Comments on: New public polling on scientists (it’s a mixed bag)

By: Why scientists don’t identify as “conservative” « The Unpersons

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:55:24 +0000

[...] August 1, 2009 by Linus Andrew Sullivan hits the nail on the head when it comes to interpreting this result from the Pew survey on science (which I profiled in more depth previously): [...]

By: Concerning animal research (Where do you draw your line?) « The Unpersons

Concerning animal research (Where do you draw your line?) « The Unpersons — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:22:43 +0000

[...] scientists, taken by both scientists and the general public. Most readers probably missed it, but buried at the bottom of the page is an exchange of several comments between me and someone who might charitably be labeled an animal [...]

By: Stendhal

Stendhal — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:22:32 +0000

As a side note to this discussion, one of the problems here is Nita’s categorization of worms, yeast, etc. as “whatever.” We live in a world with a variety of living creatures, and it’s easy to build a preservation campaign for a large-ish furry, lovable or otherwise non-gross animal (polar bears, giant pandas, bald eagles, etc.). Trying to convince everyone that it’s worth saving some tiny Hawaiian fly, which does nothing but pollinate one specific flower with which it evolved symbiotically — well, that’s a tough sell.

I’m reminded of a series of Bloom County comics (by noted vegetarian Berkeley Breathed, for what it’s worth) in which the animals and humans of Bloom County are convinced to stop eating meat, or wearing fur, or leather, or in the end, breathing too hard to kill too many germs.

That’s why, although PETA is stupid in many (read: almost all) ways, they were at least morally consistent when they told Obama to quit swatting flies.

By: Linus

Linus — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:29:23 +0000

That reminds me of something. I was once walking and talking with Stendhal back at college, and said to him something like, “A liberal arts education includes exposure to the sciences,” upon which a girl within hearing distance in front of us whirled around and nearly shouted “That is not true!” There’s a weird animosity that some liberal arts/humanities students/artists/etc. have towards the sciences.

By: zane

zane — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:36:47 +0000

Artists, as much as I sometimes love them, do seem to hate science for no particular reason.

I’m a fan of it, of course. When in history have this many people had this standard of living, this level of productivity, and this long of a life? Never.

Thanks, science!

By: Nita

Nita — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:22:28 +0000

Sorry, no emphathy for torturers of animals, scientist, medical professional, individuals – Yes, you kno you can use them. Perfectly legal you kno.
No, I will not “feel” better until the use of animals in research is stopped. However, I am glad you accept the name Nazi and terrorist so graciously, but I think your conscience is being pricked just a bit, and perhaps you will question the current laws/regulations that fall far from protecting animals, and examine brutal practices to which animals are subjected in all research venues, private corporations and institutional. Thank you and wish you a good life, without harming animals.

By: Linus

Linus — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:07:11 +0000

I think your empathy for animals used in research is admirable, whether you believe me or not. But your empathy for your fellow human is a failure. Did it ever occur to you that I could have entered any biological field I wanted, and that not having to use animals was indeed partly why I chose the one I did? I was willing to meet you halfway. I was willing to find common ground. I was trying to identify beliefs that we shared in common. But you, apparently, are not. And your labeling of flies and worms as “whatever” is ignorance, plain and simple. They are animals. Can we use them? Until you empathize with scientists, try to see the shades of gray, and acknowledge the reality that worms and flies are animals, this conversation has no future. Fine. You win. We are all terrorists and Nazis. Feel better now?

By: Nita

Nita — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:08:04 +0000

I stated that the so-called guidelines to ensure that animals used for research are ineffective, pitiful and are a moot point since suffering, terror, pain and death is the end result to the animals in animal research. As I said, “Kind Cruelty” at best. Evidenced by documented video, photographs, witness testimony and scientific reporting itself, the animals clearly appear to suffer, whether drugged or brain dead from poking around in their skulls. I would never lie to myself, and I would never torture an animal under any circumstances.
I am indeed guilty of partaking of the few medications I consume because of the animals who suffered for it. Doesn’t mean the suffering was necessary or has to continue. Call it a lie if it makes you comfortable.
Good for you, with your yeast, flies and worms or whatever, though I doubt you could draw the line on what victim you would torture if you were in another field of science, – if you wanted to keep your job. BUT you do support animals being used as research tools by your silence, and condoning your fellow scientists’ torture.

I care nothing for your or your comrades’ awards, achievements and status in the scientific world. I only know that I see the fear, pain and unspeakable betrayal to the creatures of our planet in their eyes, and I cannot forget or be silent. I ask for them Justice and Mercy.–To live in freedom from terror, pain and exploitation by human hands – from my heart. Not very scientific, eh? Its enough for me, and thankfully, a growing number of people who recognize a wrong, and don’t need a scientist to define it.

By: Linus

Linus — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:20:36 +0000

Why won’t you give the question about flies or worms any time of day? In a typical biology department like mine, there are dozens of labs that use only flies and worms. And those very model systems are the reason we understand development, genetics, and genomics. I myself am uncomfortable with the use of mice in research (the only vertebrate animal used in any lab at my department), and could never personally use them. But you oppose the use of “animals” in research. I have drawn a line for myself, but you apparently have not. So the question is legit. Flies and worms are animals, and our understanding of biology would be crippled without them. Is it fair to use them or not? Moreover, the only organisms I use are yeast cells and E.coli cells. These are not animals, but they are living things, and I certainly kill millions of them at a time. Is this ok? And please understand that I am not being glib or rhetorical when I ask this. Everyone agrees that lines must be drawn when using living things in research; what we disagree about is where to draw it, and so far I don’t know where you would draw yours.

And your statement that all medical benefits would have progressed without the use of animals is probably one of the most patently false statements I have read. You probably think scientists are lying to themselves when they say they follow guidelines to ensure that animals used for research don’t suffer. Fair enough, I suppose. But I wonder if you will consider for a moment that you are lying to yourself as well the next time you use almost any medicine.

By: Nita

Nita — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:04:36 +0000

Linus,
(Reasoned discourse, productive conversation) Clearly, any input opposing the use of animals in research will be viewed as unreasonable and unproductive, as your post reflects. Congratulations to you if your particular field of science doesn’t require the torture of animals. Yes, the term torture is applicable for intentionally, methodically bringing pain, terror and death to another living being who is restrained and imprisoned, or bred exclusively for a life of misery in institutional exploitation of animals. Just what do you think is done to the animals in research?.. if you say none of your friends participate in torture? Perhaps they are not in the field of using animals as things – research tools.
I totally agree that there are layers of bureaucracy involved, but the (questionable) ethical guidelines set up to eliminate suffering would be laughable if not so deadly for the victims. These so-called (Pitiful) ethical and animal care regulations are accessible on National Health Institute’s website as well as on any University’s sites, along with detailed facts of the routine practice of torture of animals. Would a reasonable person call these regulations, “Kind Cruelty” ? Is there such a term? No, I don’t think so, except perhaps in the underworld of legalized torture. Are there ethics in coldly inflicting suffering? The common animal abuser is considered a criminal, while the scientist is protected and supported by our government and the selfish consuming masses who cannot think for themselves, or plainly don’t possess an ounce of compassion for the creatures of our planet. Fortunately, many among the masses are waking up to the crimes committed against helpless animals in the name of science, and though the forces against ethics, morals and compassion for these most vulnerable among us are powerful, we will speak for those who cannot speak or choose, and we DO hear their cries for mercy. And no, I am not a C.Scientist and won’t give your ridiculous and over used question thrown at animal advocates about worms and flies my time of day. In fact, this question is a tactic popular in religious communities, to soothe their souls over their self ordained right to torture animals for the benefit of humans, – humans such as the terrorist glorified as scientists.
I have neither asked nor condoned any torture of animals for any medical or otherwise benefit – my tax dollars are used for this without my permission. All medical benefits would have progressed without the use of animals.