Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Animal rights nuts strike again

Animal rights nuts left an incendiary device on the front steps of Edythe London this morning. It lit, damaging her home:

The device was placed this morning on the front porch of a house owned by Edythe London, FBI officials in Los Angeles said.

London, a professor of psychiatry and bio-behavioral sciences and of molecular and medical pharmacology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, uses lab monkeys in her research on nicotine addiction.

FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller confirmed that officials with the Joint Terrorism Task Force were investigating the incident.

"It was ignited and caused damage to the property," Eimiller said. "No one was home at the time and nobody was hurt."

Eimiller said no one had claimed responsibility. But the agency is investigating the claim that the Animal Liberation Front used a garden hose to flood London's house Oct. 20 in an attempt to stop her animal experiments.
London may have provoked these nutballs with her editorial earlier this year:
I have devoted my career to understanding how nicotine, methamphetamine and other drugs can hijack brain chemistry and leave the affected individual at the mercy of his or her addiction. My personal connection to addiction is rooted in the untimely death of my father, who died of complications of nicotine dependence. My work on the neurobiology of addiction has spanned three decades of my life -- most of this time as a senior scientist at the National Institutes of Health. To me, nothing could be more important than solving the mysteries of addiction and learning how we can restore a person's control over his or her own life. Addiction robs young people of their futures, destroys families and places a tremendous burden on society.

Animal studies allow us to test potential treatments without confounding factors, such as prior drug use and other experiences that complicate human studies. Even more important, they allow us to test possibly life-saving treatments before they are considered safe to test in humans. Our animal studies address the effects of chronic drug use on brain functions, such as decision-making and self-control, that are impaired in human addicts. We are also testing potential treatments, and all of our studies comply with federal laws designed to ensure humane care
For frack sake, people! She studies addiction, with the hopes of curing it. This woman deserves our applause, not incendiary devices at her home.

Mark at Denialism has asked in the past for folks who use animals in their work to explain how and why it is important. Animal research is IMPORTANT. The information we gather from animal work saves LIVES.

Digg!

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

What absolute nonsense.....

David Amulet said...

Disgusting. I don't support torture of any creature, but saving animals by killing humans is idiotic.

-- david

thrugreeneyes said...

I am for nonviolent action always and I do not support the animal rights activists' use of an incendiary device to make their point. However, from their point of view, they believe they must resort to such extreme measures as a form of defense for innocent animals who are powerless and have no way of defending themselves. What if instead of monkeys in cages being experimented on, what if it were small children in cages being fed liquid nicotine and probed with needles and then killed? Would you then feel that an extreme response from activists was justified? For many, torturing an intelligent primate such as a monkey is equally as reprehensible as if one tortured a human being. They do feel pain, after all. Where do you draw the line? Also, there are an infinite amount of ways to fight addiction and conduct research, but in a humane way. There are so many alternative forms of study in place of vivisection, and it is immoral for a university to accept money from tobacco companies which is a blatant conflict of interest.

lockers said...

What if instead of monkeys in cages being experimented on, what if it were small children in cages being fed liquid nicotine and probed with needles and then killed?

That is the reason most of humanity disagrees with the animal rights movement. Animals are not people. We all agree you shouldn't torture them unnecessarily, but human suffering is more important to anyone who identifies with other people. You're talking about a handful of lab animals versus thousands of people who suffer from lung cancer a year. So that leaves the basic question, why is a human life worth less than any animal's? I suspect that in the heart of every animal rights activist lingers the desire for the extinction of their own specie.

thrugreeneyes said...

I don't believe all animal research is wrong,only certain studies. I believe London's so called experiment is wrong because it is unnecessary torture. We have alternative methods of research to study addiction in all of its facets without harming another living soul. We should use these humane methods. Animal research should only be used as a last resort when no other method is available, according to the ethical standards of the APA.

As far as wishing for the extinction of the human species, please consider this quote by Pythagorus, "For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love".

Finally, I would like to thank Lockers for responding to my comment in a respectful way. Sometimes, people get so mean in the blogosphere. (I'm relatively new to the blogospere) I think it is so important to discuss these complex issues in a calm, rational, and respectful way, don't you?

The Factician said...

We have alternative methods of research to study addiction in all of its facets without harming another living soul.

Did you know that *all* academic researchers are required to write out a lengthy document describing why they need to do animal experiments, and detailing why there are no other experimental systems to answer that particular question?

What you're saying is an untruth that has been spread by organizations like PeTA. Animal researchers don't enjoy experiments that result in the death of animals. We do as much as we can to avoid it, but often there simply isn't another way to answer the question at hand.

Best,

-F.

thrugreeneyes said...

Factician,
Yes, I did know that researchers are required to write out lengthy documents detailing why they believe their animal research is justified. No process is perfect and it is of course possible for inhumane studies to slip through the cracks and get approved. That doesn't mean that all animal research is bad, but it doesn't mean that all animal studies are good either. Are there any animal studies that you would not approve of?

I don't believe that vivisectors enjoy testing animals; I believe they use the defense mechanisms of denial and rationalization to justify it. The common argument employed is that one animal will suffer for the benefit of many humans. It fascinates me as this is basically the same argument being used right now by Mukasey and the Bush administration to justify torture of humans. (I digress...)

Even many of London's esteemed colleagues who are respected as scientists and doctors have been critical of her research and the fact that she accepts money from Philip-Morris.

Just wondering, is that a cigarette in your photo?If it is, why did you choose a photo of yourself smoking? It is surprising to me that in this day in age anyone would want to promote such an unhealthy activity. I guess I'm curious about this because for me, I will never be able to get past the point that London's study is funded by Philip-Morris. Have your ever or would you ever take money from big tobacco to fund your research?
Peace always,
greeneyez

The Factician said...

Yes, I did know that researchers are required to write out lengthy documents detailing why they believe their animal research is justified.

Before we move on to the other points you raise, let's finish with this one. You have asserted that it is possible for London to do her addiction experiments in other ways. Please, give me an example of one of the experiments she has published, and give me an alternative experiment that you would do that would ask the same question and answer it in a satisfactory manner.

Once we've dealt with this, we can deal with your issue of where research funding comes from. Or perhaps we can deal with that in another blog post... ;)