years in these institutions:
5HTT genotype moderates the influence of early institutional deprivation on emotional problems in adolescence: evidence from the English and Romanian Adoptee (ERA) study. Kumsta R, Stevens S, Brookes K, Schlotz W, Castle J, Beckett C, Kreppner J, Rutter M, Sonuga-Barke E. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2010 Jul;51(7):755-62. Epub 2010.
Dopamine transporter gene polymorphism moderates the effects of severe deprivation on ADHD symptoms: developmental continuities in gene-environment interplay. Stevens SE, Kumsta R, Kreppner JM, Brookes KJ, Rutter M, Sonuga-Barke EJ. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2009.
A longitudinal study of the physical growth and health of postinstitutionalized Romanian adoptees. Le Mare L, Audet K. Paediatr Child Health. 2006.
Influence of institutionalization on time to HIV disease progression in a cohort of Romanian children and teens. Ferris M, Burau K, Constantin AM, Mihale S, Murray N, Preda A, Ross M, Kline MW. Pediatrics. 2007.
Abnormal brain connectivity in children after early severe socioemotional deprivation: a diffusion tensor imaging study. Eluvathingal TJ, Chugani HT, Behen ME, Juhász C, Muzik O, Maqbool M, Chugani DC, Makki M. Pediatrics. 2006.
Daniela's legacy. Nurturing Romanian orphans. Farruggia M. J Christ Nurs. 2003.
Local brain functional activity following early deprivation: a study of postinstitutionalized Romanian orphans. Chugani HT, Behen ME, Muzik O, Juhász C, Nagy F, Chugani DC. Neuroimage. 2001.
Romania's forgotten children. SoRelle R. J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care. 1998.
The Romanian pediatric AIDS initiative. Kline MW. J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care. 1998.
Analysis of environmental deprivation: cognitive and social development in Romanian orphans. Kaler SR, Freeman BJ. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1994.
Foster care and adoption policy in Romania: suggestions for international intervention. Johnson AK, Edwards RL, Puwak H. Child Welfare. 1993.
Caring for the Romanian orphans. Vigilante K. R I Med. 1993.
Neuropsychiatric assessment of orphans in one Romanian orphanage for 'unsalvageables'. Rosenberg DR, Pajer K, Rancurello M. JAMA. 1992.
Chronic hepatitis B in adopted Romanian children. Zwiener RJ, Fielman BA, Squires RH Jr. J Pediatr. 1992.
Lighting a candle in the Romanian darkness. Gallagher T. Med War. 1992.
Literally hundreds of children born and raised in severely socially and environmentally deprived conditions have been and are being studied in a variety of environments. The notion that Bennett's study of six monkeys will or even could lead to "strategies to improve human health" that haven't been already discovered or will be more likely to be discovered more readily as a result of longitudinal studies of humans is ludicrous in the face of the flow of information resulting from the longitudinal studies of the Ceausescu orphans.
If such a large number of children born and raised in severely deprived conditions are already being studied, why doesn't Bennett either study those individuals or leave the research to others? How does she justify a need for monkeys as stand-ins for socially deprived humans? She was required to answer this question in her protocol: "Specifically justify the use of animals for this research." This is what she said:
Animal models are critical to this effort for a number of reasons. Among them are obvious ethical prohibitions that preclude humans from many of the studies needed to identify mechanisms and to evaluate potential treatment and intervention strategies.This is just more gibberish, and to the extent that it makes any sense whatsoever is just silly and wrong. She says later on that she will do three different things in her study: have the monkeys solve puzzles, keep track of how much they move around, and periodically scan their brains. She says that nothing she plans to do to the monkeys will cause more than momentary slight discomfort or stress. So what is it that she is doing that would be obviously unethical to do to humans? Why does she need monkeys?
The only thing she is doing to the monkeys that would be unethical to do to humans is keeping them in solitary confinement. She claims that doing this won't cause them more than momentary slight distress, but this too is wrong. In fact, a wealth of data demonstrates unequivocally that individually housing rhesus monkeys has deleterious consequences. In one study of 362 individually housed rhesus monkeys, 321 exhibited at least one abnormal behavior. (Stereotypic and self-injurious behavior in rhesus macaques: a survey and retrospective analysis of environment and early experience. Lutz C, Well A, Novak M. Am J Primatol. 2003.)
Bennett continues trying to support her claim that her six monkeys will be better more productive subjects of study than the hundreds of people being studied over their lifetimes who were raised in the Romanian orphanages:
The strength and unique opportunity offered by studies of middle-aged monkeys who vary in early infant experiences emerges most clearly when viewed against background consideration of the range of variation in human experiences. Thus, the results of our studies contribute important information about how early life events influence individual differences in a wide range of behavioral, neural and physiological processes that are essential to healthy development across the lifespan.If the actual background considerations that her monkeys are being forced to endure were not so absolutely bleak, her claim would be merely laughable, but the reality is that the twelve monkeys she is using -- six who were raised with a mother, six without -- are being forced to live alone in an environment that cannot result in their "healthy development across the lifespan."
There are no non-animal alternatives that could be used to address the questions under study here.
I particularly like her statement: "[T]he results of our studies contribute important information..." Such hubris.
What's even more pitiful than her wild claims is the fact that people who themselves claim publicly to carefully evaluate the importance of a project before approving the use of animals signed off on this repetitively cruel wasteful nonsense.
I'll give Allyson Joy Bennett the last word:
These animals will be individually-housed. The animals are 15 years old and over the course of that time have been housed in different settings. In infancy the animals were housed either in social groups with their mothers, other infants and adults or in small age-mate peer groups. Through the juvenile and early adolescent period the animals were socially-housed in small groups or pairs. As is typical and expected for male macaques, aggression and injuries increased during adolescence (4-6 years of age) and some animals were not able to be safely maintained in compatible groups or pairs. Animals who were involved in aggressive encounters that resulted in significant serious injuries requiring veterinary intervention were individually housed within visual and olfactory distance of other monkeys and with an extensive environmental enrichment program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)