Slashdot Mirror
Neuroscientist Halts Research to Stop Extremists
FleaPlus writes "UCLA neuroscience professor Dario Ringach, known for his contributions to our understanding of how the visual system processes information, has been forced to give up his experiments by the actions of animal-rights extremists. Although he and his family had endured harassment and vandalization by animal-rights activists for years, Ringach reconsidered after extremists tried to firebomb a colleague's home and accidentally left their Molotov cocktail on an elderly neighbor's doorstep. Ringach sent an email to animal activist groups saying, 'You win... please don't bother my family anymore.'"
Why can't get get rid of our home grown ones?
Yay, I have a sig.
Although he and his family had endured harassment and vandalization by animal-rights activists for years, Ringach reconsidered after extremists tried to firebomb a colleague's home and accidentally left their Molotov cocktail on an elderly neighbor's doorstep.
I don't get it. Aren't humans "animals", too?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Bah... these are the real terrorists... You don't agree with what someone is doing, then sue them... that's the american way... and if that fails, then try and get a law passed to make it illegal... starting your own personal war based on your morals is no different than the actions of those the US is currently calling terrorists. But hey, this is in the country who's government doesn't believe in teaching evolution anymore...
Times like these I'm happy to live in a country where the worst thing activists do is slow down traffic, and hold marches.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Fucking terrorists. They're the same as abortion clinic bombers, using violence to induce fear to achieve their political goals.
And I want to say that he should have stood up to them, that if you give in like this, the terrorists win... but the guy's put up with years of harassment, and now violence against his coworkers, with a very real threat to his family and to people unlucky enough to live near him. So it's understandable why he's packing it in; under the same circumstances, I would have given up years earlier. But it still fucking sucks.
The most grating part of it is that I'll bet the assholes from UCLA Primate Freedom who posted his picture and contact info think they can wash their hands of the inevitable results of their propagandizing.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You demand violence to stop violence that was meant to stop violence. You do realize your idea only helps the problem spiral, right?
We complain when people who hold strong views don't censure their extremists. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't say this.
Violence isn't the answer. These people are destructive. These people are assholes. However, the answer is not to shoot them. They should be arrested, tried and, if found guilty, fined and/or imprisoned for their crimes.
Fantasies of "first against the wall, motherfuckers!" are briefly satisfying, but ultimately degrading to the person having the fantasy.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Are you seriously putting the firebombing of the home of a little old lady in the same category as peaceful dissent?
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
You know how cute animals are. Well animal rights activists are at their cutest when they loose invasive species from laboratories on the unsuspecting indigenous flora and fauna the way they did in the British Isles.
Seastead this.
You see, the problem with the current response is that in giving in because an elderly couple was accidently targetted means that friends and neighbors of such people will now be held hostage. The only effective way to use violence to stop such researchers is to target elderly neighbors...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The animal research still needs to be done, and because of assholes like these, it's all going to china.
In China, the concept of human rights is laughable- do you think the government there gives a shit about animals?
Or that they would hesitate to beat down any Animal Liberation Front jerks, quite literally?
There should be laws against this kind of behavior, they should be enforced, or there should be a local law enforcement culture that encourages a violent beat down of people who carry on this type of harrasment campaign.
Congratulations, morons. You will accomplish the opposite of what you intended- more animal research, and no government oversight to ensure they are being treated even vaugely humanely.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Animals don't have rights. It's not that much of a leap from the fantasy that anmials have rights to the justification that it's OK to firebomb people to protect animals.
Reality never intercedes because it was left behind when the animal rights activists refused to complete the transition to adulthood and the realities and responsibilities that come with it. Some people just decide to live in a cartoon world.
When animals agree to a set of minimum behavioral norms that define a civil society, then they'll have rights. Until then, it's the law of the jungle that defines the lives and fortunes of animals.
Far-right and far-left zealots have a lot more in common than they like to admit. Their shared radicalism leads to a desire to tear down our institutions and force society into a mold more to their liking. This means violence and force, lots of force.
What kind of animal research? What sort of ethical issues did you run into, and how did the system handle it? We hear that animal researchers are bloodthirsty scoundrels, cruelly vivisecting for the fun of it. Did you go through an IRB process, and what did that entail? What restrictions were placed on what you did?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
How many animal rights people are pro choice and willing to do violence to humans.
What a fascinating analogy. When macaque monkeys start firebombing houses, please notify me.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
And before anyone brings up abortion clinic bombers, you want to know why it isn't a problem? Because there are a lot of Christians like me who wouldn't hesitate to shoot those violent fucks if we caught them in the act. Why? Our religion teaches that preserving life is a duty of all Jews and Christians.
I don't even know where to start... do you religious people actually listen to what you say?
If you can't tell the difference between:
- holding protests
- waging action through the courts
- firebombing someone's house, threatening their neighbors and their family
then I suggest you return to grade school and play one of these things is not like the fucking others until you're ready to join us at the grown-ups' table.Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
As was pointed out on Penn and Teller's Bullshit! the CEO, director, whatever you want to call this person of PETA is diabetic. So she needs insulin to live. Well insulin was tested on animals, and certain strains are made by animals. So for her to live she must abuse animals. Now the point being natural selection should have kicked in here at some point, and well taken care of her, but because humans use research on animals to help humans AND animals (the vet didn't learn how to take care of cats and dogs by magic) with sickness, this person lives to make her wacko friends blown crap up.
Also pointed out was that PETA spent some money on a large freezer. This freezer was used for cadavers, animal cadavers, because they end up euthanizing animals they take in but cannot find homes for, ie what the Human Society has do sometimes. Check out the episode, its on 2nd season I believe which is out on DVD.
So the moral of this story is that, fine have ideals, have crazy ideals no normal person would find moral, but don't be a hypocrit...makes you look like an asshole.
Selex
The monkeys are housed in cages (of a government mandated size) for a short period, then anesthetized, then studied, then euthanized.
Typically dishonest, the animal terrorists fail to mention the anesthesia in their public communications.
You're willfully ignorant, or stupid, or lying.
The issue was never with "any surveillance... ever". The issue was never with secret surveillance. The issue was with breaking the law.
Here's how it is. The administration wants to wiretap people. There's a method called FISA for doing this. FISA allows for immediate taps in your smoking-nuke situation, as long as paperwork is submitted to a notoriously rubber-stampy court, which operates in secrecy, within three days. There is nothing that the administration needs to do other than file some paperwork. They have refused to do this. FISA clearly states that for wiretapping to occur, it must be used.
The administration is claiming that it has the authority to wiretap people secretly, whenever it wants, with no judicial oversight, ever. Despite that the law clearly says it can't. I'm going to put this in italics, so you pay attention. The President is not a King. He is subject to the law. If he doesn't like the law, he can act to change it. He cannot just ignore it.
The only possible reasons for doing this are (1) the President wants to wiretap his political opponents, (2) he wants to flex his Presidential balls. We can't know which, and neither will anyone else, because this all goes on in secret, with no accountability, not even to a secret court.
Now, if you make the claim that the ACLU and company are against any and all wiretapping again, I'm going to bap you in the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. You have no excuse.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I'm very sad that it is so easy for you to believe that a scientist would needlessly torture macaques. What exactly are you credentials when you say "it is difficult for me to believe, given the state of neuroscience, that these experiments on monkeys were so much more valuable than would have been experiments on say, mice, or salamanders, or what-have-you"? Honestly, I'd love to know about all that "research" you did on google to arrive at that conclusion. IF you really want to know, tried going to www.pubmed.org and search for the primary literature. You'll realize that Dr. Ringach has done some really pioneering work on determining the precise wiring of the visual cortex. I'm not sure how to explain this to you, but hopefully it will suffice to say that he is not some crazed sadist sitting around poking out monkey's eyeballs. It is also extremely difficult to explain to a lay-person just how many hoops a researcher has to jump through before conducting animal research, let alone primate research. Let's just say you don't do it unless there are absolutely no other options. The cost and bureaucracy associated are prohibitive to "torturers" as you put it. Dr. Ringach studies the brain, not eyeballs. You can't just pick any animal for that (BTW, your opinion on primates could just as easily be someone else's opinion on mice, or flies for that matter). If you want to know the real scoop instead of jumping to the same conclusions these terrorists did, I encourage you to look at the primary literature. If you are still not convinced, I encourage you to lobby against this research, and maybe put your money where your mouth is by refusing any and all medication (you do know they are tested on animals, right? especially stuff like vaccines).
I'm looking forward to the day when homo sapiens agrees on a universal minimum behavioral norm and sticks to it.
Until then, it's the law of the jungle that defines the lives and fortunes of humans.
Lauren Gazzola was, according to her supporters, "alleged to have operated a website that reported on and expressed ideological support for protest activity against Huntingdon and its business affiliates. For this they are charged with "terrorism" and face an aggregate of 23 years in Federal Prison."
Wow, that sucks. I mean, operate a website and go to jail? Pretty fucked up. We're living in a fascist nation. Time to join the revolu--oh, wait. Apparently they posted home addresses and phone numbers, and exhorted their members to engage in exciting activities such as:
Yeah, they're just like Gandi.
Who could have ever foreseen that such acts could have legal consequences?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
No, my opinion doesn't enter the equation. This activity is illegal. Threatening someone is illegal, arson is illegal, destruction of property is illegal, assault is illegal. I don't think it should be legal to support those who commit those crimes, and to try and shield them. If I tell someone to beat you up, provide them with weapons and a map to your house, I'm as responsible as they are. That's the law.
Well what I believe is that if an organization supports something, and one of it's members does it, and the organization then condones that and applauds the member, they should be liable. None of this "But we didn't TELL him to do it," bullshit. If you say it ought to be done, and then reward those that do it, and help conceal their involvement, that's the same thing in my mind. You are providing them with means and support. Much like the government goes after charities that funnel money to foreign extremists, I think this is the same thing.
You can say whatever you want (threats are illegal though), my problem is when you act on it, and then try to disclaim responsibility. Organizations do have some responsibility for the actions of their members. For example there are plenty of pro life organizations that would kick out and turn in to the police anyone who attacked a doctor. Why? Because they believe ALL life is sacred, including that of the doctor. They aren't responsible if a member goes off and does something, they clearly don't support it.
However if there's an organization that extols killing doctors, posts lists of names and addresses online, and treats those that do as heroes, they should be liable. They can't hide behind the first amendment and claim that they never intended for people to act on what they were saying, bullshit. That's the same as a company having a policy that rewards employees for stealing from customers and saying "Well we didn't MAKE them do it, and we didn't expect they'd actually act on it, we were just exercising free speech."
Saying that animal testing should stop is free speech. Telling people to commit acts of violence is not.
This is precisely what I was going to suggest as a punishment...if they're in a morally high enough position to justify threatening people & destroying property, they should be dedicated enough to be willing to sacrifice themselves. ALF doesn't like animal testing? No problem, we'll just fill the labs with the rank and file of their organization. Anything less is hypocrisy on the order of MaryBeth Sweetland's.
When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.
Torture means: the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. That's not what's happening with animal testing. Don't use an emotionally loaded term to try and push your point. It's not torture, unless you twist the definition of torture as to be meaningless.
When my doctor injected my foot with novocaine to remove warts, it was the most painful thing I've ever felt. I was screaming as loud as I could from the pain. However he wasn't torturing me, he was causing me pain because it was necessary to prevent worse future pain, and because I needed a medical procedure done.
Torture is in the reason, not in the action. Also, primates in these studies are under anesthesia, so they don't feel pain.
The nit-picky, leftist, Clinton-appointed, obstructionist judges who rejected around one out of every five thousand warrant applications? Could you be more specific about the warrants that were "all" rejected during GW's presidency? Perhaps we're talking about a different FISA court, though I don't see how.
Your faith in the government is touching, really, but I don't think I should have to hand power without oversight to people and then trust them to do the right thing with it. (And what does "he doesn't want to get impeached and shit" have to do with anything?)
Yes, darn them, with their "constitution" and "the President has to follow the law" and "checks and balances".
No, the point is that we don't have to trust one person or group. This is why we have separation of powers. This is why we don't allow power to be centralized in one place.
And what makes the NSA "ordinary people", but the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "bureaucracy"?
Speaking of Clinton, would you be kosher with Clinton wielding this sort of power? Would you be okay with the knowledge that Clinton could be wiretapping anyone, anywhere, and nobody outside his administration would ever know? Would you trust him not to be wiretapping RNC headquarters? If not, doesn't your faith in assigning these kingly powers (and make no mistake, this "unitary executive" nonsense where the president makes up his own laws is nothing if not kingly) to the office of the President mean that you simply trust the man? Are you comfortable with the next administration having the power to make up laws as they see fit? With the next Democratic administration doing so? And if not, why are you convinced that the government, once given this power, will politely put it away and never use it again?
Well, your claim above that FISA warrants were being denied was trivially debunked. Were you lying and hoping that I wouldn't look it up? Had you seen the claim somewhere and were just parroting it back at me, being too lazy to look it up yourself?
And if calling you a liar is all I can "hack up these days", why didn't you respond to my initial questions about why the President, if he needed some powers he didn't have, didn't actually ask for them? That is how our system of government works, you know. The legislative branch makes the law, and the execu
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
He shouldn't have called you a liar. It's almost as cheap of a tactic as criticising judges for their appearance and gender. You are clearly willfully ignorant, and need to read a bit more on the topic before you earn the right to disparage others opinions. "Infiltrated by leftists" is a handy excuse to ignore data that is contrary to your preconceptions.
Fact: Between 1979 and 2001 FISA rejected NO warrants. None. They rejected 2 in 2002 and 4 in 2003. Those same years they approved 1228 and 1727 respectively. The 2 rejected in 2002 were approved in appeal. In 2005 they approved 1758 with no rejections. This is not an obstructionist record that warrants your abusive language or attitude.
Fact: the judge that struck down the NSA wiretaps is a Carter appointee. Clinton had nothing to do with her.
Here's a thought: You can't trust the president or the judge or the congress. That's why the Constitution of this United States set them up in opposition. The president swore to uphold the constitution and live by its principles when he was elected. When he acts contrary to the Constitution by acting without oversight he is violating those principles and breaking his sworn oath. Your trust in him is misplaced.
If we were not overextended in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be challenging us. If we weren't foolishly addicted to oil because our government has spent billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize the extraction industry and little to seed research into alternatives they would be irrelevant.
Save your indignation for those who deserve it - the ignorant voters who put this mediocre man into the presidents office and return a profligate corrupt congress year after year.
I'm going to pray tonight that nobody running the NSA is anything like you. I hope they gather the data, review it thoroughly and draw conclusions that are based on the facts, not their prejudicial view of the world.
First of all please never refer to my spin as Fox-style...its more Colbert Report style, still working on the Daily Show style.
Secondly, the time table doesn't matter. Research breakthrough A was discovered by experiment B, which used an animal. So if you're against experiment B because it used an animal in the experiment then breakthrough A is not valid according to your own code of ethics. Just because it was discovered 20-30 years ago doesn't make a difference. An animal was still used to extend your life. So if hypothetically insulin had not been discovered 20-30 years ago, but was found tomorrow would the PETA person still use it even though animals were used? My guess would be yes, because they have the same self-preservation instincts that every animal has, and their rational would be that they need to take the insulin now to help animals in the future. So your life is more important then the people who you harass and hurt, because you're not willing to be a martyr for your cause, but will to kill others for it. Thats just selfishness.
So at some point there should have been something that clicked, call it logic, call it something else that says "well not all animal testing is bad, and some of it might be benefical to the world." Yes I agree that some forms of testing are immoral, like make-up on the rabbits, but not all of it is bad. Much of it helps.
Selex
During the Apartheid years Lady Thatcher said Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. But now her replacement is all buddy-buddy with Nelson.
1 222111.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation