I commend you on your article; however, I feel it may fall on deaf ears. The extremist groups that resort to such radical behaviors are operating under a premise which was coined by Dr. Steven Best; Negotiation Is Over. Years of open dialogue and peaceful protests have not worked. I fear that words may do nothing to quell their zeal for animal welfare. I can only hope that you are dealing with a group that only makes threats and does not actually believe in causing bodily harm, unlike some foreign groups that feel people should experience the torture they impose upon animals.

The analogy I like to use on the subject of animal abuse is: If a supreme race of aliens were to abduct people to perform the same experiments on us that we perform on animals for “a good cause,” would we submit? Would we still hold true to the concept that a superior species is entitled to dominate those who are weaker and use them for whatever cause they deem worthy? Would this rule still apply or would we suddenly change the rule to accommodate our own self interest? Would we then realize that, when confronted with such a threat, we and the animals all share a sacred commonality: we are all Earthlings.

“We need to develop a sense of equanimity towards all living beings, expressed through the ability to relate to all others equally.” – Dalai Lama

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” – Mahatma Gandhi

“I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.” – Leonardo da Vinci

“It all comes down to pain and suffering. Not intelligence, not strength, not social class or civil right. Pain and suffering are, in themselves, bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers.” – Joaquin Phoenix | quote from EARTHLINGS

I’d like to confirm one detail: the author understands that Jentsch is addicting primates to methamphetamine in order to study schizophrenia in humans, and the author feels this is a rational, defensible approach?

I would also like to clarify that all of the primates in these experiments die, i.e., are killed so that their brains may be analyzed. True, some do die, miserably, after exposure to drugs, but rest assured the others are killed by human hands.

Finally, regarding dialogue, and its fate? I am not sure what happened. Perhaps you can ask Jentsch, who has repeatedly refused to debate this issue in any forum with animal rights activists.

On behalf of the researchers at UCLA who have been viciously targeted by animal rights extremists for our legitimate and responsible use of animals in biomedical research, I want to indicate our strong appreciation for the support of the Daily Bruin staff and the broader undergraduate student community in these trying times.

However, I believe it is important to clarify certain aspects of the characterization of my work. Though our research does involve the administration of psychoactive drugs, like methaphetamine, to monkeys in order to precisely define the biological mechanisms of drug dependence and addiction, no animals die or suffer as a consequence of methamphetamine administration or withdrawal itself. A small number of animals are humanely euthanized by anesthetic overdose (much like pets are euthanized at the veterinarian’s office) at the conclusion of the study in order to measure molecular and cellular changes in the brain that are caused by the drug; it is crucial to be able to fully understand these alterations in brain in order to develop new treatments that counteract them. The animal model is required because there currently exists no method for examining similar mechanisms in the human brain (direct assessment of brain is required).

At UCLA, researchers like myself uphold the highest standards of animal welfare and comply with all Federal laws and standards. This includes never causing undue or unjustified suffering or death as an endpoint. Only by remaining concerned for animal welfare can we assure the highest quality of the data gathered and the crucial applicability of that data for human health.

J. David Jentsch, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry & Bio-behavioral Sciences

@Holise: Is that not the Taliban argument? “Western society is sinful and defies God’s will; we have tried to reason with you but you have shown no intention of changing your ways; therefore terror is justified”. Do you see any problem with this logic?

Animal rights extremism is not “back on campus”… It never left.

On a regular basis groups of animal right activists show up during the weekend at the homes of UCLA scientists involved in animal research. Their goal is not to educate the public about their objections, but to harass, threaten and coerce others to accept their views by force. They glorify hate while calling their movement one of compassion. Prominent animal rights philosophers, such as Prof. Peter Singer, author of “Animal Liberation”, and Prof. Gary Francione, have criticized the recent attacks.

http://tinyurl.com/29qtu7c

What about dialogue?

It must be noted that even after having his car firebombed Professor Jentsch reached out to a UCLA student animal rights organization and organized a panel discussion on the role of animals in biomedical research. The goal was to open up a civil conversation about this important topic within our community. His efforts were repaid with nothing more than criminal acts and continued harassment of our colleagues, students and their families.

What about the research?

It should be emphasized that UCLA scientists are not the only targets of activists’ hate. Many of our colleagues at other UC campuses have suffered as well, whether working with primates, mice or flies. After all, it is not this one piece of research these activists object, but all and any research that uses animals.

http://tinyurl.com/cw8×92

What to do?

The UC family as a whole and our representatives in Sacramento must realize the seriousness of the situation. It would be a horrible mistake to assume these attacks only affect individual scientists and their families. In my opinion, the persistent rise in violent tactics threatens the future ability of California to engage in basic and applied research, both within our universities and in the biotech industry. It is a problem that deserves immediate attention. Now.

Homo sapiens harming Homo sapiens? Wow, this must be a totally NEW concept! Well then, all EXTREMISTS be warned: The Medical Researchers are armed and will exhibit vis-a-vis deadly force in return………….

I never said that I condone the extremists’ actions. I was merely giving you some insight on their thought process. I am an animal welfare activist, but not of a militant nature. With that in mind, you may want to read my post again.

“It is worth reminding ourselves that the greatest joy and satisfaction in life come from actions we undertake out of concern for others.” – Dalai Lama

“I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil.”
— Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic

@Holise

Thank you. We do not help deciphering these activists thought processes. They are clear: they consider violence against scientists (and now students?!) a legitimate tool achieve their political goals. Period. This is the classic definition of terrorism.

And, obviously, you seem unaware that the Dalai Lama has justified the responsible use of animals in medical research.

As for your reliance on quotes, one might add:

“I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind. “ — Charles Darwin

Please let’s use the correct term for this action. It is terrorism. And I am shocked to see so many Americans supporting terrorist action.
Chris is right in his post – this “Negotiation is Over” argument is made by terrorist organizations around the world in support of their action.
@ Holise – Given that you are quoting the Dalai Lama frequently in support of your anti animal research position, you should know that His Holiness supports animal research. At the Society for Neuroscience Meeting in 2005, His Holiness spoke in the “Dialogues with Society” Series. He acknowledged that the question of the use of animals in research was “difficult”. He went on that in “highly necessary” experiments in which it was unavoidable to use animals we must ensure that the work be done with “compassion” and that we “try to minimize pain”.

“fanatical tactics that highlight one thing: that these so-called “activists” do not have a sound understanding of the very research they are endangering.” …but the author does? How? Aren’t they busy producing a publication? The author attempts to discredit the understand and knowledge of the activists YET HAS TO PUBLISH A CORRECTION OF THE ARTICLE BECAUSE A BASIC FACT IS INCORRECT. Clearly this paper is biased and acting as a mouthpiece for researchers. What UCLA really needs to “bring back to campus” is some decent journalism.

What does UCLA support? It seems many of your readers are naive and silly—-while you sit cozily and safe in your dorms, animals are butchered in the labs. Just shut the hell up. You are no better than the NAZIS who butchered Jews. The same people who were silent then are silent now and don’t have the guts to speak up against violence against animals. UCLA stands for nothing.

@Melody,

Look up the word “editorial” in the dictionary then we can have a discussion on the article.

@UCLA Ridiculous

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what does UCLA stand for?