being recrutied unawares vs. being intimidated out of the

[Michael Holloway]

In article <CAxsHw.2wA at dartvax.dartmouth.edu> James.F.X.Wellehan at dartmouth.edu (Jim Wellehan) writes:
>In article <23668i$lj0 at max.physics.sunysb.edu>
>mhollowa at ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway) writes:

>> Within the slander bag of animal "rights" propaganda there is no end 
>> of "extremes" to which the cruel researcher will go.  This is probably 
>> not the stuff to which you were referring but I'm still left in the dark 
>> as to what examples you were referring to.  Could you expand on that?
>
>While I am by no means accusing you of cruelty to animals, IMO any
>moral position where one has complete certainty is extremist.  Animal
>rights activists are 100% sure they're right and refuse to consider
>your position.  You're 100% sure they're wrong.  This leaves no room
>for exchange of ideas.
>
>Jim

Perhaps more detail to the question was necessary.  I was hoping that Jeffery 
Fried, or someone, could explain what actions they believe are taking place 
within biomedical research that requires a "balancing" with the views of 
activists who are out of the mainstream.  It's my hope that focusing on any 
preconceptions might illuminate why some people in the field of biomedical
research, but not familiar with animal "rights" activism, might be
willing to accept the propaganda and philosophy without first giving the 
matter sufficient thought or research.  I've met such people in my own 
experience and I think that some of exchanges here in bionet.general also 
show an unfortunate willingness to accept the animal "rights" propaganda.
The acceptance seems to grow from the fact that it is a topic that relates 
to their own work and because they mistakenly believe that it reflects 
mainstream thought on concerns for animal welfare.

Mike
mhollowa at ccmail.sunysb.edu