OSU President Cans Anthrax Vaccine Research On Primates

Wrath0fb0b writes "Oklahoma State University President Burns Hargis has abruptly canceled an NIH-funded study on an anthrax vaccine in primates. (The primates would have to be euthanized afterward.) There is suspicion that the decision was meant to appease large donor Madeleine Pickens, the wife of noted huntsman T. Boone Pickens, who had previously pressured the school over animal-rights issues. Scientists counter that the study was approved by the NIH peer-review process, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and subject to the Federal Animal Welfare Act (by virtue of using NIH money) and that the decision by the President has short-circuited months of planning and deliberation on the matter. Hargis has denied being influenced by Pickens and cited 'confidential factors' that he couldn't discuss, telling the faculty council that 'to go through every lurid detail is simply not prudent.' A post on Pickens' blog, on the other hand, obliquely takes credit for the 'great decision,' noting a faculty member's hunch that the 'generous benefactor to OSU and her ties to the Humane Society of the United States may have played a role in the termination of the project.' Meanwhile, the NIH expressed displeasure at the decision, stating, 'NIH fully expects institutions to honor these assurances and commitment to complete NIH supported projects as requested, approved and funded.' Some OSU scientists speculated that the fiasco would make it harder for them to receive NIH funding in the future."

Comments

"peer-reviewed"

[oldhack]

That phrase is used like "Genuine" (tm) or something.

Re:"peer-reviewed"

[clang_jangle]

I insist on only genuine, all-natural, organic, peer-reviewed research! Preferably it should also synergize multiple externalities whilst being fully recyclable and good for the environment.

Re:"peer-reviewed"

[Anonymous Coward]

I insist on only genuine, all-natural, organic, peer-reviewed research! Preferably it should also synergize multiple externalities whilst being fully recyclable and good for the environment.

Everything is not carbon based.

Re:"peer-reviewed"

[Anonymous Coward]

oujoidfj thsi the ofhtt ejhfotn ltoghwelriuyejj krrh7gthp thiisolelt thuis ei thheuih she ihetnh thhe siotn eht this isn;t the the lasith of thennt look otutthws cant tbeht ehrjt thlsoh look oier the this the the ithhhh thgyt got the last of them tot the gaht sth gettting aournt he the thhdyt ght ejjjjj

They had better reveal the reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise, they're going to have a lot of trouble with NIH grants in the future, and their standing amongst medical schools, residency programs, and medical research centers is going to take quite a hit. Nowadays, research brings in beaucoup money, and NIH grants are often the most respected in the community.

hope he switches to PETA members

[peter303]

The animal rights peopel have slowed down animal research in the US.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, they exist because those pesky human rights people stymie medical research even more. Oh, if only we could go back to the good ol' days with things like Unit 731. Why, we would've practically cured cancer by now!

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[happy_place]

The real problem with testing on animals, and then putting them to death, is that monkeys are cute. Cute animals cannot be subjected to research for the sake of society or even to save the lives of anthrax ridden monkeys. Rats work because most people think of rats as filthy and repugnant creatures. We need an ugly animal that's further up the foodchain--more human. Like say tree-sloths, or grad students... either of which people and professors would have no ethical qualms on experimenting on... or euthanizing.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[wizardforce]

Or the animals PETA is euthanizing... Over 85% of the animals they take in are killed instead of adopted. So many animals were killed by PETA in fact, that they purchaced a 9,000$ freezer to temporarily store the animals that have been killed.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[kdcttg]

Monkeys being "cute" has nothing to do with it. Some would argue that experimentation on rats would be just as wrong, and some would argue that discriminating based on species is wrong, and would point out the fact that a human child is less intellectually developed than certain primates, but the majority would be shocked and disgusted at the thought of experimenting on one, so why should we experiment on the monkeys?

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[nomadic]

The real problem with testing on animals, and then putting them to death, is that monkeys are cute.

The real problem is that generations of scientists have been so casual about using animals for experimentation with no ethical concerns whatsoever that it has started to cause problems even when the cause, as it seems to be here, is good. There has for the most part not been any sort of balance approach -- "will this experiment's social utility in the long term justify the pain inflicted on this particular animal"?

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Isaac-1]

Because the human child has a reasonable chance to outgrow this condition.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Virak]

Some would argue that discriminating based on arbitrary metrics like "being alive" is wrong, and that a rock is as equally deserving of rights and freedom as any human.

These people are quite reasonably regarded as being batshit insane.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[kdcttg]

In that case, why not experiment on the mentally ill, or children born with severe learning disabilities?

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Sir_Lewk]

using animals for experimentation with no ethical concerns whatsoever

You make the common mistake of confusing "no ethics" with "ethics that differ from my own".

For example, I would personally slaughter every last kitten on earth if it would save a single child with cancer. That does not mean I am without ethics, but rather that according to my concept of ethics, a human life is worth an incredible ammount of animal lifes.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[iamapizza]

Monkeys being cute has everything to do with it (OK, not everything, but plays a big role). Related to cuteness - why do you think "save the pandas" is such a popular thing? Next to the animals that are endangered and which are important to the eco-tree, pandas are practically useless. They're only popular because they're cute (another case in point is WWF's logo). It's aptly named survival of the cutest. Another reason monkeys factor in so much is because in terms of appearance, they're closer to us than the rats.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[gnick]

By that logic, the whole experiment is pretty evil. After all, even though antrax isn't "cute", it's still alive. Sure, it's not furry like rats or monkeys, but does that imply that it has any less right to life?

Save the bacterium!

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Nadaka]

But would you slaughter every kitten on earth in order to develop an eye liner that lasts all day? I think that is the kind of animal research he was talking about.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Aeros]

Cant they somehow just find a way to research on the animal rights people?

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[shentino]

Lawyers?

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-peta troll is obvious. Thanks for playing, fuckhead.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[nomadic]

Yes. And kill 1,000 kittens to prove some obscure hypothesis that you'll publish in a third-rate academic journal that nobody will ever read again or use.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Sir_Lewk]

He is making blanket statements without qualification and I am making a point that ethics are perspective.

Would I slaughter every kitten on earth for eye-liner? No. Would someone that would be "without ethics"? Of course not.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[HangingChad]

...the majority would be shocked and disgusted at the thought of experimenting on one, so why should we experiment on the monkeys?

Having been part of animal experiments in the past, this isn't easy subject. I think sometimes the scientific community does get a little impatient with animal rights organizations because they're like Republicans in that anytime you try to find middle ground, they move the center line. It's hard to negotiate with ignorant, closed-mined, intractable people.

Absent on the other side is recognition that the alternative is experimenting on humans. Cell culture experiments will only tell you about toxicity, not other systemic side effects. If a few monkeys lose their lives in the quest to save humans infected with anthrax, I'm okay with that. It's sad and shouldn't be done lightly, but there isn't really any alternative. It would be great if we lived in a world where we didn't have to use animals for food or experimentation, but it's just not the reality.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Zerth]

He is a bit trollish. They did buy a $9370 freezer for their headquarters, but the purpose wasn't stated.

They could be using it for cruelty-free ice-cream substitute or medical supplies not derived from animals... um...

Hell, they only kill like 5 animals a day, they could just use a regular $600 freezer, unless it was all huskies or greyhounds.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Anonymous Coward]

(Score:-1, Troll)

I actually thought it was pretty funny, and rather insightful. But I guess it's the fact that "anti-animal rights, right-wing wackos" outnumber everyone else on /. these days...

--
Slashdot -- proof that one can be a religious fanatic and still pass as a geek in today's world.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[timeOday]

I think the reason we think apes are cute is because we are apes. We're the smartest ones, but the others are smart enough that it's reasonable to assume their emotional capacity is significant - subhuman, no doubt, but certainly greater than dogs, horses, and rats.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[wizardforce]

They could be using it for cruelty-free ice-cream substitute or medical supplies not derived from animals... um...

The problem with that is that they've admitted that the freezer was indeed for the purpose of storing dead animals. They euthanize larger animals on occasion which likely necessitates the use of a larger freezer. If I sounded "a bit trollish" it is because PETA's actions have been fairly despicable in my view. I don't think that they have done anything that merits anything less than making sure as many people know about their high kill rate as possible.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[KarmaMB84]

I recall a PETA manager confirming what the freezer was used for while under oath during a criminal trial a few years back.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Mox-Dragon]

Hello, straw man. Any reasonable person is going to be able draw a line between animal life, plant life, and bacterial/viral life.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Hurricane78]

Protip: There are worse things than dead.

E.g. being infected by some cruel disease, and then “treated” with a just as cruel experimental substance, to then have electrodes in your open brain, or similar sick shit. If that ever happens to me, I hope I’m not gotta get “saved” by some egocentric* dogmatic** tree-hugging “p.c.” asshole, to become a drooling cripple instead of being freed from it. Because as soon as I can move, I’m gonna bash his head in, for not killing me.

___
* Egocentric, because those types don’t do it to help you. They do it, to compensate their self-hatred of being such an “evil human“ and guilt, that is a result of a fucked up childhood where they were treated just as cruely.
** Dogmatic, because they don’t care what the actual intent of their principle was, and just insist on it, even when the result is the opposite on the original intent.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Zerth]

I don't think that they have done anything that merits anything less than making sure as many people know about their high kill rate as possible.

Indeed, they do kill 85%+ of the animals they take in. I wasn't seriously trying to defend them, just amusing myself with what else they might use it for. It isn't like they need to stock up for an upcoming fundraiser cook-out:)

Although I suppose it could be for human bodies, I always suspected PETA had a cannibal cabal.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want to talk hypocrisy, note how PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has no problems about using medical techniques developed from animal testing to help herself, or how PETA vice president Mary Beth Sweetland keeps herself alive with animal tested and derived insulin.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[CrimsonAvenger]

Or the animals PETA is euthanizing... Over 85% of the animals they take in are killed instead of adopted.

Keep in mind that PETA doesn't approve of the IDEA of pets. As far as they're concerned, they're doing good by preventing adoptions of animals. Killing them is just the easiest way of taking that preventative step.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[wizardforce]

in 2007, PETA workers were tried for 37 counts of animal cruelty. They were also guilty of killing and then "disposing" of dead animals in dumpsters. PETA isn't being kind by killing these animals; they're just following the line of reasoning and behavior that they've always gravitated toward: that raising funding through crazy stunts is more important than the welfare of any animals under their care.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[wizardforce]

They're against people having animals as pets but locking up thousands of animals in cages just to be euthanized is ok? PETA is an organization that depends on crazy PR stunts to raise funding; as long as killing thousands of animals is cheaper for them than the alternative they will continue to do so.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, straw man. Any reasonable person is going to be able draw a line between human life, non-human life, plant life, and bacterial/viral life.

FTFY

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Anonymous Coward]

Slippery slope. There's a severely autistic kid who lives in the apartment next to mine. He's ten but can't say a word and communicates, if you want to call it that, by crying, screaming (lots, and lots, and lots of screaming), clapping, grunting/mooing, and making farting noises. He'll never talk and I imagine his parents are grateful they managed to potty train him. In terms of intelligence he's marginally smarter than a dog but requires much more effort to train. After a few beers and listening to him go on for a couple hours I'll admit to muttering "Part him!" but even then I wouldn't sign off on euthanization and organ/tissue harvest. It's undeniable that he's worth more to society parted: two lungs, a heart, two kidneys, skin for grafts, etc. However, the same argument could be made for a moderately mentally disabled person doing a low level job, or a common criminal, or perhaps even the average citizen.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Anonymous Coward]

I can draw lines between anything I want. I can draw a line between black people and white people, but that doesn't mean I should.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an alternative. It's just that we think doing the experiments is more important.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[herojig]

@ Peter303: That would be slowed down bio-terror research using animals as guinea pigs, so to speak. As one of those people, I take a little credit for that: http://www.animalnepal.org/campaigns.htm#monkey . But the primate situation is one of economics. The US liked Nepalese Rhesus (they were being exported for less then 100USD per (shipping not included), until we quashed that. They even tried to start a breeding center here in Lele, but the new government said no way. Vietnamese/Chinese/etc. Rhesus cost far more, and if ur just gunna gas them once and throw them away, that can get costly. I have a feeling that was also a consideration.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[StikyPad]

PETA takes a pretty clear stance for pretty much any mammal. A better example would be single-cell organisms. As far as I can tell, there are zero references to the widespread abuse of bacteria on the PETA site. Also hermit crabs need to be saved from children, but lobsters and crabs don't qualify as "sea kittens" in their anti-seafood agenda. Apparently you're only worth saving if you have an endoskeleton and/or live an idyllic existence free from natural predators.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Obfuscant]

because they're like Republicans in that anytime you try to find middle ground, they move the center line.

You were doing so well until you made that off-topic trollish comment.

It's a typical liberal rant, calling anything right of Rachel Maddow "radical right", and then pretending that demanding that things be done their way is "bipartisanship". No, getting weak Republicans to vote liberal is not "bipartisanship".

It's hard to negotiate with ignorant, closed-mined, intractable people.

So you admit that liberals refuse to negotiate? Or just that it's hard to do it?

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Anonymous Coward]

Some would argue that experimentation on rats would be just as wrong, and some would argue that discriminating based on species is wrong,

And some would be idiots. Do you discriminate against chickens by eating them? No- you are vegan, of course. Well then fine, you discriminate against asparagus and soybeans. But that's fine, because you are OK with discriminating outside the animal kingdom. What about the millions of nematodes you kill every time you eat a salad? Those are animals, just like you. Since you pretend to be incapable of drawing distinctions between human children and animals, just where is your line? Unless you are a Breatharian, you clearly have no trouble drawing the line somewhere. Is it just mammals that are protected from "speciesism" in your world? What about all of the chordates - wouldn't want to hurt a little fishie, would we? I guess all animals are out of bounds, so let's draw the line at Animalia. Who are you to be such a Kingdomist fascist? How can you discriminate against life in other kingdoms? What makes you better than cyanobacteria? Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument in this case, since we really didn't have to do any reduction.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[dangitman]

I recall a PETA manager confirming what the freezer was used for while under oath during a criminal trial a few years back.

So, why were you on trial for criminal activity?

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in this case, there's really only one alternative...and you'd better just hope beyond hope that you don't get exposed to Antrhax because your odds won't be at all good.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[interkin3tic]

You were doing so well until you made that off-topic trollish comment. It's a typical liberal rant, calling anything right of Rachel Maddow "radical right"

I think you read something that wasn't there, and in so doing, somewhat validated GP's offhand comment.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Anonymous Coward]

Burns Hargis on the other hand, has the kind of face (and moral integrity) that only a mother with a law degree could love.

See for yourself: http://osu.okstate.edu/images/stories/hargis.jpg

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[reboot246]

"We need an ugly animal that's further up the food chain--more human."

Lawyers!
1. They're almost human.
2. Nobody likes them.
3. There's plenty of 'em!
4. And we may be able to rid ourselves of
    a few politicians, too.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[Obfuscant]

I think you read something that wasn't there,

I don't think so. It was a rant about Republicans "moving the line" when you try to reach "middle ground". The only way you can call what liberals try to get to "middle ground" is if you call everything right of Rachel Maddow "radical right". And then if they get a compromise, they call the compromise position the radical right and try for a compromise of the compromise.

If my comment was a troll (which it isn't), so was the flamebait that prompted it. Just another demonstration of the falsity of the "offhand comment".

It's like calling Ohio "the midwest" and then flaming when someone in Nebraska points out that Ohio is "east." Them damn Nebraskans keep moving the line.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[vegiVamp]

I guess you haven't much been outside, lately.

Re:hope he switches to PETA members

[delt0r]

Well if you ask me, monkeys are butt ugly and mice are dam cute. Well mice aren't rats, but close enough and they are experimented on just as much if not a lot more than rats.

Re:Vaccine funding useless

[wizardforce]

If you are thinking that anthrax is a virus then you'd be wrong. It's a bacterium and it isn't "impossible" to develop a vaccine for it. Viruses like Influenza tend to mutate and adapt faster than bacteria generally do and there are vaccines for Influenza so...

Animal rights activists...

[Anonymous Coward]

will still take the drugs tested on animals when they become ill.

I say we test drugs not on animals but on the activists? I think we'll get more realistic results...

Re:Animal rights activists...

[wizardforce]

will still take the drugs tested on animals when they become ill.

Maybe maybe not. If they're really concerned about the animal testing, it is conceivable that they may try out alternative medicine before they actually use drugs that were developed using animal testing methods.

Re:Vaccine funding useless

[Sir_Lewk]

Ah of course, all of those PhDs and researchers at Oklahoma State University have been wasting their time. They should have just asked robinstar1574 on slashdot if it was possible.

Silly them.

huntsman T. Boone Pickens?

[zerosomething]

Where does "huntsman T. Boone Pickens" appear in the original article? I'm not saying he is or isn't a hunter but for accuracy is that phrase in the article? I can't seem to find it? Maybe I'm just blind or didn't see the right article.

Re:huntsman T. Boone Pickens?

[mrisaacs]

Try this url -

http://www.tboonepickensfoundation.org/pdf/PCQU%20Pickens%20FINAL.pdf

There are others as well.

Re:huntsman T. Boone Pickens?

[bsDaemon]

It doesn't even mention his hunting in his Wikipedia article, which at the very least casts doubt onto his huntsmanship being "noted," as the summary suggests. As far as I can tell, he's hardly a Ted Nugent.

Re:huntsman T. Boone Pickens?

[boxxertrumps]

Do you really need relevancy to call someone "Huntsman T. Boone Pickens"?

The title and name stir images of a stereotypical english hunter, khakis and all.

Primate?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the Pope did't volunteer.

Not OSU

[forand]

While I am sure that Oklahoma State University refers to itself as 'OSU' if you go to osu.edu you will get The Ohio State University.

Re:Not OSU

[Anonymous Coward]

I always find it funny how Ohio State just has to have "The", usually capitalized, in front of its name.

I realize that the "The" is part of its name, but I'm commenting on how militant people are in putting it there. At medical meetings, the attendings, residents, etc. almost always spend far too much time correcting others- "It's THE Ohio State University". It's really funny- I don't know if Ohio State people realize that others make fun of 'em for it.

Also, just because somebody owns a domain doesn't mean that they're the only "OSU".

Re:Not OSU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah OSU != Oklahoma State University, OSU = Ohio State University

Also, Ohio state was established 20 years before Oklahoma state.

Re:Not OSU

[Anonymous Coward]

the "The" is probably because there is another "Ohio State" college/university that goes by just "Ohio State".

Re:Not OSU

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, this. I tagged the article !ohiostate, but it doesn't seem to have shown up. I can't figure out how Slashdot tags are supposed to work.

Re:Not OSU

[R.Mo_Robert]

Did you go to okstate.edu, Oklahoma State University's home page? They refer to themselves as "OSU" on multiple occasions, most notably the big "About OSU" link at the home. Just because Ohio State snatched the domain first doesn't mean they can't both be called "OSU". (You should try living in Iowa but close to Illinois and guess which "U [of] I" people are talking about.)

Re:Not OSU

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Idaho, and attend the U of I. I sometimes travel to Portland, Oregon, where friends of mine go to OSU.

Re:Not OSU

[forand]

Then my point is made, referring to it as OSU is ambiguous at best.

Re:Not OSU

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's because some time ago, when they felt like they weren't getting enough funding, some politician changed the name to "The Ohio State University" to emphasize that the university was the flagship.

That's right, the "The" that the OSU people are so fond of was born of political grandstanding and obnoxious pretentiousness. Which is exactly how it's still looked at to this very day...

Re:Not OSU

[Nyeerrmm]

While the headline should have explicitly stated "Oklahoma State University" rather than simply "OSU," I'm not sure how Ohio gets the right to the acronym. Growing up in Oklahoma and attending a Big 12 School, my assumption is that OSU refers to Oklahoma State.

And don't forget those kids in Oregon and their amusingly named mascot -- especially when playing USC.

Re:Not OSU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because no three letter acronym has ever had to be shared between two different things! Why, People might confuse "Asynchronous Transfer Mode" and "Automated Teller Machines"! Or the "National Recovery Administration" And the "National Rifle Association"! The "American Broadcast Corporation" and the "Australian Broadcast Corporation"! No sir, there's only one 'thing' per acronym, and that's enforced!

Re:Not OSU

[nedlohs]

Since the first world of the summary it Oklahama it isn't ambiguous. Sure someone might think the wrong place from the headline, but the headline also can't be ten pages long...

Re:Not OSU

[sconeu]

Funny, before I read TFS, I thought it was Oregon State University.

Re:Not OSU

[maeka]

You don't watch much NFL, do you?
Most Ohio State University grads emphasize the word "The" to the point of sarcasm during the introduction.
Trust me, none of us take it seriously. Anywhere except (perhaps) the trustees' boardroom "the" is a tongue-in-cheek joke.

Re:Not OSU

[EricWright]

Ohio State University ... excuse me, THE Ohio State University (does that piss anyone else off?) was founded in 1870. Oklahoma State University was founded in 1890. I'd say Ohio, err... THE Ohio State University has a 20 year head start if there's going to be a fight over the acronym.

Just sayin'...

Re:Not OSU

[MobyDisk]

Is that the University of Southern California, or the University of Southern Colorado? You should be more specific.

Re:Not OSU

[Red Flayer]

That's right, the "The" that the OSU people are so fond of was born of political grandstanding and obnoxious pretentiousness. Which is exactly how it's still looked at to this very day...

It's especially amusing because THE University of Cincinnati (another state school in Ohio) has a better football team this year -- and it seems that out of all the possible things a State University should be proud of, football is the biggest one in Ohio.

Re:Not OSU

[Obfuscant]

Most Ohio State University grads emphasize the word "The" to the point of sarcasm during the introduction.

Nothing like those Stanford folks who are "The Stanford Cardinal", even if there are 'leventy-dozen of them being referred to.

"The Stanford Cardinal has taken the field." Really, where? It's hard to see it with all those nitwits in those red uniforms cluttering up the field. And wait, isn't "the Stanford Cardinal" a TREE anyway?

A singular noun and a definite adjective. There's only one of whatever it is, not a whole team full.

Re:Not OSU

[pantherace]

Oregon State University predates both of them. (1868)

I prefer bottles

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me a snob, but canned anthrax vaccine tastes like aluminum. And it should be poured into a glass so that it develops a nice head. Keep in mind, most of the flavor is actually the aroma, or "nose," as it's called.

Re:I prefer bottles

[Anonymous Coward]

Choosing your favorite aroma, or "picking your nose," was something we did back in the day. We'd walk around drunkenly with favored bottles in plain brown bags, as was the custom at the time, ranting at passersby and picking our noses.

Lol, denied being influenced by Pickens

[jayhawk88]

Look, you might as well be honest about it. T Boone owns your university at this point, everyone knows it. You may as well just rename it for him and get it over with.

Re:Lol, denied being influenced by Pickens

[maxume]

Why bother renaming it? Even if your silly assertion is true, he is scheduled to die sometime soon (for various definitions of soon).

Re:Lol, denied being influenced by Pickens

[idontgno]

At which point you add "Memorial" to everything. Problem solved.

Re:Lol, denied being influenced by Pickens

[maxume]

Far simpler to just continue calling it Oklahoma State.

Re:Lol, denied being influenced by Pickens

[Onymous Coward]

You okay today? I don't recall you usually being this mirthless.

Re:Lol, denied being influenced by Pickens

[maxume]

Yeah, fine. I would say that I am often a killjoy (perhaps that isn't for the better, but I think it is a fair statement).

Re:Lol, denied being influenced by Pickens

[Onymous Coward]

Ah. I hadn't noticed before. Well, be careful of letting others' jokes get under your skin. They're usually just havin' a piss, as they say, so it would be sad to suffer some elevated blood pressure and cortisol needlessly. If you think the substance of their joke (jokes are often ultimately founded in truth or sincerity) deserves addressing — say you think it's a harmful idea and could be a bad influence if folks took it seriously — I might suggest coming at the matter a different way. Maybe something like "The reason your joke is funny (as much as it is) is that the idea is ridiculous. Not at all helpful. And, really, it's not that funny. So please knock that off." Or maybe just ignore them.

I can totally understand being a killjoy when there are harmful jokes being made. But I'd advise being clear on when that's the case rather than squandering your reputation and health being a less precise killjoy.

Re:Lol, denied being influenced by Pickens

[Toonol]

There's an old road outside of my town that had the pleasant name "Dead Indian Road". Of course, as the twentieth century flew by, this increasingly offended certain people; however other people became correspondingly more insistent that the name be kept for historical reasons.

The poor county supervisors (feeling the rock and the hardplace) decided to rename it "Dead Indian Memorial Road". A reasonable solution, I guess, although it didn't really make anybody happy.

Re:Lol, denied being influenced by Pickens

[maxume]

I wasn't hooked up to a heart monitor, so I don't really know, but I would estimate that I did not experience an increase in blood pressure prior to either comment.

To your more expansive point, I do tire of the faux cynicism that is used to attack the rich. After all, if Boon Pickens donated a few semesters worth of tuition to a university (run the numbers, when there are tens of thousands of students involved, hundreds of millions of dollars don't go all that far), it must be for sale, and his motives must be dark (going back to your advice, I did call the comment silly).

I guess my short response to the second comment was related to my impression that my comment had gone right past them.

Getting all meta, the fact that you are concerned is probably the thing I find most troublesome here (imagine, I might be responsible for an increase in your blood pressure), and even there, I don't view the emotional states of other people on the internet as something that I am deeply responsible for (on the other hand, I don't think it is worthwhile to be a dick to people).

Monkey Love

[Anonymous Coward]

The dude was just getting a little side action at the primate house, but got a little too attached. He had to act quickly and confidentially to save 'Rachel'. Unfortunately, he didn't think things through. He's now got anthrax and just ended any chance of a cure.

What? Oh.

[Quiet_Desperation]

Will he be marketing this canned anthrax to the general public? Does Homeland Securitah know about this?

Re:What? Oh.

[Hurricane78]

Where do you thing he got the Anthrax from in the first place? ^^

Re:Vaccine funding useless

[mcgrew]

Anthrax is a becteria that lives in soil. It's usually not life-threatening unless inhaled. In fact, you may have had it -- it's usualy from falling down and skinning an elbow in the dirt, and will leave a black mark that heals slowly, but will heal. The anthrax that's dangerous is "weaponized" anthrax that's engineered to hang in the air, and if inhaled is indeed deadly.

A Vaccine would make infected sores less painful, and could possibly make weaponized anthrax less deadly.

Now they'll have to use students instead.

[John Hasler]

Too bad. It would be better to use something closer to humans.

Simple solution

[nedlohs]

NIH should put OSU on a blacklist and not fund anything involving them until OSU provides a valid (as judged by NIH) explanation for why they wasted the time (and money) of NIH.

OSU is of course free to not do so and rely on non-NIH funding. Or there might be a perfectly valid reason that they don't want to disclose publicly that they can provide to NIH.

Re:Simple solution

[pz]

NIH should put OSU on a blacklist and not fund anything involving them until OSU provides a valid (as judged by NIH) explanation for why they wasted the time (and money) of NIH.

OSU is of course free to not do so and rely on non-NIH funding. Or there might be a perfectly valid reason that they don't want to disclose publicly that they can provide to NIH.

It's actually a little worse than this. I have currently, and have had NIH funding in the past as well. They take things seriously. When you are awarded a grant, either you, the individual resaercher, or the university where you work, sign a contract stipulating that the work will be done as described. (Exactly who signs these contracts varies from grant to grant.) Sometimes there are serious penalty clauses. Naturally, each institution negotiates its own contracts, and I am not privvy to the ones that OSU has with the NIH, but if my home institution is a good indicator, OSU is screwed here. Pickens better have promised a heap of money in compensation.

Also, the heads of universities are, generally, not idiots. At least the ones I've met have been actual leaders, rather than just figureheads, and understand the potential fallout from a major decision like this: faculty revolt, potential lawsuits from post-docs and graduate students whose projects have been cancelled, blacklisting by the NIH (and possibly the Department of Defence who also fund anthrax research), loss of stature for the department, potential lawsuit from the NIH for breach of contract, etc. There must have been a very compelling reason (like a pledge of lots and lots of money; a standard NIH contract represents about $1.5 million, and if there were say 10 faculty members who now have NIH grants that have been placed at risk, the donation needs to be in the tens-to-hundreds of millions of dollars range). Their entire bioterrorism program has been put at risk.

I'm going to express an unfounded speculation: on the face of it, with all of the potential downsides, seems like it's a mistake, and a better solution could have been found (like curing the animals of anthrax once the study was over and then retiring them to an animal conservation range).

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Oklahoma State currently has about 10 R01s, a handful of R21, R03 and R15s, and a bunch of U-series agreements. http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm With indirects, it's probably under $5M/year. 25 different principal investigators, and that includes F32. I can see where a university with that size of NIH-funded research might decide that the ongoing hassle of animal rights activists and pleasing someone able to make that scale of donation personally just isn't worth it. Hell, all he's got to do is promise to leave $100M to the endowment, and he'll replace everything but the intellectual prestige that comes with NIH funding.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Pickens owns that school . He gave them like 150 million dollars just for the athletic program. I'm sure he's given or has promised another couple hundred million for other stuff. One problem is that some day he dies and the money runs out. NIH will still not have anything to do with them ever ....... They took the money in the short run, with no thought for the future ...

Antibiotics & PETA

[Anonymous Coward]

PETA members should be required to disavow all use of antibiotics. They are, after all, the product of animal "abuse". This problem would then self-correct nicely.

Bullshit

[PakProtector]

I worked at a Humane Society once. Animal Testing is not Animal Cruelty.

I wish that everyone who thinks we shouldn't do animal testing would volunteer to be have said tests run on themselves. Maybe then they would understand that Human Life is more valuable than Animal Life.

Just as it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer, so it is better that ten animals die in the name of science than one human being die because a vaccine was not properly tested, or, worse still, never brought to market because of a lack of testing.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have a rather realistic, pragmatic view on the situation. Unfortunately, plenty of people do not, and are happy to whine about the things the poor animals have to go through without a care for the things the poor humans will have to go through if we just shut down all research that requires animal testing.

Re:Bullshit

[DoofusOfDeath]

I worked at a Humane Society once. Animal Testing is not Animal Cruelty.

I wish that everyone who thinks we shouldn't do animal testing would volunteer to be have said tests run on themselves.

Doesn't it matter what the purpose of the testing is?

I'm all behind using primate models for antibiotic testing. I'm entirely against animal models for cosmetics research.

Re:Bullshit

[Gerafix]

Human life more valuable than animal life? Talk about a redundant statement. Newsflash, humans are animals. If you wanted to be intellectually honest you should just say humans are more important than other "lower" animals. It's not like we are part of the web of life or anything, humans are obviously gods amongst animals.

Re:Bullshit

[kdcttg]

Maybe then they would understand that Human Life is more valuable than Animal Life.

Last time I checked, human life was animal life.

Just as it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer, so it is better that ten animals die in the name of science than one human being die because a vaccine was not properly tested, or, worse still, never brought to market because of a lack of testing.

So are you saying that other animals are intrinsically guilty, and humans innocent by definition? If so, I would have to disagree.

Re:Bullshit

[PakProtector]

Nice. There's nothing wrong with my argument, so bitch about semantics.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad Aspie day? Anyone with half a brain ought to know that colloquially 'animal' is short for 'non-human animal,' when it's used as distinct from 'human.'

Re:Bullshit

[PakProtector]

Please see this.

Then get the fuck off of /. and go to a website where Logic and Reason aren't part of rational debate. Maybe 4chan.

Re:Bullshit

[Old97]

Some kinds of animal testing is animal cruelty. It depends on how it is conducted and for what purpose. A lot of abuse has occurred over the years which is why the scientific community and its funders have invested heavily in developing protocols, review processes and inspections to prevent abuses. In my review the research should be for a very important purpose and researchers should take maxim care to avoid inflicting unnecessary pain or discomfort. Anthrax vaccines seem to be an important purpose. Eye liner and other cosmetics don't meet my standard.

Re:Bullshit

[nomadic]

I wish that everyone who thinks we shouldn't do animal testing would volunteer to be have said tests run on themselves. Maybe then they would understand that Human Life is more valuable than Animal Life.

That makes zero sense. Why would someone have testing run on themselves make them understand that? Wouldn't it make them understand that testing is terribly cruel and shouldn't be run on anyone?

Re:Bullshit

[PakProtector]

I've watched a lot of animals die. A lot. In misery. I've held them in my arms. I've found them half-dead, with their intestines hanging out on the sides of roads. I've seen them left at the front door of a Humane Society in boxes on nights when it gets below freezing. I don't like watching animals suffer.

I hate watching people suffer even more.

The problem with the world is that people seem to care more about cute little animals than they do about living, breathing, thinking human beings.

Animal Cruelty is doing horrible things to animals because you enjoy it or you just don't care. Animal Cruelty is shooting a kitten with a twelve gauge. Animal Cruelty is keeping a dog in your back yard tied up to a tree, rarely feeding it, keeping it on such short line it has to sleep in its own filth. Animal Cruelty is torturing small animals for your own amusement.

Animal Testing is conducting experiments on animals that, while they may, and probably will, kill the animal, will save human lives, in part due to the fact that you don't have to do the same test on a human being.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that certain types of testing shouldn't be done on anyone. The problem I have with all these arguments is that animals (and by that I mean in the sense of non-humans) are not people. I am absolutely against pointless cruelty to anything, however, if I thought that running tests and then euthanizing 500 monkeys would save a single person from death or life with terrible disabilites then say goodbye to the monkeys.

Re:Bullshit

[mugurel]

apart from the `semantics' I do think your analogy about guilty and innocent men is hampered. I see how an innocent man suffering equates to a human dying, but not how ten guilty men equate to animals dying in the name of science. I would say the animals are at least as innocent as the human.

That's why I say: people, stick with car/horse/pizza analogies. It's safer.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I detest animal testing. If you want to see what something does in humans, use a human. At least they can consent to the testing.

Re:Bullshit

[nycguy]

First off, your archaic use of capitalization is interesting.

Animal testing is certainly cruel to the animals involved. Whether that cruelty to animals is justified by the savings in cruelty to humans is a matter of debate.

The argument can also be made, though, that some human beings' lives are more valuable than others. Certainly every society practices this, no matter what beliefs they profess, as some members of every society (e.g., chieftans, priesthood, nobility, aristocrats, "party members") receive a disproportionate allocation of that society's resources. So, we could just go down that route. Already done that, of course.

A better argument against animal testing would be that a society that practices cruelty to animals is one step closer to practicing cruelty to its fellow humans. A society that respects animal life, on the other hand, is more likely to respect human life.

Finally, your oft-stated argument that "better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer" is specious. The ten guilty men will almost certainly victimize other innocents, which is why we incarcerate them in the first place. An argument of "better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man suffer" would carry more water.

Re:Bullshit

[gitoffmylawn!]

Well said!

Re:Bullshit

[shentino]

Vaccines are a bunch of horseshit much of the time because they are backed not by a desire to cure, but by profit motive.

Which ultimately means that if a company CAN get away with cutting corners, it will. And quality being anything but the highest priority with something as vital as a vaccine...well call me skeptical but I don't trust them.

Look at Nutrasweet's aspartame scandal if you need an example of how unrestrained greed can gum up the works.

Re:Bullshit

[misexistentialist]

The problem with the world is that people seem to care more about cute little animals than they do about living, breathing, thinking human beings.

Animals are living, breathing, and thinking too. Certainly there are arguments for animal testing, but supposing some sort of human sanctity hardly wins the debate, nor is it a contradiction for humans to be on the side of non-humans. And while being cute and little does not imply that animals should be protected, it also does not imply that they should be stomped on.

Re:Bullshit

[tjstork]

Last time I checked, human life was animal life.

You are only human if you read and write American.

Re:Bullshit

[mugurel]

The problem with the world is that people seem to care more about cute little animals than they do about living, breathing, thinking human beings.

I don't think that many people really prioritize (cute little) animals over human beings. The people you refer to probably want to counterbalance the lack of respect for animal life in our society (i agree that some people are overly zealous in that).

Animal Testing is conducting experiments on animals that, while they may, and probably will, kill the animal, will save human lives, in part due to the fact that you don't have to do the same test on a human being.

I'm not so sure that animal testing invariably saves human lives. Have there been any studies on that?

Re:Bullshit

[Rich0]

I find it ironic that you apply this argument to vaccines.

If you look at vaccines their quality over time has steadily risen. The most dangerous vaccines are the ones that were invented decades ago - many before there even was a profit motive behind them. Modern vaccines are much safer by almost any standard.

Sure, marketing can create conflicts of interest, and we do need regulatory bodies to provide oversight. However, almost ANY public health advocate is going to agree that vaccines today provide the BEST bang for the buck in terms of health benefits. They're far more cost-effective than drugs, and most of the time they completely prevent or cure disease.

Sure, they're not perfect, but nothing in medicine is. People probably still die from appendectomies.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, these smallpox drugs are costing me a fortune.

Re:Bullshit

[Hurricane78]

Ok, let me hear your justification, why you think you are more valuable than someone else (e.g. a chimpanzee, or a raven, or a dolphin) and why you are the center of the universe.

Next thing I know, is you telling me about the “supremacy” of the “white man”.

I bet many animals are in many areas more intelligent, more valuable and more productive for our society. If only because they know the value of other individuals...

And yeah: I think animal tests should be replaced by human tests. Pay people. There is always a market price. Just offer enough.
If that means it becomes expensive, then so be it. (Actually, it isn’t, as the money will always be used to buy stuff, and so gets back to you next time someone buys something from you.)

Also, “guilty” is an outdated term. There is no such thing. Everything has a cause. And you can always call the causing person/thing/event the “real guilty one” instead. Back to the beginning of the universe!
Cause and effect.
Also punishment does not make society better at all! That’s disproven for a looong time.
Punishment only “helps”, as long as you continue to punish. Just as pain killers only “help” as long as you take them, while continuing to run against the wall.
As soon as you stop, it will have the opposite effect, making things even worse. Someone is taking revenge. Someone is beating his kids because of unprocessed problems caused by the punishment. It’s a vicious circle.

A proper solution is, to first really understand the other side. The reasoning, the causes, how that person came to doing it. You always find things like: He thought and still thinks, it was the right thing to do. Or he felt he was forced and there was no other way out. Or he did not want to do it at all, but could not prevent it either. Etc.
People don’t do things that they think is wrong. Punishing them is never going to change that. Ever.

Second, if you can’t get the mind sets of you and the other one to agree enough, to be able to live in one social group, you separate him from your group. Or he separates his group from you. Same thing, because it’s all relative, as there is no absolute truth or right/wrong on this planet. It’s all just convention and motivation based on natural selection and reproduction.

I think the best model ever, is to take a large area, and let them found a self-governed society there. The murderers, the rapists, the criminals. Most likely they need to split into different groups too. But in the end, they have to work together, and regain the essence of what is human, to survive. You don’t even have to create any embargo. People will already hate them enough.
But if they regain respect, by building a working society, then they are welcome to contact us again. (That’s called forgiving someone.)
I’d prefer that to a prison any day. It would be hard. But you would feel alive. (Well, until you lose natural selection against another murderer. ^^)

Re:Bullshit

[domatic]

The argument is made that way because of the damage that will be done if most innocent people see themselves as potential victims. When the innocent are punished they'll fear justice rather than the criminals. That and the ones that do get wronged in this way will have extremely massive chips on their shoulders. Enough of this makes criminals OF the innocent and dangerous ones at that.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at a Humane Society once. Animal Testing is not Animal Cruelty.

I wish that everyone who thinks we shouldn't do animal testing would volunteer to be have said tests run on themselves. Maybe then they would understand that Human Life is more valuable than Animal Life.

Let me get this right... You claim that this testing is not cruelty, and then you want the people who claim that it IS cruelty to volunteer to be victims of what they consider cruelty? That seems really backwards to me. As the one who claims it is not cruelty, YOU should be the one to volunteer. That wouldn't be a problem, right? It's not cruelty in your opinion.

Re:Bullshit

[Cro Magnon]

I'm all behind using primate models for antibiotic testing. I'm entirely against animal models for cosmetics research.

I don't know about that. It would suck if the latest, untested mascara made my GF go blind. Though it might be nice if she didn't notice my sloppy housekeeping.

Re:Bullshit

[Toonol]

Finally, your oft-stated argument that "better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer" is specious. The ten guilty men will almost certainly victimize other innocents, which is why we incarcerate them in the first place. An argument of "better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man suffer" would carry more water.

Ten free guilty men probably will cause more damage, and yet it's STILL TRUE that it would be better than jailing an innocent man. That's because it's not a purely pragmatic matter; it shows the special status that we accord the life of a man. It's like going to war over one hostage; you can use a simplistically pragmatic argument that it doesn't make sense, but with deeper thought, it does, and may be worth it. It may be demanded.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the worst posts I've seen on Slashdot in months, good job there.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's valid to argue about the meanings of the words we use, especially the ones at the core of the argument. In this case, the language introduces a false dilemma, where a life-form is either human or animal, when in reality, humans are animals.

If you want to examine your argument, so be it, there are plenty more fallacies to bitch about.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they already tried that. It's called "Australia" today. It seems that it worked pretty much the way you envision. I don't think they'd be keen on you trying it there today though....

Re:Bullshit

[AndersOSU]

I'm not really familiar with the cosmetic industries testing protocols, but I'd hazard a guess that they don't just randomly poke puppies in the eye with mascara for the hell of it.

I used to work for a company that had to do animal testing for EPA approval, the reason was that we were developing novel useful chemicals that (like all chemicals) carried a potential for human could be exposure - if they were exposed, we needed to know the results. The way we determined if the product was safe to market was by dosing animals with the chemical until they developed problems, then they were euthanized. If the substance caused particularly severe problems or problems at particularly low rates the project died. Now imagine that someone in the cosmetics industry decides that lead oxide and coconut oil doesn't really do a good job of blocking "the sun's harmful rays." Some material scientist things that titanium might work better. Should we assume it's safe and roll out the marketing campaign, scrap it because it's new and might be dangerous, or should we conduct an animal toxicology study? Cosmetics is the placing of chemicals on ones face. Either we convince Pamella Anderson that she doesn't need make-up (*snort*) or we evaluate the hazards of those chemicals. Use all natural products you say? I've located some natural silicate minerals that would make great exfoliates, I'm thinking of marketing them under the trade name "asBESTos."

An interesting thing occurs at the confluence of product-safety and animal rights. There is a large overlap in people who freak out that the plasticizers in rubber-ducky might be harmful and people who are horrified at the prospect of animal testing. Well what's to be done? Either we perform animal tests on a wide range of previously untested chemicals (the EU is doing this now), we suck it up when a chemical is shown to be hazardous, or we become luddites.

(In reality, we continue to buy flat panel TVs, don't want anything tested, and but want to know that everything is 100% safe.)

Re:Bullshit

[AndersOSU]

I don't think you understand exposure testing.

My company developed a new type of jet fuel that will make all air travel 50% cheaper and scrub greenhouses gasses as a happy side effect. The thing is, I have no idea about the toxicity, because no animal in nature has ever encountered this chemical before. Does one whiff cause instant death? Does 10 years of exposure cause horrible lung cancer? If I get it in my eyes will it eat my brain?

How do I get informed consent for those tests? Is it more ethical to drive to the nearest underpass and tell the homeless guy, if you drink this I'll give you $100 than to feed it to a rat? It probably won't do anything, but it might kill you. It might lead to 20 years of agonizing pain. But I do know this $100 is yours for the sake of science.

Then we need to find out if it causes cancer. All those guys who refuel the planes are going to get at least a little exposure for their entire careers. I could wait to bring it to market until I run a small 20 year test that might not be statistically significant, or I could pump it into the cages of 1000 mice with controlled environments and diets and see what happens over 7 generations.

Then you've got mutagenic and teratogenic effects. I'm sure I could find a pregnant crackhead who would be willing to take money in order to see if the exposure deforms here progeny, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to live with myself if a test turns out positive (and even then was it the test substance or all the other substances she's exposing her body to). At any rate, I'm much more comfortable taking the chance that a rat might be born without orifices than a human.

Re:Bullshit

[Old97]

The cosmetics industry does put chemicals in the eyes of rabbits to test chemicals used in eye make up, so yes they do "poke puppies in the eye". Almost all cosmetics companies test on animals except for a few companies that advertise that they don't.

To say we must test everything on animal or become Luddites is a false choice. I'd say we should try to strike a humane balance. I'd rather let Pam Anderson poke out her eye if she is determined to than harm an animal. On the other hand, I don't want the materials used to build a home to poison its occupants. There are indulgences and vanities, e.g. eye liner and perfume and there are necessities, e.g. food, shelter, medicines. There is a gray area in the middle. Let's draw a line in the gray area if we have to, but draw a line we must.

Re:Bullshit

[pwfffff]

"Next thing I know, is you telling me about the “supremacy” of the “white man”."

Wow you go right for the emotional nutsack, don't ya? Let's turn those tactics around:

"I think animal tests should be replaced by human tests. Pay people. There is always a market price. Just offer enough.
If that means it becomes expensive, then so be it."

Next thing I know, is you telling me about the "morality" of "child labor".

I mean, if the 7 year old has the risks of getting impaled by a piston while crawling about in large machinery explained to him, then why shouldn't we let him in there? He'll get the Batman DVD we promised him, so where's the harm?

Actually I don't think that's a good comparison. You probably WOULD support child labor at whatever price the market could handle, but I was trying to show that the poster you were responding to wasn't a white supremacist (even though, according to your logic, their beliefs dictate them to be so).

"Punishment only “helps”, as long as you continue to punish. Just as pain killers only “help” as long as you take them, while continuing to run against the wall."

Yeah, my dog kept humping things so I sprayed him with water every time he tried. Now that the spray bottle is gone he just rapes me nightly. Oh no, wait... he just doesn't hump things as often. I'd accidentally confused reality with whatever twisted, fantasy world you live in. My bad.

You might have a point about the death penalty doing little to deter wrongdoers, but that's a totally different situation. It's like you've taken broken fragments of logic from someone debating the death sentence and applied them towards disproving Pavlovian reactions to punishment.

"People don’t do things that they think is wrong."

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. If people don't do things that they feel are wrong, then please define the word 'guilt'. Sure, people can be made to feel guilty after an action, but 99% of guilt comes from someone doing something they KNOW is wrong.

Like now, for instance. I feel guilty for responding to this nonsense. I can't even finish this post to fully outline how nonsensical yours is. There's nothing to even argue against past a certain point, because you're just rambling about penal colonies and feeling ALIVE.

I'm still going to submit this, even though I feel it's wrong. However, if I knew I was going to get punished physically for this post, you probably wouldn't see it here...

Re:Bullshit

[AndersOSU]

No one wants to be the first person to put a new chemical in their eye. So some unlucky rabbit gets that dubious honor. In the cosmetic industry we either have to resign ourselves to the notion that there will never be anything new, or we have to do animal testing for every new preservative, emulsifier, or polymer. The fact of the matter is that the cosmetic manufacturers are panning on putting these chemicals in human eyes, so I stand by my statement that they're not poking puppies in the eye for no good reason. They're trying to advance the state of the art of their industry. Nine times out of ten, there is no adverse reaction.

Re:Bullshit

[AndersOSU]

I should add that while cosmetics may not be a particularly noble cause for justifying animal testing, neither are they on the bleeding edge of organic chemistry. They pick up chemicals developed for other purposes that may not, based on their use, have undergone the right kinds of testing needed for human consumption.

What would be nice, is a central clearing house for toxicology studies. If you want to bring a product to market, they review the product, compare it to previously conducted tests, and determine if any additional testing is warranted. You could even off-load some of the liability. That way, the cosmetic industry and the paint industry don't both have to run toxicological tests on the same surfactant. This of course will never happen because we value proprietary business information more highly than lab animal welfare.

Re:Bullshit

[Old97]

There are some cosmetic manufacturers who say they do no animal testing. I'm sure they do research and testing, I'm just not familiar with their approach(s). Perhaps they are doing what you've suggested.

They should "offshore" this.

[kurt555gs]

I am certain that the Chinese would take this research money, and use political prisoners instead of primates for experimentation. They then can "euthanize" them after the experiment, and PETA would not complain. Besides, they would probably have "euthanized" them anyway.

Better yet, some US Pharma company can fund this on the cheap, then patent the resulting drug and make huge profits.

Works out all the way around, well, except for the subjects of the experiment.

Re:They should "offshore" this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am certain that the Chinese would take this research money, and use political prisoners instead of primates for experimentation. They then can "euthanize" them after the experiment, and PETA would not complain. Besides, they would probably have "euthanized" them anyway.

Great idea. Also they can skin, section, pose and then plasticize the bodies for display. Afterward they can ship the plasticized bodies around Western nations for display as educational and morbid curiosities.

Re:They should "offshore" this.

[canajin56]

You say this like it would shock PETA, who themselves advocate this option. PETA's opinion is that if a disease would kill everybody within a week, but a single animal test could save everybody, animal testing is still not an option. PETA's founder goes one step further, saying that disease research should not be done at all, even if no animals are harmed, because disease is natures way of correcting the error that allowed humans to exist, and we have no right to fight back, and should just die already and stop raping mother nature. Of course, she has so far declined polite offers of "You first!"

Re:They should "offshore" this.

[Anonymous Coward]

it's what's for diner!

Big problem on various levels

[idiot900]

What a stupid move.

NIH study sections will now perceive Oklahoma State as an institution that isn't prepared to do research that they have been awarded a grant to do. There are plenty of other institutions willing keep their promises; why take a chance on this one?

They'll also have a harder time attracting good faculty who can win grants. Why would a good scientist go to an institution that will arbitrarily stop her research? And why would good scientists who get offers from other institutions choose to stay? That will impact their bottom line.

Not to mention competent biology students will want to go someplace where politics doesn't interfere in their education.

Re:Big problem on various levels

[ceoyoyo]

As it should be. Perhaps the system does work.

Re:Big problem on various levels

[Weedhopper]

In the long run, it'll work out better for everyone else involved. The only loser here is Oklahoma State.

Re:Big problem on various levels

[Sprouticus]

the fault in your statement is that you assume that people in OK want science in their state to begin with...

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/03/oklahoma_hates_richard_dawkins.php

Re:Big problem on various levels

[SimonJG]

Absolutely the NIH should stop funding OSU.

$5 million is significantly less than the NIH funding that OSU has received. From the NIH site it seems that OSU at its various sites gets between $3.4 million (2008) to $10 million (2006) each YEAR from the NIH. Clearly the University has more to loose from upsetting the NIH than the Boone-Pickens family. Unless, of course, there is something we don't yet know about.

Alternatively, the President should grow some balls.

Source: http://report.nih.gov/award/trends/State_Congressional/StateDetail.cfm?State=OKLAHOMA

Re:Big problem on various levels

[nedlohs]

But NIH funding is earmarked and all that.

Can't furnish the President's office with it.

Re:Big problem on various levels

[Anonymous Coward]

OK State doesn't really do much NIH-funded research. They're eligible for "Academic Research Enhancement Awards" the grants NIH gives out to encourage research at health-related schools that don't actually do research.

That's fine. Not all universities want to compete in that area. There's plenty of good science that isn't biology, and there's even plenty of good biology that doesn't fall under the interests of NIH. OK State is not at the top of research-centric faculty's list as it is, and welshing on an NIH project isn't likely to change opinions much. And I'm sure Pickens can replace the lost income (if not the lost credibility

It is interesting that in Oklahoma, the #5 beef producer and #8 hog producer, there's a fuss over testing anthrax vaccines on non-human primates. The treatment of food animals and the scale of food animal use is on such a different level than research use that it boggles the mind. To worry over 20 chimps who will be well housed & fed, entertained, and exposed to anthrax, while ignoring 1.8 million cattle branded, castrated, and de-horned without anesthesia, crammed into feedlots and railcars, and finally killed with a bolt through the brain is completely without perspective. It's like worrying over a splinter in the arm that wasn't severed.

IT's really not.

[tjstork]

Just as it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer

It's really not better to let ten guilty men go free, though. That's the thing.

Re:IT's really not.

[Joehonkie]

So you're ok with putting innocent men in jail, just in case?

Re:IT's really not.

[Sir_Lewk]

Well then what is your threshhold? Is it better to let 5 innocent men suffer than let 10 guilty men go free? Is it better to let 10 innocent men suffer than let 10 guilty men go free?

Why don't we just imprison everybody, just to make sure a handful of guilty men don't get through the cracks?

Re:IT's really not.

[tomhath]

Well then what is your threshhold?

That's the real question. Whether it's 5, 10 , 100, or 1000, the only way to ensure you never imprison an innocent person is to refuse to imprison anyone.

Of course there's another threshold you need to consider. Is it better to let 10 innocent people be murdered than imprison one innocent person? Where do you draw the line? The families of those four policemen who were murdered by a paroled felon last month would like to hear your answer.

Re:IT's really not.

[Sprouticus]

Just as it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer

It's really not better to let ten guilty men go free, though. That's the thing.

Wow, you are either trolling or you really really must be new here...

Re:IT's really not.

[Sir_Lewk]

Of course, everything is relative. I think the real meaning of the quote though, which the person to which I was responding seemed to be missing, is the importance of the presumption of innocence.

Re:IT's really not.

[aardvarkjoe]

So you're ok with putting innocent men in jail, just in case?

From a perfectly rational perspective, allowing, for instance, ten violent criminals to go free probably does more overall harm to society than imprisoning one innocent man. That doesn't mean that it's OK, but it's better than the alternative. You can argue what the threshold should be. Maybe you really think that it would be better to release every imprisoned person in the world, because there are bound to be innocent people among them, but I don't think you'd get much support for that idea.

Re:IT's really not.

[tjstork]

So you're ok with putting innocent men in jail, just in case?

No, but the point is that the justice system serves a purpose to keep society safe. There is a probability that it will make mistakes and punish the innocent, and there is a social cost for that, and there is a cost to setting guilty men free. The most desirable outcome, logically, is the maximum of that system, and I highly doubt that the number is empirically 10.

Re:IT's really not.

[Qzukk]

There is a probability that it will make mistakes and punish the innocent, and there is a social cost for that, and there is a cost to setting guilty men free.

The cost of letting a guilty man go free is always less than the cost of punishing the innocent, since unless the crime was completely fabricated, a guilty man went free so that the innocent man could be punished.

Re:IT's really not.

[shentino]

There is no answer as long as asshole criminals are willing to break the law. And naturally they will use every trick in the book to get away with it, including getting society tangled up in moral debates.

In that respect they are like spammers.

Re:IT's really not.

[Qzukk]

The families of those four policemen who were murdered by a paroled felon last month would like to hear your answer.

And you'll talk to the families of the little boys who were raped while Ricardo Rachell sat in prison for a crime he didn't commit?

Re:IT's really not.

[Jawn98685]

From a perfectly rational perspective, allowing, for instance, ten violent criminals to go free probably does more overall harm to society than imprisoning one innocent man. That doesn't mean that it's OK, but it's better than the alternative. You can argue what the threshold should be. Maybe you really think that it would be better to release every imprisoned person in the world, because there are bound to be innocent people among them, but I don't think you'd get much support for that idea.

Spoken like someone who failed history-101 and civics-101 (or perhaps more accurately, and no less sadly, one who was never taught these things).

Once you "rationalize" that some (usually ill-defined) collective good outweighs an individual's civil rights, it is a steep and slippery slope. History is littered with examples where "rational" thinking such as yours led, in astonishingly short order, to the most horrific examples of human rights abuses.

Re:IT's really not.

[Old97]

Well Mr. Historian, are you absolutely sure every prisoner in every country is guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted? What society in history never imprisoned an innocent person? What society in history has been so unwilling to make a mistake that they do nothing? Assuming you can think of one, how long did it survive?

Re:IT's really not.

[fastest fascist]

That a felon happened to kill someone while on parole isn't, in itself, a case for not letting people out on parole any more than someone without a previous criminal record killing another person is a case for putting everyone in jail where they can't hurt anyone.

Re:IT's really not.

[CrimsonAvenger]

The cost of letting a guilty man go free is always less than the cost of punishing the innocent, since unless the crime was completely fabricated, a guilty man went free so that the innocent man could be punished.

This does not follow.

Jury Trials aren't about "convict the guy behind door number one or the guy behind door number two". There's one guy on trial, the choice is "guilty or not guilty".

Picking "not guilty" for the guy who committed the crime in no way implies that there'll be a second trial involving some other poor schmuck.

Re:IT's really not.

[Qzukk]

Picking "not guilty" for the guy who committed the crime in no way implies that there'll be a second trial involving some other poor schmuck.

Picking "guilty" for some other poor schmuck directly indicates that there will be no second trial involving the guy who committed the crime.

Re:IT's really not.

[Svartalf]

I know I'm not sure. Which is why I'd like to think we'd err on the side of caution with this sort of thing.

The biggest problem is that in recent times, we've been finding more and more incidents of honestly innocent people being convicted- and more and more disturbing examples thereof. And more disturbingly, in complete disregard of the Bill of Rights bars to action. It's to the point that DA's are wanting to have absolute immunity for fabricating lies against the Defendant.

As for your question...so far, it's survived some 233 years to date. It's got problems right at the moment, but it's not for wont of being cautious, but more for being uncautious like you propose.

Re:IT's really not.

[Old97]

The fact that we've been "finding more and more incidents" is actually good news because the rate of false convictions has probably gone down over the past 50 years. The Bill of Rights gets a lot more respect now than it did in the 1960's are anytime before that. /\

It's a bit like the crime of rape. Reports of rape went up when we stigmatized the victims less. That doesn't mean the rape rate increased. If anything, it probably decreased because the perps knew their victims and their families were less likely to stay quiet and that police, prosecutors and jurors were more sympathetic to the victims. It hasn't always been that way in the U.S. and is certainly not that way in many countries today.

I've used words like "probably" above, but I'm sure of what I say. I've studied history quite a bit, but even more importantly I'm an old fart who remembers how ordinary people thought way back when. If you were a minority or a bit "different" and the cops said you did something wrong, that's all a "God fearing good citizen" had to hear. And believe me, there were a lot more "God fearing good citizens" willing to believe whatever they were told back then than there are now.

It's apparently not what you think it is

[El Gigante de Justic]

There already is a vaccine for at least some strains of anthrax, first developed by Pasteur in 1881, which is why it's rare in domestic animals in modern times. Soldiers being deployed to areas where bioweapons attacks are possible are also vaccinated against it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax#First_vaccination

It sounds like in this particular case they were trying to develop a vaccine that would be especially for use in humans (hence primary research subjects), and they were probably targeting some of the particularly virulent strains that were developed in bioweapons programs from World War II through Vietnam.

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If anthrax is what you think it is, then it would be interesting to know what you think it was apart from what we already know, thankyouverymuch.

6 Billion People ...

[abbynormal brain]

... This, by itself, is a problem. Solution? Experiment on some of those "monkeys". Oh, and a certain percentage need to be scientists. Would that be wrong?

Re:6 Billion People ...

[Anonymous Coward]

6.8 billion, actually. And it isn't a problem, actually. And humans aren't monkeys but rather share a common ancestor with them, actually. And yes it would, actually.

just like alot of modern arguments

[Sprouticus]

animal rights boils down to a simple statement. Is a (non-human) animals life worth less than a humans. If you say yes, then animal testing is a no brainer. If you say no, then its not. Of course you have sub-issues like behaving in a humane manner, but that is really not the root of the issue.

This same simplicity can also be put to things like abortion, guns, and even healthcare***. The problem in our country is that we dont actually try to answer the question at the root of the issue, we nip at the corners, trying to get what we want from laws without making folks actually think or choose. We end up with crappy laws with all kinds of exceptions. Its a very bad way to manage a country IMHO.

*** Note: Im saying the question is simple, the answer may not be.

Re:just like alot of modern arguments

[mugurel]

animal rights boils down to a simple statement. Is a (non-human) animals life worth less than a humans. If you say yes, then animal testing is a no brainer.

No, no, no! I'm inclined to say animal life is worth less than human life. But I don't agree with animal tests at all! The point is that there should be a proper balance between the suffering imposed on animals and the benefit for humans. I find it utterly cruel to sacrifice the (quality of) life of animals just because there might be a slight chance that in some distant future it helps us find a cure for some human disease. There should be strict criteria in terms of the likelihood that animal tests bring concrete benefits in the form of adequate medication or crucial knowledge.

Re:just like alot of modern arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be strict criteria in terms of the likelihood that animal tests bring concrete benefits in the form of adequate medication or crucial knowledge.

What a twit! Firstly, there are ethics committees that review and approve all animal research at universities. Secondly, there is no such thing as a medical advance that hasn't depended on animal research. Third, most of those advances depended on research that didn't have any direct or immediate concrete benefit in the form of a cure. There is nothing in your life that didn't depend on the fact that biological science has advanced massively due to medical research, including your very life. Before medical research became a modern science depending on animal testing the carrying capacity of the planet for human life numbered in the low millions. That means I have a 25 million out of 6 + billion chance of being wrong in my guess that your very life would be one of the ones sacrificed were we to eschew these advances. People really do underestimate the value of modern agriculture and medicine. Agriculture brought us a 1-2 order of magnitude increase in population. Medicine adds another 2-3 orders of magnitude to the population. This is no trivial benefit.

Re:just like alot of modern arguments

[Sprouticus]

you missed my point.

you answered the basic question (should we), which means the only remmaining argument is where the 'proper' way to do it.

That an important discussion, but we have not decided the 1st question as a country. Not in any definative manner.

Rename OSU for Pickens?

[igaborf]

Sure, and they can call the Agricultural College "Boone's Farm."

Re:Rename OSU for Pickens?

[WillDraven]

I'll drink to that!

Re:Rename OSU for Pickens?

[idontgno]

I'm sorry. That joke had no affect on me.

Not even a Ripple.

Re:Vaccine funding useless

[elnyka]

If anthrax is what i think it is, then it is impossible to find a vaccine for it because it will mutate fairly quickly.

Who the hell told you that what you think is a fact? Anthrax is what it is, a bacteria, not what you think it is.

You == dumbest poster ever.

Peta and the HSUS

[Anonymous Coward]

Or HSUS members. The only difference between PETA and the HSUS is the latter wear nice suits and pretend to be related to your local humane society when they're collecting money and/or lobbying for crazy animal rights causes.

  Support your local humane society, not the HSUS. No money donated to the HSUS will go to support any animal shelter anywhere - it will only go to close them all down for being immoral, which will lead to massive overpopulation and suffering in your local animal population.

An animal-rights activist who hunts?

[zill]

...noted huntsman T. Boone Pickens, who had previously pressured the school over animal-rights issues.

Don't huntsmen shoot and kill animals?

Re:An animal-rights activist who hunts?

[ak3ldama]

the wife of noted huntsman T. Boone Pickens, who had previously pressured the school over animal-rights issues.

If you are going to quote, you could at least include the parts of the sentence that give context and flow... like the part right before your "snip."

Also, just because I hunt, it doesn't mean my mom does. Nor do I give the deer I shoot a vaccine of anthrax to test out before I shoot them.

Re:Vaccine funding useless

[arsenard]

Se bon!!

NIH should get their money back

[ilsaloving]

NIH agreed to give them money in order to perform research. They refused to do the research. In my book, this is fraud and they should be legally obligated to return every cent that NIH gave them for the project.

a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[crmarvin42]

Because, despite the propaganda you hear to the contrary, a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy. There are important and meaningful differences between each one of those four mammals that makes them unique from each other.

For one thing, only the boy has any chance of understanding such a philosophically complex concept as "Morality". It is an entirely human construct required for civilization to work. That is it entirely subjective and does not possess a single fixed universal rule appears to escape most people becuase so many of the more popular definitions of what is "Moral" are similar. That is becuase, as a result of cultural evolution, selective pressure on societies favor those that define morality to include concepts such as Don't murder, Don't steal, Don't lie, etc.

The moral value of non-human animals is currently being redefined. I'm of the opinion that raising the moral value of animals is based on misplaced belief that without such value, their suffering is guaranteed and a tendancy for humans to anthropomorphise their pets and extend that compassion to other animals. I work with research and production animals. I frequently think of the behaviors I see in terms of human behavior and human emotional responses even though I know that they are wrong. The motivation and perception of a pig is incredibly different from that of a human, even a child at a similar level of intellectual development. The perfect person to readup on to learn about how fundamentally damaging the "anthropomorphic" view is to our understanding of animals is Temple Grandin.

As to your original snarky remark:

why not experiment on the mentally ill, or children born with severe learning disabilities

A. We do if we are trying to learn about the specific conditions that those individuals represent. You learn about Autism by working with autistic children.

B. More in line with what you probably intended to get a response to, Humans of any kind make horrible research subjects. The diversity within human groups, even within specific ethnic groups, is orders of magnitude greater than that between 2 strains of rats. That is why much of our biomedical and nutritional research is piloted in animals and only replicated in humans if it seems like the research is going somewhere.

I realize that you were probably hoping to get into a flame war with someone over your emotional decision to consider the quality of life for a child and a rat to be equivalent, but you won't get one from me. You can make that argument, I just don't buy it.

That you've used such an obvious and flawed comparison leads me to believe that you probably haven't had an original thought on the topic in your life. You're probably just parroting arguments you've seen others use. Saying so may make me look like a Troll, but it needs to be said. This is an issue that most people argue based on an emotional decision to accept a given viewpoint regardless of what any science may have to say on the matter. The vast majority of those posting have probably never spent more than a half an hour actually reasoning out their position.

I don't pretend to have an answer that will address the concerns of all. However, I can state with a high degree of certainty that those monkey's that were going to be used for the Anthrax study were subjected to far less fear and pain in their life than most humans. I've worked with primates (in a behavior lab) and the regulations for working with and caring for them put the laws governing the rearing of human children to shame.

Much of the modern Animal Rights movement is based on a book by Peter Singer. IIRC, there is a line in there in which he indicates that the use of animals for agricultural or research purposes is acceptable as long as their use for that purpose ends up being a net positive for the individuals involved. However, that point seems to be ignored by many who claim to desire animal rights, but have not bothered to do t

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[CoughDropAddict]

I frequently think of the behaviors I see in terms of human behavior and human emotional responses even though I know that they are wrong. The motivation and perception of a pig is incredibly different from that of a human, even a child at a similar level of intellectual development. The perfect person to readup on to learn about how fundamentally damaging the "anthropomorphic" view is to our understanding of animals is Temple Grandin.

From what I have read, Temple Grandin does not support your arguments. From her essay Animals Are Not Things: A View on Animal Welfare Based on Neurological Complexity:

Science has shown that animals such as mammals and birds feel pain in a manner similar to humans. Insects, viruses and microbes are not able to feel pain or suffer. More research is needed to determine the extent that fishes and amphibians feel pain. Present research shows that they do experience fear. Fear is very aversive and animals should be shielded form situations that cause great fear. Fear will cause a great rise in stress hormones.
[...]
When the structure of the brain and nervous system is studied, there is no black and white line between people and higher mammals such as chimps, dogs or cows.
[...]
As nervous system and brain complexity increases the welfare needs of the animal increase and become more complex, but all animals that have sufficient nervous systems complexity to suffer from either pain or fear need basic welfare protections. Animals with complex brains also have greater social needs and a need for greater environmental enrichment.
[...]
It is obvious to me that intelligent animals such as elephants experience emotions that are more complex than simple pain or fear. They will need different legal protections than animals with simpler nervous systems. The degree of protection, and environmental and social enrichment an animal will require will be dependent on the level of complexity of its nervous system.

Her opinions do not support your assertion that "the motivation and perception of a pig is incredibly different from that of a human," or that animals do not resemble human behavior or emotional responses.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[crmarvin42]

They do when you consider that she describes animal perception in terms of her own autism.

She believes that mildly autistic humans and normal animals perceive the world similarly. If you believe that autistic children view, reason and respond to stimuli (be it visual, auditory, emotional, etc.) in the same way that "normal" people do, then you've never actually met an autistic child.

I also didn't make my point clearly. I was referring specifically to her objections to the use of vague and indefinite terminology when setting animal welfare guidelines. I've heard her spend 20min. making the simple point that you need empirical and quantifiable units of measure for defining animal welfare guidelines. That is not always necessary when setting human welfare guidelines, because most people have similar definition of what represents thinks like "Excessive vocalization" in humans, but not in cattle at a slaughterhouse.

It may no be clear from my previous post, but I'm all for defending the highest levels of animal welfare in research and animal production. That does not mean that I believe that my cat deserves the same rights and privileges as my 4 month old daughter. There is a genuine case to be made that animals deserve more consideration than they get, but it has been my experience that the animals being focused on are not the ones that need the attention. Slaughterhouses needed to make changes, and Dr. Grandin did a lot of the leg work to make those changes quantifiably effective. The rest of the animal production system OTOH has only a few areas that deserve further scrutiny IMO. I think more attention should be paid to the welfare harms being perpetrated by well meaning, but uninformed activists.

The Animal Rights movement has a long history of going to far in their Zeal. There was an activist (I believe that it was in the 90's but can't find the news article) that got a job working in a primate research center moping the floors at night. They then incorrectly forced some of the primates into a piece of research equipment so that they could stage a picture. They ended up doing far more harm in order to fake their evidence than the researchers were doing (and were convicted of animal welfare abuses them self). Currently, there is a push to switch from low-voltage electrical stunning to controlled atmospheric stunning (gassing with CO2). I've seen no evidence that suffocating animals over 20-30 seconds causes less stress than electrocution in 3 seconds, and neither has McDonalds. Or their is the proposed ban on leaving horses outside in the winter that my adivsor from UMass ended up having to testify against because keeping horses couped up in a barn during the winter actually increases their risks of upper respiratory infections.

There is a lot we don't know about how much of our own perceptions and "Norms" can be translated directly to animals. Most people who do research with animals, or produce livestock species will readily admit that. However, the activists appear to view their ignorance and lack of actual data as a badge of honor, instead of a disadvantage. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I'd rather take the time to make sure I get on the right road. I hope I'm not the only one.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[Anonymous Coward]

You bring up a few valid points. However, your use of them is questionable, at best. While your post is constructed in an intelligent, persuasive manner, it's a clearly manipulative and self-contradictory composure.

Because, despite the propaganda you hear to the contrary, a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy. There are important and meaningful differences between each one of those four mammals that makes them unique from each other.

Your opener is a charged statement which reminds me of the tactics of PETA, a group which I am not a member of, to note. To appeal to the masses, you compare a child to common animals. And you are correct, they are not the same. However, there are myriad similarities which is why human products are often tested on these animals. The similarities do not end at specific physical bodily functions. Each animal you mentioned has been proven intelligent. While their intelligence is not comparable to a human adult, it is quite comparable to children at various stages of development.

While your argument seems to use that charged subject (care for our young) to mitigate accusations that the animals suffer just as we do, it brings up no valid counterpoints. The argument carefully skirts around the issue, offering charged statements, ridiculous assumptions, and self-contradictory logic.

This is an issue that most people argue based on an emotional decision to accept a given viewpoint regardless of what any science may have to say on the matter. The vast majority of those posting have probably never spent more than a half an hour actually reasoning out their position.

Logic takes many forms. Essentially all human logic has an emotional root, including yours. You work in the industry, and have probably taken some flak for it. That's plenty of reason to take your emotionally-based standpoint on the matter. But I won't rest my case on that. Should one infer that you believe progress is good, based on your choice to post here and the content of your post, you clearly have an emotional stake in this matter. You can attempt to purify it into a mechanical logic all you want, that is not how the human mind works. We base our opinions on two things:
1) Emotion
2) Shared Opinion

Logic organizes the input from those factors into our own opinions. You are doing nothing more than what you've attempted to discredit someone else with.

What it all boils down to is one simple question. Do you care if non-human animals suffer?

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[Camel Pilot]

For one thing, only the boy has any chance of understanding such a philosophically complex concept as "Morality".

And if the boy doesn't then what? If that is your first and primary argument it is built on a shaky foundation. It is irrational to assign a value based on cognitive abilities while still holding that human infants and mentally impaired humans still have a higher value than say a dog or chip.

I'm of the opinion that raising the moral value of animals is based on misplaced belief that without such value, their suffering is guaranteed

Your opinion could be based on a stereotype. Raising the moral value of animals comes with realization that it is ethically "good" not to be the source of suffering and pain. The universe may deal suffering and pain indescriminately but cognitive beings such as us have a choice and can make reasoned judgments.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[tolkienfan]

Completely agree.
In addition, there is scientific evidence that some primates understand some concept of fairness.
To me, this indicates that we still underestimate the capacity of primates, and animals in general. It suggests to me that they could have morality.
I acknowledge that we anthropomorphize animals (amongst other things), but that doesn't mean that aminals in reality don't have human attributes.

PS we also consistently underestimate early humans. As evidence of art, music, dancing, care of the dead etc, was discovered we had to increase our estimation of early people and civilizations. That science does it to animals is hardly surprising.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the thought-provoking comment. I wanted to add a couple of things from the medical angle.
Agreed, a dog != A Boy, and a chimp != a human, but in the latter case the two are incredibly close. Check out this great article that strongly reinforces the idea of humans' close biological links to the higher apes and chimpanzees: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter
So my argument is this: if we are so close to chimps at the DNA level, they may be more like us than we understand. They have a sense of self, emotions, a social existence, intellect and ability to anticipate. It seems wrong to kill them for our benefit because they are too much like us.

Secondly, the reason given for euthanizing the chimps seems to be medically unjustified. The reason given was to prevent the chimps exposed to anthrax from ever transmitting the bacterium to another chimp or human. As stated, anthrax is a bacterial disease that responds well to several antibiotics. Why not presumptively treat all the surviving chimps with antibiotics for a number of weeks and then culture their blood, urine, sputum, and body orifices for anthrax. If the cultures are all negative, it appears impossible for them to transmit anthrax to another individual. Thus euthanizing the chimps would be gratuitous and wasteful.

My argument would be signficantly weakened, but not eliminated, if the chimps were exposed to strains of anthrax genetically engineered to increase virulence or lethality. That may be exactly what the experiments are designed to test; it's hard to tell from the article.

Overall, I think the OSU President's decision was reasonable.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[watookal]

"Much of the modern Animal Rights movement is based on a book by Peter Singer. IIRC, there is a line in there in which he indicates that the use of animals for agricultural or research purposes is acceptable as long as their use for that purpose ends up being a net positive for the individuals involved. However, that point seems to be ignored by many who claim to desire animal rights, but have not bothered to do the reading necessary to truly understand the movement, it origins, and it's ultimate goals."

Yes, but then Singer goes on to explain, in this book you speak of, 'Animal Liberation', in great detail, how ineffective most research is. He explains that in many cases, the results from experiments performed on animals are not applicable to humans. And many experiments are completely unnecessary. They're repeated over and over, and often make no sense. People either don't look for published papers, or they simply do it for the grants, so that they can continue being researchers. The book goes into way more detail, and I read it a few years ago, so can't remember it all. But basically, what you've done is selective quoting. That book has only one message, and it's that humans put animals through unfathomable pain and suffering, and that they don't deserve it, and that it's completely immoral and unnecessary in most cases.

And no matter how rigid the regulations on animal experiments are, at the end of the day the things that get done to them are more horrible than you can imagine. (See Singer's book, 'Animal Liberation'). Or watch Earthlings.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[crmarvin42]

It isn't even the most important, simply the first that comes to mind. I agree that cognitive ability is a poor metric for which to base this kind of differentiation on exclusively. You'll get no argument from me. It used that line more as a segue into my point with regards to the vagaries involved in defining "Morality". Not as an attempt to set the entire range of parameters that should go into determinations of moral value. That's why the sentence begins with "For one thing..." and later I admit that "I don't pretend to have an answer that will address the concerns of all.".

You are correct that my opinion, like most peoples opinions on most topics, is based on a stereotype. However, I am an animal scientist and have a lot of personally convincing anecdotal evidence that the stereotype is largely accurate. I've been involved in more discussions on the topic with fellow ANSCI students and professionals, as well as interested family members, friends, and strangers than I can count. I'm currently finishing my PhD at Purdue University, which is home to one of the largest animal welfare research groups in North America. I don't pretend to be directly involved in their research, but I've seen easily 30 to 40 presentations over the last 8 years given by their graduate students and professors on the topic of animal welfare. I know far more about the science and policy issues regarding animal rights/welfare than most in my field, never mind your average rebellious animal rights activist or Joe the Plumber.

However, I'm not going to debate morality with you. Mostly because it can't be debated. It is far more of an emotional decision than an intellectual one for most people and arguing with emotion is the closest we'll ever get to developing a perpetual motion device. You and I could go around and around forever without changing the others mind.

I will say that the focus on pain and suffering is probably not the most beneficial to the animals themselves. FEAR is much more stressful to animals than pain is. There are a lot of studies demonstrating this (although I admit I don't have any of the citations handy). Life is full of pain to varying degrees. Livestock species would be faced with a lot more fear and pain under "Natural" conditions than they do under commercial agricultural or research conditions unless specific stressors are required for research trials for which they are being used. Animal Care and Use Committees are required to approve all animal research at any institution receiving a single dollar of federal funding (so, all of them). These committees are designed to contain several members of the local community that have not direct education or training with regards to animal research as a sort of check on the "well we've always done it this way" mentality that used to be prevalent. We all complain about the bureaucratic hassles that go along with IACUC approval, but most will freely admit that we're better for their involvement.

However, in the case at hand. An administrator with questionable qualifications decided that they, individually, knew better than all of those directly involved in the design, and approval process. You may approve because he decided to do what you feel to have been the right decision, but what if it had happened the other way. What if he'd decided that a trial that the IACUC board at the University or NIH had turned down was to proceed anyway? I'd much rather trust in the process that we have developed and the people that are familiar with the details, than an administrator trying to appease a rich bitch with too much time and money, and not enough respect for the qualifications of those involved.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[crmarvin42]

As an animal scientist and researcher, I have to disagree with you and Singer there.

Animal Liberation was written and published in the late 70's (before I was born). The worlds of animal agriculture and research have changed dramatically in the time that has elapsed since it's first publication. Studies are not repeated "over and over" nor do they "make no sense", and I don't know that they ever were. If you don't believe that those working with animals in research actually care about animals, just think of the financial issues. Research costs money! Why would I spend my limited R&D budget on running needless tests when I could be spending the money on testing a novel hypothesis or developing a new technology? It's a prime example of FUD, and I'm surprised how many /.ers believe it unquestioningly.

They're repeated over and over, and often make no sense. People either don't look for published papers, or they simply do it for the grants, so that they can continue being researchers.

This also makes no sense.

1. If I needlessly repeat a study that is already present in the literature, I won't be able to get it published. The reviewers will reject my manuscript due to a lack of novelty. I've almost had that happen before because I didn't clearly highlight the novel portion of my research.

2. Similarly, if I fail to discuss relevant research already present in the literature, I face having my manuscript rejected.

3. Granting agencies require extensive justification and literature review before they are willing to consider funding your research proposal. Furthermore, they circulate proposals to committees of individuals familiar with the literature on your topic who will judge whether your research is important, if your design actually answers the questions you are trying to answer, and your own qualifications for conducting and interpreting the potential results. If I've got a list of useless citations in low value journals simply repeating research already conducted by others, and my proposal is for more of the same, then I am unlikely to get funding.

4. If I fail to publish enough research in respectable journal (which have more stringent rules for novelty and completeness of literature review) I'll lose my job. So in essence, the situation you are describing is more likely to get me fired than get me tenure or future funding.

I've conducted dozens of animal studies myself during my graduate career, and spend several years working in animal agriculture before that. I know that we do everything we can to minimize the fear and pain of our animals, and it is my experience that this is fairly universal. I don't buy the "Any suffering is too much" argument, simply because of the sheer quantity of suffering I've experienced in my life. I believe that the animals I've used have experienced a net positive in their existence. They've experienced optimal environmental conditions (Temperature, Air flow, Lighting, etc.), no shortage of feed or water, excellent veterinary care when necessary, and minimal pain when euthanasia is necessary. Unless you want to refer to a book as fair minded as Singers and written based on observations within the last 5 years, you are not going to be able to contribute much relevant information to any debate on the topic.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[crmarvin42]

I do care if non-human animals suffer. However, the goal is not to eliminate all suffering (I don't know about you, but I've experienced a lot of suffering in my 30 years of life and I'd prefer the isolated suffering to nonexistance), but to minimize it such that the animal experiences a net positive for having lived.

In order to do that we need to know what the animal considers suffering. There is plenty of evidence that things that would cause suffering in humans would not cause suffering in animals. Our preferences for environmental conditions are based on our biology and culture, which are very different in many respects from that of the animals we use. I'm all for determining how to maximize animal welfare and then setting in place guidelines to maintain that high plane of welfare. However, we need to make sure that the guidelines are based on the animals welfare needs and not on our anthropomorphic view of what we believe that we would need if we were in the animals conditions.

A good example is the debate surrounding the confinement of sows during gestation. The animal rights groups are pushing to ban their use in every state. They believe that the animals deserve the right to move around and interact with each other. However, they aren't waiting for the science to determine what the optimal replacement system is. Sows are greedy and aggressive. Dominant sows (usually older and thus bigger) will bully the younger sows and end up hogging the feeders and waterers. They'll also harass subordinate sows simply because they can. The subordinate sows can end up experiencing persistent fear of being harassed, pain from confrontations, and reduced access to feed and water. There are pen design situations that can mitigate these problems, and that research is ongoing here at Purdue. However, the legislation is not waiting for the science and the activists are getting people to potentially decrease the welfare of sows using the emotional argument "would you like to spend all day inside the voting booth?" That animals frequently find confinement comforting similarly to swaddled newborns is completely ignored.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[crmarvin42]

It's a polemic argument, but it still has some merit. Humans kill humans all the time in war, death row, murder, starvation, etc. What makes animals deserving of better treatment than humans?

I realize that most people try to minimize the amount of human death they cause or experience, but it does happen. In the absence of human existence, all of the animal species we use would exist in much smaller numbers and would, IMO, experience far more suffering in their lives than we cause. Extreme heat or cold, inadequate access to food, predation, rain, drought, disease, social hostility, etc. are all things that wild animals have to deal with, and which are controlled to the extent possible by those caring for research, production, or companion animals.

Animal Agriculture and Research provide as close to optimal care as possible for their animals unless, as in the Anthrax study, the impairment of welfare is required as part of the study. In such cases, a small forest worth of paperwork is required documenting that every piece of evidence currently available demonstrates that this study is necessary. Cell culture work, electron microscopy, small animal trials, histology, etc. are all conducted before moving into primate research.

In order to get approval and funding for the Anthrax study, the researchers need to convince 2 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (OSU's and NIH's) that the research was justified, and that the suffering of the animals would be minimized. The requirement to euthanize the animals is probably a requirement of one or the other of those committees. Purdue's IACUC committee allows animals to be returned to their general populations as long as they don't pose a disease threat to their companions. That may be why these animals are to be euthanized, to protect the primates not being used for the study (including humans) from accidental infection.

OSU's president overstepped the bounds of appropriate response because he decided, unilaterally that HE (and Mrs. Pickens) knew better than all the individuals involved the the designing and regulatory approval of the study. IACUC's are required by federal law to possess individuals from the community that are not trained animal researchers. That these members of the community decided that the benefits of the research would outweigh the negatives, and that everything necessary would be done to minimize animal suffering is implied by the studies original approval and funding. I place much more faith in the IACUC committee than in a single individual who likely has no animal research experience, and was not involved in the deliberations preceding the studies funding.

What if the shoe was on the other foot. What if an IACUC decided that a study was not providing adequate care to the animals, but he decided to over-rule them to appease a large industry donor with a vested interest in the outcome of the research? If you believe that he as the authority and knowledge necessary to over-rule the committee's in one way, do you also believe that he has the same authority and knowledge necessary to over-rule them in the other direction?

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[crmarvin42]

Yeah, my grammar sucks. Many of the revisions I receive from reviewers are to fix grammatical errors.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[crmarvin42]

I'm all for the discovering the cognitive abilities of the animals we use, and for determining how these cognitive differences effect their perception and interpretation of the world around them. I spent a year working in a primate behavior lab as an undergraduate and was fascinated by the studies I participated in.

However, if we are deciding to move away from the simple division of Humans vs. All Other Animals, I'd prefer if we waited for the science to come back before deciding where each specie falls on the continuum. That is my major gripe with the animal rights and welfare activists. There is evidence that many of their proposed changes would have no net positive, or that some would end up being counter productive. Some examples are:

1. The transition from low-voltage electrical stunning (Electrocution) to controlled atmospheric stunning (CO2 asphyxiation) in slaughter houses. McDonalds recently completed the largest comparative study to date, and found no benefit the switch, but the activists are pushing for it anyway. (That they didn't even bother scientifically evaluating the 2 different procedures before picking one is unfortunately common)

2. The push to eliminate the use of individual sow crates in favor of group housing ignores the stresses experienced by subordinate sows in those situations. There are hybrid housing styles that can mitigate those problems, but that research is only being done now. In the mean time, producers are having to guess and hope for the best, with the subordinate sows having to deal with the consequences of us not getting it right on the first try.

3. Replacement of farrowing crates, which minimize piglet mortality, in favor of letting the sows build nests in open floor pens. Who's suffering is worse, the sow in the crate for a month, or the piglets that get crushed when the sow lays or rolls on top of them? I have my opinion, but it's only that. We don't yet have a commonly accepted, quantifiable definition for individual suffering of pigs, never mind a rubric for comparing individual suffering against the suffering of multiple individuals.

Ultimately, the work necessary to decide this situation is not being done until after the activists have chosen a side. That makes any meaningful progress difficult at best. If you actually talk with an animal scientist or farmer, you'll find an almost universal respect for the animals they work with and an interest in maintaining high levels of animal welfare (at least I have in my 10 years as an animal scientist).

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Score one for the primates. Long live the ALF! If you boys endorse this research so much, volunteer to be the lab specimen, this way America will get two things done--find the results of what anthrax does to humans, and get rid of one more spineless, mindless idiot.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[tolkienfan]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. We need less emotional lobbying and more informed discussion and decision making.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[kdcttg]

I feel almost ridiculous replying now, since the thread has moved on so far since, but I will primarily so that I can say the following:

My intention was certainly not to start a flame war, and to be honest I am amazed that my original point was modded flamebait when the post I originally responded to was modded as +3 insightful. Infact, until I reached the part of your comment that became a personal attack on me, I was actually glad to be reading a post that was based on a degree of science, whether right or wrong, rather than human chauvinism.

A. We do if we are trying to learn about the specific conditions that those individuals represent. You learn about Autism by working with autistic children.

I think that you have missed the point with this response, or perhaps so wrapped up in the reply that you almost forgot what the original topic was (which I have done a few times), since there is a big difference between "working with" autistic children, and experimenting on them in the way the animals in the article were to be experimented on.

B. More in line with what you probably intended to get a response to, Humans of any kind make horrible research subjects. The diversity within human groups, even within specific ethnic groups, is orders of magnitude greater than that between 2 strains of rats. That is why much of our biomedical and nutritional research is piloted in animals and only replicated in humans if it seems like the research is going somewhere.

We are indeed a very diverse species, but any research that did not take that into account would be terrible research to begin with, and (perhaps due to my own ignorance) I struggle to believe that there are fewer differences between a rat and the average human than there are between two humans.

I can state with a high degree of certainty that those monkey's that were going to be used for the Anthrax study were subjected to far less fear and pain in their life than most humans. I've worked with primates (in a behavior lab) and the regulations for working with and caring for them put the laws governing the rearing of human children to shame.

On the final part of this point, I have little argument - we share a world with some incredibly cruel and/or self-centred individuals, but regardless I feel that the pain that would have been experienced is more than what the monkeys ought to be exposed to. Finally, just to clarify it for anyone else reading this, I am not saying that they ought to be treated better than humans, and was never implying (as I am sure you must realise) that I believe we should experiment on children.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[crmarvin42]

I know I shouldn't feed the Toll's but

a handful of primates have been prevented from being exposed to anthrax. That is a benefit of this outcome for those individual. However, the study will be conducted somewhere. The NIH believes that the study is worth conducting, or else they wouldn't have funded it. They'll get their money back from OSU (and probably think 2x about funding them in the future), and then fund the research somewhere else. The same number of primates will be used, and the only difference is which ones.

I'd like to know what you think about the potential human-primate lives that could be saved by the anthrax vaccine if it proves effective? Even if you believe that a Chimp, Monkey and a Human all have equal moral value, at what point do the number of Human lives saved outweigh the lives of the research chimps?? It's a difficult question to answer, and unfortunately "None" is not an acceptable answer. Not because I choose not to accept it, but because there is no way that certain types of research can be done without using an animal model. Without that research, valuable life saving treatments will not be discovered, and dangerous treatments can't be excluded until the human toll is unacceptable.

A prime example of a drug that when straight to humans without animal testing is DES. It was prescribed as a treatment for morning sickness and ended up causing all sorts of problems with the reproductive tracts of the female children who's mothers took the drug. The CDC has a website explaining the problems of a lot of women that stem from inadequate testing of a medication. My mother is a DES Daughter, and my sister has a lot of reproductive problems as a second generation daughter of DES. The CDC page has a series of links for 3rd generation DES daughters as well. How many more will be afflicted before the effect wears itself out is unclear.

Maybe it's because my family is directly affected, but i believe that a couple hundred mice back in the 1940's would have been a small price to pay to prevent the problems that literally thousands of women are now experiencing.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[crmarvin42]

I didn't miss your point, I just didn't see it as being all that strong of one. I did address why we don't use the disabled, although I did go a little wide afield in my response. I was not trying to attack you per se, but I've seen that argument raised more times than I can count, and you don't need moral reasons to refute it. I admit I may have projected some of my frustration with the annoying frequency with which that particular pseudo argument is used onto you.

We are indeed a very diverse species, but any research that did not take that into account would be terrible research to begin with, and (perhaps due to my own ignorance) I struggle to believe that there are fewer differences between a rat and the average human than there are between two humans.

No one believes that data from mice or rats is directly applicable to humans. However, you are far more likely to detect subtle effects if the differences between the individuals in your sample group are minimal. Lower vertebrates such as mice and rats are more uniform in genotype and phenotype and are used in the early stages of scientific discovery for this reason. Once an effect has been reliably observed, characterized, and understood, then we can proceed to other, more human like animal models. Ultimately though, all new treatments and procedures need to be evaluated in humans before final approval, so we do experiment with humans. We just don't do discovery type work with humans.

Even discarding the moral problems, the genetic and phenotypic diversity would cause us to find a higher proportion of false positives and false negatives, thus wasting time, energy, resources, etc. There is also the issue of generation interval. You can run dozens of studies in a short period of time using mice and rats due to their accelerated (by comparison to humans) life cycle. Or, you can run multigenerational longitudinal studies in several months instead of over 60 to 100 years. Another advantage is the litter size. You can get 6 to 12 pups per litter (depending on the line), which allows for rapid population expansion when you discover or create a new genotype of interest. All of these are advantages over working with humans that ignore both the genetic and moral arguments.

we share a world with some incredibly cruel and/or self-centred individuals, but regardless I feel that the pain that would have been experienced is more than what the monkeys ought to be exposed to.

Those working with animals are, in my 10+ years of experience, rarely within that category. Those exceptions either got out of animal work on their own or were forced out by others. I'm an avid animal lover. I wanted to get my DVM originally and that's what got me into the industry I'm in. I grew up in the suburbs with zero exposure to animal agriculture before my junior year of college. Like many, I picked my profession because I like animals and love working with them.

There is a common perception that people who work in agriculture or animal research don't care about the animals they work with, but that is not even remotely the case in my experience. We avoid getting too attached to the animals that will be harvested for meat, or euthanized as part of a study, but we still develop attachments to them all the same.

Re:a rat != a pig != a dog != A boy

[watookal]

Actually, the version of Animal Liberation I read was the Second Edition, had been revised, and included references to facts as recent as the late 1990s. He actually says that things have improved since the first edition, but not by enough.

The way you describe your field and the certainty you have that most of your colleagues are as conscientious and compassionate as you gives me hope. However, the skeptic in me finds it extremely difficult to believe that all your colleagues are like you. Ordinary people generally treat animals very badly. I've seen it with my own eyes, read about it in the news, and I know, from talking to them, how little thought people give to the wellbeing of animals. Why should I expect scientists to be any different?

I always say to people that it's pointless for laymen to argue about things like these. At the end of the day, all I'm doing is using arguments made by an expert (which I consider Singer to be). But for every expert there is another expert which could make a counter-argument which is very convincing to laymen. But only another expert can tell who's right. You're an expert (or, at least, you sound like one, and are a professional in the field), so I can't argue with you. You have first-hand experience, I do not. I've read a book. I really hope you're right, and that things HAVE improved by leaps and bounds in recent years, and I hope they keep improving. I want to believe what you say. It would make me feel so much better about the world.

Finally, I never wanted to get into an argument about this, especially not with an expert. I just felt that you made it sound as if Singer was saying animal experimentation is all OK. I know that's not what you meant, but I just wanted to clarify.

Confidention matters? You're *working* for them!

[Hurricane78]

Hargis has denied being influenced by Pickens and cited 'confidential factors' that he couldn't discuss

How is that even legal? He’s working for public research. The only reason he gets to decide things, is because the public allows him to do so, and pays everything around him, including himself.

Or am I wrong about this?

And the only reason they let him decide, is because he tells them the reasons and therefore is supposed to e trustworthy.

So Mr. Pickens, you better explain yourself, if you don’t want to get your ass kicked so hard, that you think you’re staked! ^^

Unless I’m seriously wrong about his obligations (and in that case, ignore this comment altogether), that’s just... I have no words anymore...

Re:Confidention matters? You're *working* for them

[Hurricane78]

Lol. I meant Mr Haggis. Must have been a Freudian slip, with them being “in bed” with each other...

Re:Vaccine funding useless

[Anonymous Coward]

As I am 'Anonymous Coward' i put to you that this poster is NOT the dumbest poster ever!

  I continue to own that title, you insensitive clod! I also put to you that I welcome our Anthrax overlords!

And further more, if i could come up with a witty car themed analogy I would surely use it to prove to you that I still remain, the dumbest poster!

Re:Confidention matters? You're *working* for them

[Hurricane78]

Lol. I meant Mr. Hargis. Must have been a Freudian slip, with me being nauseous from thinking about it...

Then again, when I think about “in bed” and “haggis” at the same time... <Colbert-style>*gags*</Colbert-style>

Stupid for science, smart for football.

[codeAlDente]

The move was stupid on one hand, since life sciences at OSU will suffer, but not quite so stupid on the other, since football, geology, and other Pickens-funded programs will be able to continue operating with their enhanced budgets. My guess is that OSU alumni care a lot more about having a good football team than having a respectable life sciences program. I find it personally unfortunate, since I am a NIH-funded researcher and and OSU alumnus. This pretty much eliminates any chance that I might return to OSU for health-related research, and now I must sadly recommend that any pre-college student that's even peripherally interested in life sciences should attend another university.

No twithead, you missed it

[tacokill]

Finally, your oft-stated argument that "better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer" is specious. The ten guilty men will almost certainly victimize other innocents

Oddly, you make his point for him. We know they will victimize others and yet, we still hold "presumption of innocence" as one of the highest moral and legal values in our country.

To all prospective students and funding agencies:

[Anonymous Coward]

We are a party school and a living joke. Please go elsewhere.

-- Burns Hargis, OSU President

Re:Vaccine funding useless

[robinstar1574]

Excuse me? I am sorry for being a little misinformed, but calling me the dumbest poster ever? I believe that is beyond what is over the top. Sheesh

Re:To all prospective students and funding agencie

[Anonymous Coward]

And we suck at football. 81-16-7.

NIH approval is far too lax

[Improv]

I've seen the kind of monstrous experiments that have passed an IRB and gotten all kinds of funding. The problem is, so long as it's good research that can't be done any other way, generally these boards are willing to approve horrific things. Lopping off of the top of an ape skull for easy insertion of single cell recording devices, permanently affixing a cat's head into a cement frame to stop it from moving so they can do visual cortex experiments, they may be good science, but they're ethically unacceptable and should be stopped.

Science is a great thing, but this particular ethics guard doesn't work right - "no other way" should more often mean "no way" rather than "fine"

Re:NIH approval is far too lax

[Trepidity]

IRB is more weird than lax in my experience. I've seen hassles over a protocol that asked adults to use some experimental software, asking for some BS to qualm the IRB's fears about whether it could cause any psychological harm. Perhaps thrown-together research-software GUI is so horrible someone will be traumatized, but it seems unlikely that any possible such experiment will really rise to the level of risk that even low-risk medical experiments have.

Sounds to me like he's just contributing...

[Anonymous Coward]

to a solution to human over-population. Carry on.

The alternative must have been worse

[Mr. Protocol]

As one observer noted, most university presidents are not idiots. Any that were in there were Darwinned out during the 1960s and not replaced (my own was replaced at that time by a labor negotiator). Hence, we can assume the alternative was worse.

There's a likely scenario: Clarabelle Pickens drops her support. It's a huge chunk of change. The legislature, strapped, does not replace it. The NIH grants can't come close to covering it, not to mention the fact they're not growing anyway. Result: everything gets cut, including the athletic budget. At this point, for the first time, the alumni get PO'ed and cut their contributions, and all life on earth as we know it comes to an end.

At that point, losing NIH looks like the best of a bad lot, so the tap-dancing begins.

It is not clear that a contract was signed.

[John Hasler]

It makes a great deal of difference whether the university is refusing to perform reaserch specified in a grant that they had already accepted or refusing to accept a grant that was being offered.

When will it all stop...

[Phoobarnvaz]

The past month has not been kind to Oklahoma. First...the legislature demanded that women seeking abortions will have a state mandated questionnaire without "revealing" personal information posted on the web for all to see. Secondly...this.

What's next...outlawing masterbation...cohabitation by either male or female...whether or not both are married to each other? (Sorry...can't use the word sex when talking about the act or when referring to men or women...since it doesn't exist there by religious/political order.)

As for myself...am thinking about busting my own nut...screwing someone I'm not going to be married to in order to not have children & getting full release...FINALLY...on the front windows of the republican party of Oklahoma...as well as the front steps of some wackjob religious organization. (Sorry...I forgot...I have to head to Colorado Springs to do the final one. My bad)

Good for OSU

[br00tus]

The only Americans I know who are dead from Anthrax were killed by a chemical warfare researcher working for the US Army, Bruce Edwards Ivans. So the US army's chemical warfare division developing these virii in order to "protect Americans" just in case the US ever needs to use chemical warfare (beyond napalm, Agent Orange etc.) has only wound up killing Americans.

Now they want to kill off monkeys in the course of this chemical warfare research as well. Great, two birds with one stone, we can torture and kill monkeys and boost the US in the field of chemical warfare.

One thing not mentioned much in the press is that guy at Yale who killed animal researcher Annie Le was the person who took care of the animals there. He was also known to have complained about how she mistreated the animals. PETA has complained for years how that lab mistreated animals, for very little constructive reason.

It is not animals versus humans, it is animals and those working people in the world who are still normal and human versus this OSU collaboration of chemical warfare and animal torture/killing and everything that is along with it. Abu Ghraib, the US support of Osama bin Laden, the US support of Hussein gassing the Kurds then the corporate media using that as a pretext decades later for invading Iraq, rabid right wing US Army chemical researchers killing Americans with the anthrax the army made, the US support of the coup in Honduras, the massive effort to keep working poor Americans from getting healthcare, SUVs causing global warming with their lobby preventing public transportation, US army bases spread all over the world with poor girls from rural villages in the whorehouses surrounding the bases, the Patriot Act, all of it is just one big thing, the big machine that is destroying life on this planet, people are either support it or don't, and from the comments it's obvious where most people on this board stand.

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

The needs of the few (animal and humans subjects) do not out weigh the needs of the many (humanity in general).

They don't need primates ...

[PhxBlue]

They have the military. Just ask anyone who was in the military in the '90s.

Experimentation in primates should be outlawed.

[jotaeleemeese]

I know that many nature TV programs appeal to our instinctive preference for "cute" animals, specially monkeys of any kind, and until recently I was stil in favour of experimentation in primates, if that would save human lives.

No more.

When I watched the "Primates" episode of BBC's "Life" TV series a few weeks ago, I became convinced that primates should be granted special status amongst animals, I would go as far as to say that the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans) should be granted rights akin to human rights.

If you watch that programme and your heart does not melt when an otherwise unremarkable monkey uses tools, or when a female chimpanzee borrows stones, used as tools, from another chimp, then you simply have no heart.

Wait, I found the video I am talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4 (stupid geographic restrictions willing).

And also one of chimps sharing tools (not the same I saw, which is far more poignant): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Irp2UAQxM

I think the arguments for using primates for medical research are becoming morally indefensible.

How can anybody justify any more experimenting with animals like this one?

pickens is all about slowing america down

[Anonymous Coward]

first they attend a conference to depopulate the earth, then they block anthrax vaccines... hmmm i smell a rat.

Re:Vaccine funding useless

[robinstar1574]

+1 to that

Re:Vaccine funding useless

[Jimmy_Slimmy]

Apparently, anthrax is not what you think it is.