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.
Friday, December 09, 2005
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.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Believers, Monkeys, and God
Let me clear from the start, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe there is a being responsible for the creation of the universe. I also don’t believe there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, nor do I believe that there is a being who gives a damn one way or the other whether or not I worship It or trust that Its only begotten Son suffered crucifixion to wash my sins away.
I have no desire to disparage Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, or any other deity worshiping group or member of such a group. But I do challenge the depth of their beliefs.
The way I see it, if I believed John 3:16: "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life," I would have no real fear of death because when I die I would live forever in the presence of the Lord and bask in His radiance for all eternity, or something like that.
It seems to me that no one really believes this. Or nearly no one. How does one explain the overwhelming fear of death that grips the average believer? If one actually believes that Jesus and the Saints are waiting for them in the Promised Land, why worry?
More to the point, this fear of dying is so intense, so all encompassing, that the average believer is willing to support untold suffering in the off chance that it might buy them a slightly longer life. And this fear is so mind numbing that believers will support unimaginable suffering even when the claim that it might benefit them is so tenuous as to be absurd.
So here is the calculus at work for most believers: Jesus loves me; He is waiting for me in Paradise where I will be with my family and friends in eternal bliss, but I’m so afraid of this that I will support the government using my money to hurt animals by the tens, maybe hundreds of millions a year to extend my life for a potential few moments. Make sense? Not to me.
I’m stuck with only a few possibilities:
1. Maybe the people who support animal research aren’t Christians (choose the deist belief of your choice) and don’t believe in Heaven or salvation.
2. Maybe the people who support animal research are Christians, do believe in Heaven, but worry that they are bound for eternity in Hell so must avoid death at any cost.
3. Maybe the people who support animal research only think they are Christians, but really don’t believe in Heaven and can’t admit it to themselves.
Romans 5:8: "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." To those who support animal research, Christ’s death simply wasn’t enough. They support the infliction of uncountable lifetimes of suffering on animals science claims have minds and emotions much like our own, in order that they might avoid Heaven just a little longer. Christ is said to have suffered on the cross for three days; how does this compare to a monkey’s twenty or thirty years of solitary confinement and periodic torture?
But maybe I just don’t get it. Maybe the people supporting animal research and even the researchers themselves really do believe in Heaven and believe they are going there because they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Maybe these same people feel that they are living a good and godly life doing what they believe God wants them to do.
If this is the case, then they have a very twisted religion. Here’s the deal: God loves them, is promising eternal bliss, and looks favorably on their career choice that entails hurting animals in an attempt to avoid entering into this promised paradise. That’s just nuts.
As far as I can tell from looking at the actual decisions and opinions held by believers, there is not really a God of compassion in their hearts.
Ironically, an atheist seems to care more about all of God’s creatures than one of His own followers. Go figure.
I have no desire to disparage Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, or any other deity worshiping group or member of such a group. But I do challenge the depth of their beliefs.
The way I see it, if I believed John 3:16: "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life," I would have no real fear of death because when I die I would live forever in the presence of the Lord and bask in His radiance for all eternity, or something like that.
It seems to me that no one really believes this. Or nearly no one. How does one explain the overwhelming fear of death that grips the average believer? If one actually believes that Jesus and the Saints are waiting for them in the Promised Land, why worry?
More to the point, this fear of dying is so intense, so all encompassing, that the average believer is willing to support untold suffering in the off chance that it might buy them a slightly longer life. And this fear is so mind numbing that believers will support unimaginable suffering even when the claim that it might benefit them is so tenuous as to be absurd.
So here is the calculus at work for most believers: Jesus loves me; He is waiting for me in Paradise where I will be with my family and friends in eternal bliss, but I’m so afraid of this that I will support the government using my money to hurt animals by the tens, maybe hundreds of millions a year to extend my life for a potential few moments. Make sense? Not to me.
I’m stuck with only a few possibilities:
1. Maybe the people who support animal research aren’t Christians (choose the deist belief of your choice) and don’t believe in Heaven or salvation.
2. Maybe the people who support animal research are Christians, do believe in Heaven, but worry that they are bound for eternity in Hell so must avoid death at any cost.
3. Maybe the people who support animal research only think they are Christians, but really don’t believe in Heaven and can’t admit it to themselves.
Romans 5:8: "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." To those who support animal research, Christ’s death simply wasn’t enough. They support the infliction of uncountable lifetimes of suffering on animals science claims have minds and emotions much like our own, in order that they might avoid Heaven just a little longer. Christ is said to have suffered on the cross for three days; how does this compare to a monkey’s twenty or thirty years of solitary confinement and periodic torture?
But maybe I just don’t get it. Maybe the people supporting animal research and even the researchers themselves really do believe in Heaven and believe they are going there because they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Maybe these same people feel that they are living a good and godly life doing what they believe God wants them to do.
If this is the case, then they have a very twisted religion. Here’s the deal: God loves them, is promising eternal bliss, and looks favorably on their career choice that entails hurting animals in an attempt to avoid entering into this promised paradise. That’s just nuts.
As far as I can tell from looking at the actual decisions and opinions held by believers, there is not really a God of compassion in their hearts.
Ironically, an atheist seems to care more about all of God’s creatures than one of His own followers. Go figure.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Police Duped by UW Public Records Office
On Wednesday, August 17, I tried to review more records regarding researchers’ use of monkeys at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
One of the UW's legal advisors on matters of open records, attorney Ben Griffiths, contacted us two or so weeks prior and informed us that another set of documents we had requested under the state open records statutes was ready for our review.
So we went to look at them. While waiting for my two associates, one an attorney and the other an ex-lab employee, I ran into Michelle Basso, who was there for some reason. Basso is a primate researcher who bolts nasty devices to monkeys’ skulls and experiments on their brains. She was coming out of the building as I stood waiting for my friends.
We said hello to each other; Basso left. My friends arrived and we went up to the third floor to review the documents, just as we have done previously. Basso was there ahead of us speaking with someone in the office; she had gone back into the building (running? through a side door?) She left the room when we showed up but remained speaking with someone out in the hall.
The receptionist ask us what we wanted, we explained that Mr. Griffiths had contacted us and told us that a set of documents was available for our review, and that we had come to review them. She left the room.
We waited for some time. Suddenly, a campus police officer rushed in, "What's going on?" he asked, clearly out of breath from rushing up the stairs. "Nothing," we replied, "What's up?"
He said that campus police had received a call from Griffith's office about a "disturbance." Apparently, our sitting in the waiting room had totally freaked them out. More cops showed up. At least 6 were in evidence, and it looked like more were stationed at the exits down the hall.
We explained that Mr. Griffiths had contacted us and told us to come review some documents that he had prepared for us at our convenience.
The student worker in the office then piped up that he was the one doing the redacting but that the redacting was not completed after all. Now they tell us we will need to make an appointment with Mr. Griffiths prior to being allowed to review the documents.
It was a total fiasco. I think the cops were wondering why they were called. The UW is giddy with nervousness about such documents, apparently burned by the bad publicity surrounding our discoveries regarding Ei Terasawa.
You should be wondering: why was Michele Basso in the public records attorney's office? Why did she go back in after seeing us? What has Michele been up to or caught doing to the monkeys that motivated her to visit the public records office?
Stay tuned.
One of the UW's legal advisors on matters of open records, attorney Ben Griffiths, contacted us two or so weeks prior and informed us that another set of documents we had requested under the state open records statutes was ready for our review.
So we went to look at them. While waiting for my two associates, one an attorney and the other an ex-lab employee, I ran into Michelle Basso, who was there for some reason. Basso is a primate researcher who bolts nasty devices to monkeys’ skulls and experiments on their brains. She was coming out of the building as I stood waiting for my friends.
We said hello to each other; Basso left. My friends arrived and we went up to the third floor to review the documents, just as we have done previously. Basso was there ahead of us speaking with someone in the office; she had gone back into the building (running? through a side door?) She left the room when we showed up but remained speaking with someone out in the hall.
The receptionist ask us what we wanted, we explained that Mr. Griffiths had contacted us and told us that a set of documents was available for our review, and that we had come to review them. She left the room.
We waited for some time. Suddenly, a campus police officer rushed in, "What's going on?" he asked, clearly out of breath from rushing up the stairs. "Nothing," we replied, "What's up?"
He said that campus police had received a call from Griffith's office about a "disturbance." Apparently, our sitting in the waiting room had totally freaked them out. More cops showed up. At least 6 were in evidence, and it looked like more were stationed at the exits down the hall.
We explained that Mr. Griffiths had contacted us and told us to come review some documents that he had prepared for us at our convenience.
The student worker in the office then piped up that he was the one doing the redacting but that the redacting was not completed after all. Now they tell us we will need to make an appointment with Mr. Griffiths prior to being allowed to review the documents.
It was a total fiasco. I think the cops were wondering why they were called. The UW is giddy with nervousness about such documents, apparently burned by the bad publicity surrounding our discoveries regarding Ei Terasawa.
You should be wondering: why was Michele Basso in the public records attorney's office? Why did she go back in after seeing us? What has Michele been up to or caught doing to the monkeys that motivated her to visit the public records office?
Stay tuned.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Cutting through the Crap
The University of Wisconsin’s reaction to the announced plans to establish a National Primate Research Exhibition Hall wedged between the Harlow primate psychology lab and the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WPRC) has not been surprising. They have attacked on two fronts: they have duped the owner of the property with the allure of riches to the tune of $1,000,000, and thereby placed him at significant risk of lawsuit, and they have disparaged the organizers. Along the way, they have struggled to claim that all is well behind their locked doors.
The legal maneuvering and the ad hominem attacks are diversions intended to cloud the issue at hand, the use of animals in harmful experimentation at the University of Wisconsin and around the world. The WPRC director, Dr. Joseph Kemnitz, has said that all the primate labs operate in the same way. We take him at his word on this point and believe that the Wisconsin labs are good examples of practices and problems industry-wide.
It is very difficult, often impossible, for the average American to learn what is occurring in the labs. Public relations departments work daily to convince an ignorant and trusting public that the labs are curing human diseases through humane research on animals. This message, paid for with tax dollars, is contrary to the public’s best interests. Research failures, the success/failure ratio, and the real suffering caused by the research are kept hidden from the public; as a result, no informed debate can take place, no informed decision-making is possible. The labs have a vested interest in keeping the public misinformed and in promoting a false impression.
This vested interest in misleading the public easily explains the university’s concern with the establishment of a permanent facility dedicated to calling attention to the realities they work so hard to keep hidden.
When the Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom Project exposed part of the Ei Terasawa situation, university spokespersons made a variety claims in defense of the university and Terasawa. The situation and response to the disclosure offers a case study of primate research, university oversight, and propaganda. First, Terasawa as described by the primate center:
Ei Terasawa, Ph.D., professor of pediatrics and Primate Center senior scientist, studies the hypothalamic neurons that contain luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH). LHRH neurons release the neurohormone in a pulsatile manner. This pulsatility is essential for the synthesis and secretion of gonadotropins in the anterior pituitary gland and, hence, the maintenance of normal reproductive function in mammals. [Centerline, Fall/Winter 1997.]
Terasawa clearly remembers her first monkey studies. Ironically, one of the earliest things she discovered in monkeys that excited her was never published. She found that reserpine, a drug used to deplete neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine—important signals for stimulating the preovulatory LH release (and presumably LHRH release) in the rodent brain—does not block the LH surge in rhesus monkeys, indicating that signals for the preovulatory LHRH surge in primates and rodents differ.
“This observation was eye-opening for me in realizing the importance of studies using the rhesus monkey as a model for the human,” says Terasawa. From there, her lab’s work took off. Terasawa’s first NIH R01 grant, “Hypothalamic Control of Puberty” was awarded in 1977. Her second, “Hypothalamic Control of Gonadotropin Secretion,” would follow shortly thereafter, in 1980. [Centerline, Fall 2001.]
According to University of Wisconsin internal documents, sometime prior to May 12, 2003, during an annual inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it was discovered that things were terribly amiss:
Graduate School Animal Care Committee
May 12, 2003
Present: Bolton, Evans, Fechner, McEntee (n.v.), Sandgren, Schultz-Darken, Welter and Zhang. Absent: Abbott
Guests: Dr. Kemnitz, Amanda Crumbaugh, Dr. Parks
Compliance Issues
Recently, two USDA investigators visited RARC and the Primate Center. During this investigation the investigators learned that monitoring was not provided continuously for chaired animals as described in [Terasawa’s approved protocol]. During a 25-minute absence by a technician, an animal in the chair died.. The fact that the animal died during the experimenter's absence was not provided to the Graduate ACUC at the time of the animal's death. It is clear to the committee that the lack of continuous monitoring constitutes a protocol violation.
[Redacted] noted that the USDA investigators also raised a concern about the length of time needed between chairing episodes. The PI verbally reported to the investigators that she waits four weeks between chairing sessions, but the investigators found records from summer 2002 where only three weeks of rest was given between sessions. The length of rest time between sessions was not explicitly stated in the protocol. [Redacted] will investigate this inconsistency.
Dr. Nancy Schultz-Darken noted that many of the concerns of the USDA investigators regarding this protocol highlight the necessity that the descriptions of the procedures be very clear, especially given the nature of the experiments. The AAALAC site visitors voiced many of the same concerns in March 2003.
In light of new information related to this protocol, it seems that the committee is not confident that the procedures are being followed as detailed in the approved protocol. Additionally, it seems that there are inadequacies in the protocol as it currently stands that could impact the animals' health.
Dr. Sandgren identified two issues for the ACUC to address:
1- The lack of continuous monitoring (the protocol violation); and
2- Increase the familiarity of the committee with the exact nature of experiments.
It seems that critical information regarding this experiment was never made known to the committee. The committee discussed a response letter from [Terasawa] regarding the break from continuous monitoring. (See attached letter dated 05/07/03.) [Terasawa’s] letter states that she will revise the protocol to re-emphasize that substitute lab staff will cover for any time when researchers take breaks so that continuous attendance is ensured. The committee accepted this proposal provided that the substitute must have visual contact with the restrained animals.
Welter/Schultz-Darken moved to suspend [Terasawa’s protocol] and have the ACUC send a letter to [Dr. Terasawa] to include the committee's acceptance of her plan to include substitute monitors and contingencies under which protocol reinstatement could occur. (See attached letter dated May 13, 2003.) Vote was unanimous with Su-Chun Zhang abstaining.
In the course of studying documentation regarding the incident with [Terasawa’s protocol] the USDA investigators also inquired about [her] surgeries and asked to see the intraoperative records. It appeared that these records were not immediately accessible to the investigators. This was of high concern by the investigators.
None of this was made public. But once it became known, through our publication of the July 10, 2003 letter to All Campus Animal Care and Use Committee Chair, Tim Mulcahy, the public relations department began spinning the facts.
Current Chair of the All Campus Committee, and frequent spokesperson, Dr. Eric Sandgren, claimed in the Madison Capital Times newspaper that Terasawa’s subsequent suspension was, “… evidence of the process of oversight working. We investigated, we determined a particular procedure was too risky and could no longer be performed at all.” [Tuesday, August 16, 2005.]
But the university’s oversight had failed completely. Outsiders discovered the situation. Threat of a fine and public embarrassment led to the committee’s subsequent action.
And what of the claim, “we determined a particular procedure was too risky…”
Terasawa first published papers detailing the results of her ‘push-pull perfusion” experiments in 1988, the procedures Sandgren said are too risky. [Gearing M, Terasawa. Luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) neuroterminals mapped using the push-pull perfusion method in the rhesus monkey. Brain Res Bull. 1988 Jul;21(1):117-21.]
The committee Sandgren chairs is regulated by federal statute 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et. seq.:
(3) The Committee shall inspect at least semiannually all animal study areas and animal facilities of such research facility and review as part of the inspection--
(A) practices involving pain to animals, and
(B) the condition of animals, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act to minimize pain and distress to animals. Exceptions to the requirement of inspection of such study areas may be made by the Secretary if animals are studied in their natural environment and the study area is prohibitive to easy access.
(4)(A) The Committee shall file an inspection certification report of each inspection at the research facility. Such report shall--
(i) be signed by a majority of the Committee members involved in the inspection;
(ii) include reports of any violation of the standards promulgated, or assurances required, by the Secretary, including any deficient conditions of animal care or treatment, any deviations of research practices from originally approved proposals that adversely affect animal welfare, any notification to the facility regarding such conditions and any corrections made thereafter;
We must conclude that the UW committee felt for the previous seventeen years that Terasawa’s push-pull procedure was not too risky, or else that, as stated in the May 12, minutes, “critical information regarding this experiment was never made known to the committee” for seventeen years. But the federal statute requires the committee to review – as part of the semi-annual inspection – “practices involving pain to animals.”
And consider this: "Once a study begins, care is provided every day to animals by specially-trained scientists, veterinarians, technicians and animal caretakers who assume stewardship of the animals under their care." (UW researcher, Wisconsin State Journal, 4/23/05)
Apparently, these "specially-trained scientists, veterinarians, technicians and animal caretakers" failed to notice the problems in Terasawa's lab for seventeen years.
It seems clear that the committee did not meet its statutory requirements. This is the situation Sandgren characterizes as, “… evidence of the process of oversight working.”
Sandgren’s claim that the push-pull experiments had suddenly become too risky is disingenuous. Monkeys are killed regularly at the primate center as part of the day-to-day routine. Published papers from the scientists there routinely note that the animals used in their studies are killed after the experiments to provide tissues for further examination.
Another claim made in response to the embarrassment was Sandgren’s assertion that the university will now begin reporting such incidents:
"It just did not come up in discussions," Sandgren said of publicly announcing Terasawa's suspension at the time. "Now we've decided we will start announcing these things."
Starting with the cow incident [a recent situation involving cows dying of malnutrition at the School of Agriculture], the committee has begun making a public statement whenever a researcher is suspended from working with animals, Sandgren said. [Capital Times, August 16, 2005.]
This might explain primate researcher Michelle Basso’s recent (August 18, 2005) trip to Ben Griffith’s office, the university’s attorney who oversees public records requests. Griffith’s office is a couple of miles from the primate center, so Basso’s presence in the office was no coincidence. We can only assume that Basso is worried that records detailing her own research complications will make it into the public arena. If she can keep them out of the activists’ hands maybe she will avoid anything akin to Terasawa’s public humiliation, since Sangren implies that past troubles will remain hush-hush.
A month ago, Basso attended a public lecture put on by the Madison-based Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom Project showcasing her research. She chose to speak to the audience and made two assertions that turned out to be somewhat less than accurate. Dr. Sandgren was in the audience and chose to say nothing regarding Basso’s claims; we have to assume that he agreed with her.
Her first claim was that levodopa, or L-DOPA, as a treatment for Parkinson’s Disease was a result of primate research. She was videotaped, with her knowledge, when making her statements to the audience. If my neighbor had made this claim, I could have marked it down to the propaganda barrage from the primate center, but coming from a neuroscientist, the only explanation is that she was willfully lying to the public, or, maybe she’s just ignorant, but ignorance of this point is hard to imagine if we accept her explicit and Sangren’s implicit claim regarding her expertise in Parkinson’s Disease research.
It is a widely disseminated fact of basic neuroscience research that Dr. Oleh Hornykiewicz of Vienna developed L-DOPA treatments * as a direct result of his discovery in human cadavers that dopamine was significantly reduced in the brains of people who had been sufferers of Parkinson’s Disease. How could Basso not have known this basic fact of neuroscience research?
Her second point, the one that probably prompted her trip to Griffith’s office, was that nearly everything she does to the monkeys in her labs is also done to human patients. What she neglected to mention, and what Sandgren knew she was not saying, was that in her attempt to play neurosurgeon, she has killed monkeys by over-tightening the screws she drives into their skulls or by choosing screws that are too long, that puncture the skull, the lining of the brain, and lead to brain abscesses.
She was probably at Griffith’s office hoping to make sure that we don’t get the documents detailing these problems. A little too late.
All in all, it is exactly this untidiness and institutional secrecy and spin that need to be exposed. Without constant demonstration of the simple facts, the public has no hope of really understanding the ugliness behind the labs’ locked doors. The university is rightly anxious about the prospect that the National Primate Research Exhibition Hall will shine a spotlight on their work, their claims, and their dirty laundry.
* "See! Animal experimentation led to L-DOPA!" shout the animal research defenders. Maybe, but maybe the discovery that dopamine and L-DOPA have "biological action" could have been made in human tissue or even with human volunteers. There seems no clear necessity for any of the animal studies mentioned by Dr. Hornykiewicz, and in no case does he mention monkeys. Basso was either lying or just plain wrong. The fact that his breakthrough study occurred in human cadavers is not in question.
The legal maneuvering and the ad hominem attacks are diversions intended to cloud the issue at hand, the use of animals in harmful experimentation at the University of Wisconsin and around the world. The WPRC director, Dr. Joseph Kemnitz, has said that all the primate labs operate in the same way. We take him at his word on this point and believe that the Wisconsin labs are good examples of practices and problems industry-wide.
It is very difficult, often impossible, for the average American to learn what is occurring in the labs. Public relations departments work daily to convince an ignorant and trusting public that the labs are curing human diseases through humane research on animals. This message, paid for with tax dollars, is contrary to the public’s best interests. Research failures, the success/failure ratio, and the real suffering caused by the research are kept hidden from the public; as a result, no informed debate can take place, no informed decision-making is possible. The labs have a vested interest in keeping the public misinformed and in promoting a false impression.
This vested interest in misleading the public easily explains the university’s concern with the establishment of a permanent facility dedicated to calling attention to the realities they work so hard to keep hidden.
When the Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom Project exposed part of the Ei Terasawa situation, university spokespersons made a variety claims in defense of the university and Terasawa. The situation and response to the disclosure offers a case study of primate research, university oversight, and propaganda. First, Terasawa as described by the primate center:
Ei Terasawa, Ph.D., professor of pediatrics and Primate Center senior scientist, studies the hypothalamic neurons that contain luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH). LHRH neurons release the neurohormone in a pulsatile manner. This pulsatility is essential for the synthesis and secretion of gonadotropins in the anterior pituitary gland and, hence, the maintenance of normal reproductive function in mammals. [Centerline, Fall/Winter 1997.]
Terasawa clearly remembers her first monkey studies. Ironically, one of the earliest things she discovered in monkeys that excited her was never published. She found that reserpine, a drug used to deplete neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine—important signals for stimulating the preovulatory LH release (and presumably LHRH release) in the rodent brain—does not block the LH surge in rhesus monkeys, indicating that signals for the preovulatory LHRH surge in primates and rodents differ.
“This observation was eye-opening for me in realizing the importance of studies using the rhesus monkey as a model for the human,” says Terasawa. From there, her lab’s work took off. Terasawa’s first NIH R01 grant, “Hypothalamic Control of Puberty” was awarded in 1977. Her second, “Hypothalamic Control of Gonadotropin Secretion,” would follow shortly thereafter, in 1980. [Centerline, Fall 2001.]
According to University of Wisconsin internal documents, sometime prior to May 12, 2003, during an annual inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it was discovered that things were terribly amiss:
Graduate School Animal Care Committee
May 12, 2003
Present: Bolton, Evans, Fechner, McEntee (n.v.), Sandgren, Schultz-Darken, Welter and Zhang. Absent: Abbott
Guests: Dr. Kemnitz, Amanda Crumbaugh, Dr. Parks
Compliance Issues
Recently, two USDA investigators visited RARC and the Primate Center. During this investigation the investigators learned that monitoring was not provided continuously for chaired animals as described in [Terasawa’s approved protocol]. During a 25-minute absence by a technician, an animal in the chair died.. The fact that the animal died during the experimenter's absence was not provided to the Graduate ACUC at the time of the animal's death. It is clear to the committee that the lack of continuous monitoring constitutes a protocol violation.
[Redacted] noted that the USDA investigators also raised a concern about the length of time needed between chairing episodes. The PI verbally reported to the investigators that she waits four weeks between chairing sessions, but the investigators found records from summer 2002 where only three weeks of rest was given between sessions. The length of rest time between sessions was not explicitly stated in the protocol. [Redacted] will investigate this inconsistency.
Dr. Nancy Schultz-Darken noted that many of the concerns of the USDA investigators regarding this protocol highlight the necessity that the descriptions of the procedures be very clear, especially given the nature of the experiments. The AAALAC site visitors voiced many of the same concerns in March 2003.
In light of new information related to this protocol, it seems that the committee is not confident that the procedures are being followed as detailed in the approved protocol. Additionally, it seems that there are inadequacies in the protocol as it currently stands that could impact the animals' health.
Dr. Sandgren identified two issues for the ACUC to address:
1- The lack of continuous monitoring (the protocol violation); and
2- Increase the familiarity of the committee with the exact nature of experiments.
It seems that critical information regarding this experiment was never made known to the committee. The committee discussed a response letter from [Terasawa] regarding the break from continuous monitoring. (See attached letter dated 05/07/03.) [Terasawa’s] letter states that she will revise the protocol to re-emphasize that substitute lab staff will cover for any time when researchers take breaks so that continuous attendance is ensured. The committee accepted this proposal provided that the substitute must have visual contact with the restrained animals.
Welter/Schultz-Darken moved to suspend [Terasawa’s protocol] and have the ACUC send a letter to [Dr. Terasawa] to include the committee's acceptance of her plan to include substitute monitors and contingencies under which protocol reinstatement could occur. (See attached letter dated May 13, 2003.) Vote was unanimous with Su-Chun Zhang abstaining.
In the course of studying documentation regarding the incident with [Terasawa’s protocol] the USDA investigators also inquired about [her] surgeries and asked to see the intraoperative records. It appeared that these records were not immediately accessible to the investigators. This was of high concern by the investigators.
None of this was made public. But once it became known, through our publication of the July 10, 2003 letter to All Campus Animal Care and Use Committee Chair, Tim Mulcahy, the public relations department began spinning the facts.
Current Chair of the All Campus Committee, and frequent spokesperson, Dr. Eric Sandgren, claimed in the Madison Capital Times newspaper that Terasawa’s subsequent suspension was, “… evidence of the process of oversight working. We investigated, we determined a particular procedure was too risky and could no longer be performed at all.” [Tuesday, August 16, 2005.]
But the university’s oversight had failed completely. Outsiders discovered the situation. Threat of a fine and public embarrassment led to the committee’s subsequent action.
And what of the claim, “we determined a particular procedure was too risky…”
Terasawa first published papers detailing the results of her ‘push-pull perfusion” experiments in 1988, the procedures Sandgren said are too risky. [Gearing M, Terasawa. Luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) neuroterminals mapped using the push-pull perfusion method in the rhesus monkey. Brain Res Bull. 1988 Jul;21(1):117-21.]
The committee Sandgren chairs is regulated by federal statute 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et. seq.:
(3) The Committee shall inspect at least semiannually all animal study areas and animal facilities of such research facility and review as part of the inspection--
(A) practices involving pain to animals, and
(B) the condition of animals, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act to minimize pain and distress to animals. Exceptions to the requirement of inspection of such study areas may be made by the Secretary if animals are studied in their natural environment and the study area is prohibitive to easy access.
(4)(A) The Committee shall file an inspection certification report of each inspection at the research facility. Such report shall--
(i) be signed by a majority of the Committee members involved in the inspection;
(ii) include reports of any violation of the standards promulgated, or assurances required, by the Secretary, including any deficient conditions of animal care or treatment, any deviations of research practices from originally approved proposals that adversely affect animal welfare, any notification to the facility regarding such conditions and any corrections made thereafter;
We must conclude that the UW committee felt for the previous seventeen years that Terasawa’s push-pull procedure was not too risky, or else that, as stated in the May 12, minutes, “critical information regarding this experiment was never made known to the committee” for seventeen years. But the federal statute requires the committee to review – as part of the semi-annual inspection – “practices involving pain to animals.”
And consider this: "Once a study begins, care is provided every day to animals by specially-trained scientists, veterinarians, technicians and animal caretakers who assume stewardship of the animals under their care." (UW researcher, Wisconsin State Journal, 4/23/05)
Apparently, these "specially-trained scientists, veterinarians, technicians and animal caretakers" failed to notice the problems in Terasawa's lab for seventeen years.
It seems clear that the committee did not meet its statutory requirements. This is the situation Sandgren characterizes as, “… evidence of the process of oversight working.”
Sandgren’s claim that the push-pull experiments had suddenly become too risky is disingenuous. Monkeys are killed regularly at the primate center as part of the day-to-day routine. Published papers from the scientists there routinely note that the animals used in their studies are killed after the experiments to provide tissues for further examination.
Another claim made in response to the embarrassment was Sandgren’s assertion that the university will now begin reporting such incidents:
"It just did not come up in discussions," Sandgren said of publicly announcing Terasawa's suspension at the time. "Now we've decided we will start announcing these things."
Starting with the cow incident [a recent situation involving cows dying of malnutrition at the School of Agriculture], the committee has begun making a public statement whenever a researcher is suspended from working with animals, Sandgren said. [Capital Times, August 16, 2005.]
This might explain primate researcher Michelle Basso’s recent (August 18, 2005) trip to Ben Griffith’s office, the university’s attorney who oversees public records requests. Griffith’s office is a couple of miles from the primate center, so Basso’s presence in the office was no coincidence. We can only assume that Basso is worried that records detailing her own research complications will make it into the public arena. If she can keep them out of the activists’ hands maybe she will avoid anything akin to Terasawa’s public humiliation, since Sangren implies that past troubles will remain hush-hush.
A month ago, Basso attended a public lecture put on by the Madison-based Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom Project showcasing her research. She chose to speak to the audience and made two assertions that turned out to be somewhat less than accurate. Dr. Sandgren was in the audience and chose to say nothing regarding Basso’s claims; we have to assume that he agreed with her.
Her first claim was that levodopa, or L-DOPA, as a treatment for Parkinson’s Disease was a result of primate research. She was videotaped, with her knowledge, when making her statements to the audience. If my neighbor had made this claim, I could have marked it down to the propaganda barrage from the primate center, but coming from a neuroscientist, the only explanation is that she was willfully lying to the public, or, maybe she’s just ignorant, but ignorance of this point is hard to imagine if we accept her explicit and Sangren’s implicit claim regarding her expertise in Parkinson’s Disease research.
It is a widely disseminated fact of basic neuroscience research that Dr. Oleh Hornykiewicz of Vienna developed L-DOPA treatments * as a direct result of his discovery in human cadavers that dopamine was significantly reduced in the brains of people who had been sufferers of Parkinson’s Disease. How could Basso not have known this basic fact of neuroscience research?
Her second point, the one that probably prompted her trip to Griffith’s office, was that nearly everything she does to the monkeys in her labs is also done to human patients. What she neglected to mention, and what Sandgren knew she was not saying, was that in her attempt to play neurosurgeon, she has killed monkeys by over-tightening the screws she drives into their skulls or by choosing screws that are too long, that puncture the skull, the lining of the brain, and lead to brain abscesses.
She was probably at Griffith’s office hoping to make sure that we don’t get the documents detailing these problems. A little too late.
All in all, it is exactly this untidiness and institutional secrecy and spin that need to be exposed. Without constant demonstration of the simple facts, the public has no hope of really understanding the ugliness behind the labs’ locked doors. The university is rightly anxious about the prospect that the National Primate Research Exhibition Hall will shine a spotlight on their work, their claims, and their dirty laundry.
* "See! Animal experimentation led to L-DOPA!" shout the animal research defenders. Maybe, but maybe the discovery that dopamine and L-DOPA have "biological action" could have been made in human tissue or even with human volunteers. There seems no clear necessity for any of the animal studies mentioned by Dr. Hornykiewicz, and in no case does he mention monkeys. Basso was either lying or just plain wrong. The fact that his breakthrough study occurred in human cadavers is not in question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
