terrorism against researchers (was Re: bioethics)
Mark D. Garfinkel
garfinkl at iitmax.iit.edu
Wed Feb 2 10:50:20 EST 1994
In article <2im8kq$pab at ysics.physics.sunysb.edu> mhollowa at epo.som.sunysb.edu
(Michael Holloway) writes:
>In article <1994Feb1.161456.10192 at iitmax.iit.edu> garfinkl at iitmax.iit.edu (Mark
>D. Garfinkel) writes:
>>mhollowa at epo.som.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway) writes:
>>>In article <brownbrd.759900648 at pv0a17.vincent.iastate.edu>
>>>brownbrd at iastate.edu (Grizzly Adams) writes:
>>>>The training group I am part of as a graduate student recently met and
>>>>discussed a small portion of bioethics - specifically that of "animal rights"
>>>That's disappointing, unless the discussion centered around educating the
>>>participants about the danger presented by "animal rights" terrorists.
>>>The only thing that a researcher needs to be taught about it is how to best
>>>protect yourself from terrorists.
>> *For the most part I agree. Animal rights activism is, I think,
>>just one facet of a Luddite anti-human point-of-view that is extremely
>>shortsighted & dangerous, for a whole bunch of reasons. However, isn't
>>it a valid point that healthy animals will be better laboratory research
>Ah, another example of a poor soul suckered into equating "animal rights"
>with animal welfare (see other thread).
Sir, I am neither a pour soul, nor have I been suckered. I didn't
think I needed to post a dictionary definition of "Luddite" on
bionet.general, but perhaps you should take the time to look it up.
Nor did I think I needed to elaborate as to how animal rights activism is
anti-human, shortsighted, or dangerous.
For the record, I regard environmentalist extremism, animal
rights activism, the gamut of irrationality that collectively
masquerades as "New Age philosophy," as all components of the same
anti-human, anti-science, anti-technology world view that, if allowed
to prevail, will kill us all. It is for this reason -- respect for truth,
respect for the truth *of human intellect* -- that I am opposed to these
>you fail to
>distinguish between a bizarre pop culture "philosophy" generated in the
>`70's and something as obvious and necessary as humane treatment [...]
>Your confusion is understandable.
Sir, I am not confused, nor do I fail to make distinctions.
I know exactly what the issues are, where the boundaries ought to be
drawn. My research does not directly involve vertebrate animals:
I work with Drosophila, and have only the occasional need for injecting
lab animals with purified proteins for antiserum production. But I have
seen the elaborate physical security precautions built to protect, for
example, a mouse colony from invasion by the animal-rights terrorists
you properly denounce. In a period of limited research monies, it is a
travesty that these security measures, which almost certainly divert
funds from experiments, are needed. Not to mention the diversion of
researchers's time & effort from their experiments towards satisfying
administrative details for complying with animal welfare and public
I think your posts would be more convincing if you were to leave
the ad hominem attacks & implications about other posters' thought
processes aside. Had you limited your accusations about thought to me
& my posts, I'd have replied by private e-mail. But since you aim at
others as well, I feel the need to post a reply publically.
Mark D. Garfinkel (e-mail: garfinkl at iitmax.acc.iit.edu)
My views are my own, which is why they're copyright 1994
More information about the Bioforum