Laboratory Animal Veterinarians

So-called lab animal vets must rank at lowest level of any ethical scale of human behavior. Like MDs who worked to keep people alive so that they could be experimented on in a Nazi death camp, or kept them alive during the experiments, it's very hard to even invent a more disturbing ethical scenario.

The lead news story in the August 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Association (JAVMA) is titled "Primate veterinarians promote animal welfare, biomedical research: One-health approach bridges gap between science and human medicine."

It's crap-filled propaganda. It's hard to say who the intended audience is, but whoever they might be, the author must think they are dullards and easy marks. No one with even a smattering of critical thinking ability could actually believe what is being passed off as factual, actual, or rational. If AVMA believes that this is the sort of crap that will coax young vets just beginning their careers into the dark secret world of vivisection, then it explains the quality of the vets we see there already.

Sick, sick, sick.

AVMA journals > JAVMA News > Animal welfare

August 15, 2009
avmainfo@avma.org

Primate veterinarians promote animal welfare, biomedical research
One-health approach bridges gap between science and human medicine

When reports surfaced earlier this year that some primates at the New Iberia Research Center in Louisiana had been mistreated, some people may have seen it as confirmation of their worst suspicions about laboratory animal research.

The Humane Society of the United States, which secretly videotaped alleged abuses, accused New Iberia staff of hundreds of Animal Welfare Act violations. A U.S. Department of Agriculture investigation of the facility ultimately resulted in just six citations for failing to comply with AWA standards. Meanwhile, the HSUS called on Congress to pass legislation ending invasive research on chimpanzees and retiring the approximately 500 federally owned chimpanzees to sanctuaries.

"just six citations"

Why didn't JAVMA include a link to the the USDA report? The HSUS complaint included hundreds of aledged violations; the fact that USDA cited New Iberia for six violations, serious violations, suggests three possibilities: HSUS was making up violations; New Iberia cleaned up their act before USDA showed up; USDA cited NIRC for the minimum number of violations possible, in effect, colluding with the lab. Given the fact that USDA hadn't noted any of the problems previously and did so only after videos documenting the abuse were made public tends to make me lean more strongly toward the last two possibilities.

The controversy over New Iberia illustrates a key challenge for those working in laboratory animal medicine, namely, a perception that scientists systematically abuse their nonhuman subjects. The primate research community was deeply troubled by how they were portrayed by the media, and they sought to counter the negative image by explaining that the New Iberia incident is a rare exception in a field that is quite simply working to discover new drugs, vaccines, and medical technologies to save lives, both human and animal.

JAVMA doesn't see the hypocracy in this statement. "The primate research community was deeply troubled by how they were portrayed by the media," but said essentially nothing about the violations of the AWA. The only rare event was the undercover documentation that forced USDA to act.

The public rarely considers the need for animals in biomedical research, says Dr. Christian R. Abee, director of the Michael E. Keeling Center in Bastrop, Texas, but when they do, they quickly understand why animals are a valuable resource. "We're really talking about the life and death of people," Dr. Abee said. "The new treatments being worked on can save millions of lives. Just as the discovery of penicillin saved untold numbers of lives, we're trying to discover the antibiotics for the future."

"the life and death of people" This is just fear mongering.

What the public may also not realize is, when a medical advance is first tested in animals, veterinarians are there, ensuring that the animals are humanely treated and that the therapy is shown to be safe enough to begin clinical trials in humans.

This is nonsense. FDA decides whether a drug or therapy can proceed to human trials.

Veterinarians have sworn an oath to protect animal health and relieve suffering in their patients. Yet they are equally committed to promoting public health and advancing medical knowledge about animals as well as humans. The tension between these dual obligations is nowhere more profound than in the field of laboratory animal medicine.

Obviously, it's a meaningless oath. Here it is:

Veterinarian's Oath

(Adopted by the AVMA In November, 1999, reaffirmed April, 2004)

Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.

I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics.

I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.

"the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering"

But veterinarians are in the forefront of making animals sick, huting them, and killing them. The attending vet at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center in Madison, Saverio V. Capuano, for instance, has published a number of papers detailing the experimental infections of monkeys with SIV and tuberculosis. He, like thousands of vets involved in basic research, makes healthy animals sick, writes about their illness, and then kills them. And yet, AVMA believes that they are living up to their oath to protect animals and releive their suffering. Sick, sick, sick.

"We as veterinarians care about the animals," Dr. Abee explained, "so we want to make certain they're used properly and that we do everything we can to minimize any discomfort these animals have. But we also recognize that it's only through this research that we're going to make progress in treating diseases killing many millions of people every year."

Unadulterated crap. No one who makes animals deathly ill, especially not someone who does so for financial gain, can be genuinely said to care about animals, at least not in the way that most people mean. Abee cares about animals because their agony pays his mortgage. And what arrogance: "it's only through this research that we're going to make progress in treating diseases killing many millions of people every year." I suppose we ought to tell all the real doctors and real scientists studing human heath and biology in humans and human tissues and cells to close up shop, Abee is going to save the world.

Among the many animal species used in research, few are as highly valued physiologically as nonhuman primates. Because of their genetic, immunologic, reproductive, and neurologic similarities to humans, these animals are used as translational models involving a range of human illnesses, including cancer, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and cardiovascular illnesses.

This is gibberish. Translational has become the buzz word of the day. These kooks believe the old chain of being model or scala naturae that posited a chain of being made up of links with God at the top most and descending step by step all the way down to the lowliest of creation. So, according to this prescientific world view, a monkey is just a step down from a man, a dog a step down from a monkey, then a cat, a rat, a mouse, etc. So, if a discovery is made in a mouse, then we can translate this discovery up the chain, modifying it intelligently as we go and, voila!, we come to a miracle drug for humans. Unfortunately, there is no such chain. Humans did not descend from monkeys. We have a common ancestor. The human line diverged from the monkey line many millions of years ago. We didn't descend from chimpanzees. We have a common ancestor. The idea that nonhuman primates are a good translational model is just stupid. Which of the 230 some-odd species are the good translational species? The virus that kills macaques, SIV, was taken from mangebys, which aren't bothered by it. Even something like Ketamine, the drug of choice in the primate labs to chemically restrain the animals requires differing doses for different primate species. Monkeys aren't even good translational models for other monkey species.

Advocates of primate research say medical breakthroughs such as the polio and hepatitis B vaccines would not have been possible or realized as soon as they were if these animals were not part of the investigations. "Primates are as close as you can get to the next step, which is clinical trials in humans," said Dr. Cheryl D. DiCarlo, assistant director of research resources at the Southwest National Primate Research Center in San Antonio, Texas.

This contradicts Abee. DeCarlo seems to acknowledge that the animals weren't really necessary after all. Her statement about speeding up breakthroughs is pure self-serving speculation.

Even with their many similarities to humans, a primate may not be ideal for a particular study, and it's up to the veterinarian supervising the study to decide, Dr. DiCarlo noted. "That's one of the things lab animal veterinarians do: they determine what species is the best model for a particular research project. Sometimes the mouse is the best model," she said.

DiCcarlo must have hit her head against something hard in the past; veterinarians don't decide which species to use in research, the Principal Investigator designs the research. Whether this person is a vet or not is entirely happenstance, but in any case, vets don't make these decisions. For one thing, how would they know whether a part of the brain in a rat or a monkey will react more similarly to a human brain when injected with an investigational drug? If it's an experiment, presumably no one knows.

Much of the research involving nonhuman primates is conducted at the eight National Primate Research Centers located throughout the country. Overseen by the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Research Resources, those facilities house an estimated 28,000 animals representing more than 20 species, including Old World primates like the chimpanzee, baboon, and rhesus macaque—the lion's share of primates used in research—and New World primates, including squirrel and owl monkeys. In addition, the centers operate breeding colonies to maintain the supply of several primate species for research.

Given the considerable costs associated with caring for a chimpanzee throughout its lifetime—as much as $500,000 over the span of 50 years—the NCRR in 1995 suspended financial support for the breeding of new chimpanzees. The center does provide ongoing monies for chimpanzees bred prior to the moratorium, and that includes retirement into a federally funded sanctuary system, such as Chimp Haven in Shreveport, La.

Primates are highly complex and social animals so, in addition to a team of veterinarians and veterinary technicians, each center employs a staff of behaviorists or trainers whose sole job is to provide environmental enrichment for the animals. It is understood in the research community that healthy and emotionally well-adjusted animals make the best test subjects.

This is blather. In fact, the cause of the wide-spread self-mutilation and psychotic behaviors of the monkeys in the labs is a subspecialty of some primate researchers. The problem is ubiquitous.

Humans aren't the only ones who benefit from new medical therapies. According to Dr. Franziska B. Grieder, director of the NCRR Comparative Medicine Division, many advances in human medicine are now used to enhance and prolong animal life.

Huh? Wait. So, we experiment on monkeys, find a cure for cancer, heal people, and then use the drug on dogs. Hello? Very, very few discoveries in monkeys have been successful in humans. Of those (in fact, I can't think of even one) there aren't many that have been put into clinical veterinary practice.

"We wouldn't have specific cancer treatments if they weren't first developed for human patients—or hip replacements or cardiac valves. We would never put those into dogs if they weren't developed for humans," Dr. Grieder said, and added that few biomedical companies would fund costly studies that benefited only animals.

Demand for primates fluctuates according to research needs at a given time. Research on HIV/AIDS, influenza, cancer treatments using monoclonal antibodies, and biodefense, for instance, are among some of the current hot topics. The NIH worries that new and emerging diseases will increase demand for research animals and there won't be enough veterinarians to look after the animals properly.

No. Very very few cancer studies use monkeys, most flu studies use mice and ferrets. Biodefense is a Orwellian term used a code for bioweaponizing disease agents. The diseases under study as bioweapons are fairly broad spectrum in action and can kill a variety of species. Monkeys are used only because they are available and sexy.

As with most career paths in veterinary medicine, with the exception of companion animal practice, a shortage exists of specially trained veterinarians who can meet the behavioral and physiologic needs of primates. The Association of Primate Veterinarians has 374 members, 33 of whom reside outside the United States, according to APV president, Dr. Thomas E. Nolan. Those numbers, Dr. Nolan said, encompass most if not all veterinarians working with primates.

The silver lining here is that many vets are deciding to spend their careers trying to alleviate illness and suffering in companion animals as opposed to keeping animals in labs alive to be killed, or keeping cows and pigs healthy enough to have babies and be killed, or to keep jailed animals in zoos alive long enough to be gawked at.

"Primate medicine is a small [twisted, sick] fraternity, and (the fact) that jobs are going unfilled is pretty common knowledge," explained Dr. Bruce J. Bernacky, section chief of the rhesus monkey breeding colony and co-manager of the chimp colony at the Michael E. Keeling Center. "NIH can also see that more veterinarians are retiring than young people are coming into field."

To offset the shortage, the NCRR in 2007 began offering the R25 training grant at each of the primate centers to train veterinarians for careers in primate clinical medicine. Dr. Greg K. Wilkerson started his two-year residency at the Keeling Center in February. A 2001 graduate of the Center for Veterinary Health Sciences at Oklahoma State University, Dr. Wilkerson completed residencies in anatomic pathology and comparative medicine prior to striking out in this new direction.

"Primate medicine wasn't something I initially considered, just because I didn't have a lot of exposure to primates," Dr. Wilkerson said. "But once I did, I found it very fascinating. No two days are the same, and there are many opportunities for me."

The veterinarians interviewed for this article believe that, as champions of animal welfare, veterinarians are an essential component of biomedical research that uses animals. "We're sometimes perceived as torturing animals, but it's just the opposite. The veterinary staff is the animal advocate here," explained Dr. Kathleen M. Brasky, a clinical and research veterinarian at the Southwest National Primate Research Center.

These "advocates" torture the animals they claim to champion. Sick, sick, sick.

"The animals are our top interest. (They're) not data from a project, whereas for an investigator, (the data) would be their primary interest. We're the animal advocate," Dr. Brasky explained.

I think I'm going to be sick.

The Animal Welfare Act requires veterinarians to provide pain relief to animals for any procedure that might be perceived to cause pain in a person.

Unless the pain meds might interfere with the results. The animals never come first.

"I think lab animal veterinarians are much more attuned to pain and alleviating pain than human physicians," she said. "We err on the side of caution."

I'd rather be in a hospital where they were trying to cure me and alleviate my pain than be a monkey in a lab where they are making me sick and debating whether the pain meds might mess with the results of the experiment. Brasky is an idiot or a swindler trying to coax rather dumb vets into her fieild so she doesn't feel so very alone and stigmatized.

For more information about research primates and laboratory animal medicine, visit the Web sites of the Association of Primate Veterinarians (www.primatevets.org), American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (www.aclam.org), and National Center for Research Resources (www.ncrr.nih.gov/). Additionally, the AVMA has several policies on animal research and appropriate care for the animals, including "AVMA Animal Welfare Principles," "Use of Animals in Research, Testing, and Education," and "Responsible Use of Animals for Human Purposes." These and other position statements are available on the AVMA Web site (www.avma.org) in the Reference section under "Policy."

–R. Scott Nolen

"regrettable consequences"

Biological Research: Observations on DHS's Analyses Concerning Whether FMD Research Can Be Done as Safely on the Mainland as on Plum Island
GAO-09-747, July 30, 2009
Full Report (PDF, 64 pages)

... Drawing conclusions about relocating research with highly infectious exotic animal pathogens from questionable methodology could result in regrettable consequences. Site-specific dispersion analysis, using proven models with appropriate meteorological data and defensible source terms, should be conducted before scientifically defensible conclusions can be drawn.

UW "expert":

Procedures Have Long Been In Place For Safe Research On Infectious Diseases
The Capital Times :: EDITORIAL :: A7
Monday, December 4, 2006
Daryl D. Buss, dean School of Veterinary Medicine UW-Madison

Dear Editor: A recent letter to the editor expressed concern about the possibility of a new federal agricultural support laboratory, the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility, being located at the UW Kegonsa Research Facility.

It is important to note that the safe conduct of research on infectious diseases, and employment of the related precautions to ensure that safety, is not new. The UW-Madison has for decades been a leader in such research, and the findings and applications of that research have led to the elimination of such diseases as tuberculosis and brucellosis from our livestock population. These are examples of diseases referred to as zoonotic diseases, which are those animal diseases potentially transmissible to humans.

The future National Bio and Agro Defense Facility -- no matter where it is located -- will include laboratories designed to provide the high levels of biosecurity needed for the safe conduct of diagnostic testing for infectious diseases, as well as for research to develop new vaccines and drugs to control these diseases.

The engineering features that help assure that level of biosecurity are not new or experimental. They have been proven over many decades in laboratories in urban settings such as Atlanta, Ga.; Bethesda, Md.; and Frederick, Md.; and internationally in such locations as Winnipeg, Canada, and Melbourne, Australia.

It is the combination of these specialized engineering design features with rigorously monitored laboratory practices that has made research on infectious diseases a safe and effective process, leading to many of the disease diagnostic, prevention and treatment methods we now take for granted.

Wisconsin State Journal discounted science and concerns and urged ride on dangerous bandwagon:

U.s. Lab Is Good Fit For Dane County
Wisconsin State Journal :: OPINION :: A8
Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Memo to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security: As you consider where to build a $400-million federal laboratory to conduct research to fight animal and human diseases, you should be aware of the public support for putting the lab in Dane County.

Yes, there is local opposition as well, which was represented in the Dane County Board's vote last week to oppose construction of the lab in the town of Dunn. But the vote was only an expression of board members' early opinions.

There is time to persuade opponents. The overwhelming evidence of the lab's benefits to national health and security, its contributions to the Wisconsin economy and its compatibility with local land use plans make a winning case.

We in Dane County understand that we are competing with 16 other sites in 10 other states to become the home for the lab, known as the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility.

The opposition here is generated, at least in part, by fear of the unknown. At first, opponents feared risks they imagined would be associated with the research the lab will do on high-level animal and human disease and bioterrorism.

But as the opponents have been informed about the safety of the research, the fear has subsided.

Most of our local concern now is based on land use. The Dane County site you are considering, which was proposed by UW-Madison, is in the town of Dunn. Some residents fear the impact of a 500,000-square-foot biological and agricultural lab on the town's rural character, even though the town land use plan permits agricultural labs.

There will be opportunity to ease residents' fears when it comes time to discuss exactly what the lab will look like and what accommodations can be made.

There will also be opportunity to excite the county about the economic benefits the lab offers - 200 to 400 high-paying jobs, the opportunity local research businesses will have to grow by collaborating with the lab, and the potential to make the Madison area the nation's premier location for agricultural and biological research.

So as you prepare to trim the list of potential sites to a few finalists, please consider the advantages that the UW-Madison proposal offers. And understand that most of Dane County would welcome the lab.

Maybe jobs are more important than the community's health. NBAF has never been a good idea.

UW Experts Dead Wrong, again

See NBAF

Infectious Diseases Study Site Questioned
Tornado Alley May Not Be Safe, GAO Says

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 27, 2009

The Department of Homeland Security relied on a rushed, flawed study to justify its decision to locate a $700 million research facility for highly infectious pathogens in a tornado-prone section of Kansas, according to a government report.

The department's analysis was not "scientifically defensible" in concluding that it could safely handle dangerous animal diseases in Kansas -- or any other location on the U.S. mainland, according to a Government Accountability Office draft report obtained by The Washington Post. The GAO said DHS greatly underestimated the chance of accidental release and major contamination from such research, which has been conducted only on a remote island off the United States.

DHS staff members tried quietly last week to fend off a public airing of the facility's risks, agency correspondence shows. Department officials met privately with staff members of a congressional oversight subcommittee to try to convince them that the GAO report was unfair, and to urge them to forgo or postpone a hearing. But the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight and investigations subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), decided otherwise. It plans to hold a hearing Thursday on the risk analysis, according to two sources briefed on the plans.

The criticism of DHS's site selection comes as the proposed research lab, the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), was expected to win construction funding in the congressional appropriations process.

"Drawing conclusions about relocating research with highly infectious exotic animal pathogens from questionable methodology could result in regrettable consequences," the GAO warned in its draft report. DHS's review was too "limited" and "inadequate" to decide that any mainland labs were safe, the report found. GAO officials declined to comment on the findings.

The new developments started another round of accusations that politics steered DHS's decision in January to build the proposed lab in Manhattan, Kan. Critics of the choice argue that a Kansas contingent of Republican Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts and then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, aggressively lobbied DHS to pick their state. Records show that a DHS undersecretary and his site selection committee met frequently with the senators, one of whom is a member of an appropriations subcommittee that helps set DHS funding.

A Texas consortium that hoped to lure the DHS facility to San Antonio argues that the agency has wasted millions of dollars trying to justify its choice, and said the GAO's findings show that the selection method was "preposterous."

"They call it 'Tornado Alley' for a reason," said Michael Guiffre, an attorney for the consortium. "This really boils down to politics at its very worst and public officials who are more concerned about erecting some gleaming new research building than thinking about what's best for the general public."

DHS officials and Kansas leaders say the selection system, which began in late 2006, was always fair and open. Brownback has noted that George W. Bush was president in mid-January when his home state of Texas lost the competition.

"The process involved a transparent six-year process, run by career civil servants and punctuated with multiple public meetings near each finalist location," DHS spokesman Matthew Chandler said.

The DHS lab would replace and expand upon the mission of a federal research facility on a remote island on the northern tip of Long Island, N.Y. Critics of moving the operation to the mainland argue that a release could lead to widespread contamination that could kill livestock, devastate a farm economy and endanger humans. Along with the highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease, NBAF researchers plan to study African swine fever, Japanese encephalitis, Rift Valley fever and other viruses.

GAO's draft report said the agency's assessment of the risk of accidental release of toxins on mainland locations, including Kansas, was based on "unrepresentative accident scenarios," "outdated modeling" and "inadequate" information about the sites. The agency's analysis of the economic impact of domestic cattle being infected by foot-and-mouth disease played down the financial losses by not considering the worst-case scenario.

The agency noted that the United Kingdom's outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001, which resulted from an accidental release at a biological research laboratory south of London. Six million sheep, cattle and pigs were slaughtered to stop the contamination, and the country's agriculture market, comparatively a fraction of the U.S. market, lost $4.9 billion.

DHS had cited a foot-and-mouth disease facility in Winnipeg, Manitoba, as evidence that doing this research on the mainland is safe. But GAO said that is illogical: The NBAF would have a less sophisticated method for containing releases than the Winnipeg lab, it said, but would handle as many as 10 times the number of animals.

Selecting a spot for the lab has been rife with political battling and vigorous lobbying from five states that were finalists. Though the general public repeatedly voiced concern about the safety of such research, elected leaders were seeking the $3.5 billion jolt that the facility was expected to bring to its host's economy.

Critics of the selection of Kansas note that DHS Undersecretary Jay Cohen and others met often with the state's senators. Brownback said this month that he had helped add $36 million to a Senate bill to build the Kansas facility, and that he would work for the same in the House.

"We fought hard for this funding, and I'm glad my colleagues in the Senate realized the significant role this facility will play in researching emerging diseases that could endanger our food supply," he said on his Web site.

In recent days, DHS science officials involved in choosing the Manhattan site, adjoining Kansas State University, told Secretary Janet Napolitano's top staff members that GAO exceeded its authority in reviewing the agency's risk assessment, according to internal correspondence shared with The Post.

Chandler confirmed that agency staff members told the Energy and Commerce subcommittee staff members in their meeting last Monday that DHS would prefer not to have a hearing now. DHS officials were not trying to avoid discussing the issue during the appropriations process, Chandler said, but wanted to avoid wasting the agency's and committee's time until they saw the final GAO report.

"This has nothing to do with politics," Chandler said. "This is about logical reasoning . . . and was in the interest of everyone's time."

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.