Buy My Books...

... put food on my table... send them as gifts!

"Tell Me Your Story" (Paperback)
"A slight change of circumstance led to the Nazis winning the war and eventually ruling the world. One result was the firm institutionalization of experimentation on 'subhumans'. Now, people who oppose this government-sponsored science are labeled enemies of the State."


Monsters and Pygmies (Paperback)
"Children imagine that monsters lurk under the bed or in the closet. We keep the nightlight burning because we know instinctually that monsters are afraid of the light. But real monsters are all around us, snatching up the weak and powerless, children and animals, torturing them, killing them. But we were right: monsters are afraid of the light. In the case of real monsters, it is the light of public scrutiny that they fear. They can be defeated; public education is a stake that can be driven into their cruel hearts. Learning the details of what goes on in the animal labs, on the farms, in the slaughterhouses, and telling others about it, shines a light on the dirty deeds being performed out of sight. The people doing these things don't want to discuss the details in public. But we can shine a light so bright that everyone will have to look. Monsters and Pygmies might be the spark that will light your torch."


Vegan Nation (Paperback)
"President Abraham Lincoln believed that slavery would not end for at least a century. Abolitionist John Brown's campaign of terrorism against the South shortened this to seven years. Brown began his campaign in 1856, was caught and hanged in 1859, and the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863. John Brown has been called 'The man who killed slavery, sparked the Civil War, and seeded civil rights.' Today, when people lawfully protest against cruelty they are characterized as terrorists by the industry and its supporters. What might happen if one of them really really did embrace terrorism?"

My first little book.

I write.

If I'm not writing here, I'm writing somewhere else. I've been writing pretty much nonstop for over a decade: fiction, nonfiction, opinion, brochures, fliers, fund-raising letters, web copy, all related to the animal question. I've compiled and analyzed lots of data and have seen it published here and there, though usually without my name attached to it.

Some time ago, a number of years ago actually, I came to the conclusion that so far as the animal question is concerned, persuasive argument is unlikely to be succsessful, by itself.

Six or eight years ago I wrote a little novela. I've shared it with others only sparingly; it is a terrible and violent little story.

Now that the University of Wisconsin has succeeded in blocking the establishment of a nonviolent, idea-driven antivivisection educational exhibit next door the Harlow Lab and the Primate Center, it seems like a good time to brainstorm other ways to call the public's attention to the details of our very cruel treatment of animals.

In any brainstormed list, there will be some ideas that are better than others, and some that aren't as good as others. In brainstorming, remember, essentially anything goes. So, what about violence? Not the ersatz violence that is so frequently reported -- a hose through the window, broken windows, late night calls -- but real violence, murder, let's say.

When, if ever, is murder justified?

Would you kill Hitler if you could go back in time?

How about the Boston Strangler?

How about this scenario: You come home and some really big man is raping your spouse or your child. A revolver is on the table. You pick it up and order the man to stop. He tells you to fuck off. You shoot him in the leg. He laughs and starts thrusting harder.

How about this: If we made HIV testing mandatory and we killed everyone who was HIV positive, we could eliminate HIV in short order. Think of the lives we could save.

It seems like murder might be an appropriate tool in some situations but not in others.

Trauma surgeon Jerry Vlasik has suggested, and I think he's right, that if just a few vivisectors were murdered that millions of animals might be spared much suffering. Many vivisectors would simply quit. I don't see how this isn't likely to be true; the hypothesis hasn't been tested though. It might be the same with furriers, ranchers, and others.

Extending this line of thought, if one were to start killing vivisectors in order to terrorize other vivisectors into stopping their diabolical investigations, should the murders be secret? sanitary? neat? Maybe not. It makes a certain sort of dark sense that one very sensational murder could have a greater impact than many hidden murders. There is an equation of sorts suggested by this. If it's true that a series of murders might slow the attack on animals in the labs, wouldn't lives be saved if the smallest number of murders possible were employed? What might be done to make one murder more noteworthy or a more efficient tool than another?

Murder. It's a strong word.

I'm self-publishing my little book. It explores this scenario in entertaining light fiction.

The perfect gift idea!

Richard Davidson

Mr. Compassion-For-All-Beings

On the cover of this week’s Isthmus, Madison’s weekly hip progressive what’s-happening newspaper is a large smiling visage of Richard Davidson. (I’ll edit this post and add a picture of the issue when they get it on line.)

The article is essentially the same one that Madison Magazine featured on their cover a while back. I can sum up both articles in a few words: Davidson (“call me Richie”) is “proving” by the use of brain scans that Tibetan Buddhist meditation, what he terms “compassion meditation,” changes one’s brain and one becomes a better person through this practice. And, as always, the Dalai Lama, Davidson’s personal friend, is mentioned throughout the article to add bona fides to Davidson’s claims.

Even people who know the unwritten about parts of Davidson’s career say the articles make them think he is a saint.

I will say it again: Davidson is a fraud, a cruel fraud.

You cannot make claims about compassion for all beings – as he does in his public performances – and torture animals - as he does behind closed doors - without being either insane or a fraud. If he's nuts, then I wish him well and hope he gets the help he needs. But he does not seem crazy to me. Evil, cruel, self-serving, arrogant, and a publicity whore, but not crazy. Am i too harsh? Maybe he is just uninformed?

Over a decade ago, he and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin, Ned Kalin and Steve Shelton, discovered an identifiable trait in a small minority of rhesus monkeys. They have described this trait in various ways, but it comes down to fearful. You may have known young children who are easily frightened, filled with anxiety, shy, and inhibited; the monkeys they learned how to identify through brain scans are just like those kids.

Once they had these monkeys in their control, they frightened them. (What else should one do with fearful young monkeys?) Then, they damaged their brains, frightened them again, and then killed them. And they have done this many times, and are still doing it.

And yet, adoring fans flock to his lectures and bask in his love for all.

Next thing you know, media won’t question a President’s justifications for bombing another country or going to war; business experts will say that the economy is healthy even as it begins to collapse. The United States doesn't torture people. Gullible drones. That’s us.

Oregon Primate Center's PR

See: PETA complaints spur USDA warning to Oregon National Primate Research Center in Hillsboro
by Andy Dworkin, The Oregonian Thursday March 12, 2009, 2:40 PM

And http://www.ohsu.edu/ohsuedu/research/facts/olaw-communications.cfm This is one of the pages from there:

Video Clips

Here’s a video Clip which PETA received as part of their records request:

mms://media.ohsu.edu/res/onprc/onprc09.wmv

What is it?
The video shows a pair of young monkeys who live together in a paired cage. In the first part of the clip, one of the monkeys appears nervous. It is hunched over and rocking. Later in the video, both animals appear normal.

What does it show?
The video was shot by ONPRC's employees before PETA placed an infiltrator in the center. The video was shot by our behavioral sciences staff because one of the animals, named Cinder, was stress sensitive meaning that she appeared overly sensitive to changes in her surroundings. In this video she is reacting to the presence of the camera and caretakers in the room. Later, the video shows how she has adjusted over time. The video was filmed to better understand the problem and develop a plan to assist the animal. Today, Cinder is much less stress sensitive.

This existence of this video shows how OHSU’s primate center has dedicated staff who actively identify and assist animals in rare cases where they observe abnormal behavior. They do so by first observing the behavior, and then developing a plan to help the animal.

A little quiz: Watch carefully beginning at about 2:18. Why is the video edited at about 2:24?

More NIPC

"We accept our responsibility to properly care for the animals housed at NIRC and to carry out biomedical research in strict compliance with professional guidelines
as well as federal rules and regulations." --- UL President Joe Savoie

NIRC

"We all operate in the same way."
-- Joseph Kemnitz, director, Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Richard Davidson's Choices Are Evidence That Thinking Good Thoughts Won’t Make You a Good Person

Think of a wonderful thought
Any merry little thought
Think of Christmas, think of snow
Think of sleigh bells-off you go!
Like reindeer in the sky
You can fly! You can fly! You can fly!

Below is text from a flier handed out at public presentation by Richard Davidson on Tuesday, January 27, 2008 at the First Unitarian Society of Madison:

Can we train ourselves to be compassionate? A new study suggests the answer is yes. Cultivating compassion and kindness through meditation affects brain regions that can make a person more empathetic to other peoples’ mental states, say researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

That is the opening paragraph in a 2008, University of Wisconsin press release calling attention to an aspect of Richie Davidson’s research.

A favorite quote of Davidson’s, one he might use in his talk this evening, is attributed to Albert Einstein: “Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

It seems reasonable to consider Dr. Davidson’s personal choices over time as a measure of the truth of his working assumption – as described in the UW press release: “[T]hrough training, people can develop skills that promote happiness and compassion.”

In the 1990s, working with colleagues Ned Kalin and Steve Shelton at UW Madison, Davidson discovered that some rhesus monkeys have what they termed “trait-like fear-related behaviors,” or “trait-like anxious temperament,” and that these monkeys could be identified using brain scans.

They say that threat-induced freezing in young rhesus monkeys is analogous to behavioral inhibition in human children. Children with a behaviorally inhibited temperament tend to be exceptionally fearful and withdrawn in situations that are novel or unfamiliar; and so do the monkeys identified by Davidson and his colleagues.

Once they were able to identify exceptionally fearful young monkeys, they began frightening them in various ways before and after destroying parts of their brains.

If sitting quietly and cultivating a feeling of compassion for all beings genuinely leads us to being more compassionate, then Davidson’s research methods should have become less invasive and less harmful and more compassionate over time. But they haven’t.

In fact, it could be argued that there has been no discernable change, or even that his experimental methods have become more brutal.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Davidson, Kalin, and Shelton were drilling holes through the monkeys’ skulls and injecting acid into the emotion centers of their brains. They frightened these especially fearful young monkeys before and after this highly invasive and painful procedure.

As recently as 2007, they reported on a new method of damaging these monkeys’ brains. They wrote:

An experienced surgeon made an opening in the frontal bone posterior to the brow ridge to expose the frontal cortex. Both hemispheres were lesioned in a single procedure by lifting the brain to expose its ventral surface. Using microscopic guidance, electro-cautery and suction were applied to the targeted brain area.” From: Role of the primate orbitofrontal cortex in mediating anxious temperament. (Kalin N. H., Shelton S. E., Davidson R. J. Biological Psychiatry. 2007.)

Why does any of this matter?

It comes down to this: Through the use of scientific methods, careful observation, controlled experimentation, repeated demonstrations, and various manipulations, we have discovered that animals other than ourselves – the other primates – have complex minds with sophisticated mental capabilities like analogical reasoning (Fagot J, Wasserman EA, Young ME. 2001), numerical computation (Sulkowski GM, Hauser MD. 2001), a sense of fairness (de Waal, 2005), tool use (Ducoing AM, Thierry B. 2005), and that they possess unique and describable cultures (Sapolsky RM, Share LJ. 2004).

In other words, we have discovered another group of intelligent and emotional beings within our midst. This discovery should give us pause.

Davidson’s colleague Ned Kalin says:

Animals do a lot of things instinctively…. But people – and probably monkeys – have the ability to think 20 steps into the future: ‘In the end I'm going to feel great, because I worked hard to get there,’ or ‘I’m going to get a lot of credit for this.’ It’s the prefrontal cortex that brings those emotions into play and guides us in our behavior. If we didn’t have a sense of what would be wonderful or awful in the future, we would behave very haphazardly. (From: Wired For Sadness. Discover. April, 2000.)

We cannot rely on the scientists using these animals to make the right moral choices; they see the profound similarities between us as a reason to exploit these animals further, as a justification for hurting and killing them.

If just thinking that you are compassionate could make it so, then Davidson, after years of meditation and telling himself that he feels compassion for all beings, would no longer be frightening and hurting the most vulnerable young animals he can find. This seems transparently clear. It also refutes his working assumption.

The only way to become more compassionate and caring is to try and see the world through others’ eyes and to behave toward them in the way you would want them to behave toward you.

Just thinking good thoughts and hoping for the best is self-indulgent and delusional. Davidson’s behavior is an example of the failure of this philosophy. The history of his research methods is good evidence that it doesn’t work.

-----

“You don't have to bother with the notes.”

Professor Harold Hill, in the 1957 Broadway musical, The Music Man, explaining “The Think Method” of learning to play a musical instrument.

-----

What are the alternatives to using monkeys in these ways? First, if hurting and killing them is wrong, then we should simply stop. Second, very many researchers and medical doctors devote themselves to studying and trying to help inhibited children directly. They don’t rely on or even cite the monkey studies.

A bleak life in WNPRC

Watch CBS Videos Online

Laws should protect animals

From the The Daily Bruin

Assembly Bill 2296’s punishment of speech may lead activists to more violence to make their voices heard

Dan Kapelovitz, Jill Ryther and Jaimie Bryant
Published: Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Members of the campus community recently received an e-mail from UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block extolling the virtues of Assembly Bill 2296, a new law that restricts the speech of animal-rights activists (whom he calls “anti-animal research extremists”) in order to protect animal researchers. As this law moved toward passage, much was said about the fear animal researchers feel when confronted by protestors. By contrast, few have commented on the pain and terror experienced by animals used in experiments or have explained why there is protest against animal research at UCLA and other institutions in the first place.

Every day at places like UCLA, animals are subjected to excruciating, unrelieved pain as involuntary subjects in research experiments that have not been described or justified to the public. Researchers and the heads of experiments hide behind unsupported general claims that such research is necessary and productive for human health, but they offer no information by which the public can assess their claims as to specific experiments.

Therefore, the public has no information about the research that is being done or whether, in fact, any of it has led to or has the potential to lead to worthwhile advancements. Researchers and the heads of institutions like UCLA reject calls for transparency about the animal research that is conducted.

Because of the way research applications are reviewed and funded, it is highly likely that research dollars are wasted on useless animal testing and experiments. Funding might well have been more productively invested in research methods that bear actual fruit in advancing human health.

Animal researchers like to further argue that they are in complete compliance with state anticruelty statutes and federal laws that regulate scientific research on animals. However, as legally interpreted, neither state nor federal laws provide any protection to animals tortured at institutions like UCLA.

State anticruelty statutes define “cruel” as only the infliction of “unnecessary” suffering on animals. Scientific research is arbitrarily defined as “necessary,” which means that the infliction of even the most horrific suffering on animals falls outside the legal boundaries of the “anticruelty” statutes.

Federal law is no different. The Animal Welfare Act purports to regulate scientific research, yet the AWA covers only a very small minority of the animals used in research and explicitly states that none of its provisions can be used to impede or affect research design or implementation. The AWA does not prevent the infliction of horrific suffering on animals; it only creates paperwork for research scientists who need to provide minimal justifications for their unwillingness to provide pain relief or consider alternatives to animal-based research or testing.

Chancellor Block, a former animal researcher himself, praises AB 2296 for providing new protections for animal researchers, but animal researchers already have complete legal protection from violent conduct. That is why we believe that a primary purpose of the new law is to intimidate peaceful protestors; the first versions of the law were even more expansive in curtailing their speech. Even though AB 2296 was reduced in scope before it was enacted, it still punishes speech.

Given the history of law enforcement reactions to animal advocacy protests, we believe that such a law is likely to be abused by law enforcement officials who use their authority to intimidate peaceful animal activists into silence. It is animals-–and the people who care about them – who are not sufficiently protected by existing laws.

Unfortunately, laws like this – whose focus is the speech of protestors – may actually increase violent acts against researchers rather than diminish them. When lawful speech is stifled by expansive use of such laws to intimidate protestors, activists concerned about imminent and ongoing violence against animals may feel the need to resort to methods other than speech to have their voices heard. That tragedy could be avoided with more transparency and more public debate about whether the extreme pain inflicted on animals is justified.

Dan Kapelovitz is President of the Animal Law Society at the UCLA School of Law. Ryther is the Communications Director of the Animal Law Society at the UCLA School of Law. Bryant is Professor of Law, Faculty Adviser to the Animal Law Society at the UCLA School of Law.

More on Terasawa

Ei Terasawa (and here) is a vivisector at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. She is a senior scientist at the NIH-funded Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. I have commented on her work and have scanned and posted on line many official documents associated with her research and her violations of the Animal Welfare Act. (Just stick her name into the search window above.)

Here, I will comment on two features of her work that I have not mentioned specifically elsewhere. The first is her stated justification for using animals and her stated justification for using rhesus macaques. The second is the large volume of blood taken from some of the monkeys she is experimenting on and veterinarians’ role in her work.

Terasawa’s justifications

For at least the last dozen years—the period of time for which we have many primary documents—she has consistently used nearly identical written justifications. This is question 11 and her responses from a 2008 approved protocol: (I've commented on her individual points and claims below. Here they are more or less whole and intact.)

11a. In straight-forward, 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. Spell out all acronyms at first occurrence.

Puberty and adolescence occur during the transitional period between childhood and adulthood. Adolescence (behavioral maturation) usually follows puberty. Many disorders, including precocious and delayed puberty, and problems associated with these disorders, as well as polycystic ovarian syndrome, one of the most common infertility problems, originate at this developmental stage. Moreover, the onset of puberty at the normal age is very important, as any deviation from peer age can result in psychological problems in later life and the pubertal increase in steroid hormones modifies brain circuitry formation necessary for adolescent behaviors. Several neurological and psychiatric diseases, such as schizophrenia and autism start or worsen in association with puberty. For these reasons, investigation of the control mechanism of puberty, using the non-human primate as a model, is essential and would contribute to the understanding and management of problems associated with human adolescence. Because there are no direct methods for examining neurochemical changes in the human brain, the animal model is indispensable in achieving these goals.

At the onset of puberty, the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) neuronal system in the brain (hypothalamus) begins to be active after a long dormant state. Previously, we have found that an increase in LHRH release is the key factor for determining the timing of puberty and the pubertal increase in LHRH release from the hypothalamus is the result of the reduction in a tonic 7-ammobutyric acid (GABA) inhibition and subsequent increase in glutamate release. However, the mechanism triggering puberty is still unclear. Therefore, the overall objective of this proposal is to determine the role of the hypothalamus in controlling puberty in the female rhesus monkey.

Recently, because an absence of or delay in puberty in patients withmutations in the gene encoding GPR54 has been reported, GPR54 and itsligand, kisspeptin-54, have been proposed to play a critical role in the mechanism of the onset of puberty. It has also been shown that LHRH neurons express GPR54 and kisspeptins stimulate luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicular stimulating hormone (FSH) release. Hypothalamic expression of KiSS-1 mRNA, increases with puberty. KiSS-1 is the gene for several kisppeptins, including kisspeptin-54. Moreover, mice lacking the GPR54 gene failed to undergo puberty and had immature gonads. These reports are consistent with the hypothesis that the GPR54 and KiSS-1 genes are responsible for the onset of puberty. However, to support this hypothesis several critical questions remain to be answered:
[three lines of text deleted] Thus, to answer these questions in this study we will investigate the role of kisspeptin in the mechanism of primate puberty.

11b. Specifically justify the use of animals for this research. Explain why it is imperative to use animals and why non-animal alternatives such as computer simulation or in vitro systems are not possible.

Because we are aware of the value of an individual animals life, we have considered alternatives to the use of animals. For this study, however, the use of non-human primates is essential, as the onset of puberty and the function of the hypothalamus are complex processes which cannot be simulated with computers or tissue cultures. In addition, in order to apply knowledge obtained from research to humans, we need to learn about these processes in non-human primates. This project is in the forefront of its research field and there are no duplications, as seen by continued support by NIH. Unlike the circuitry involved in long-term depression in the hippocampus, computer simulation is not yet available due to the complexity of the circuitry for hypothalamic neuroendocrine function in animals.

11c. Specifically justify why you chose the species cited in 9a for your work, such as the appropriateness of the species for your proposed work. Cost considerations are not justifications.

The overall objective of this research is to understand the function of the hypothalamus in the rhesus monkey, as a model for humans. Since the genes in the rhesus monkey are more than 95% homologous with those in the human, and many aspects of hypothalamic functions in the rhesus monkey are similar to those in the human, the studies done in the monkey are essential for the improvement of human health. Function of the rodent brain, which is often used for a model, differs from function of the primate brain. Lower organisms do not have comparable functions, in vivo studies collecting samples from the brain are not possible in humans. Thus, research in non-human primates is very important. Finally, the PI has a large amount of background data on puberty in female rhesus monkeys.

Terasawa has been receiving public funds to study puberty in rhesus monkeys since at least 1977 and has received millions of tax dollars.

She current has two grants listed on CRISP: "Hypothalamic Control of Puberty" (5R01HD011355-25 (that -25 at the end means that the study is in its twenty-fifth year of NIH support. "Hypothalamic Control of Puberty" is funded through 2012 (as of October 2008.) In 2008, it received $382,456. The other grant is "Hypothalamic Control of Gonadotropin Secretion" 5R01HD015433-24. That grant was awarded $358,401 in 2008.

A number of UW officials (various chairs and members of UW Animal Care and Use Committees) have signed Terasawa’s many protocols over the years, very many of which include the questions and answers above.

The US Department of Agriculture’s discovery of Terasawa’s Animal Welfare Act violations exposed the failure of the university’s legally mandated animal research oversight committees (comprised almost entirely of UW vivisectors) to fulfill the university’s legally mandated responsibilities regarding animal care and use and its oversight. In response, the committee made an example of Terasawa by suspending her animal use for two years and requiring many rewrites and revisions of her protocol.

It seems fair to assume, given that the protocol was much discussed by the committee and that she was required to submit a number of revisions, that the protocol was read carefully by at least some of the committee members, even if they had not been vigilant previously. Its eventual endorsement implies a clear understanding and approval of her claims, hypotheses, and methods by the committee members and other university officials.

She argues and concludes in 11a:

1. Puberty and adolescence occur during the transitional period between childhood and adulthood. [This is true for many mammals.]

2. Adolescence (behavioral maturation) usually follows puberty. [This too is true for many mammals.]

3. Many disorders, including precocious and delayed puberty, and problems associated with these disorders, as well as polycystic ovarian syndrome, one of the most common infertility problems, originate at this developmental stage. [These named and vague unnamed disorders and problems may or may not all originate during puberty. Polycystic ovarian syndrome is a human-specific disorder. Precocious and delayed puberty have a multitude of various causes including genetics and/or environmental variables that in turn have variable effects on various species.]

4. Moreover, the onset of puberty at the normal age is very important, as any deviation from peer age can result in psychological problems in later life and the pubertal increase in steroid hormones modifies brain circuitry formation necessary for adolescent behaviors. [This run-on sentence is unnecessarily confused but has survived close scrutiny for years. Her first point, that “any deviation from peer age [onset of puberty] can result in psychological problems in later life,” is hyperbole. Her second point seems a little confused and seems to imply that “adolescent behaviors” are necessary.]

5. Several neurological and psychiatric diseases, such as schizophrenia and autism start or worsen in association with puberty. [This is probably true.]

For these reasons, investigation of the control mechanism of puberty, using the nonhuman primate as a model, is essential and would contribute to the understanding and management of problems associated with human adolescence. [Where above did she say anything about nonhuman primates? Whether or not a better understanding of the “control mechanism of puberty” would lead to any better management of problems associated with human adolescence remains to be seen.]

Because there are no direct methods for examining neurochemical changes in the human brain, the animal model is indispensable in achieving these goals. [Her claim here seems to be more hyperbole. Studies examining neurochemical changes in the human brain are underway and published.]

11b.

1. Because we are aware of the value of an individual animal’s life, we have considered alternatives to the use of animals. [As suggested below, these considerations have included only computer models and tissue cultures. In fact, scanning technologies have been used to study neurochemical changes in the brains of children. See for instance: Benazon NR, Moore GJ, Rosenberg DR. Neurochemical analyses in pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder in patients treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003.]

2. For this study, however, the use of non-human primates is essential, as the onset of puberty and the function of the hypothalamus are complex processes which cannot be simulated with computers or tissue cultures. [This bald claim has no bearing in fact. She has yet to prove that her research is essential, and she has said nothing the alternative method of studying humans directly with scanning technology.]

3. In addition, in order to apply knowledge obtained from research to humans, we need to learn about these processes in non-human primates. [This is a wild and controversial statement. She implies clearly that results from current research on the hypothalamus in many strains of mice, rats, sheep, mole-rats, zebra fish, cats, and dogs can’t be applied to humans, and while I agree with her, her claim that the results from non-human primates alone can is unproven. She implies without substantiation that the biochemistry of a marmoset’s, a gorilla’s, a rhesus macaque’s and a human’s hypothalamus are fundamentally the same while those of the afore named species are fundamentally different.]

4. This project is in the forefront of its research field and there are no duplications, as seen by continued support by NIH. [But NIH funds many duplicitous studies. Simply being one of thousands of NIH-funded studies implies nothing about possible duplication. Futher, one might imagine that if her research is important, or at least deemed important by others studying the biology of puberty, that others would be pursuing similar lines of study. Thus, duplicate discoveries could be made outside her laboratory, but she insists this isn’t the case.]

5. Unlike the circuitry involved in long-term depression in the hippocampus, computer simulation is not yet available due to the complexity of the circuitry for hypothalamic neuroendocrine function in animals. [Again, she seems blind to any other methodology, which suggests a low likelihood of innovation, insight, and meaningful discovery from her laboratory.]

11c.

1. The overall objective of this research is to understand the function of the hypothalamus in the rhesus monkey, as a model for humans. [Is her goal the development of a model, understanding the rhesus hypothalamus, or understanding the human hypothalamus?]

2. Since the genes in the rhesus monkey are more than 95% homologous with those in the human, and many aspects of hypothalamic functions in the rhesus monkey are similar to those in the human, the studies done in the monkey are essential for the improvement of human health. [But this assumes that Terasawa fully understands the genetics of hypothalamic function in rhesus monkeys, humans, and rats, but she doesn’t; no one does. Moreover, other researchers make the straightforward claim that knowledge gleaned from rats is applicable to humans. See for instance Pine MD, Hiney JK, Lee B, Dees WL. The pyrethroid pesticide esfenvalerate suppresses the afternoon rise of luteinizing hormone and delays puberty in female rats. Environ Health Perspect. 2008. And, Hiney JK, Srivastava VK, Pine MD, Dees WL. Insulin-like growth factor-1 activates KiSS-1 gene expression in the brain of the prepubertal female rat. Endocrinology. 2008. You have to wonder why the authors of this paper don’t cite Terasawa’s work in this area if she is, as she claims, at the leading edge. Her claim that her “studies done in the monkey are essential for the improvement of human health” is farfetched and unproven.

3. Function of the rodent brain, which is often used for a model, differs from function of the primate brain. [But, again, this implies that she understands how the differences influence the function of the hypothalamus, and clearly, given that understanding the function of the rhesus hypothalamus is her overall unrealized goal, she doesn’t yet have the knowledge needed to make such a difinitive statement, and moreover, researchers study rats' hypothalami say otherwise..

4. Lower organisms do not have comparable functions. [She must not understand modern ideas concerning evolution. There aren’t such things as “lower” or “higher” organisms. This is the old, quasi-divine and wholly discredited Great Chain of Being. Every organism alive today has an equally long evolutionary history. We are all descendents of an ancestral lineage. Striation into “higher” and “lower” forms is in the eye of the beholder and means nothing in a biological sense. This implies something about her grasp of biology generally. Moreover, many scientists, like those cited above, claim that other mammals’ brains and particularly their hypothalami, do share similar functions.]

5. In vivo studies collecting samples from the brain are not possible in humans. [But she hasn’t really explained why other methods would not be productive.]

Thus, research in non-human primates is very important. [Thus, nothing. Her arguments are illogical and peripheral. They are undermined by her wild claims and assumptions and confounded by contradictory facts. And yet, these are the whole of her justification for her decades of highly invasive experiments on monkeys. These are the arguments that convinced the oversight committees to repeatedly endorse her decades of cruel experiments

Finally, the PI has a large amount of background data on puberty in female rhesus monkeys. [That, at least, is undeniable.]

The large volume of blood

According to the AABB (previously known as the American Association of Blood Banks), a human can donate a pint of blood, about 10% of the total volume, once every 56 days. Terasawa says she is drawing an estimated 20% of the total volume per 30-day period from some of the monkeys.

She says, “Animals being bled at maximum level may require fluid replacement therapy and clinical care. A [redacted] veterinarian will be contacted for any single blood draw greater than 10% of blood volume and for animals being drawn chronically at maximal levels to asses clinically and provide supportive care and clinical monitoring. This may include fluid replacement and periodic CBCs.”

I suspect that these monkeys are chronically severely fatigued.

But the cruelty aside, I find particularly monstrous and grotesque the role of the veterinary staff in all of this. There is something uniquely distasteful and disturbing about doctors keeping vivisectors’ victims alive so that they can be experimented on further. To me, there is nothing more hideous or immoral than such behavior; it gives me nightmares.