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
That would be too good. Better would be to use them for the experimentation that they deem unfit for animals. Everybody wins!
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
It's interesting to note that the LA Times article calls it a crude explosive (which could be anything from firecracker to pipe bomb) while the other article calls it a Molotov Cocktail (which IS crude, but more specific). All that aside, obviously these people (if they did it) are complete and utter morons. One does not light a Molotov Cocktail and place it on a porch. One lights a Molotov Cocktail and throws it through a window (or air vent on a Soviet tank, which was the device's original purpose). The glass container breaks, spraying flammable liquid all over the place which then ignites, burning the place down. THAT is how one firebombs a house correctly.
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
...I am going to torture 25 monkeys to death. Just for fun. Not for science, just good old fashioned fun.
Amid all of the chaos of today's world (our lovely wars in the middle east etc.), this is the most depressing story I have read all week. A scientist was forced out of a field that he has dedicated a significant portion of his life to by some self-important zealots(at least he has tenure already). I find it ironic that the people on the far left of the polictical spectrum perpetrating these acts are achieving the goals of the far right (halting the progress of science). Perhaps I am just biased because I have done animal research myself...
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.
Time between when the story was posted by the editors and someone blames bush.... 19 minutes.
Is that a new record?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
How is preventing people from torturing animals a political goal? It's a basic moral goal. If you're walking down the street and see someone beating a cat or dog would you not stop them?
Fuck you buddy. Quit being an apologist for these assholes.
Were not talking about direct action to stop the torture of an animal we're talking about firebombing someone's house.
Not firebombing houses, THAT's basic morals. These people are scumbags plain and simple. They have their excuses, just like every terrorist, but at the end of the day they are scum.
If you believe you are justfied in threatening the lives of those around you because you personally hold certain "morals" you have none at all. Your first obligation is to your fellow man. If you can't get that right, you are a piece of shit plain and simple.
Life is too short to proofread.
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
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).
English, does not have an adequate word for this kind of struggle, but ironically Arabic does: jihad.
Why not crusade?