Chickens worry about the future
Jennifer Viegas
Discovery News
Friday, 15 July 2005
Chickens may know their destiny
Chickens don't just live in the present, but can anticipate the future and demonstrate self-control, something previously attributed only to humans and other primates, according to a recent study.
The finding, published in the current issue of the journal Animal Behaviour, suggests that domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) are intelligent creatures that might worry.
more...
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Friday, December 09, 2005
"The Neuroscience of Happiness"
I just watched a primetime University of Wisconsin promo titled "The Neuroscience of Happiness." It showcased UW scientist Richard Davidson and his work on emotion. His soft and caring voice explained that he and his associates have established a rigorous method to scientifically investigate the mind-body connection. Scenes shifted back and forth between Davidson and smiling happy people with wires covering their heads, lots of computer animations, and some truly beautiful three-dimensional brain scan images. The technology is amazing. Research into the connections between mind and body might lead to important insights and advances in mental and physical health.
Davidson says that already they have shown that a happy mood is conductive to good health. Davidson came across in the commercial like someone wanting to help everyone achieve a happy life. He claims to have discovered that mediation can improve many areas of health. If he is right that happy thoughts promote heath and that sad, angry thoughts can impair health, then he’s killing me and many of my friends.
That’s right, killing me.
Even though the title of the three-minute UW commercial was the "Neuroscience of Happiness," Davidson’s professional life has been spent frightening baby monkeys. If his predecessor, Harry Harlow, had not shown unequivocally that young monkeys and young humans suffer similarly, this might not be such a big deal; maybe I could sleep at night.
But literally decades of scientific evidence has shown repeatedly that the minds and emotions of monkeys and humans are of a like kind. It is precisely this similarity that Davidson and other researchers claim as a justification for their experiments on these animals.
Consider the titles of just a few of Davidson’s recent scientific publications:
Brain regions associated with the expression and contextual regulation of anxiety in primates. (2005)
Calling for help is independently modulated by brain systems underlying goal-directed behavior and threat perception. (a baby monkey study, 2005)
The role of the central nucleus of the amygdala in mediating fear and anxiety in the primate. (2004)
Of the approximately 200 papers written or co-authored by Davidson that are indexed by the National Library of Medicine, the overwhelming majority are papers about fear, anxiety, and other negative affective states. Essentially none of his peer reviewed published work addresses happiness.
And yet, the three-minute UW commercial was all about happiness and the power of meditation. Not one monkey was seen. Not one baby monkey was shown frozen with fear at being confronted with a snake.
With a snake.
That’s just one of the ways that Davidson tries to frighten the baby monkeys. But listen to this: He and his long-time coauthor, Ned Kalin, discovered a genetic subset of monkeys particularly anxiety-prone. These monkeys have become the target of their fear studies. They experimentally damage the parts of their brains thought to be involved in the regulation of basic emotion and then measure how less frightened they are compared to monkeys who have not been brain damaged.
Learning what people like Davidson are doing to the monkeys and to the other animals at the UW – day in and day out – has filled my life with much pain and lots of anxiety. My knowledge has become a barrier to enjoying life. I no longer teach, draw, hike, or do much of anything for fun; and I drink more.
If Davidson was genuine or if the UW was forthcoming and actively engaged in public discussion about their use of animals, maybe I could find some happiness. Honesty would be refreshing. But he isn’t and they’re not. Instead, completely misleading promos are made to keep the public confused and sleepy.
If sadness makes one ill, then Davidson’s work is probably hurting everyone who knows what he does and cares even a little.
Thanks for that, Richard. You are one caring guy.
Davidson says that already they have shown that a happy mood is conductive to good health. Davidson came across in the commercial like someone wanting to help everyone achieve a happy life. He claims to have discovered that mediation can improve many areas of health. If he is right that happy thoughts promote heath and that sad, angry thoughts can impair health, then he’s killing me and many of my friends.
That’s right, killing me.
Even though the title of the three-minute UW commercial was the "Neuroscience of Happiness," Davidson’s professional life has been spent frightening baby monkeys. If his predecessor, Harry Harlow, had not shown unequivocally that young monkeys and young humans suffer similarly, this might not be such a big deal; maybe I could sleep at night.
But literally decades of scientific evidence has shown repeatedly that the minds and emotions of monkeys and humans are of a like kind. It is precisely this similarity that Davidson and other researchers claim as a justification for their experiments on these animals.
Consider the titles of just a few of Davidson’s recent scientific publications:
Brain regions associated with the expression and contextual regulation of anxiety in primates. (2005)
Calling for help is independently modulated by brain systems underlying goal-directed behavior and threat perception. (a baby monkey study, 2005)
The role of the central nucleus of the amygdala in mediating fear and anxiety in the primate. (2004)
Of the approximately 200 papers written or co-authored by Davidson that are indexed by the National Library of Medicine, the overwhelming majority are papers about fear, anxiety, and other negative affective states. Essentially none of his peer reviewed published work addresses happiness.
And yet, the three-minute UW commercial was all about happiness and the power of meditation. Not one monkey was seen. Not one baby monkey was shown frozen with fear at being confronted with a snake.
With a snake.
That’s just one of the ways that Davidson tries to frighten the baby monkeys. But listen to this: He and his long-time coauthor, Ned Kalin, discovered a genetic subset of monkeys particularly anxiety-prone. These monkeys have become the target of their fear studies. They experimentally damage the parts of their brains thought to be involved in the regulation of basic emotion and then measure how less frightened they are compared to monkeys who have not been brain damaged.
Learning what people like Davidson are doing to the monkeys and to the other animals at the UW – day in and day out – has filled my life with much pain and lots of anxiety. My knowledge has become a barrier to enjoying life. I no longer teach, draw, hike, or do much of anything for fun; and I drink more.
If Davidson was genuine or if the UW was forthcoming and actively engaged in public discussion about their use of animals, maybe I could find some happiness. Honesty would be refreshing. But he isn’t and they’re not. Instead, completely misleading promos are made to keep the public confused and sleepy.
If sadness makes one ill, then Davidson’s work is probably hurting everyone who knows what he does and cares even a little.
Thanks for that, Richard. You are one caring guy.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Confusion is everywhere
US Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker
US District Court, Western District of Wisconsin120 North Henry Street
P. O. Box 432Madison, WI 53701-0432
Dear Mr. Crocker,
I was in your courtroom during the sentencing of Peter Young and wanted to share my thoughts with you.
I was surprised by Mr. Kelly’s claims that Peter’s acts were instances of civil disobedience and that the churches being set ablaze in the south were not examples of terrorism. In my opinion he was wrong in both cases.
But I also disagree with your claim that Peter’s acts were instances of terrorism. If Peter had left messages behind that threatened the fur farmers, then there would have been an element of terrorism involved.
The mink farmers might have been upset by the events but I am frightened when someone cuts me off in traffic. Neither the other driver nor Peter acted to intentionally frighten me or the farmers. In both cases, our subjective experiences were incidental.
Mr. Kelly’s claims and your response to Peter’s statement illustrate the confusion that surrounds the animal rights movement. Peter released mink. That’s what he did. Calling this terrorism seems to fall into lockstep with the neo-conservative redefining of common terms like “fair and balanced” or “clean air.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Anderson, or perhaps you, suggested that there are appropriate avenues available for trying to have one’s views heard and perhaps acted upon such as the courts or by lobbying for legislation. This optimistic belief must be based on some misunderstanding of the history of the animal rights movement.
Generally, the courts are closed to those seeking to argue on behalf of animals. Courts have repeatedly reinforced the ruling that a third party has no standing with regard to animal well-being and treatment.
You may be unaware of the overwhelming power of the animal industry lobby. Combined, they are the largest single lobby in the country (Pharma, the largest by far, is a part of this group.) You may be unaware of past congressional efforts to intervene or to expand governmental oversight of the industry. In nearly every case, even in the face of joint resolutions supporting specific actions or changes, the industry has successfully managed to preserve or expand its influence and to limit oversight of animal use. (You might find Monkey Business: The Disturbing Case That Launched the Animal Rights Movement (1993) by Kathy Snow Guillermo of interest regarding the efforts of Congress, or read about the successful eleventh-hour Helms’ amendment to exclude rats, mice, and birds from Animal Welfare Act.)
I once taught my students something similar to what you said about appropriate behavior in a pluralistic society. But I no longer believe this. Having worked on this issue for nearly ten years, I have come to understand that the system is not as you portrayed it or as I once believed it to be; this truly does break my heart.
One of the problems associated with the public’s confusion of the animal rights movement is a lack of education. Few people are able to speak knowledgeably about the body of evidence regarding animal mind. The few weak laws in place to protect animals are outgrowths of a philosophy based on Biblical ideas about our appropriate relationship with animals.
But scientific discovery is painting a picture of animal mind much different from the notion of soulless automatons from which most laws stem. There is much evidence that we share the planet with sensitive thinking beings who have simple desires not too dissimilar from our own.
The knowledge of this, coupled with the knowledge of their suffering on the farms, in the labs, and elsewhere, coupled with the understanding that most of us have no genuine access to the courts and cannot realistically expect to participate in the unlevel legislative system creates frustration and fuels people like Peter to take some direct action to help some of these animals.
Here is the situation confronted by many activists: We believe that the suffering of humans and many other species is of a like kind. We are confronted with a society that implicitly condones gross cruelty. We see no avenue for change in the short term. The immense number of animals used annually, each representing a unique experience of intense fear and frequently intense pain and suffering, confounds full comprehension but is overwhelming in scope.
We ask ourselves what we should do. More letters, more brochures, more peaceful protests, more legislative nibbling while billions suffer annually? All of this is happening. But what should the moral person do? What is our moral responsibility once one accepts that a dog or a monkey kept in a cage and routinely used in painful experiments is frightened and having experiences nearly indistinguishable from those that a human child would have in a similar situation, unable to understand the reasons for the pain and having little or no hope for rescue? What is the reasonable response?
My personal belief is that those who hid Jews from the Nazis and who helped slaves escape to the North were acting appropriately even though they were breaking the law. I believe there are principles that have precedence over the law of any land.
I apologize for the length of my letter, but the issue is simply not so straightforward as you intimated in your courtroom; confusion and ignorance seemed to hold sway. I worry about the future, the issue will not go away; the ever-building body of scientific evidence is compelling. There is little reason other than hubris or bigotry to ignore the suffering of so many or to advise a slow stepwise reduction in their numbers. Economic interests have successfully closed off the traditional avenues of political action.
I believe in the power of education. I urge you to read with an open mind and to ask yourself what you would have done during past historical times of gross oppression and what you believe would have been the ethical course of action.
For a closer look at some of the evidence of animal mind I recommend my on-line essay, “How Like Us Need They Be?” You may read it at: http://www.primatefreedom.com/essays/howmuchlikeus.html
Thank you for your time Judge Crocker; I offer the above in the spirit of frank and informed dialog.
Sincerely,
Rick Bogle
US District Court, Western District of Wisconsin120 North Henry Street
P. O. Box 432Madison, WI 53701-0432
Dear Mr. Crocker,
I was in your courtroom during the sentencing of Peter Young and wanted to share my thoughts with you.
I was surprised by Mr. Kelly’s claims that Peter’s acts were instances of civil disobedience and that the churches being set ablaze in the south were not examples of terrorism. In my opinion he was wrong in both cases.
But I also disagree with your claim that Peter’s acts were instances of terrorism. If Peter had left messages behind that threatened the fur farmers, then there would have been an element of terrorism involved.
The mink farmers might have been upset by the events but I am frightened when someone cuts me off in traffic. Neither the other driver nor Peter acted to intentionally frighten me or the farmers. In both cases, our subjective experiences were incidental.
Mr. Kelly’s claims and your response to Peter’s statement illustrate the confusion that surrounds the animal rights movement. Peter released mink. That’s what he did. Calling this terrorism seems to fall into lockstep with the neo-conservative redefining of common terms like “fair and balanced” or “clean air.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Anderson, or perhaps you, suggested that there are appropriate avenues available for trying to have one’s views heard and perhaps acted upon such as the courts or by lobbying for legislation. This optimistic belief must be based on some misunderstanding of the history of the animal rights movement.
Generally, the courts are closed to those seeking to argue on behalf of animals. Courts have repeatedly reinforced the ruling that a third party has no standing with regard to animal well-being and treatment.
You may be unaware of the overwhelming power of the animal industry lobby. Combined, they are the largest single lobby in the country (Pharma, the largest by far, is a part of this group.) You may be unaware of past congressional efforts to intervene or to expand governmental oversight of the industry. In nearly every case, even in the face of joint resolutions supporting specific actions or changes, the industry has successfully managed to preserve or expand its influence and to limit oversight of animal use. (You might find Monkey Business: The Disturbing Case That Launched the Animal Rights Movement (1993) by Kathy Snow Guillermo of interest regarding the efforts of Congress, or read about the successful eleventh-hour Helms’ amendment to exclude rats, mice, and birds from Animal Welfare Act.)
I once taught my students something similar to what you said about appropriate behavior in a pluralistic society. But I no longer believe this. Having worked on this issue for nearly ten years, I have come to understand that the system is not as you portrayed it or as I once believed it to be; this truly does break my heart.
One of the problems associated with the public’s confusion of the animal rights movement is a lack of education. Few people are able to speak knowledgeably about the body of evidence regarding animal mind. The few weak laws in place to protect animals are outgrowths of a philosophy based on Biblical ideas about our appropriate relationship with animals.
But scientific discovery is painting a picture of animal mind much different from the notion of soulless automatons from which most laws stem. There is much evidence that we share the planet with sensitive thinking beings who have simple desires not too dissimilar from our own.
The knowledge of this, coupled with the knowledge of their suffering on the farms, in the labs, and elsewhere, coupled with the understanding that most of us have no genuine access to the courts and cannot realistically expect to participate in the unlevel legislative system creates frustration and fuels people like Peter to take some direct action to help some of these animals.
Here is the situation confronted by many activists: We believe that the suffering of humans and many other species is of a like kind. We are confronted with a society that implicitly condones gross cruelty. We see no avenue for change in the short term. The immense number of animals used annually, each representing a unique experience of intense fear and frequently intense pain and suffering, confounds full comprehension but is overwhelming in scope.
We ask ourselves what we should do. More letters, more brochures, more peaceful protests, more legislative nibbling while billions suffer annually? All of this is happening. But what should the moral person do? What is our moral responsibility once one accepts that a dog or a monkey kept in a cage and routinely used in painful experiments is frightened and having experiences nearly indistinguishable from those that a human child would have in a similar situation, unable to understand the reasons for the pain and having little or no hope for rescue? What is the reasonable response?
My personal belief is that those who hid Jews from the Nazis and who helped slaves escape to the North were acting appropriately even though they were breaking the law. I believe there are principles that have precedence over the law of any land.
I apologize for the length of my letter, but the issue is simply not so straightforward as you intimated in your courtroom; confusion and ignorance seemed to hold sway. I worry about the future, the issue will not go away; the ever-building body of scientific evidence is compelling. There is little reason other than hubris or bigotry to ignore the suffering of so many or to advise a slow stepwise reduction in their numbers. Economic interests have successfully closed off the traditional avenues of political action.
I believe in the power of education. I urge you to read with an open mind and to ask yourself what you would have done during past historical times of gross oppression and what you believe would have been the ethical course of action.
For a closer look at some of the evidence of animal mind I recommend my on-line essay, “How Like Us Need They Be?” You may read it at: http://www.primatefreedom.com/essays/howmuchlikeus.html
Thank you for your time Judge Crocker; I offer the above in the spirit of frank and informed dialog.
Sincerely,
Rick Bogle
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Vivisector pops a cork
Madison... On Saturday, September 24, Dr. Mary Schneider, a primate vivisector at the Harlow Primate Psychology Lab at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, was on her way in to shop at the local co-op.
She noticed an information table set up at the entrance and stopped to have a look. To her horror, the table was covered with literature pointing out the cruelties and worthlessness of animal experimentation, and worse, most of the information concerned primate vivisection at the UW.
Mary grabbed one of the fliers and began browbeating one of the people at the table. "This is my co-op!" she scolded. "You people ... blah, blah, blah. I'm going to complain to the manager!"
At our co-op, members voice their complaints, suggestions, etc. by filling out a little card. The management responds in writing when appropriate. The member's comment and the co-op's response are placed in a ring-bound stack of comments at the entrance and available for public review.
Mary Schneider's complaint:
Mary Schneider Member # 6526
"Please do not allow anti-animal research groups to distribute materials/propaganda (i.e. PeTA etc.) We need a wide range of approaches to cures for cancer, Parkinson's, MS, etc. including animal research with proper oversight, natural remedies, etc."
The response was, essentially, "Get over it." The co-op has a policy of allowing members to table so long as they do not use aggressive confrontational methods like trying to hand out info as people enter and leave. But placing info on a table is well within the co-op's policies.
What makes any of this even marginally interesting is the list of reasons Mary gives for supporting vivisection. Mary herself has a long-running federal grant to study the effects of fetal alcohol exposure on rhesus monkeys. She has discovered that, like humans, rhesus monkeys suffer long-term consequences from fetal alcohol exposure.
Why didn't she mention this on her list of justifications? No one in the UW monkey labs is working on cancer.
Her response seems indicative of a common position among vivisectors. They know that their own work is bogus, but hey, the money's good. They justify all animal research with the fallacious argument that someone somewhere must be doing something that will turn out to be important sometime in the future, and appeal to the public's fear of diseases like cancer.
Or why didn't she list prenatal stress? The director of the Harlow Lab, Chris Coe, has spent a career demonstrating that repeatedly startling a pregnant rhesus monkey can influence the immunological responses of the offspring later in life. Why didn't Mary mention that?
There is just so much that Mary could have pointed to that is happening in her own lab that, for some reason, she didn't. Instead she pulled cancer out, and then, apparently to convince the co-op management of her earth-mother goodness, appealed to "natural remedies." What a crock.
She noticed an information table set up at the entrance and stopped to have a look. To her horror, the table was covered with literature pointing out the cruelties and worthlessness of animal experimentation, and worse, most of the information concerned primate vivisection at the UW.
Mary grabbed one of the fliers and began browbeating one of the people at the table. "This is my co-op!" she scolded. "You people ... blah, blah, blah. I'm going to complain to the manager!"
At our co-op, members voice their complaints, suggestions, etc. by filling out a little card. The management responds in writing when appropriate. The member's comment and the co-op's response are placed in a ring-bound stack of comments at the entrance and available for public review.
Mary Schneider's complaint:
Mary Schneider Member # 6526
"Please do not allow anti-animal research groups to distribute materials/propaganda (i.e. PeTA etc.) We need a wide range of approaches to cures for cancer, Parkinson's, MS, etc. including animal research with proper oversight, natural remedies, etc."
The response was, essentially, "Get over it." The co-op has a policy of allowing members to table so long as they do not use aggressive confrontational methods like trying to hand out info as people enter and leave. But placing info on a table is well within the co-op's policies.
What makes any of this even marginally interesting is the list of reasons Mary gives for supporting vivisection. Mary herself has a long-running federal grant to study the effects of fetal alcohol exposure on rhesus monkeys. She has discovered that, like humans, rhesus monkeys suffer long-term consequences from fetal alcohol exposure.
Why didn't she mention this on her list of justifications? No one in the UW monkey labs is working on cancer.
Her response seems indicative of a common position among vivisectors. They know that their own work is bogus, but hey, the money's good. They justify all animal research with the fallacious argument that someone somewhere must be doing something that will turn out to be important sometime in the future, and appeal to the public's fear of diseases like cancer.
Or why didn't she list prenatal stress? The director of the Harlow Lab, Chris Coe, has spent a career demonstrating that repeatedly startling a pregnant rhesus monkey can influence the immunological responses of the offspring later in life. Why didn't Mary mention that?
There is just so much that Mary could have pointed to that is happening in her own lab that, for some reason, she didn't. Instead she pulled cancer out, and then, apparently to convince the co-op management of her earth-mother goodness, appealed to "natural remedies." What a crock.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
What Debate?
Last night UW primate vivisector James Thomson was speaking in Madison. A couple people went to hand out fliers asking citizens to encourage UW scientists to debate the issue of primate vivisection.
As they began handing out leaflets, a group called UW Alumni For Life, a prolife group, showed up with posters and fliers. Immediately, people began refusing to take ours.
Here's what we were handing out:
As they began handing out leaflets, a group called UW Alumni For Life, a prolife group, showed up with posters and fliers. Immediately, people began refusing to take ours.
Here's what we were handing out:
Monday, September 19, 2005
Obese Americans
It's no wonder that Americans are so fat; they'll swallow anything.
Here's a mouthful of crap:
MADISON - In a study of adult monkeys who were exposed to moderate amounts of alcohol in utero, scientists have found that prenatal exposure to alcohol - even in small doses - has pronounced effects on the development and function later in life of the brain's dopamine system, a critical component of the central nervous system that regulates many regions of the brain.
Writing in the current issue (Sept. 15, 2005) of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, a team of researchers led by Mary L. Schneider, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of occupational therapy and psychology, reports that when a monkey exposes her fetus to alcohol by drinking, the dopamine system of her offspring is altered. Effects on that key neural system, according to the study's results, can manifest themselves up to five years after birth, when the monkeys are fully grown.
This is the start of UW press release. There are ethical and moral issues associated with her studies of course, and these are insurmountable.
But besides that, it just reeks of sleazyness. Coming as this release does on the heals of the Terasawa embarassment and the disclosure that oversight of research using animals at the UW is non-existant, the UW spins out a release claiming that a fetus should not be exposed to alcohol.
News flash: Pregnant women should not drink! Wow! Who would have thought it?
To anyone who has been living in a hole for the past few decades, this might be news. To anyone else it will just be a yawner.
But here's the rub: People swallow this crap without complaint and even with a smile. It gets filed into their subconscious: "UW saves babies..." Isn't that something... must be something about the bell-curve. Most of us are not only obese, we are also dolts.
Self-serving, sleazy, money-grubbing, callous, and arrogant. It's the new definition of scientist at the UW.
Here's a mouthful of crap:
MADISON - In a study of adult monkeys who were exposed to moderate amounts of alcohol in utero, scientists have found that prenatal exposure to alcohol - even in small doses - has pronounced effects on the development and function later in life of the brain's dopamine system, a critical component of the central nervous system that regulates many regions of the brain.
Writing in the current issue (Sept. 15, 2005) of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, a team of researchers led by Mary L. Schneider, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of occupational therapy and psychology, reports that when a monkey exposes her fetus to alcohol by drinking, the dopamine system of her offspring is altered. Effects on that key neural system, according to the study's results, can manifest themselves up to five years after birth, when the monkeys are fully grown.
This is the start of UW press release. There are ethical and moral issues associated with her studies of course, and these are insurmountable.
But besides that, it just reeks of sleazyness. Coming as this release does on the heals of the Terasawa embarassment and the disclosure that oversight of research using animals at the UW is non-existant, the UW spins out a release claiming that a fetus should not be exposed to alcohol.
News flash: Pregnant women should not drink! Wow! Who would have thought it?
To anyone who has been living in a hole for the past few decades, this might be news. To anyone else it will just be a yawner.
But here's the rub: People swallow this crap without complaint and even with a smile. It gets filed into their subconscious: "UW saves babies..." Isn't that something... must be something about the bell-curve. Most of us are not only obese, we are also dolts.
Self-serving, sleazy, money-grubbing, callous, and arrogant. It's the new definition of scientist at the UW.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Money vs. Suffering
The use of monkeys on the University of Wisconsin, Madison campus generates a large income stream for the university and great suffering in the labs. (Regarding animals generally, this essay's main idea is true about essentially every large university in the nation.)
Claims made by the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center and Harlow Primate Psychology Lab with regard to important medical discoveries are so readily recognized as propaganda and so easily debunked (like the claim that they have discovered the cause of PCOS,) that the only question worth considering is whether or not the suffering can be justified by the money and jobs.
Clearly, the university believes that the money is ample justification for the misery.
Is my analysis fair?
I believe it is. It appears that essentially no one within the administration, outside the labs, has taken any time to evaluate whether the researchers’ claims concerning medical progress are honest and accurate or meaningful.
The suffering on campus is so profound that any administrator professing a concern for animals’ pain, fear, welfare, or daily experiences, would necessarily be compelled to look at the details, to look at the claims and to become well educated about the issue.
But the university administration is content to rely upon the unexamined assurances made by the scientists earning their livelihoods on animal experimentation who swear that the experiments and the animal husbandry on campus are humane and result in important advances.
The quick and universal willingness to believe this transparently self-serving rhetoric is evidence that the calculus really is money vs. suffering. This is why they turn away from any concern from the public and go back to determining how they will spend the 40-plus% of the hundreds of millions of dollars they skim off the animal research money-train each and every year.
Claims made by the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center and Harlow Primate Psychology Lab with regard to important medical discoveries are so readily recognized as propaganda and so easily debunked (like the claim that they have discovered the cause of PCOS,) that the only question worth considering is whether or not the suffering can be justified by the money and jobs.
Clearly, the university believes that the money is ample justification for the misery.
Is my analysis fair?
I believe it is. It appears that essentially no one within the administration, outside the labs, has taken any time to evaluate whether the researchers’ claims concerning medical progress are honest and accurate or meaningful.
The suffering on campus is so profound that any administrator professing a concern for animals’ pain, fear, welfare, or daily experiences, would necessarily be compelled to look at the details, to look at the claims and to become well educated about the issue.
But the university administration is content to rely upon the unexamined assurances made by the scientists earning their livelihoods on animal experimentation who swear that the experiments and the animal husbandry on campus are humane and result in important advances.
The quick and universal willingness to believe this transparently self-serving rhetoric is evidence that the calculus really is money vs. suffering. This is why they turn away from any concern from the public and go back to determining how they will spend the 40-plus% of the hundreds of millions of dollars they skim off the animal research money-train each and every year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
