• November 25, 2014
  • Welcome!
    Welcome | (Logout)
  • RSS
  • Contact
  • Archives
  • About

Alligator

Animal rights group should stop harassment

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:51 am

If you have stepped on a cockroach recently, you might want to watch your back.

A wacko animal rights organization called "Negotiation is Over" has been targeting faculty, staff and students who work at the Sid Martin Biotechnology Incubator at UF.

In a flier they distributed, the group offered a $100 reward for any information on students involved in vivisection (invasive experimentation on a living organism) at the research facility including "name of vivisection student," a "picture of the student," their "address, phone and any other contact info" and any information about animal experiments in which the student was involved.

On its website, the organization mentions that students involved in this sort of research will face "a lifetime of grief," proceeding to mention car bombs, threats and injuries. On its website, there are diagrams on how to make an "Improvised Explosion Device" and a Molotov cocktail.

Recently the group, led by Camille Marino, targeted an 18-year-old Gainesville woman who it falsely claimed was a UF student conducting research at the facility. According to the Gainesville Sun, the woman has had no contact with animals and only cleaned a lab in the facility once.

However, it would not have mattered whether this woman had been conducting vivisection or animal research; NIO has overstepped way too many lines.

It has repeatedly invaded the privacy of innocent individuals and is threatening the safety of anyone involved at this research center.

It appears that, for NIO, animal rights come before human dignity and human rights.

The truth of the matter is that there is literally nothing we can do that does not have an adverse effect on some animal somewhere by virtue of our own existence.

Given NIO's perverted ideology, it would not stop at threatening animal researchers. When you arbitrarily award rights and protections to any living organism, you must include insects, bacteria and even viruses.

It has no standard by which to judge whether anything deserves protection other than the fact that it is alive.

Therefore, its logical end will be to fight anyone who kills insects in their home, any scientist that tries to cure a disease and eventually to promote the complete eradication of the human race.

Since when was there a separation of humanity and nature? Eco-terrorists like NIO use language that places humans outside of the realm of the environment and pay little attention to our own ecological needs.

Whale Wars lunatic Paul Watson once called humans the "AIDS of the Earth."

When environmentalists look beyond "going green" for the sake of continuing the human race, and do so for the sake of the planet itself, total human extinction can be the only end.

Welcome to the discussion.

45 comments:

  • DriedBrainwash posted at 6:41 am on Sat, Sep 24, 2011.

    DriedBrainwash Posts: 3

    Although `fightback` seems rational he still uses `science`decided by name-calling.It`s very much like physics decided by Einstein`s hairstyle.
    The Nazis,like the Pro-Test cult were/are allies of extreme Islamists of course-the Mufti of Jerusalem visited Berlin as an honored guest during the Holocaust.
    No apology from fightback for that or the forced medical monopoly London&Glasgow bombs of course.The first one was designed to cremate hundreds of women alive.
    It has to be very doubtful whether any federal law requires that or telling Dr Camster`s Nobel sponsors that their families will `die in their sickbeds`if they don`t withdraw.Maybe that`s the kind of fightback `fightback approves of.

    It`s also very doubtful whether federal law requires the raping&murder of children for use as footwarmers as Harvey did at Edgehill,while at the same time Lucy Hutchinson was getting 100% success at curing warwounds at:

    http://drbsmith.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/curing-the-incurable/

    There is a pattern in this-the Pro-Test cult -like extreme Islamist terrorists- are involved in hate-crimes against women.The whole animaltest cult is no more than hostage taking terrorism to blackmail the mainly female animal rights movement-`do as we say or the puppy gets it.`
    In Harvey`s war to impose medical monopoly by force ,abuse of women was so bad they had to form self-defense militias to defeat him.
    Camster describes his ancestor`s moving experience of that in `Apocalypse`.Not surprisingly HSUS`s First Strike studies show that animal abusers are usually child&women abusers and undiscovered serial killers.Does federal law really intend to prevent self-defense against that?

     
  • fightback posted at 11:01 am on Fri, Sep 23, 2011.

    fightback Posts: 8

    I know this won't convince ol' DeadBrain down there, but one of the reasons we are REQUIRED by law to conduct animal model testing before human testing is because of the atrocities committed by the Nazis on human subjects. Apparently some of these animal rights members are fine with using humans involuntarily for experiments, just so long as you don't harm an animal. Let's you know where their priorities are at least. They have more in common with the Nazis than I think they'll admit to.

    It's a federal law that all biomedical research be first tested on animal models before it can be used in human clinical trials. It's not like a new medication goes from an animal study straight to the market although wackjobs like Marino would like you to think it does. Human volunteers are used, as are computer modeling, cell cultures, and other options. Of course the animal rights movement isn't about truth, it's about the manipulation of it to garner recognition.

     
  • DriedBrainwash posted at 5:51 am on Fri, Sep 23, 2011.

    DriedBrainwash Posts: 3

    Just for any Harvey cult members who like to still pretend that he was not involved in civil war atrocities and the holocaust at THAT time,laying down the principles for the LATER one of 1942-5,Dr Camster was Nobel-nominated for that discovery at:

    http://drbsmith.wordpress.com/world-first-exclusive-most-and-fastest-produced-nobel-nominations-all-mentioning-paul-camsters-apocalypse/

    The Oxford Pro-Test cult has more recently been identified as linked with the `Tipu Aziz` cult whose extreme Islamist members allegedly bombed London and Glasgow airports to try to impose orthodox(Harvey cult)medical monopoly systems by force.

    Traditionally,extreme Islamists are for ritual sacrifices in every form(including the Pro-Test type) and for that reason are opposed to animal rights.
    The bankrupting of the western hemisphere could of course be accounted for by the drain on health budgets from international drugindustry looting of our taxes and would be very satisfactory to extreme Islamists who support Harvey cult purposes,and always have.

    The number of our relatives dead in the `care` of cult members of course hugely exceeds the number of victims of Hitler,Stalin,Mao & even OBL put together,so self-defense or justice of some type is called for.

    Spokespersons for that cause have to be viewed as having that aim of forcibly imposing an extreme Islamist ritual `medical`monopoly system whereby we should all be made slaves of one type or another.

    What we know for sure is that any institution pretending that this problem does not exist is certainly not `educational`.

     
  • WonderWoman posted at 11:21 am on Thu, Sep 22, 2011.

    WonderWoman Posts: 4

    @DriedBrainwash

    Dr. Harvey (one of the fathers of modern medicine) is guilty of what war crimes in WW2 (which took place nearly 300 years after his death)?

    You brain has certainly dried...

     
  • ProgressiveScience posted at 11:12 am on Thu, Sep 22, 2011.

    ProgressiveScience Posts: 15

    Wow, just wow.

    DriedBrainwash, you've managed to being the discussion down to a whole new level of crazy...one that even Marino might struggle with.

    I'd call poe, except that its clear from your blog that you really are that far out.

     
  • DriedBrainwash posted at 9:45 am on Thu, Sep 22, 2011.

    DriedBrainwash Posts: 3

    As all the details here are supposed to be based on `education` in some form,what type of `educational institution` misses out the fact that all the Pro-Test cults including the original Oxford one are based on the one admiring war criminal William Harvey who invented the testing ritual as part of a holocaust plan which Dr Paul Camster has shown without a doubt is linked with crimes in WW2 and still has aims to enslave & kill all non-cult members to this day.As none of that has been disproven,it remains a fact.

    All cult members of course originally owed their academic `qualifications` to Harvey`s practice of selling hereditary ones or awarding them to fellow warcriminals,as Camster describes it.As he was a satanist,Harvey required cult members to tell lies even when the truth might actually do.

    Anyone heard of any evidence contradicting any of that?Maybe there is none.
    http://drbsmith.wordpress.com/fantastic/

     
  • ProgressiveScience posted at 5:19 am on Thu, Sep 22, 2011.

    ProgressiveScience Posts: 15

    To all the aimal activists out there who calim that animal research is not necessary to advance medicine I'll say simply this: you are very wrong.

    The Speaking of Research website has many examples of recent important scientific insights and medical advances that have depended on animal research, though there are many, many more that they've clearly not had time to write about yet.

    http://speakingofresearch.com/news/

    The list of techniques that Godzilla and others are not alternatives to animalresearch, rather they are complementary to it, which is why the overwhelmning majority of physicians,and surgeons - and organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA Policy H-460.964 "Use of Animals in Research" and others) and all the leading professional organizations representing medical researchers, even if only a minority members actually perform animal research themselves.

    The allegations of torture against animal researchers are false, animal research is carefully regulated and the overwhelming majority of scientists and technicians who undertake it care a lot about the welfare of the animals they use in their studies.

    The length to which some animal activists will go to to distort the truth may not we well known among the general public, but the scientific community is well aware of how they work.

    http://speakingofresearch.com/2010/10/29/defending-against-the-inaccurate-and-sometimes-downright-false/

    http://speakingofresearch.com/2010/10/07/speaking-up-confronting-misrepresentation/

    The people who do animal research are good and caring people, as many students at UF who are tought by them will attest, in fact it would be very difficult to find a group less like the wannabe terrorists and sociopaths who populate organizations like NIO.

     
  • LunaVeg87 posted at 10:57 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    LunaVeg87 Posts: 2

    You vivisection defenders and other animal abuse apologists both amuse and nauseate me. Enough with these knee-jerk arguments about NIO being terrorists and sociopaths (which they aren't) and vivisection on animals helping find cures for human diseases (which it doesn't). Testing nonhuman animals to find cures for human diseases makes about as much sense as testing cockroaches to find cures for feline leukemia. And if you ask me, anyone who could cut open a live animal and feel nothing is a real sociopath.[angry]

     
  • Abaddon posted at 10:56 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Abaddon Posts: 150

    Godzilla - (pt. 4) -


    Let's pretend that researchers don't care if animals suffer (not true - but I won't be able to convince you of that). Even as amoral sociopaths, if they could, researchers would drop animal research in a hot second. It's the most costly part of almost any research program as it is, and it already draws tremendous attention that researchers don't want to deal with.

    They do it because they must.

    Suppose you want to know more about the effects of treatment with anti-cancer drug X on blood vessel growth, because angiogenesis is critical to tumor formation and if we can find away to stop it, we might be able to choke off the blood supply to cancers that cause horrific, agonizing deaths to hundreds and thousands of humans and animals yearly.

    A cell culture isn't going to answer all of your questions. It might answer many of them - and you'll use it for every question you can, because it's a heck of a lot cheaper than animals. But blood vessels aren't cells - they're tissues - and they don't exist in isolation - they penetrate, affect, and are affected by other tissues. A cell culture can't model that complex and potentially important network of interactions found in a living organism. What if some secreted hormone, and its specific levels at position X, Y, or Z, has an impact on the effect of the drug (which it very likely may)? What if the position of the blood vessel within the body determines how that particular blood vessel responds?

    Alright, so cell culture is out. What about computer models?

    Those would be great, if they worked. They'd be virtually free. You'd have to pay maybe (MAYBE) one programmer (more likely, you'd get a grad student to do it)... and you'd have to pay for electricity to run the box. A hell of a lot cheaper than powering a whole facility and all the regulation needed to keep it running.

    The problem is, to accurately model something, we must understand it FIRST. A model is only as good as our understanding of the topic - and so while it's good for drawing connections between what we already know, it's useless for making new observations - say, about how drug X might interact in tissue Y.

    Are animal models perfect? Absolutely not, far from it. But in many cases, they are the best option we have available, in spite of their expense.

     
  • Abaddon posted at 10:56 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Abaddon Posts: 150

    Godzilla (pt. 3) -


    The animals cost money.
    The food costs money.
    The water costs money.
    The reagents they are treated with cost money.
    The tools to work with them cost money.
    The facility to house them costs money - all that floor space has to be heated, cooled, and kept sterile.
    The technicians who maintain the animals cost money.
    The vets who treat the animals cost money.
    The regulatory body costs money.
    Conducting the study costs time (the animals don't wait - so we're talking twelve, sixteen, and twenty hour days in the lab) and money.
    Getting trained on working with the animals costs money.

     
  • Abaddon posted at 10:56 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Abaddon Posts: 150

    Godzilla (pt. 2) -


    There is an entire regulatory body - the IACUC - built around regulating the proper use of these laboratory animals. Study proposals must be written up, organized, submitted, and then once they are in the hands of the IACUC they must be reviewed by panels that consist of experts, vets, and lay-folk. These panels then determine whether the study proposal is acceptable and whether it makes adequate attempts to reduce suffering, use alternative approaches (rather than animals that can suffer), and whether it makes sufficient attempts to reduce the number of animals used.

    Researchers who are going to work with the animals have to spend considerable time and effort going through trainings about the proper care and use of the animals.

     
  • Abaddon posted at 10:56 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Abaddon Posts: 150

    Godzilla -

    Your arguments are reflective of a very passionate person who hasn't had practical experience with the issue at hand.

    Animal research is expensive. The animals, often highly genetically modified or inbred lines (particularly in the case of mice or rats) are extremely costly. They must be maintained in certain conditions - they must be kept free from crowding (necessitating - rightly so - a certain number of cages), but must not be kept alone without sufficient justification (as they are social animals). They must be provided with ample food and water. They must have specific and timed lighting cycles. Many of them are kept in specialized facilities where pathogens that might make them sick (and so, impact the scientists' results) do not reach them. They must be checked on daily by animal facility staff, and their condition is monitored regularly by a vet - so that if they demonstrate signs of illness, disease, or suffering, they may be treated.

     
  • GlissonL posted at 8:05 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    GlissonL Posts: 42

    "We Inform. You Decide."

    That is the 'slogan' of The Alligator. I feel this editorial did not live up to the slogan by failing to discuss that primates/apes are the animals being alluded to here. Obviously there is a difference between infecting chimps with AIDS and letting them die slowly vs. quickly killing some rats.

    This is another situation when transparency would help out like 150%. Open up the labs to the public. Let's see them. From what I've heard, I doubt that will be happening anytime soon. Why doesn't The Alligator demand to send a reporter/photographer in there? That's what a newspaper would (normally) do.

     
  • Godzilla posted at 8:03 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Godzilla Posts: 3

    There are now alternatives to animal testing as I am sure you well know!

    I would also point out that 90% of drugs deemed to be a success when tested on these creatures, fail miserably when human trials are undertaken.

    You people are despicable. You choose the sweetest most docile of the canine breeds so that you can manhandle them easily. If pain relief is thought likely to interfere with the testing of your product, the animal is left in screaming pain, unbearable agony.

    I know ........

    It's now 1.00am here so I'm going to bed but don't think that NIO are fanatical fools who are unaware of the facts. We are very well aware and that is why we will continue to fight for what we believe is right! Correction, what we know to be right!

     
  • fightback posted at 7:26 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    fightback Posts: 8

    @Godzilla,

    Both the MRI and the CT were developed using animal models before it was used on humans. Second, human trials are conducted before a pharmaceutical product goes to market. It's not an either or thing. Drug discovery is a long process of many steps, two of which are animal model testing FOLLOWED by human clinical trials. Cell cultures and computer modeling are also used. In fact, more and more studies are involving MRI, PET, CT and other imaging modalities specifically because 1) diseases can be studied through there entire course in the same animal and 2) being able to do so means using fewer animals. So far all advances in the reduction of animals needed for research have come from researchers, not animal rights groups.

    Again, I will point out that not all research is intended for humans. There is a considerable amount of research into veterinary science and agriculture animals. If you don't use a dog model to study diseases of dogs, what the hell else are you going to use? What would work better than a dog?

     
  • WonderWoman posted at 7:06 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    WonderWoman Posts: 4

    @Shel,

    Wow... so you are an anti-vaccination lunatic too?

    In any case, you obviously drive a car and, in doing so, you contribute to global warming, the killing and suffering of animals and the extinction of animal species.

    If you believe animals have a basic, fundamental right to live their lives unobstructed by human activities, why do you do it?

    (I am truly sorry for your child. I can only hope your child does not get sick with any serious infections disease. I doubt you would forgive yourself is something serious were to happen. Do you know the Benjamin Franklin story? Look it up.)

     
  • Godzilla posted at 6:57 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Godzilla Posts: 3

    I stand by what I said initially: This is a lucrative Industry both for those who supply the primates & the researchers who use them for experiments.

    I am aware that primates are very similar to us, and therefore it follows that their suffering, pain and psychological trauma would mirror ours! I am also aware that many of these animals are shipped in from sub-standard breeding centres.

    There are allternatives to animal testing and the barbaric ritual of vivisection. And, yes, I have seen the lab environments and what the animals are subjected to. How about non-invasive procedures such as PET or MRI; or human volunteers (preferably the rabid element who languish in Jail for murder or paedophilia- they could be given treats in exchange for their compliance); Use Stem Cell research & micro dosing technology to assess the efficacy & safety of new drugs. All of these options are at your fingertips but you refuse to accept that and continue in the barbaric butchery that you were trained to undertake.

    The 'less than 1%of primates used' that you people say are used, still amount to tens of thousands of animals each year.

    I repeat, this is an Industry that benefits the suppliers and the researchers who inflict unnecessary suffering on these animals, and you will not convince me otherwise.

    We are now in the 21st Century! Use the knowledge you have and cease in your attempts to 'enhance' the human race by your animal abuse extremism. If enhancing the human race is, indeed, your noble intention!

     
  • fightback posted at 5:59 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    fightback Posts: 8

    @Shel

    Dear Lord woman, your ignorance about science and,. apparently driving, is astounding!! I mean really, how do you function?? Vaccines have been proven to save lives and by not vaccinating your child you run the risk of he or she contracting a very dangerous disease. While some diseases have been eradicated here in the US (by the way, due to animal research and vaccinations) some are still very prevalent around the world. Unless you plan on keeping your child in a bubble at your house they could become exposed to these diseases. The plague still exists in some parts of the world, as does the Measles, Scarlet Fever, the Mumps, Typhoid. etc...

    Apparently you must live in an urban area. No biggie there, but if you were to live in a more rural area you would know that hitting animals on the road is pretty common. I think skunks in particular are on a suicide mission. They come out at night and most rural areas don't have street lights along the highways so you don't see them until they're in your headlights. You can swerve, but you'll more than likely hit a tree or ditch and kill yourself. I've never hit an animal myself, but I've had three deer hit my car on the side. Let me tell you,, Saturn's may be dent resistant, but they aren't puncture proof. But I digress. I really think you ought to educate yourself about research a bit more. It's clear you don't really understand it.

     
  • Shel posted at 4:58 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Shel Posts: 2

    @Shel,

    I presume you drive a car...

    If so, you are having an adverse effect on the environment and animals. In fact, more animals end up as roadkill on our streets than used for animal research.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadkill

    Would you argue we should all stop driving then? Why not?

    What about the baby you hold in your hands? Was he/she vaccinated? Are you one of those that accept the benefits of the work on one hand and condemn the same research on the other?

    ******** NO Wonder Woman my baby is NOT vaccinated, they can take their nasty carcinogenic vaccines and shove it. NO, i do NOT hit animals with my car, what kind of an idiot can't see the road?

     
  • ConcernedMother posted at 4:55 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    ConcernedMother Posts: 1

    As we witness and lament the suicide of yet another teenager to bullying this week, I cannot help but wonder if these animal rights extremists are after the same outcome. A quick look at their website convinced me that this is in fact an outcome they would celebrate. Anyone that believes bullying is protected speech is wrong. I hope the authorities will do everything in their power to protect our children from the deplorable attacks of these fanatics.

     
  • WonderWoman posted at 4:32 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    WonderWoman Posts: 4

    @Godzilla,

    There is no "cosmetics testing" at universities. Moreover, monkeys make less than 1% of the animals used for biomedical research. The Polio vaccine that you and your children received was the result, in great part, of of primate experimentation and animal research. The Rh-blood group system was the result of primate research too. And the list goes on and on.

    As pointed below, you are utterly ignorant of the science and the true motive behind the endless hours that keep scientists in their labs: the search for the cures and therapies that future generations will benefit from.

     
  • fightback posted at 4:15 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    fightback Posts: 8

    There are two sites where you can learn more about animal research and the benefits derived from it. I posted them earlier but the comments section gets cut off and some may have missed it.

    http://www.amprogress.org/

    http://speakingofresearch.com/

    I don't expect the animal rights people to go there, but maybe those still possessing an open mind will at least wonder over there and hear the other side.

     
  • fightback posted at 4:08 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    fightback Posts: 8

    @Godzilla: NIO is ALL rhetoric. Apparently you know very little about biology because human biological makeup is incredibly similar to animals. In fact,not to put to fine a point on it...WE ARE ANIMALS!! The liver in a mouse works the same as the liver in a human. All the basic functions are there, just packaged in a different body. Not all research is done for humans, although you animal rights lunatics continually overlook that. Ever taken your pet to the veterinarians? Wondered how they knew how to cure heart-worm, kennel cough, worms, etc...They're not winging it. It's because of research that led to these developments.

    Animal rights activists want everyone to believe that the only research being done is drug development by big pharmaceutical companies. They need a boogey man to be afraid of, but the truth is there is lots of research into a variety of issues carried out all over the country. Do you know why computer models can replace some research? It's not because animal rights groups donated money towards the development. It's because of information gained through animal research. Same with cell cultures. You'll never find ALF or PETA listed as contributors to research into cell testing. Doesn't jive with their screeching. It's the animal researchers that have made these discoveries. Where do you think the cells come from?

    The outright ignorance of science displayed by a majority of the animal rights members is staggering. I won't hold my breath that this will change though.

     
  • Godzilla posted at 3:14 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Godzilla Posts: 3

    The incarceration & experimentation of the monkeys over 30+ years, whilst living in a dungeon served no purpose. Except to destroy their lives, and their psychological well-being. How many more sentient beings have been sacrificed on the altar of massive scientific ego, useless research & monetary greed. Scientific advancement should not, and in fact does not depend upon animal testing and vivisection. Human biological makeup and that of animals is so very much different. Wonder drugs have proved not so 'wonderful' when used by human beings!

    As for justifying torture & sadistic abuse for cosmetology testing and the vain individuals who demand these (useless but expensive) miracle products-let them offer themselves as specimens if they are so desperate to revive their flagging sex appeal!

    This INDUSTRY is motivated by Greed, Monetary gain and a lust for Scientific acclaim. Notoriety more like!

    NIO is not blinded by rhetoric, jargon or hindered by slurs. Dr Best is a man of integrity.
    Glasshouses - can think of many in your field who should not consider hurling the tiniest pebble! Does the name COULSTON ring any bells. Got very wealthy due to the dirty nature of your industry and the torture and dissection of living chimps!!

    By the way, the 18yr old you refer to was a 'vivisector' in training. Good riddance to her!!

     
  • WonderWoman posted at 3:03 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    WonderWoman Posts: 4

    @Shel,

    I presume you drive a car...

    If so, you are having an adverse effect on the environment and animals. In fact, more animals end up as roadkill on our streets than used for animal research.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadkill

    Would you argue we should all stop driving then? Why not?

    What about the baby you hold in your hands? Was he/she vaccinated? Are you one of those that accept the benefits of the work on one hand and condemn the same research on the other?

     
  • Shel posted at 2:43 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Shel Posts: 2

    logical fallacy Non Sequitur:

    "The truth of the matter is that there is literally nothing we can do that does not have an adverse effect on some animal somewhere by virtue of our own existence."

    Really? So then it follows that if you accidentally step on an ant... this entitles you to cut dogs, mice, and cats to pieces? Any one involved in mutilating animals AKA "animal medical research" is a sick sadistic twisted scum and they deserve whatever karma throws back at them. To cage, cut, inject, poison, and do all of these things to innocent defenseless beings is the no different than child or baby molestation and murder. I hope they suffer in hell the worst torture imaginable.


    More faulty logic:

    "It has no standard by which to judge whether anything deserves protection other than the fact that it is alive.

    Therefore, its logical end will be to fight anyone who kills insects in their home..."

    Really, stay away from logic, you are doing poorly.

     
  • Impressed posted at 12:51 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Impressed Posts: 1

    Excellent editorial. Society at large should not let extremists get away with such provocative threats.

     
  • Abaddon posted at 12:37 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Abaddon Posts: 150

    Perry Mason -

    Not to cast too much doubt on your claims, but as I lawyer I would expect you to be aware of the distinction between 'libel' and 'liable'. I make typos myself, though, so perhaps I'm reading too much into this.

    And Dr. Best is in Negotiation is Over up to his ears, whatever that may mean. I can't speculate as to how that will impact his prospects for continued employment.

     
  • A_student posted at 12:33 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    A_student Posts: 2

    First, academic freedom does include the ability to harass nor intimidate others as he is doing as part of his participation in NIO.

    Second, it is funny you bring up academic freedom, as his participation in NIO's campaigns is clearly an attempt to deny the same academic freedom he claims to himself to others.

    Third, Dr. Best is not speaking merely a citizen but is acting as a member of the academic community. His actions would be in violation of the code of conduct of all major academic institutions in this country.

    Fourth, I suspect that if Dr. Best were to be targeting students at his own institution he would be shown the door immediately. I fail to see why his participation in NIO and its campaign against UF students would qualify as something different.

    Finally, if Dr. Best is against the targeting of students he should step down from NIO and express his disapproval of such tactics. On the other hand, if he approves of the targeting of students then he should have the balls to say it out aloud. But something tells me that, as pointed out below, his courage only goes to the extent of inciting others to commit crimes.

     
  • Perry Mason posted at 12:05 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Perry Mason Posts: 2

    I am well aware of Mr. Best's provocative statements, thank you. But no thanks you types like you, Dr. Best's speech s fully protected by the Constitution and by the codes of academic freedom. They are designed precisely to protect speech that is unpopular. I understand you do not like what he has to say, but he has the right to say it, and as professors you should have respect for the law, no matter when content his speech acts contained.

    He has not threatened you directly, and is not directly involved with NIO, certainly not with this campaign I see any evidence of, and I have looked. And if he were, that is his right as well. Whether he is a member, or associated with it, his "association" he is legally protected in this, it seems quite ambiguous what his relation is except to inspire, and you cannot prove his role in this specific campaign. I am sure his university is aware of his writing, statements, and publications on NIO. They do not need your meddling in legally protected speech and private affairs as a citizen.

    Thus, in fact, his "association," in fact IS tolerated (most likely not appreciated),and to his university's credit, and it should be tolerated. As I recalled he was banned from the UK in 2005 or so, and kept his job since, and I suspect he will keep his job, whatever witch hunt on his legal and academic rights you might initiate to your own discredit and possibly legal suit brought against you, which he would likely win.

    He has every right to speak his views, short of threats and intimidation (which again he has not crossed that line), and whether you like or hate it is Constitutionally and academically irrelevant. So until the unlikely day comes you receive threatening letters from him, you would present a more sympathetic case for yourself should you leave him out of it. You are certainly losing my initial sympathy towards your faculty community by conducting yourself now exactly in the same manner as you claim Ms. Marino has threatened and intimidated students. I looked carefully at his recent essay on "Plant Seeds or Plant Bombs?" Once again, whatever his words here, they are constitutionally guaranteed, and you know it and so does UTEP, his employer, which is why he still has a tenured job which protects his freedom to write and say what he wants, short of making threats (which we both know he has not done) and so long as he speaks in his own name, and not as a representative of the university, which he never does. And yet you continue to rely on a guilt by association case which would be thrown out of any serious court, and quite possible be turned back against you should he decides to press charges against you. Moreover, as usual, what he says is quite cleverly and ambiguously worded, so that one could read "plant bombs" either literally, as you choose to do, or metaphorically, as he seems to imply. You would bo better to stick to your focus and not cast you net too wide, for strategic and legal reasons involving you, not Dr. Best.

    I am offering you constructive advise, you are free to ignore at your peril of losing focus, losing support, and losing a lawsuit. I take no sides here except to side with the law, and what I most clearly see here are professors, with academic freedom,, attempting to undermine the very institution they themselves thrive on; and citizens who have civil liberties, attempting to erode them in others, and ultimately weaken them for all. I see hysterical, knee-jerk reactions here, not considered judgments or reasoned speech, of any knowledge of the Constitution and codes of academic rights. Otherwise, you would not issue baseless accusations that are irrelevant if true, and reckless regardless in your call for a witch hunt.

     
  • A_student posted at 11:58 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    A_student Posts: 2

    @ Jolly Roger,

    As per their own web site, Dr. Steve Best is NIO's “Senior Editor of Total Liberation”.

    The campaign against UF students is being carried out by NIO.

    The physical presence of Dr. Best at UF is irrelevant.

    By all measures, Dr. Best is an active participant in an organization that is targeting students at an academic institution merely because of the field of study they selected.

    Members of the academic community (students and faculty) are held to high standards of ethical conduct that include the prohibition of activities that interfere with university activities, such as teaching and research.

    Harassing and intimidating students to the point that they give up their careers (as it has already happened at least once and the stated goal of this campaign) certainly falls within such category.

    If Dr. Best had been a UF faculty, his participation in an organization that targets students would very likely be grounds for dismissal based on violations of the ethical code of conduct.

    The fact that he is a faculty within the University of Texas system, instead of UF, surely cannot make a difference.

    Thus, I join the UF faculty member below in calling upon our academic leadership to see his participation in NIO and its campaign to harass and intimidate students out of their careers in biomedical research as grounds for dismissal from academia.

     
  • fightback posted at 11:27 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    fightback Posts: 8

    I guess again, if you don't agree with the use of animal models in research I think you should unequivocally renounce any and all advances made through biomedical research to include those discovered in the past. Anything less and you're a hypocrite. I mean I could sit here and type out anonymous threats like Another Extremist and Gorsemonkey, but that's childish. They'd be whining all over their little blogs if they were to be threatened, or someone planted a bomb under their car. So if they're really as big and tough as they claim to be, forgo all advances. Then I might start to respect your position. Until then, you're lame.

    Feel free to visit these sites if you're not sure what you need to forgo:

    http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits

    http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/medical-benefits/

    Just remember, thanks to animal research, they'll be able to protest 23.5 years longer.

     
  • xDisruptionx posted at 11:04 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    xDisruptionx Posts: 1

    "the time for civil discourse has expired..."

    In solidarity with NIO.

     
  • Another extremist posted at 10:47 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Another extremist Posts: 1

    NIO is leading the way to a zero-tolerance no more bull shit movement.

    The abusers can keep talking. But fuck you because we're not listening anymore.

    In solidarity with Camille and NIO.

     
  • fightback posted at 9:59 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    fightback Posts: 8

    @Perry Mason: If you're indeed a lawyer, you're not a very good one. UF Faculty didn't say that Dr. Best was involved with this campaign directly, only that his association with the NIO organization (such as it is) and it's violent advocacy wouldn't be tolerated at most institutions. By associating with this group and others like it, he implies tacit agreement with their goals and methods. It's not like he's never made controversial statements about targeting animal researchers. He has said in the past that he doesn't want to reform vivisectors, he wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. You can wrap that up in all the legalese you want, but it's a threat. He knows it's a threat and he intends for it to be such.

     
  • ProgressiveScience posted at 9:55 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    ProgressiveScience Posts: 15

    Perry Mason, you are joking arn't you.

    Ina a recent post with the title "Plant seeds or plant bombs?" on Marino's NIO site Best wrote

    "But global resistance, radical liberation movements, and alliance politics are likely our only bet, and planting seeds surely is a losing strategy even if we can find some not yet owned and genetically modified by Monsanto. This patient wait-and-hope approach might have had some charm or nobility in the time of Seneca, Socrates, or Buddha. But not in the 21st century of social collapse and biological meltdown, not in this era of ecological crisis so advanced that scientists warn the window of opportunity to prevent irreversible devastation may be just a few years off.

    And so, I suggest, instead of planting seeds, we need to plant bombs. We have to ignite and trigger explosive forces of anger, discontent, awareness, resistance and transformation, or we are going down the same road of extinction every human (Homo) ancestor went down, as we take most of life with us, and degrade every ecosystem before we go."

    And just to make sure nobody missed the point he added some pics of IEDs.

    And this is only one example out of many.

    I really don't think that UF-faculty needs to worry about a call from Dr. Best's lawyers anytime soon.

     
  • ProgressiveScience posted at 9:46 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    ProgressiveScience Posts: 15

    Samson "Camille Marino is an innovator and her willingness to deviate from acceptable norms inspires many."

    Well, a lot of sociopaths deviate from acceptable norms, why should Marino be any different.

    Marino and her cowardly friends are poisonous scum, pure and simple. To refer to them as pond-life would be an insult to an important ecosystem.

    Luckily there are wars to respond to animal rights extremism and support the scientists at UF who conduct important medical research http://speakingofresearch.com/get-involved/ucla-pro-test/

     
  • Jolly Roger posted at 9:46 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Jolly Roger Posts: 1

    @UF Faculty -

    In exactly what "behavior" has Dr. Best engaged?

    Many people are associated with NIO. Yet, despite the fact that he has remained unassociated with NIO's university campaigns, it's curious that you single him out. Are you perhaps intimidated by his body of work and seek to silence him?

    Or do you perhaps think that guilt by association is an acceptable McCarthyist tactic?

    You cannot stop NIO

    And you cannot silence Dr. Best


    For alleged "scholars," you all seem quite comfortable advancing rhetoric bereft of critical thought or factual grounding.

     
  • Perry Mason posted at 9:42 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Perry Mason Posts: 2

    Dr. UF Faculty of McCarthyism Member: You might proceed with caution. You are a scientist, right? I am a lawyer. We both believe in evidence and the Constitution I hope. I have followed these events with great attention, and know the players on both sides. And I can tell you there is no evidence that Professor Best is involved in this campaign. I Google and search chat sites, etc., and found not one comment he made, not one letter he wrote. I would advise you as a neutral party to stick to facts and evidence, and not go down this road you are taking of calling for a witch hunt because you are upset at Ms. Marino. You are open to a liable suit and as a disinterested party, interested only in civil rights, I would respectfully advise you to check your facts, if you insist and want to ensnare yourself in deep problems, you better have strong evidence before you make baseless claims.. I have checked this, don't take my work, look yourself. You are using a guilt by association charge, which recalls an ugly period in this nation's history. I suspect Dr. Best knows about this campaign and it high sensitivity, and is much too intelligent to involve himself in such sensitive matters given that he is a professor. You cannot make such serious allegations against a professor with tenure in a system protected by free speech. While Best says some extreme things, you have no evidence -- I found none after deep searches -- to make these charges, and you and any of your colleagues unwise enough to make one complaint that is false and unsubstantiated are technically all subject to liable and serious legal issues. I don't think you want that. Just some sound advise from a constitutional lawyer who has studied the growing radicalization of this movement with much interest.

     
  • fightback posted at 9:34 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    fightback Posts: 8

    I'm sure the animal rights groups would cry foul if those in research began using the same tactics they do. I know that wack job Camille Marino would. There are medications for conditions like her. For many years researchers were afraid to stand up to these lunatics but that's changing. Groups are finally springing up all over the country to support medical research and the advances it brings.

    For Gorsemonkey and Samson, if you don't like the advances made through medical research involving animal models, don't participate! Refuse any and all medical aid when needed. Refuse to take any medications you may need. Refuse that MRI or CT scan for any illnesses or injuries and don't take any pets (or that retarded phrase Camille uses "companion animals") to the veterinarian for any reason. You don't get to have it both ways. You can't complain and then accept what's gained. So either put up, or shut up!

     
  • Samson posted at 9:14 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Samson Posts: 1

    Camille Marino is an innovator and her willingness to deviate from acceptable norms inspires many.

    She has single-handedly put UF on notice that animal torture will not be tolerated and UCLA activists stand in solidarity with NIO.

    This is a fascist site full of criminals and their sympathizers. You provide all the incentive we need!

     
  • gorsemonkey posted at 9:12 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    gorsemonkey Posts: 2

    "You believe in violence, we do to. Yours is against animals and ours is against you."
    There is simply no point in debating the use of animals in medical research, the time for debating and arguing is now over. While vivisection exists those that oppose it will exist. Face the fact that this is only the beginning and it will never stop until the end goal is reached, and if you don't like it, then don't participate. If you worry about the safety of yourself or your loved ones, don't participate and if you think the end goal will not be reached then you are fooling yourselves because this is bigger and more global than you can possibly imagine.

    "You believe in violence, we do to. Yours is against animals and ours is against you." [beam][beam][beam]

     
  • UF_faculty posted at 8:55 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    UF_faculty Posts: 1

    This call for the harassment and intimidation to stop by the Alligator is timely and well placed.

    However, let us not just write these acts off as the those of of a lone “wacko”.

    Specifically, another member of the Negotiation is Over group is Dr. Steve Best, of the University of Texas at El Paso.

    Can we imagine one of our own colleagues engaging is such behavior?

    If they did, it would be grounds for dismissal from the University. By means of his association and support to these extremists groups, Dr. Best is interfering with the normal operation of the University research and teaching.

    One can only hope UF administrators pick up the phone and call the UT president office and pursue disciplinary action. Everyone has the right to their opinions, but harassment and intimidation of faculty and students should not be tolerated.

    Nor is Dr. Best alone.

    More “mainstream” organizations, such as PeTA, has often supported the use of violence (aside from their repugnant, sexist campaigns), and even funded such acts secretly, such as their financial support of convicted eco-terrorist Rod Coronado.

    Let us not minimize what is obvious to the eye: the animal rights movement, or at least a segment of it, is becoming increasingly radicalized and appears ready to use violence to achieve its goals. The other segment provides silent approval.

     
  • Abaddon posted at 8:20 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Abaddon Posts: 150

    They have posted photographs, names, and home addresses of UF faculty in the past. They have posted pictures of faculty members' vehicles and homes.

    As the editorial board notes, their website has (in the past, though possibly not now - it is altered on a daily basis) featured detailed diagrams that could aid in the construction of molotov cocktails and improvised explosive devices.

    Commenters on posts on their websites have made statements such as, "It is only a matter of time before the movement claims its first tactical assassination."

    Camille Marino's Facebook status recently read, "You believe in violence, we do to. Yours is against animals and ours is against you." That status got 16 "likes".

    Most recently, they've posted the picture, name, and e-mail address of an 18 year old student on their website. She received multiple threatening contacts in which those who contacted her spoke of violence and arson.

    Marino partially completed law school, so she knows how to skirt the edges. Her website implies, suggests, and advocates violence against members of the University community without directly threatening any individual - allowing her to claim protection under the first amendment while still engaging in terroristic threatening that has all the same impact of pointing her finger as individuals and threatening them. Faculty, staff, and students who do valuable and necessary work are concerned for their safety and the safety of their vulnerable students.

    Yet for all her bravado, Marino is ultimately a pot-stirrer and little more. She lacks the conviction to act, instead calling for violence from the sidelines in the hopes that someone more gullible than herself will step forward and assume the burden of the consequences. One such person was Lisa Grossman, who now faces tresspassing charges and a protracted legal battle - when they were planning to return to campus for a 'back to school' protest on August 23rd, Marino (knowing full well about Grossman's legal trouble related to trespassing) found a convenient excuse not to be present - but still insisted that Grossman attend (and trespass again). Lisa Grossman eventually figured out she was being manipulated and refused to help any more. Good for her. Hopefully more will do the same.

    Marino claims that she is engaged in a "war against the soft underbelly of the vivisection complex" - namely students, who "cannot afford round-the-clock police protection". She points out and reveals our most vulnerable population. Then, like the coward she is, she calls for others to act on her behalf. Eventually, someone will.

    The question we have to ask ourselves is this:

    Who will step up first? The UF community, or one of Marino's most deranged followers?

    We're sitting here and watching while they post descriptions of how to build bombs. Do we have to wait until a student is hurt before we act?

    If you're concerned about student safety, please contact the University Police Department at updinfo@admin.ufl.edu and the office of the President at president@ufl.edu. It'll take you five minutes to bang the e-mail out, and you can list them both as recipients on the same message if you're feeling lazy. This is worth your time.

    Let them know that we need their support.

     
  • ProgressiveScience posted at 5:19 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    ProgressiveScience Posts: 15

    Very well said!

    Camille Marino and her ilk will fail in their objectives, the overwhelmning majority of scientists who are involved in animal research will never be affected by their campaigns. Nevertheless Camille Marino and those like her can cause misery for those they attack, and anyone thinking that the threat that animal rights extremists pose to scientists should read this http://speakingofresearch.com/2008/08/06/arson-santa-cruz-and-crimes-against-medicine/

    Still, as I said above they will fail, and they will fail for the simple reason that animal research is still crucially important to medical progress. They will fail, but they can still hurt a lot of people in the process.

    Students at UF can do their part in making sure that Marino's campaign is shut down by making a firm stand with those scientists and students she threatens. There are already some good examples out there of what an appropriate response might look like.

    In 2009 a UCLA researcher targeted by animal rights extremists - including Marino - led a “Pro-Test” rally against extremism and in favour of animal research.

    http://speakingofresearch.com/get-involved/ucla-pro-test/

    This rally was itself inspired by the first “Pro-Test” rally, when scientists and students at Oxford University routed animal rights extremists who had declared them to be “legitimate targets”.

    http://speakingofresearch.com/about/the-uk-experience/

    These examples demonstrate how it is possible to show extremists like Marino the door.