Pro-Test Petition nears 10,000 signatures...where is yours?

Jul 22 2009 Published by under Animals in Research

Those of you who have been following along this year will know about the car incineration terrorist attack on a UCLA neuroscience researcher which subsequently galvanized the formation of UCLA Pro-Test. They held a rally at the UCLA campus in April which drew about 800 supporters of responsible animal research; the ARA counter protest drew maybe a few dozen individuals. This is important.


The amount of mainstream press coverage garnered by the Animal Rights extremist is far out of proportion to the public support for their position in the US. This is because they work hard at getting publicity, of course, and those on the side of the responsible conduct of well-regulated research activities do not do so to the same extent. It is therefore important to continue to emphasize what a fringe position is occupied by those who oppose animal research under any circumstances.
Ultimately the UCLA Pro-Test, Americans for Medical Progress and Speaking of Research organizations formed an online petition as follows:

We the undersigned believe:
1. That animal research has contributed and continues to contribute to major advances in the length and quality of our lives. It remains vital to understanding basic biological processes and for the development of new treatments and therapies such as antibiotics, vaccines, organ transplants, and cancer medicines.
2. That animal research is morally justifiable provided animal welfare remains a high priority and no valid non-animal alternatives are available.
3. That violence, intimidation and harassment of scientists and others involved in animal research is neither a legitimate means of protest, nor morally justified.

I will continue my request that you sign the petition if you agree with these principles. It is very important that the scope of public support for needed research remain in the mind of politicians.
In my prior note on this topic, I asked people to contact their Congressional representative and ask him or her to sign the petition. [Edit: As did Tom Holder of Speaking for Research, including a draft letter] I am just starting to get feedback from people who have heard from their CongressCritter. A sample that was forwarded to me:

Thank you for contacting me about the Pro-Test petition. I appreciate hearing from you. I apologize for the delayed response. I receive more than 2,000 letters and e-mails each week and find it difficult to personally respond as quickly as I would like.
I appreciate the passion and commitment behind petitions and pledges. However, as a matter of policy, I don't sign them because they commit lawmakers to non-negotiable positions when the legislative process often requires flexibility to meet your goals.
However, I can assure you that in Congress I have been a strong supporter of NIH funding. ... You can be sure that I will continue to ensure that the NIH has the resources conduct critical research that leads to innovation, discovery, and cures for diseases.

It is a reasonable, if frustrating, dodge. Still, the purpose here was accomplished which was to get some staffer in the relevant Congress Critter's office engaged. To let someone there know that these issues are important. Of course, the more of the constituents that write on a given topic, the more salient the message becomes.

48 responses so far

  • Colin says:

    This is such an important issue. Researchers have allowed themselves to be intimidated for too long!
    Once you've signed the petition and had your emails to government ignored, you need to think about what else you can do to raise awareness and argue the case for the responsible use of animals in science. For example, my co-author on Blue-Genes has started an excellent series of posts entitled "Why do we need to do animal experiments?". Read "Part I - Drug Discovery" (the rest is coming when he gets back from holiday) and tell us what you think.
    What will YOU do to combat threats and violence?

  • DuWayne says:

    Signed it ages ago silly...Pissed off several of my FB "friends" for being a motherfuking aminal HATER!!!! as well - mass tagging all my "friends" who I had reason to believe would know nothing about it...
    Fuck 'em.

  • Tom Holder says:

    http://speakingofresearch.com/2009/06/26/hav-your-senator-and-congressman-signed-yet/
    Check out the above link for a model email to send to your local representative.
    Cheers

  • DrugMonkey says:

    What will YOU do to combat threats and violence?
    For any new readers, one of the things that I've done is to write these...

  • julia15 says:

    you guys are terrorists of the worst kind, plain and simple. Torturing innocent animals and then pretending that its okay. IMMORAL, UNETHICAL and UNLAWFUL. I support all ppl who stop you from killing, abusing and harming animals all over the world!
    There are non-medical procedures available and usable but you guys are profit motivated -shame on you - you will not last!!!

  • name your sin says:

    For hundreds of years white men have lived as if the Earth and its inhabitants and resources were theirs for the taking.
    Animals were beneath them, people of color were reduced to "savages," and the land was stripped and degraded. White men placed themselves on the top rung of the planet's hierarchy.
    Much of that belief exists today in the form of "human exceptionalism," what "bioethicist" and animal-rights opponent Wesley J. Smith defines as "the view that ultimate moral value comes with being a member of the human species."
    Women and people of color are now included next to white men, at least by definition, but animals and nature are still looked down upon.
    The concept of human exceptionalism is exceptionally arrogant. Arrogance is pride, pride go awry in the worst way and is one of the 7 deadly sins.
    No wonder the wrath of terror is upon, you reap what you sow.

  • voice for the new america says:

    The Six Principles of the Animal Rights Position
    1. The animal rights position maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.
    2. Our recognition of the one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation—because it assumes that animals are the property of humans.
    3. Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.
    4. We recognize that we will not abolish overnight the property status of nonhumans, but we will support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda. We will not support positions that call for supposedly “improved” regulation of animal exploitation. We reject any campaign that promotes sexism, racism, heterosexism or other forms of discrimination against humans.
    5. We recognize that the most important step that any of us can take toward abolition is to adopt the vegan lifestyle and to educate others about veganism. Veganism is the principle of abolition applied to one’s personal life and the consumption of any meat, fowl, fish, or dairy product, or the wearing or use of animal products, is inconsistent with the abolitionist perspective.
    6. We recognize the principle of nonviolence as the guiding principle of the animal rights movement.

  • simon says:

    [ DM Edit: while this blog has a broad tolerance for pseuds and anonymity of comment we are not keen on sockpuppetry designed solely to create the impression of multi-person support for one's own position. keep that in mind ]

  • DuWayne says:

    For hundreds of years white men have lived as if the Earth and its inhabitants and resources were theirs for the taking.
    Wow. Only white men? People of color somehow just avoid all that? And are apparently all vegetarians?
    Animals were beneath them, people of color were reduced to "savages," and the land was stripped and degraded.
    Umm, I hate to break it to you, but animals have pretty much had a lower place on the food chain than humans, since our proto-human ancestors started making tools for killing them and developing rudimentary language. Only back then the killing was often more brutal and painful for the animals being killed.
    Much of that belief exists today in the form of "human exceptionalism," what "bioethicist" and animal-rights opponent Wesley J. Smith defines as "the view that ultimate moral value comes with being a member of the human species."
    And I think you would find it just as disconcerting to have the words that come from proponents of your own position cherry picked and pushed back in your face. Only there are plenty enough folks on your end of things who say very ugly things, that no picking apart is necessary, for finding the ugly.
    Women and people of color are now included next to white men, at least by definition, but animals and nature are still looked down upon.
    There is a huge difference between utilizing resources and looking down upon those resources. But maybe that's too fine a point for you...
    The concept of human exceptionalism is exceptionally arrogant. Arrogance is pride, pride go awry in the worst way and is one of the 7 deadly sins.
    Religious nonsense won't get you very far around these parts.
    No wonder the wrath of terror is upon, you reap what you sow.
    Fuck You, terrorist piece of shit!!! Seriously, go fuck yourself and the horse that rode you!!! Terrorism is never fucking justified - Never!!!
    1. The animal rights position maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.
    Do you even know what sentience means? Because it is more than just the ability to feel pleasure and pain. Sentience implies higher cognitive function.
    2. Our recognition of the one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation—because it assumes that animals are the property of humans.
    You do realize that it is entirely natural for animals (including human animals) to exploit other animals, don't you? Sentient or not, carnivores and omnivores have been exploiting other animals for as long as there has been live on earth - even back to when all life was microbial in nature. Even then, tiny little germie bugs, as my son like to call them, were exploiting each other, the stronger or "cleverer" preying on the others.
    3. Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.
    You're right, which is why I for one, will stand up for the rights of any sentient beings we come across.
    And I would note that I include the treatment of non-human animals in my moral frame. I do my very best to minimize the suffering of all animals, while accepting that there is a natural order of things, in which animals are exploited for human needs. Unlike non-human animals and their exploitation of other non-human animals. They don't give any consideration for the suffering of the animals that they exploit for their survival.
    Are you going to go out in the world and terrorize predators that flat our torture their victims?
    4. We recognize that we will not abolish overnight the property status of nonhumans, but we will support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda. We will not support positions that call for supposedly “improved” regulation of animal exploitation.
    Again, does this mean you will go out and fight those non-human animals that torture and terrorize their victims, before they eat them?
    5. We recognize that the most important step that any of us can take toward abolition is to adopt the vegan lifestyle and to educate others about veganism.
    At what point did it become somehow immoral to eat other animals? Is this somehow because we are sentient and therefore should deny our animal nature? Why is it reasonable for bears, pigs, chimps, rodents, birds, lizards, etc. to eat flesh, as well as plants, but not humans? Why is it ok for lions, jackals, wolves, etc., to eat flesh, but not us human animals?
    How is this claim of human exceptionalism not entirely antithetical to your stated position?
    6. We recognize the principle of nonviolence as the guiding principle of the animal rights movement.
    Tell that to the fucking terrorist fucking scum in your midst.
    Here's a little tip, coming to a discussion about animal rights terrorists and expounding on the alleged non-violent nature of you movement is rather counterintuitive. So yeah, I have to agree with simon, thanks for posting this. It is good to see hypocrisy up close and personal.

  • Captain Obvious says:

    Don't feed the trolls.
    There is a possibility they're not trolling but irredeemably stupid but even in that case there's no help for them. It's a bit like arguing with a dyed-in-the-wool young-earther or 9/11 truther - it's only valuable if you can set things straight for a sane audience who might not be up to date on reality, it has no chance of actually convincing the opponent they're a muppet.

  • Wanda Beckertine says:

    "it's entirely natural for animals to exploit other animals"
    Clearly you know better than to argue from what purportedly is or is not natural to what one ought to do. In some sense it may be natural for men to rape women...it's certainly been happening for a hell of a long time and there is no end is sight. Yet we cannot conclude that it is justified or morally appropriate for men to rape women. We and must still condemn the rapist.
    For similar reasons we can and must condemn animal exploiters.

  • Cleveland says:

    The concept of human exceptionalism is exceptionally arrogant. Arrogance is pride, pride go awry in the worst way and is one of the 7 deadly sins.
    Religious nonsense won't get you very far around these parts.

    Why not? I very much appreciate ARA crazies exhibiting the fundamental truth which is that their position is a theological one. This is good to remember when you think to start arguing over their supposed facts and supposed logical arguments. They start with their faith, front and central. All else is subjugated to promoting the truth of this faith and all considerations of objective reality is a mere tool to be used toward this end if convenient and ignored/discarded if not.

  • DuWayne says:

    Ok, let me rephrase that in simple terms, that even a nut can understand.
    Our bodies have evolved to ingest dead animals, as well as plants. There are nutrients that our bodies require, that can only come from meat, or yeast - the latter of which is still too animal like for some vegans.
    And just curious, do you go after those damned non-human carnivores and omnivores that cause far more pain and suffering?

  • voice for the new america says:

    oh my, my,... my dear DuWyane, how absolutely devolved your consciousness is.
    The terrorists are upon you. It is the by product of all the suffering, anguish and torture you are inflicting on the spirits of others..........
    empty words will not absolve your crimes.......what goes around comes around. Do not be surprised if you die the way you treat the life you torture.

  • Captain Ignorance says:

    Don't feed the torturers.
    There is a possibility they're not humans but irredeemably stupid demons, probabaly even Satan himself but even in that case there's no help for them. It's a bit like arguing with a dyed-in-the-wool young-earther or 9/11 truther - it's only valuable if you can set things straight for a sane audience who might not be up to date on reality, it has no chance of actually convincing the opponent they're a muppet.

  • becca says:

    I'll stay out of most of this, since extreme arguments on this matter just make me extremely contrary.
    However, since I know DuWayne will appreciate help in evolving as a logical and non-magical thinking human being...
    "There are nutrients that our bodies require, that can only come from meat, or yeast - the latter of which is still too animal like for some vegans."
    CITATION?!!1
    (side note- all the crazy vegans I've known have been ALL ABOUT the nutritional yeast. I've always assumed there was a casual link, though I won't speculate about directionality)

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Editorial Note: I haven't had to bother putting up a specific Pharyngula style warning on the sidebar because for the most part my commenters behave themselves admirably. But to be clear I'm not interested in personal threats of the
    empty words will not absolve your crimes.......what goes around comes around. Do not be surprised if you die the way you treat the life you torture.
    variety. If you feel you need to express such violent thoughts there are other venues for that apart from this blog.

  • DuWayne says:

    Becca -
    Oh fuck all, now I have to try to remember and try to find information on it. It's been nearly a decade since I spent much time around vegans - actually a little more than a decade now. I wanted to say something in the Es, but that can be found in nuts. Possibly something in the B complex...I really don't remember and don't have time to look it up right now. And for that matter, it could be wrong - which would be ironic, because that came from my vegan friends and fueled the debate about whether yeast was an ok food for vegans.
    And yes, I did know people who refused to drink beer, because of the yeast...

  • DuWayne says:

    Oh, my there voice - how very clever and original you must think yourself...I'm almost sorry to say that you aren't the first terrorist shitbag to threaten me, nor the first animal rights terrorist shitbag to threaten me. Though I am not an animal researcher myself, I am a omnivore and sometimes hunter. And I stand beside those scientists to whom I am extremely grateful, for the research they engage in, even when it means using animals.
    And I never got intimidated by terrorist shit bags, when they threatened me to my fucking face. So if you think your anonointernet, vague rantings are going to scare me, you have another thing coming. Especially coming from a tiny little fuck, who has to pretend to be several people to get his tiny little point across...
    Fucking cowardly little moron.

  • Anonymous says:

    WOW! thou doth protest too much....feeling a little bit guilty DuWayne?
    hmmmmmmmm, perhaps a little bit of pigs feet and some chimpanzee fingers sliced and diced might cheer up. But then your the expert here....
    Tell us please, how do you cut'em up with such precision while their screaming in terror?

  • DuWayne says:

    Hmm, read much? I'm not an animal researcher - I just stand up for their right not to be fucking terrorized by fucking scum.

  • name your sin says:

    WOW! thou doth protest too much....feeling a little bit guilty DuWayne?
    hmmmmmmmm, perhaps a little bit of sliced pigs feet and some diced chimpanzee fingers might cheer you up. But then your the expert here....
    Tell us please, how do you cut'em up with such precision while they're screaming in terror?

  • rail66 says:

    seems that the editor is a bit biased here.........
    (why am I not surprised)
    one can use all kinds of profanity and derogatory phrases as long as they are on the side your one?
    interesting twist on the ethics of it all...........

  • DuWayne says:

    WOW! thou doth protest too much....feeling a little bit guilty DuWayne?
    Again there, can't pick a name, I'm not a animal researcher. You are mistaking a rather extreme distaste for fucking terrorist shit bags, for guilt.
    one can use all kinds of profanity and derogatory phrases as long as they are on the side your one?
    I am not DM, but I am sure you are totally free to use profanity and derogatory phrases to your hearts content. DM just tends to have a distaste for threats.
    Though if he didn't allow fucking moronic little sockpuppets like you to comment, he would be well within his rights and nothing unethical about it. You are, after all, the one coming around here and defending terrorists.

  • rail66@yahoo.com says:

    my, my, such extreme anger!
    you know statistics show that those who torture animals take their rage out on humans next..........
    and yes, you are right nothing unethical about biased editing....especially if you are defending extremists who use profanity to make a point.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    one can use all kinds of profanity and derogatory phrases as long as they are on the side your one?
    I don't find I have to filter profanity, no. Although if it gets too out of hand I will. Derogatory phrases? Again, haven't had a great need and you will see that I have not in this thread.
    I was very clear that it is the threats of bodily harm which I will remove. If you wish to make substantive points, that is fine.

  • Cleveland says:

    you know statistics show that those who torture animals take their rage out on humans next..........
    Conveniently overlooking the fact that such statistics are based on a considerably different definition of "torture" of animals that the one you are employing. There are in fact zero data suggesting that animal researchers "take their rage out" on anything at all or that they express rage for that matter. In short, your point is total bollocks.
    In striking contrast ARA nutters such as yourself exhibit rage against other humans just about every time they open their mouths or write a comment online....and of course, actual ARA terrorism is nearly perfectly associated with prior rage-filled discourse.

  • DuWayne says:

    my, my, such extreme anger!
    Like I said, I don't like motherfucking cowardly, shiteating fucking terrorists! Yes, Terrorists and terrorist sympathizers piss me the fuck off and drive me to rather extreme anger.
    Grow a pair and actually stand up, if you need to. Don't be a fucking coward who resorts to terrorism. Terrorism is the refuge of criminals and cowards who are helpless and hopeless. I have friends and family, as do a lot of Americans, who's lives have been directly affected by fucking scum-eating little shitheads like you. Terrorism is about as low as low can get - the lot of you belong in prison - for a very, very long time.

  • rail66 says:

    a totally unbiased, scientific comment Cleveland has posted.
    No wonder you guys create such animosity and hatred.
    Throw in a few words of profanity and we have a DuWayne clone, a terrorist and hypocrite all wrapped in one ugly package.....
    and DuWayne does it make you feel like a big man to use the words of a terrorist, who supports terrorists, who torture and abuse animals?
    please respond to me in as much profanity as you can muster, this is your chance to really shine, show us all how derogatory a terrorist can be!

  • becca says:

    Cleveland- you're wrong (as usual).
    I researched soybeans for a while. I take out my rage on tofu All. The. Time.
    Clearly, researching something makes you hate it and want to inflict violence on it.* I just worry about the pediatric HIV researchers...
    *Either that, or I'm unusually evil. Always possible.

  • DuWayne says:

    Either that, or I'm unusually evil.
    You're pregnant - which means pretty much the same thing this far along...

  • Tsu Dho Nimh, BS, MT(ASCP) says:

    OK, all you who want to stop using animals in medical research take a good look at animal use in routine medicine.
    Let's see you put your beliefs on the line - how many of the common lab tests listed here, many of them life-saving, are you willing to refuse on the grounds that they use substances taken from animals, often by killing the animal?
    That list is only a start. If I had the time I could probably triple the list. But for starters, no transfusions, no blood typing, no bacteriology checking for MRSA, no pregnancy tests ... etc.
    If you have an aortic aneurysm, will you refuse blood transfusions because the base reagent is made from cow's blood?
    If you get bitten by a rabid fox, will you refuse the antibodies because they were made in horses, or refuse the vaccine because it's grown in animal cells?
    If you get tetanus or botulism, or get bitten by a rattlesnake will you refuse the therapeutic injections because they were made in horses (or goats)?
    Do you want to volunteer your body to become an antibody factory for rabies immunoglobulin? It only requires that you be injected with the virus repeatedly, and then donate blood so the antibodies can be purified from it. I don't know how many pints of blood are needed to produce enough RIG to treat one bite by a rabid animal. Maybe you and your friends can all volunteer to save the horsies.

  • Tsu Dho Nimh, BS, MT(ASCP) says:

    @7 Voice for the new america said, 5. We recognize that the most important step that any of us can take toward abolition is to adopt the vegan lifestyle and to educate others about veganism. Veganism is the principle of abolition applied to one’s personal life and the consumption of any meat, fowl, fish, or dairy product, or the wearing or use of animal products, is inconsistent with the abolitionist perspective.
    Great, so you are going to refuse all medications of all sorts, because they are tested in animals? Refuse all vaccines because they are developed in and/or tested in animals? Refuse all immunoglobulins, anti-sera for nasty things like anthrax and rabies because they are developed in and tested in animals.
    I just realized that if you want to volunteer to be a human factory for rabies immunoglobulins that you will have to convince some of your cohort to be the stand in for the lab animals that the effectiveness of the antiglobulin is tested in. Are they that far into the new vegan world?

  • becca says:

    "You're pregnant - which means pretty much the same thing this far along..."
    OHhh! You are such a Big Blue MEANY!
    Although, wait a sec, I'm thinking about this wrong!
    I get an excuse to be Smug and Evil? I gotta start faking more pregnancies.
    Tsu Dho Nimh- dude, I'm on your side and everything, but I can't be the only one out there thinking "ZOMG, that would be SO COOL!!" about being an antibody factory.
    I'm planning on breastfeeding- it's basically the same thing, we just haven't figured out how to replicate it with animals yet.

  • Tsu Dho Nimh, BS, MT(ASCP) says:

    Becca -
    Unfortunately, you have to have been exposed to the causative agent before you can make antibodies, so we're back to the having to accept vaccines or risk the illness.
    And I'm not a dude, BTW.

  • becca says:

    Tsu Dho Nimh-
    Don't be silly. Peptide-raised antibodies are extremely common- although I'll readily grant it's not generally going to be the most effective strategy for preventing disease, it's probably relevant to a significant amount of the animal-use for antibodies (since peptide-raised antibodies tend to make more consistent lab tools).
    Anyway, even for disease prevention, it all depends on the microbe. Calling it being exposed to the "causative agent" is misleading, given that attenuated or killed microbes can't actually cause a disease.
    Moreover, given that some microbes have nice ligands to tolerize your T-cells into Tregs and such, for some diseases you'd be better off with a component vaccine than the whole organism.
    Possibly like the recombinant vaccine with rabies glycoprotein + vaccinia virus (disclaimer- I don't actually know how this vaccine compares to the attenuated strain vaccine).
    Interestingly, at least if wikipedia is right, nowadays post-exposure rabies treatment (antibodies) are actually from human cells anyway.
    (I don't see dude as particularly gendered, but my apologies in any event- no offense intended)

  • catz says:

    interesting blog..........even more interesting censorship.
    For starters DM threatens someone who uses a pretty common phrase "empty words will not absolve your crimes.......what goes around comes around. Do not be surprised if you die the way you treat the life you torture," which is basically no different than "if you live by the sword, you die by the sword,"
    which is none other than a metaphorical expression meaning that living one's life in a certain way will, in the end, affect one's destiny. The proverb comes from the Book of Matthew, verse 26:52. It is a biblical phrase, words spoken by Jesus, it's an idiom, a phrase with a wide cultural history and meaning.
    While the expression strictly-interpreted means “those who live by violence will die by violence”, it is also used for a variety of situations which contain an element of poetic justice. For instance the proverb could be used to describe a person who regularly drives under the influence and is ultimately killed in a vehicle accident caused by their intoxication, but here it is used as a metaphor in relation to "the by product of all the suffering, anguish and torture you are inflicting on the spirits of others". This is certainly not an act of violence or threat.
    But then their is full acceptance of some of the most vile and derogatory profanity which would be banned from most other blogs, but it is tolerated and accepted here because, as DM states, "for the most part my commenters behave themselves admirably." So I am wondering, is this use of vulgarity the kind of self expression you see as behaving admirable, while using commonly accepted metaphors such a dire threat to your commenters?
    Only in the world of animal testing would one find this kind of hypocrisy...............

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Please explain why profanity and violent threats have anything to do with each other? Really, I'm curious how you see that...

  • catz says:

    your kidding, right??
    you've evaded the questions nicely ........the point made is a comparison of what you choose to censor. An idiom used correctly, which in your extremist point of view is referred to as a threatening act of violence - "if you live by the sword you die by the sword"
    I mean really, are you trying to tell us you are so worried that this is an extremist point of view, such a dire threat that you must censor this????
    and are you really supporting this extreme vulgar, vile language by DeWayne which would be censored on most other blogs as "admirable behavior?"

  • DuWayne says:

    Obviously this is your first go around at this blog, coward of many names...DM's co-blogger here, often uses language that makes me look like Mr. Rogers.
    And the threat was the entire fucking comment, not just one small part of it. "The terrorists are upon you..." and all the rest of your cowardly rant - in context it is rather silly to pretend it isn't a threat. Not that I am personally concerned with cowardly fucking threats from little shitbag terrorists such as yourself - not the first time and probably won't be the last. No, actually doing something to back your threats would entail risk - so you like to hide behind the internets and your sock-puppets. If you do anything, it would be in the dead of night, with a great deal of care not to get caught - and you sure as hell wouldn't do it where I live, because of the rather dramatically increased odds of getting shot while breaking into someone's home or attaching bombs to their's or their neighbors car.
    But please, bluster and blow - wax poetical with your pseudointellectual fucking bullshit. Be the motherfucking hypocrite that we all know you to be and please, please do it loudly. Let all the world see what complete fucking morons you are, how ugly and dangerous your extremism really is. Tell all of us about your support for terrorists and your feeble attempts at anonointernet terrorism. Show the masses who love and respect all life, that you most certainly do not.
    Because in so doing, we can turn around and show the other side of this. We can discuss and explain the criteria for animal testing - explain the ethical considerations and allow people to see the real face of animal testing.
    And then we can get into discussions about factory farmed animals. Because with all your bluster and terrorism aimed at researchers, you are allowing true travesties to run rampant, virtually unchecked. Torture of animals is happening on a massive fucking scale - every fucking day. And you fucking morons are complicit, with your terrorists tilting at windmills fucking stupidity. You alienate sane people and destroy the credibility of the reasonable and sane people who would like to do something about the egregious offenses of the factory flesh industry.
    But you can't stop can you? It feels good to be filled with selfrighteous indignation. It feels good to be a criminal fucking thug, with the power to foster fear. It feels good to have that tiny bit of power - fuck the cost, fuck the consequences - fuck your own fucking humanity. You are absolutely no different than a suicide bomber who blows the fuck out of a health clinic that is treating his fellow Muslims, because killing westerners is so very worth the loss of medicines, doctors and a few innocent Muslims.
    You are exactly the same...

  • Wilder45 says:

    Why aren't you animal researchers making any effort or even supporting to use modern non-animal techniques, thereby avoiding the ethical questions involved which trigger such public anger?
    You'd be happier and those concerned about the welfare of animals would be happy.
    Animals in the U.S. are being injected with substances like Botox until they become paralyzed and suffocate, even though there are modern, non-animal methods to test the deadly neurotoxin.
    A recent Washington Post investigation confirming that the entity put in place by Congress to reduce the use of animals in toxicity testing—the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM)—has failed miserably and has, in fact, become a major obstacle to the incorporation of non-animal test methods. In its 10 years of existence, ICCVAM has only recommended four "alternative" test methods to regulatory agencies. During the same period of time, its European counterpart recommended more than two dozen!
    The U.S. failure to move forward is because of a profound lack of political will, legislative mandates, interest on the part of federal bureaucrats, and a sense of urgency to modernize chemical testing methods. The failure of the U.S. government, including ICCVAM, to reduce and replace the use of animals in toxicity testing ensures that millions of animals will continue to suffer as they are poisoned by toxic chemicals and fails to protect the public health.
    Last year, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a landmark report which, in the words of an NAS news release, stated that the use of non-animal methods "would generate more-relevant data to evaluate risks people face, expand the number of chemicals that could be scrutinized, and reduce the time, money, and animals involved in testing ... ." In the wake of the NAS report, it looks as though the United States may finally be ready to start catching up to other nations by adopting modern testing methods. But this will not happen as long as ICCVAM is allowed to stand in the way of progress.

  • rail66 says:

    THANKS DEWAYNE!!! I was waiting to see how long it would take you to muster up enough profanity to whack us all with. What a great comeback, you rock!! I mean really, you blow us all away, what a great and inquisitive mind you have, with such an extensive range of verbosity and clever comments. You ARE the man. You ARE the great communicator and to tie in all of the muslim stuff as well, well all I can says, its pretty incredible how your mind works. But tell me please, did you have help with this or not?? Cause I see you have used profanity in a new and eventful way.........even that "terrorists are upon you" come back was a stroke of brilliance.
    Pat yourself on the back cause your way ahead of the pack here..........quit your day job today and take over the internet, better yet take over the world and show us all who's boss!!

  • Cleveland says:

    Why aren't you animal researchers making any effort or even supporting to use modern non-animal techniques, thereby avoiding the ethical questions involved which trigger such public anger?
    Yet another ARA intentional lie. All scientists support the use of non-animal techniques wherever they are useful and applicable. Often going to considerable effort to deploy those techniques in their own laboratories. To give but one example, the adoption of gene array and bioinformatics techniques has facilitated the acquisition of a huge amount of new information that otherwise might have required mouse genetic studies.
    confirming that the entity put in place by Congress to reduce the use of animals in toxicity testing
    Nice try with this tired old ARA ploy. Conflating product testing with animal research. They are by no means the same and have totally different ethical considerations. The intent here, quite obviously, is to have the audience thinking "rabbit eye testing for yet another shampoo project" instead of "reducing the suffering associated with Alzheimer's Disease, diabetes, acute trauma, cancers, etc, etc" when they hear "animal research".
    This disingenuous spin just illustrates how weak the ARA nuts feel their position in opposition to research is, since they feel they need to constantly conflate it with toxicity testing.

  • Wilder45 says:

    nice try cleveland, but your mis-information is just another ploy to try and re-direct information and attribute its origin to alternative sources. This information DID NOT come from any AR groups. Next time try to actually READ the comments instead of mindlessly and blindly refuting anything that challenges you to actually THINK.

  • Cleveland says:

    The "information" as you claim, came from ARA wackanut commenters in this thread. That's the point. You, in short.
    I notice that you do not address anything substantive, such as why you intentionally lie about scientist supporting non-animal research methods and why you feel it necessary to always conflate toxicity testing with research. Also you might address why we should not consider such lies, distortion and nakedly obvious spin to be a self-admission of the weakness of your position vis a vis fundamental merits.

  • Wilder45 says:

    what are you.....12 years old?
    you have no idea who I am or what my beliefs are......
    just spewing hatred instead of actually READING/UNDERSTANDING the comments.

  • A says:

    How about some discussion of #7 point 4- a nice statement of the fringe view- "We recognize that we will not abolish overnight the property status of nonhumans, but we will support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda. We will not support positions that call for supposedly “improved” regulation of animal exploitation. We reject any campaign that promotes sexism, racism, heterosexism or other forms of discrimination against humans."
    the absolutist position opposes all of these-- PeTA (sexist), HSUS (promotes animal welfare), spay/neuter - population control efforts-, humane farming- and believes that no efforts for improving animal well-being are worthwhile because they somehow detract from the absolutist mission?

  • Wilder45 says:

    you want a discussion?? here?
    you gotta be kidding..........
    nothing but a bunch o'monkeys running the show here.

Leave a Reply