Thursday, November 01, 2007

Guts! Targeted Scientist Defends Animal Research

Edythe London is a researcher at UCLA who has been victimized by terrorist threats and an attempted bombing by animal liberation criminals. Such assaults forced one of her colleagues out of the lab. But she is hanging tough. And now, she tells us why she uses animals in scientific research in a piece published by the Los Angeles Times. From her column:

For years, I have watched with growing concern as my UCLA colleagues have been subjected to increasing harassment, violence and threats by animal rights extremists. In the last 15 months, these attempts at intimidation have included the placement of a Molotov cocktail-type device at a colleague's home and another under a colleague's car-- thankfully, they didn't ignite--as well as rocks thrown through windows, phone and e-mail threats, banging on doors in the middle of the night and, on several occasions, direct confrontations with young children.

Then, several weeks ago, an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about the work I have been doing to understand and treat nicotine addition among adolescents informed readers that some of my research is done on primates. I was instantly on my guard. Would I be the next victim? Would the more extremist elements of the animal rights movement now turn their sights on me?

The answer came this week when the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for vandalism that caused between $20,000 and $30,000 worth of damage to my home after extremists broke a window and inserted a garden hose, flooding the interior. Later, in a public statement addressed to me, the extremists said they had been torn between flooding my house or setting it afire.
Why not walk away and let the Brown Shirts win? She comes from stock victimized in the Holocaust and believes in ideals of liberty and freedom in America. And she thinks her work is important and good result in the alleviation of much human suffering:
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.

While monkeys receive drugs in the laboratory, they do not become "addicted" in the same sense that humans become addicted. Still, we are able to see how changes in brain chemistry alter the way the brain works -- knowledge that is vital to the design of effective medications...

My colleagues and I place a huge value on the welfare of our research subjects. We constantly strive to minimize the risk to them; however, a certain amount of risk is necessary to provide us with the information we need in a rigorously scientific manner...

[Discusses and defends Philip Morris funding.]

Few people are untouched by the scourge of addiction in their friends or family. It is through work like ours that the understanding of addiction expands and gives rise to hope that we can help people like my father live longer, healthier lives.
If primates are to be outlawed in research, that decision should be made after democratic deliberation and the give and take of political elections. Thuggery, terrorism, and criminality should have no say.

Good on Dr. London for her work--and her courage in defending the benefit of using animals in research in such a public forum.

11 Comments:

At November 01, 2007 , Blogger OTE admin said...

The vast majority of people, including most people involved in so-called animal rights organizations, have no idea as to the philosophical underpinnings of the "movement." If they did, few but the truly mentally ill would have anything to do with them.

I am anxiously awaiting your book, Wesley, on animal rights/liberation.

 
At November 01, 2007 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Thanks, Susan. I am in the midst of writing and finishing the research. Onward.

 
At November 01, 2007 , Blogger Aki_Izayoi said...

What do you have to say on factory farming in your book Wesley?

Unfortunately, I cannot claim myself as an example of moral rectitude. Today, I eat something with cheese. And I eat fish on Sunday because I do not want to die of a myocardial infraction before rejuvination therapies are available. Too bad plants are not genetically engineered to produce DHA.

 
At November 02, 2007 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

HKR: I intend to find out the truth about factory farming. Find out if the alleged abuses are real, find out how much more meat would cost if all industrial methods were terminated, present the truth as best I can and make an animal welfare style analysis.

That remains the largest single task I still have before me.

Thanks for asking. And don't feel guilty about eating cheese. In moderate amounts it is good for you and is a fine food for human consumption.

 
At November 03, 2007 , Blogger Aki_Izayoi said...

There is nothing inherently wrong with eating dairy products and eggs in my opinion, but I think the current practices cause too much suffering. Of course, meat would cost too much if the current practices are eliminated.


I do not have a tenable argument for the abolition of animal testing though.

 
At November 05, 2007 , Blogger T E Fine said...

Ironically, I recall seeing a show about emergency vet clinics that featured a scientist who uses mice in his study. They're so important to his work that when one mouse started getting cataracts, the scientist brought it in to the vet to have its eyes cared for. Animals are of such vital importance to research that anything affecting them will throw off years of work. An unethical scientist will use up his subjects so fast it won't matter, and should be punished for such violations of animal welfare. An ethical scientist knows how vaulable each animal is and will do everything possible to keep her subjects healthy and happy. She also will work to ensure that, if an euthanized animal is necessary, that it was very well cared for before hand, so that her results aren't skewed by a sick animal's bad health.

Smart people know that as stewards of this plant, we need to take good care of all the creatures on it, or else they can't do what they need to do.

 
At February 10, 2008 , Blogger Unknown said...

I strongly feel it is immoral for a university to accept money from tobacco companies to conduct research. As pointed out in a recent Los Angeles Times article, the tobacco companies can use the results of the studies to make a more addictive cigarette. London trusts PhilipMorris and says they appeared "sincere". She is either extremely naive or just callous and coldhearted. I believe she is using the defense mechanisms of denial and rationalization to justify her blood money. UCLA should halt all studies funded by big tobacco. Take the millions of dollars and put it towards an anti-smoking campaign which would be effective in helping prevent nicotine addiction but would also be humane.

 
At February 10, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

thrugreeneyes: Even if that is all true, it does not justify the terroristic harrassment to which she has been subjected.

 
At February 12, 2008 , Blogger Unknown said...

Yes, I strongly agree that one must always express their dissent in a nonviolent manner.

But just to delve a little bit deeper into this complex issue, what if it were small children being kept in cages, fed liquid nicotine, and then killed? Would you feel that extreme expressions of dissent were justified then in order to defend the "subjects" who are powerless to defend themselves?

Where do you draw the line?

 
At February 12, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

thrugreen: You would have law enforcement deal with it. But the line is drawn between humans and animals. We then focus on the uniquely human obligation to treat animals humanely and our obligation to support greater human thriving. If we decide that such experiments are unethical, we stop them by law or regulation. But we don't leave bombs on people's doorsteps. Thanks for stopping by.

 
At February 13, 2008 , Blogger Unknown said...

Your answer comes across as if it were extremely easy for you to draw the line. Do you have a heart? Don't you care that animals feel pain? Do you believe that you have the right to do whatever you want with creatures that are weaker than you? Just because all animal research isn't bad, doesn't mean that all animal research is good. Even many of London's esteemed colleagues are speaking out in criticism against her research.
You're welcome for stopping by.
Peace,
greeneyez

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home