Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:14:15 -0700
Subject: CA bill to protect researchers amended again (SD Union Tribune)

NOTE: The bill amendments can be viewed T
<http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2251-2300/ab_2296_bill_20080811_amended_sen_v92.pdf>
-----------------

San Diego Union Tribune
Has Truth, Justice and the American Way won the fight on animal
researchers protection bill? Maybe.
Posted by Chris Reed
August 12, 2008
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/026395.html

I was flabbergasted to go on LegInfo just now and learn that AB 2296
has been revised yet again to restore some of the protections in the
original Assembly version of the bill. The new version specifically
seems to outlaw cyberstalking of UC animal researchers by hate groups
which post their names and photos and the names and photos of family
members on the Internet.

It doesn't have the provisions the Assembly bill did making it easier
to seek restraining orders and file civil lawsuits against animal
rights extremists, so it's still watered down and still not nearly as
good as the original bill. But it's vastly better than the bill
revised on Aug. 4, which included only one mild provision subjecting
animal rights extremists to trespassing charges if they go on the
property of animal researchers. This joke of a bill is forever
preserved here on the LegInfo site.
<http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2251-2300/ab_2296_bill_20080804_amended_sen_v93.pdf>

Guess Sen. Ellen Corbett -- the Judiciary Committee chairwoman who
supervised the gutting of the bill -- no longer is making the absurd
argument that banning cyberstalking might not withstand
"constitutional scrutiny." That was one of the arguments made for the
gutted version of the bill last week in an e-mail sent to me by
Corbett's aide.

I guess Corbett also is no longer making the absurd argument that the
level of threats faced by animal researchers doesn't "rise to the
level" of threats faced by abortion clinic workers and elected
officials, who are protected against cyberstalking.

(Isn't it odd that protections against cyberstalking that Corbett
enjoys are constitutionally A-OK but extending them to animal
reseachers somehow was questionable? OK, odd's not the right word.
Pathetic is more like it.)

So we just may be witnessing a triumph for Truth, Justice and the
American Way. And for repetitive, harsh, nasty whining. And a slightly
more high-minded editorial.

Modesto Bee
Veterinarians favoring Prop. 2 know little about agriculture
By ROBERT B. CHERENSON
August 07, 2008 01:53:48 AM
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/story/383913.html

As a food animal veterinarian and a proponent of the amazing science
and art of modern agriculture, I must respond to Dr. Jeff Smith's
rebuttal ("Vets group takes ethical stance on ballot measure," July
31, Page B-7, <http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/story/377131.html>)
to Judy Sly's perspective on Proposition 2 ("Prop. 2: City slickers
try to tell farmers how to run their farms," July 20, Page B-6, <
http://www.modbee.com/columnists/sly/story/365599.html>).

Dr. Smith rattles on about the support by the majority of
veterinarians for this proposition. First, he does not mention that
this majority is a small group of vocal small- animal practitioners --
all of whom who are far removed from animal agriculture.

There is a major schism within the profession from the perspective of
whether to get in bed with the Humane Society or not. Originally, the
Humane Society was only deeply concerned with improving the well-being
and burgeoning overpopulation of homeless small animals. Over time,
this organization has evolved into a full-blown animal rights
organization that has several agendas that include preventing the use
of farm animals and their products for human consumption. It could be
argued that the Humane Society is evolving into an animal liberation
organization.

Second, when Dr. Smith states that current egg production systems do
not pass "the smell test," I would submit that this is a very
personal, nonscientific method to determine what is best for society.
It is also very misleading. The battery cage system has evolved over
decades. This has always been open to the world. These methods are
taught in modern agricultural schools and veterinary schools. There
are trade magazines and trade shows open to the public. Dr. Smith
implies that this system has sneaked in under the radar.

It is an accepted tenet within animal agriculture that animals are
well cared for if they exhibit high livability, high production and a
low incidence of illness. There has been extensive research to support
this for the current system of egg production in the United States.

It is a daunting task to provide food for more than 300 million
Americans. While it is romantic to think of Old MacDonald's farm as a
vision for agricultural production, the reality is large integrated
units have evolved. This is not due only to economic advantages, but
to the plain old practicality of producing billions of eggs, tomatoes
and pounds of beef. There is a place for boutique cage-free and
organic farms. But these niche producers will not be able to feed all
Americans affordably.

Consumers should have the choice.

Americans are fortunate to have a continuous supply of high quality,
affordable and diverse foods. It would be wonderful if, rather than
criticize those who take the high risk of producing food, America and
California simply said thank you.

Cherenson, a former visiting editor, is a veterinarian who lives in Turlock.

Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:32:18 -0700
> Subject: 'The Animal Research War' book review and comments (blog)
>
> Discovering Biology in a Digital World (Blog)
> Book review: "The Animal Research War"
> by Sandra Porter
> Posted on: August 7, 2008 4:27 PM,
> http://scienceblogs.com/digitalbio/2008/08/book_review_the_animal_researc.php
>
> "Did you know," my friend whispered, "that the Humane Society funds
> terrorists?"
>
> I was stunned. What? That's crazy! I've adopted pets from there. No
> way! How could those be the same people??
>
> My friend and I were suffering from "brand confusion." In business,
> this happens when different companies use similar names for their
> products in order to confuse the marketplace. In the animal rights
> movement, brand confusion is used to misdirect the funds that would
> otherwise help groups who do genuine humanitarian work.
>
> As I learned in "The Animal Research War" by P. Micheal Conn and James
> Parker [published by Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN-13:978-0-230-60014-0],
> there is an animal rights group that goes by the name of the Humane
> Society of the United States (HSUS). But this is not the group that
> runs animal shelters. The HSUS takes the money that well-meaning
> people think they're giving to shelters and uses it to fund propaganda
> campaigns. Unlike the other humane societies, this group is aligned
> with those who find it acceptable to firebomb homes.
>
> Conn and Parker provide an interesting field guide to the various
> groups involved in the animal rights movement. They present gripping
> tales of what it's like to be a target for extremists and the price
> that society pays when scientists are driven away from biomedical
> work. They describe the philosophies and strategies used by different
> groups and the results. One of the most poignant parts of the book is
> where they discuss the casualties - the scientists who gave up their
> work and the students and doctors who've been scared away from working
> on human disease.
>
> An important take home lesson from the book is the discussion of the
> philosophy that guides the use of animals in research and the rules
> designed to protect those animals. As Conn and Parker describe, there
> is a law called the Animal Welfare Act, passed in 1966 that regulates
> animal research. Another set of regulations comes from the U.S. Public
> Health Service Act which requires that all institutions receiving NIH,
> FDA, or CDC funds must adhere to the Guide for Care and Use of
> Laboratory Animals (National Research Council 1996). Institutions must
> have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to oversee
> all studies that involve animal research. IACUCs are able to stop any
> study that they think is being carried out improperly and the ensure
> that studies follow the three R's - that is to replace, reduce, and
> refine.
>
> 1. To replace means to use alternatives wherever possible. These
> include computer models, cells or organs grown in culture, or
> non-mammals like insects and fish. No one likes getting bitten by a
> rat or mouse or developing allergies to their dander. Most of the
> researchers I know are not heartless fiends, when there are valid
> alternatives to rats, mice, or other animals, they use them.
>
> 2. To reduce: researchers are required to use as few animals as possible.
>
> 3. To refine: researchers are required to minimize pain, and use
> noninvasive techniques wherever possible.
>
> The Animal Welfare Act isn't the only law that regulates the use of
> animals. Conn and Parker discuss the other groups that regulate animal
> research, too, and describe what they do and their powers of
> enforcement. I think this information is important to students to
> know, especially biotechnology students, since they will be following
> the regulations.
>
> "The Animal Research War" would be a good book to add to college and
> high school libraries and to accompany a bioethics course. It's
> reasonably priced and provides information that would be helpful for
> students to know. Many biotechnology programs include courses in
> bioethics, and since many biotechnology graduates are likely to face
> animal rights extremists sometime during their careers, it would be
> good for biotech students to be prepared and to know the facts.
>
> Fellow ScienceBlogger, Nick Anthis, has reviewed this as well.
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Comments
> #1there is a law called the Animal Welfare Act, passed in 1996
>
> The AWA was first passed in 1966, not 1996.
> http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/96symp/awasymp.htm#1966
>
> Posted by: Cleveland | August 7, 2008 4:37 PM
>
> #2Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the types of incidents detailed
> in the book are the sort of thing we're going to be hearing
> increasingly about, given that animal rights extremists seem to
> adopting more brazen tactics in the US. But, there is light at the end
> of the tunnel, as we've seen in the turning tide against such
> extremism at Oxford.
>
> Posted by: Nick Anthis | August 7, 2008 4:48 PM
>
> #3Good catch Cleveland, I fixed the date.
>
> Thanks Nick!
>
> Posted by: Sandra Porter | August 7, 2008 4:49 PM
>
> #4I'm not sure which group your friend eluded to, but I can tell you
> that The Humane Society of the United States is engaged in substantial
> humanitarian work - rescuing animals during disasters, spaying and
> neutering pets to prevent unwanted litters, running animal sanctuaries
> and doing more to help animal shelters than any other organization in
> the country. We condemn terrorism and work with law enforcement
> agencies all across the country to root out animal fighting and
> cruelty. We work with scientists to develop and advance alternatives
> to animal testing, and invite anyone who wants to learn more to visit
> us at humanesociety.org.
>
>
> Posted by: Rachel Querry | August 7, 2008 5:56 PM
>
> #5Apparently there is a broad brush being used in this issue. For one
> thing, it is not necessary for an organization that calls itself
> "humane" to fund animal shelters, although that is a worthy effort.
> The fact that the HSUS does not do so does not disqualify it as a
> "humane society." I am not aware of what the HSUS does, nor do I
> necessarily agree with its goals or methods. It apparently is not a
> particularly efficient organization in terms of the money spent on
> programs as a fraction of funds raised. Some of its goals may well be
> extreme. It may pursue "animal rights" as opposed to "humane treatment
> of animals." For all I know, it might be involved in the attacks on
> biological researchers, but, favoring animal rights does not
> necessarily mean that it is.
>
> The idea that animals have rights is an ethical position. Another
> ethical position would be that humans have a right to use animals for
> the benefit of humans if they so desire. I make no argument here
> either way, but I do think it behooves biological researchers to at
> least address that issue, if only for their own benefit in defining
> exactly what their ethics demand of them.
>
> Posted by: Mark P | August 7, 2008 6:05 PM
>
> #6Rachel-
> I think it is the same one....let HSUS speak for itself!
> see the interesting article on HSUS here ---
> http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136
>
> Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials,
> it's not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in
> stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of
> animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to
> animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights
> organization on earth.
>
> HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a "humane society" in name only. And
> while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has
> accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by
> capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This
> misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are
> unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every
> single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn't operate a single one
> anywhere.
>
> Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically
> cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in
> biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus
> animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2
> million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its
> multi-national agenda going.
>
> HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for
> The Washington Post: "We will see the end of wild animals in circus
> acts … [and we're] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I
> think you will see a steady decline in numbers." More recently, in a
> June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working
> on "a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it." A
> strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: "Reducing meat consumption can be
> a tremendous benefit to animals."
>
> Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an
> inside-the-movement watchdog newspaper) that his goal was to build "a
> National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement." And now, as
> the organization's leader, he's in a position to back up his rhetoric
> with action. In 2005 Pacelle announced the formation of a new "Animal
> Protection Litigation Section" within HSUS, dedicated to "the process
> of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits
> in state and federal court."
>
> HSUS's current goals have little to do with animal shelters. The group
> has taken aim at the traditional morning meal of bacon and eggs with a
> tasteless "Breakfast of Cruelty" campaign. Its newspaper op-eds demand
> that consumers "help make this a more humane world [by] reducing our
> consumption of meat and egg products." Since its inception, HSUS has
> tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog
> breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos,
> circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping.
>
> --nuff said
>
> Posted by: Jerry Morgan | August 7, 2008 6:14 PM
>
> #7hey, don't blame Rachel, she is just doing her job...Rachel Querry
> is the senior director of public relations at The Humane Society of
> the United States.
>
>
> Posted by: David M | August 7, 2008 6:35 PM
>
> #8Yes, I'm glad you pointed that out, David.
>
> To respond to the earlier post, readers should know that Activist Cash
> is a site produced by a front group representing the tobacco, alcohol
> and agribusiness industries. Among their targets are Mothers Against
> Drunk Drivers and the CDC.
>
> The HSUS is engaged in campaigns to reform agriculture by ending the
> abuses of animals on factory farms. Instead of arguing over the issues
> (it is, after all, difficult to defend treating animals so badly) this
> group takes old quotes out of context to mislead people. For a more
> objective look at what The HSUS does, read this recent article in the
> LA Times:
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pacelle19-2008jul19,0,4840426.story
>
> Posted by: Rachel Querry | August 7, 2008 7:00 PM
>
> #9I found this review interesting because it doesn't seem to get the
> fact that HSUS and animal groups are the only reason we have
> regulation of scientific use of animals in the United States. The
> biomedical research community opposed the bills that became the Animal
> Welfare Act in 1966, just like it has opposed every revision offered
> in fourty years.
>
> You can visit the HSUS web site to read its statements of policy and
> find a condemnation of violence, as well as a clear discussion of what
> the group works on and stands for. It has always worked for the whole
> range of animals and this idea that it should be working to help dogs
> and cats exclusively is historically uninformed. I'm sure that the
> abusers of animals in various contexts, the factory farmers, the
> furriers, the rodeo operators, and so on would love to make this
> argument, but like the earliest SPCAs, HSUS and other groups work on
> all issues. It's a free country and they've helped to raise the bar on
> animal welfare in the last two decades.
>
> Posted by: Ernest Bell | August 7, 2008 7:20 PM
>
> #10The Humane Society funds law enforcement rewards to CATCH terrorists:
> http://humanesociety.org/press_and_publi...ons_080408.html
>
> Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2008 7:34 PM
>
> #11Rachel, you said this:
>
> "We work with scientists to develop and advance alternatives to animal testing."
>
> Do you also recognize that in some areas there are no alternatives to
> animal testing? Do you understand that the only way to know what a
> novel pathogen will do is to inject it into its host?
>
> Posted by: ck1 | August 7, 2008 8:24 PM
>
> #12Rachael: I don't agree with much about your posting, but I do
> concur that you're suffering from some kind of confusion. Apparently,
> you believe that any organization that funds "propaganda
> campaigns"--i.e., public outreach efforts that you disagree with--can
> fairly be described as funding terrorism. Astonishingly sloppy
> thinking for a scientist--and the kind of thing that can get you sued
> for libel.
>
> Have enough courage of your convictions and intellectual integrity to
> be as fair to your opponents as you are to your own side. Without
> honest dialogue, we're not going to make much progress on this or any
> other issue.
>
> Posted by: John F | August 7, 2008 8:36 PM
>
> #13CORRECTED VERSION OF MY PREVIOUS POST.
>
> SANDRA: I don't agree with much about your posting, but I do concur
> that you're suffering from some kind of confusion. Apparently, you
> believe that any organization that funds "propaganda campaigns"--i.e.,
> public outreach efforts that you disagree with--can fairly be
> described as funding terrorism. Astonishingly sloppy thinking for a
> scientist--and the kind of thing that can get you sued for libel.
>
> Have enough courage of your convictions and intellectual integrity to
> be as fair to your opponents as you are to your own side. Without
> honest dialogue, we're not going to make much progress on this or any
> other issue.
>
> Posted by: JohnF | August 7, 2008 8:50 PM
>
> #14Also, Sandra, here's a little light reading that will explain the
> anti-science, anti-consumer tactics practiced by your buddies at the
> "Center for Consumer Freedom," which operates that activistcash site
> you like so well. It's an article from the San Francisco Chronicle
> that details the group's deceptive tactics:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/20/INA811PEQV.DTL&hw=Center+for+Consumer+Freedom&sn=003&sc=323
>
>
> Posted by: JohnF | August 7, 2008 8:55 PM
>
> #15oh riiiiighht. the only thing damning on the activist cash report
> is "outdated quotes". Sure. Care to respond to the substance? The fact
> that HSUS got taken over by the activists after the passage of the
> original AWA invalidating claims that anything like the current policy
> and regime resulted in that legislation? The misleading fund raising
> on the reputation of actual human society local shelters? The
> financial shenanigans? (Where's that money going if not to illegal
> enterprises?) The hiring of admitted ALFies?
>
> you can put as many disclaimers as you want on a website but what
> matters is walking the walk. When all these HSUS/ALFie/PETA
> mouthpieces get in front of what they think are a homie audience, the
> truth emerges and they spout violence encouraging rhetoric. Vlasic
> does it in public, a couple others have actually been prosecuted for
> inciting violance like those ELF arsonists in socal.
>
> so forgive us if we don't take you at your word but rather at your
> suspiciously two faced behavior. what would be convincing is some
> house cleaning. excoriating, shunning and assisting with prosecution
> of anyone who seems the slightest bit terroristic or engaging in
> flagrantly illegal behavior. you know, instead of wink-wink about how
> you certainly understand the motivations...
>
> oh, and let's have some cites for which "animal groups" were
> instrumental in getting the AWA passed and some evidence that all
> scientists opposed the Act. Actually opposed, as differentiated from
> keeping the most wackaloon elements out of it- which is a different
> matter entirely.
>
> Posted by: Cleveland | August 8, 2008 1:07 AM
>
> #16If you read the book (which, sadly, true believers in "animal
> liberation" as unlikely to do as Creationists are to read evolution
> textbooks), you'll see that the authors have pretty clearly
> established the fact that the so-called "Humane Society of the United
> States" exists to feed money to extremist groups, including the
> terrorist ALF. It's not about harmless propaganda. Sure, it may do a a
> bit of legitimate charity as well, but that's pretty superfluous given
> that there's a real legitimate organization for that -- the American
> Humane Society. It's not hard to see that just like the sellers of
> knockoff "Praydo" handbags at fleamarkets, the business model of the
> HSUS is simply to take money from people confused about the name.
>
> One of the shills here talked about suing. It's the HSUS that ought to
> be sued for diluting the brand of the American Humane Society. As a
> scientist and supporter of the real Humane Society, I'd be proud to
> contribute to an effort to drive this HSUS scam out of business (or at
> least get them to change their name).
>
> Posted by: Jonathan Badger | August 8, 2008 3:08 AM
>
> #17@RachelPerry, the HSUS rescued 32 animals in the aftermath of
> Hurricane Katrina and is under indictment by the AG of the state of
> LA. To paraphrase its CEO, they run no shelters nor do they rescue
> animals. It is antithetical to their philosophy to have pets.
> You are confusing them with your locale human society. That's the
> ichor of the blogpost.
>
> Posted by: BB | August 8, 2008 8:00 AM
>
> #18hey Mike. In light of the Society's interest in stopping terrorism,
> how mcuh $$ did they spend to OPPOSE the Animal Enterprise Terrorism
> Act? Kinda contradictory, if you ask me!
>
> Posted by: Tim Burger | August 8, 2008 8:40 AM
>
> #19When Rachael, the public relations spokesperson for the HSUS in her
> first line speaks of "eluded" to - is that a freudian slip? Can I
> assume that Rachael is "elusional" and therefore unable to grasp
> reality - or merely, like all the animal rights people, making a
> conscious decision to elude reality?
>
> Posted by: Downeygodd | August 8, 2008 9:54 AM
>
> #20Check your sources, people. Anyone getting their information about
> HSUS from activistcash should recognize that this organization is
> dedicated to polluting the debate over a lot of issues. Its parent
> organization was originally founded with tobacco company money, and it
> currently propagandizes against various public health initiatives.
>
> The fact that an organization like HSUS opposes something you do or
> like or think is important doesn't mean that they are evil, or even
> wrong. It just means that you and they disagree. Knee-jerk reactions
> don't help decide much of anything, at least not in any rational way.
>
> Posted by: Mark P | August 8, 2008 10:15 AM
>
> #21right, Mark: you can also read about HSUS distortions here:
> http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/hsus01.htm
>
> Posted by: Tammy | August 8, 2008 10:40 AM
>
> #22I do not get my information from activistcash. I do my own
> research. I see what the HSUS does on a daily bases. Claiming to raise
> money to "help the Vick dogs" the HSUS had no hand in helping those
> dogs what so ever. They took that money under false pretenses, and
> never gave a cent to the care of those dogs.
> The way they work is that they go in take the dogs and then they
> require an outrageous fee for the care of the dogs or they will be
> killed BEFORE the case even goes to court.
> How about all the dogs that were KILLED by HSUS during Katrina? If you
> don't think so then ask them why they covered up how much euthasol
> they used. Oh and by the way Rachael, what happened to the 765
> American Pit Bull
> Terriers that were at Lamar/Dixon? I know they were not sent out to
> rescues, I know HSUS used a lot of "black body bags" during the night.
> Would you care to explain those away with one of your fairy tales too?
> If HSUS does not advocate terroristic activities why did (I beleive it
> was Coronado) he have a check from an employee of the HSUS on his
> person when he was arrested for arson? Why did the HSUS hire a known
> criminal to head its "dog fighting division?"(that would be J.P.
> Goodwin aka John Paul Goodwin aka John Goodwin from the Memphis TN
> area where he has a long arrest record) Why is it that so many of the
> cases that the HSUS is involved in investigating for dogfighting (in
> the neighborhood of 80% to 90%) are not convictions? And those that
> are were plea bargins and not trial convictions? Could it be that the
> "dog fighting" myth is not so prevelant as the HSUS is trying to make
> it appear? How many times have I looked at pictures of those dogs and
> seen no scars no marks...
> What I find frightening is all the new laws they are coming up with.
> Like the forfeiture laws that say they can take your house and
> property BEFORE you are convicted of the crime. I am watching this
> unfold in AZ right now. The HSUS has filed the forfeiture paperwork in
> the courts to take possession of the houses and lands of those that
> were ACCUSED (not tried or convicted mind you) of dog fighting.
> Dog fighting is wrong and should not be allowed. BUT it is not as wide
> spread as the HSUS wants you to think and not only that they are not
> targeting those fighting they are targeting those who are accepted in
> the APBT world for raising great show and family dogs. Yes and
> "breeding fighting dogs" I have heard that being a charge, since when
> is it illegal to breed dogs? Or wait a minute, how about "transporting
> dogs across state lines" Hmmmm ever been to a dog show? I know folks
> who were doing nothing more than dropping off puppies and adults to
> folks, that were arrested under this law.
> The main point I am trying to make is that be it APBTs or some other
> breed of dogs, or farm animals, or exotic animals they are trying to
> end our use and "exploitation" of all animals. To quote the head of
> HSUS "One generation and out". That came from their own website.
>
>
> Posted by: Sandi Coy RN | August 8, 2008 11:22 AM
>
> #23MarkP,
> The source Sandra is referring to is the well-researched book "The
> Animal Research War". "activistcash" is a red herring of no real
> relevance to the discussion. Besides, attacking a group based on its
> origin rather than its current status is what is known in logic as a
> "genetic fallacy".
>
> Posted by: Jonathan Badger | August 8, 2008 11:27 AM
>
> #24Jonathan B., you are laying a red herring yourself. The main
> criticism of activistcash is that they currently (as in right now,
> today) propagandize against various public health issues. They are not
> a reliable source of information about anything, and that has nothing
> to do with their original founding by a tobacco company shill.
>
> Posted by: Mark P | August 8, 2008 11:56 AM
>
> #25To clarify this, I got my information from the book, "The Animal
> Research Wars." As I wrote in my review, I think this is a great
> reference and that this information is important for any student who
> plans to work in a life science field. Even researchers who work on
> plants or bacteria often have to use animals in their work, it's best
> not to be naive or uninformed about the extremist groups and their
> tactics.
>
> I'm closing the comment thread since the commenters on both sides of
> the issue have made my point much better than I ever could.
>
> They've also made me realize that all undergraduate and graduate
> programs in life sciences, should include a discussion of animal
> welfare somewhere in the curriculum, not just biotechnology programs.
> Students should know that there are regulations to protect animals and
> what those regulations are. Students should also learn that
> regulations can always improved and ultimately, the best thing is to
> find scientifically valid alternatives.
>
> The bioethics courses are probably the best place for those kinds of
> discussions.
>
> Posted by: Sandra Porter | August 8, 2008 12:05 PM