unlikelyactivist

In 1986, the Nobel Committee announced that the prize for Physiology and Medicine would go, in part, to a diminutive Jewish-Italian neurobiologist: Dr. Rita Levi-Montalcini; the scientific giant died this past weekend at the age of 103.

By the time she won the Nobel prize, Dr. Levi-Montalcini had already revolutionized the field of neuroscience. She played a leading role in the discovery of nerve growth factor and other proteins that are used during the development of the nervous system. During development, the cells of the nervous system are initially born, but they must then form connections with one another in very specific ways (the cells in your eye must connect to the vision parts of the brain, but not to the hearing part, while the cells in the ear have the opposite problem). After making these connections, efficient cells and connections are maintained, while useless ones are lost. The molecules that Dr. Levi-Montalcini discovered are required for this process of making and maintaining proper brain connections. With that in mind, the entire field of neuroscience rests on the discoveries she made.

How did she make this discovery? Like any finding of revolutionary importance, it depended upon a whole series of observations. In her case, Dr. Levi-Montalcini was able to observe the nervous system while it was being created by taking advantage of a system where development happens outside of a womb: she studied the embryos inside of chickens’ eggs. Through the study of this accessible animal model system, she found that after cells inside the central nervous system make connections with other tissues, some of those connections are maintained, while others were lost, and that it was a “nutrient” that helped to preserve those that were kept. Only after decades more work did she properly identify what that nutrient was: nerve growth factor.

A chick embryo, exhibiting signs of developing eyes, brain and nervous system

Even more inspiring and amazing than her discoveries was the fact that she did this under dark and dangerous circumstances. Only a few years into her studies, she was forced to leave the University where she studied, as anti-Semitism rose under the Italian fascist government. Rather than retreat, she improvised by setting up a laboratory in her living room and obtaining eggs from local farmers. When the importance of her work was recognized, she was invited to the United States where she lived part time, making discovery after discovery.

As I mentioned, there is no aspect of neuroscience untouched by her work. Today, we realize that the formation and maintenance of neural circuits has a profound relevance to understanding the biology of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and schizophrenia. When, one day, we have a better insight into the specific dysfunctions in brain that give rise to these behavioral disorders, it will be, in part, because of Dr. Levi-Montalcini’s revolutionary studies of chick embryos.

In every way possible, this woman was a heroine and was the essence of true activism. She pushed the boundaries of understanding and knowledge and advanced the human condition in ways that are difficult to fully appreciate. She did this despite the specter of anti-Semitism and sexism all around her. Where she encountered boundaries and roadblocks, she found solutions and pathways forward. Where she ran into gaps in our knowledge of fundamental biology, she created answers. When she faced the dark face of hatred, she carried on.

Looking back on her life, Dr. Levi-Montalcini suggested that the adversity she experienced in life had made her stronger and more determined to make scientific progress. That is why – on the occasion of the 2009 Pro-Test for Science rally at UCLA – I shared her words with the crowd of biomedical research advocates. On the occasion of her 100th birthday, she said

Above all, don’t fear difficult moments. The best comes from them.

Scientists have faced adversity in many forms: from fascists in the 1920s to animal rights extremists today. Today, we look back on a life well-lived; let us all be inspired by this great activist and know that no road block to science is enough to stop the progress that is required for an expansion of knowledge and for the furtherance of human and animal welfare.

Perhaps the most common manifestation of flagrant disregard for the truth comes when anti-science/anti-animal research individuals describe the nature of research and the character of researchers. Their descriptions stray far from the actual truth, which is that scientists are completely normal, kind and sensible people who have given their lives over to the pursuit of knowledge and the betterment of humans and animals and that their research projects involving animals are humane, ethical and responsible. In other examples, they either directly lie, or mislead through omission, regarding the productive and vital contributions that animal research has made to the life of people and animals around the world.

But the lying doesn’t end there. A recent post from a Southern California activist stretches the bounds of truth by lying not just about debatable points but about basic, documented facts themselves.

Jan Austin Smitowicz wrote recently about his “experiences” while being involved in a series of protests at the homes of UCLA investigators in 2007. Smitowicz correctly sets the stage for these protests in that they followed a series of bungled attempts to exact serious harm on faculty researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles.

In his piece, Smitowicz starts his departure from the truth when he describes these events:

It was the summer of 2007 and things were getting hot in the Los Angeles animal rights world. At the end of June, an incendiary device was left under the posh BMW of a UCLA primate vivisector, Arthur Rosenbaum. It failed to ignite; even so, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was offering a $110,000 reward to any information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible. A reward of $60,000 (UCLA contributed $30,000 to each of the reward offers) was still being offered for a similar incident from the prior summer, when an incendiary device was left on the porch of a different UCLA primate torturer, Lynn Fairbanks. The FBI claimed the device—which also failed to ignite—was left on the wrong porch, that of an elderly neighbor. How bad that looks for the radical(s) who performed the action, right? I’m confident it’s a complete fabrication by the FBI–it wouldn’t be the first time…

What makes this particular assertion so bizarre is that the Animal Liberation Brigade and Justice Department (both monikers for animal rights terrorists groups) openly and gleefully claimed responsibility for the events via the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, as they would for similar attacks that continued from 2007 to 2009.

Either Mr. Smitowicz is lying, or he is asserting that the Animal Liberation Front is.  I suppose another possibility is simply that Smitowicz’s sense of reality is less than fully formed.

Nevertheless, this comment only portends a series of truly stunning lies regarding a series of protests that Smitowicz claims to have participated in. He doesn’t mention the date of the protests in question, but he gives a variety of details regarding the protest that are blatantly untrue.

He describes the start of the protest:

The first demonstration was at the Westwood home and neighborhood of Joaquin Fuster…

Joaquin Fuster doesn’t live in Westwood. Real activists know exactly where he lives because they have been to his home many times, but it’s most certainly not in Westwood.

His memory of events only gets worse from there. He next describes a protest, apparently at my home.

When we arrived at UCLA primate torturer David Jentsch’s lovely blood-money house in Santa Monica, the scene literally took our breath away. It was like nothing I’ve ever seen before. His entire block was barricaded off on both ends. There was an entire line of cops in full riot gear—helmets, padding, batons—stretching across his entire front yard. Cop cars everywhere. Helicopter chopping the sky overhead. Two big city buses were parked at the end of the street; they were empty, and I don’t know if they brought the cops, or if they were there to hustle us all off to prison. Because believe me when I tell you they really, REALLY wanted to arrest us. To say the cops had hard-ons for us doesn’t even begin to describe it. Clusters of them on every corner and at each barricade. Lines of them surrounding his house. It looked like a fucking war zone, but no—just an animal abuser’s house in Santa Monica on a pleasant, warm Sunday afternoon! I counted oversixty police officers, and that was just the ones in uniform. Sixty-plus cops—for twelve activists. More than five cops for every one nonviolent, peaceful protestor. Good to know our tax dollars are being well spent to repress legitimate dissent, eh?!

One scarcely knows where to begin. First, as I said, Smitowicz doesn’t make clear the date of this purported activity, but I never experienced a demonstration at my home until the middle of 2009 (after the car bomb that Mr. Smitowicz probably thinks I set myself!).

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, just about every other fact reported above is blatantly wrong.

I have not, at any point during my career in Los Angeles, lived in Santa Monica, nor anywhere near it.

There have never been sixty police officers responding to an animal activist demonstration at my home, and they have never responded wearing “full riot gear”. Moreover, they never responded with a helicopter at the scene.

The picture below, taken by the picketers, shows the typical police response at my home – SIX officers (not sixty) – in standard uniforms. One wonders where Smitowicz learned whatever math skills he used to count the sixty officers.

This picture, taken by the picketers themselves, shows the most vigorous police response at a protest at my home. There were not 60 officers, and they were not in riot gear.

I will agree with one point he made above, however, and that is that the officers very much wanted to arrest those protesters who were in violation of the law. These picketers routinely violated municipal codes relating to focused picketing of a residence and disturbing the peace, which is why a group of 9 of them were arrested in 2010 during a protest. The group went on to sue the University and police in federal court for these arrests, and they lost that lawsuit in 2011. The judge dismissed most of the claims of the activist on the (lack of) merits.

With all this inaccuracy, it’s not surprising that the post goes on to add even more in the way of ridiculous nonsense, when he describes the behavior of the protesters during the event:

We walked up and down Jentsch’s block, single-file, keeping close together for at least the psychological illusion of safety and protection… Every so often we would stop and raise our fists in unison, not uttering a sound. We educated the killer’s neighbors. One of them came out of her house and walked alongside us, across the street, for a solid ten minutes, clapping and thanking us for being there, telling her neighbors that it was beautiful that we were there for the animals. Bless her heart!

When we’d get to the front of Jentsch’s house, where the line of riot cops stood holding their batons and trying to intimidate us like the terrorists they are, we adopted a new tactic: the entire length of his house, we stood in line facing the cops and slowly shuffle-stepped sideways, staring into their eyes through the plastic of their protective shields—our eyes, the only parts of our faces visible above our bandanas. When our line was fully in front of the house, just feet from the cops, we’d stop and throw up our fists and whisper together, “ANIMAL LIBERATION!”

Lots of whispering and quiet protest, right? Once again, we can use photos taken by an activist attending the protest to assess the accuracy of this statement.

Picketers “whisper” in unison at my home

More “whispering”

As I referred to in the title to this post, there are lies, and then there are damned lies. This is the latter.

But in a world where those opposed to scientific progress and research are so determined to stretch the truth in characterizing science and scientists, it’s really no wonder they lie so blatantly about the facts of their direct action campaigns.

I simply encourage the reader to know that, if you can’t trust someone to tell the truth about even the most basic facts, then you can’t expect them to tell the truth about anything, and you should discard all their assertions into the same waste bin and move on.

In recent days, suspicion and paranoia has climaxed within the Negotiation is Over cabal.

Nov 3 screen grab from the Negotiation is Over Facebook page

While Camille Marino pumps out an endless list of pleas for money (WARNING:this link takes you to the NIO website), her sycophants ensure that the group suppresses any comments or discussion that express concern over Marino, her “leadership” or the direction of the group, and they brutally harass any individuals (former colleagues and friends alike) that don’t tow the uniform talking points of the organization (which amounts to: give Marino money). It is ironic that a group that itself claims to be the victims of institutional suppression works so hard to suppress its own membership or critics. Obviously, as I discussed previously, their goal is to win some undeclared war against anyone in the world that doesn’t give money to Marino or express their uncritical loyalty to NIO’s twisted agenda, not to be morally correct or internally consistent.

As NIO continues to evolve into an increasingly insular and paranoid group, the deep parallels between the behaviors of its members and that of cults is becoming clearer and clearer. I only hope that those who joined the group thinking it was a legitimate and sane animal rights organization are now realizing the truth.

Last year, news reports began revealing a troublesome scenario. Stories  indicated that the Koch Brothers, billionaire businessmen and chief underwriters of conservative political campaigns, were donating large sums of money to Universities, both public and private alike, to create “think tanks”, research institutes and to hire faculty who would teach decidedly conservative ideology to students.  A battle over the impact of such cash donations on academic freedom has raged ever since.

One concern regarding donations and grants of this type is that such “gifts” cause the recipient Universities to establish institutes that gives academic legitimacy to political points of view, rather than academic areas of study.

This troubling pattern of using money to purchase office space in famous Universities is not only a tactic of the political right. As a recent youtube video points out, Bob Barker – celebrity host of the Price is Right and animal rights activist – used the immense wealth he accumulated during his more than 30 year on television – to underwrite programs in “animal law” at major Universities across the country, including at UCLA.

TV Celebrity, Bob Barker

What is the goal of creating these programs? One view is that the goals include training a new generation of lawyers who are skilled in achieving rights of personhood for nonhuman animals.

From my perspective, one of the most chilling aspects of Barker’s gifts is the fact that he is on record (see the youtube video below) as referring to the Animal Liberation Front (a domestic terrorist organization that has been involved in the criminal attacks on me and my UCLA colleagues) as the “most effective” animal rights group around.

While Universities should never discriminate politically when deciding from whom to receive gifts, it does seem quite troubling that our leading institutions of higher learning have been quite so ready to accept cash from a man that separately appears to endorse the impact and mission of a radical, terrorist organization that has been involved in attacks on its faculty.

There are some prices that are just not right. This is one of them.

Last night, Camille Marino was once again arrested at her home in Florida. You will perhaps remember that, in recent months, she has been repeatedly arrested and incarcerated for violating a restraining order that prohibits her from contacting, threatening and harassing a researcher in Michigan. Despite this order, her behavior persisted and, indeed, escalated.

This time, the charge was the same, but the restraining order involved was surprisingly different. It seems her former friend and confidant – and fellow animal rights extremist – Professor Steve Best sought and obtained this restraining order, and when she defied it, he cooperated with the courts and the police to have her arrested. Note that the police and courts are often the sworn enemy of animal rights terrorists – at least until they need the help of the law themselves.

His filed request for the restraining order makes the facts clear enough. In describing Marino’s abusive behavior, he cites:

verbal, mental, emotional… Just the threats alone because I feel like it’s a fatal attraction thing and it’s getting real bad I fear her and what she will do, since she is known to do this and has serious charges against for it.

I’ve had the misfortune of being aware of Marino’s behavior over the last 3 yrs, and I must admit that it is long clear that there is a distinct pattern of psychopathology at work in her case. Her tendency to rapidly switch between idealizing and demonizing people (as she has done in the case of Dr. Best), her chaotic and unstable inter-personal relationships with other “activists”, her black-or-white thinking and irritability and the overall instability of her mood all point to borderline personality disorder (sometimes called emotionally unstable personality disorder).

Note, this is not the same thing as saying Marino is insane. The personality disorders are not recognized by psychologists and psychiatrists as in the same category as the clinical brain disorders like schizophrenia, depression and bipolar disorders. Instead, the personality disorders are disruptions of personality or behavior that are associated with distress or disability and that deviate from the norms of human society. Borderline personality disorder is linked with other personality disorders that share its features: antisocial personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder; one can see aspects of all of these so-called Cluster B disorders in Marino’s behavior. Her reported substance abuse problems are yet another common manifestation of her disorder.

These traits are not, of course, unique to Camille Marino. Rather, other visible animal rights extremists – from Jerry Vlasak to Peter Young to Rick Bogle – share many of these same tendencies and patterns of behavior.

The obvious question is: does this mitigate their responsibility for their criminal and uncivil behavior? I believe the answer is “no” for the following reasons.

First and foremost, there are many people who suffer from conditions like this that do not inflict harm and terror on others, certainly not to the degree that Marino does. Instead, many choose to take advantage of psychologists or psychiatrists to achieve good mental health. Marino has chosen a different path – to inflict her psychopathology on others.

And second, Marino is explicitly aware of the consequences of her behavior. She is not mentally incompetent or unable to defend herself. She knows that she is causing harm, and she takes pleasure in it. This is not insanity.

Marino is (to borrow a word from one of her emails to Best) “spiraling”, and it is likely that this spiral of destructive behaviors won’t stop until she or someone else gets seriously hurt. Unfortunately, there is a large number of people in the Negotiation is Over cabal who are working actively to enable Marino’s psychopathology, rather than to intervene to assist her in getting the psychological help she so obviously needs. They are each responsible for all the human damage done by her behavior, but it seems that they are unlikely to do anything but throw more fuel on the destructive emotional fire that rages inside of her.

Postscript: My statements here do not amount to a professional opinion. Formal diagnoses for psychological or psychiatric problems require a structured, personal interview between a patient and a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist. The statements here are my personal opinions, only.

A story in the Sacramento Bee this past weekend told the story of a biomedical researcher at the University of California-Davis whose NIH-funded research has been stopped by campus administration over a pattern of serious and recurring ethical breaches. The paper lists a range of charges made against the researcher, all leading to the suspension of his research activities. Apparently, live mouse pups were placed into a sealed bag, where they would have suffocated had they not been found. Drugs past their expiration dates were used in animals. Lab records were erroneous or incomplete. Mice were bred without approval and were housed in over-crowded conditions, and the lab used inappropriate methods for anesthesia and analgesia.

I do not know the researcher involved, nor do I have any direct insight into the circumstances of this case. If the allegations are wrong, I look forward to a public statement to that effect by the University. But if they are true, they represent a rare but seriously damaging breach in public confidence in science.

All outward signs are that this researcher’s scientific studies had the potential to be exceptional. His work was “focused [o]n restoring hearing in the deaf”, and it was supported by multiple NIH grants. Obtaining a grant from the NIH to support a project involves a very rigorous process of scientific review, underscoring the importance of his work. Yet, none of the scientific value of the work makes the pattern of alleged behavior acceptable, and in fact, conducting research in a manner that threatens or directly harms animal welfare risks the basic value of the work itself. Additionally, the apparently shoddy laboratory practices reported (e.g., using drugs that had expired and potentially would not perform as required) demonstrate a lack of care for rigorous research standards and draw into question the basic value of the scientific discoveries made.

If this – or any other – researcher engages in behavior like this, their research should be stopped, and yes, their grants should be returned to the NIH. The Sac Bee reports that the University is attempting to keep these grants by transferring them to the supervision of another faculty member, but this is just a shell game that will not really address the underlying harm done to animals and to the broader community of animal research by this event.

Actions like this bias public attention by raising the specter of research misconduct and ethical breaches by animal researchers. However, the fact remains that these events are exceedingly rare. A University the size of UC-Davis has hundreds if not thousands of persons involved in animal research, and this laboratory is only one. No one tells the story about all the others who do the right thing every single day because they value animal welfare and work hard to preserve it. The Humane Society of the United States, and other animal rights groups, are foaming at the mouth to scream about non-compliances and malign all researchers for rare events, all while they ignore the masses of scientists who fulfill both the letter and spirit of the animal welfare regulations and laws. Their story is not only terribly quiet, it’s also overridden by stories like the one told by the Sac Bee.

Researchers who fail to meet social expectations harm us all, and it has to stop.

People ask me all the time: what can I do to support animal research? My answer is always the same: make scientific discoveries, but never trample on the process that is in place to ensure animal welfare. Follow the rules, cooperate with the veterinarians and IACUC and maintain an open and honest animal research program. It only makes scientific sense to do so.

Later this week, a group called “Progress for Science” will meet on the UCLA campus to proclaim their view that scientific research must be stopped. This is not a new group; it’s the same old activists bearing a new moniker and a slick new website. They are just like their fellow “activists” that claim that climate science is fraud and that man plays no role in global warming. They are just like those that approve of banning embryonic stem cell research. And actually, in their lust for the use of violence to stop medical research, they are exactly like Operation Rescue who sees murdering abortion providers as ethically justifiable.

In one event, the protesters will gather near campus to hold a candle light vigil. They’ve done this before; it’s not new. From experience, their take on a vigil is a strange one.

Instead of honoring those dying from HIV/AIDS in the third world, they will shout down researchers and doctors trying to end that suffering through research. Instead of mourning the orphan children in Sub-Saharan Africa who were born HIV+, they will loudly proclaim their view that no mouse should die to save even one human life. They will – strangely – characterize decades of progress that have led to the life-extending HIV drugs we have today as “fraudulent science”.

Instead of quietly contemplating the life of people dying of brain cancer in the hospital not blocks from where they gather, they will hand out pamphlets encouraging violence against scientists. They will deny that science had anything to do with advances in the treatment of cancer, and they will offer no logical alternative insights into where life-saving chemotherapeutics came from or how they were invented.

Instead of supporting research to conquer addiction to cigarettes – one of the leading causes of cancer and other forms of preventable death in the modern world, they will state their view that those smokers only have themselves to blame. They won’t tell you that the development of the nicotine patch or the drug Chantix came into being because of basic pharmacological studies in animals. They won’t tell you how rat research played a key role in the undoing of the cigarette companies’ arguments that cigarettes weren’t addictive. They will show no concern or empathy at all for those dying.

This sign hung on my front gate during Breast Cancer Awareness Week, when activists marched in the street, shouting threats at my house in an attempt to stop my research. They appeared painfully unaware of the fact that – by trying to stop research – they are advocating for the death of those with breast cancer and other life-threatening forms of illness (addictions being one of them).

Instead of hoping that children with epilepsy will walk out of the hospital seizure-free, they will denigrate and vilify the necessary scientific progress that was done to develop anti-seizure drugs and to perfect the surgical procedures designed to liberate their brain from debilitating convulsions. They will declare it a crime against the fundamental rights of animals to use them even in painless research projects and even if the scientific benefits are undeniable.

When scientist after medical doctor after public policy maker after honest citizen of this country says “animal research is necessary for medical progress”, they will call them liars or ignorant.

When the people trying to make the world a better place by preventing disease and misery walk past their vigil, these so-called activists will feel hatred and anger in their hearts. They will imagine fire bombs and threats as rewards for the progress these scientists try to accomplish.

When anyone – perhaps you – dares to think that a mouse’s life is not equal to that of a human child, they will call them/you misguided and bigoted. When anyone dares to state the view that animal research can be conducted in a humane, responsible and life-giving manner, they will call them a Nazi and hurl threat after threat.

This is what an animal rights vigil looks like.
As I said, it’s a strange one.

The group calling themselves “Progress” for science has a strange view of what progress is. If you believe that progress is a slow and steady transition to a world where scientific fact is denied, where people are allowed to die to preserve the life of mice and where an individual’s personal beliefs justify threatening and harassing them, then this group is made up of the kinds of activists that will bring that progress. As noted above, they have a lot in common with a variety of activists – including those who repudiate basic human rights.

Some “activists” – like the Westboro Baptist church’s members – promote hatred, rather than progress.

But if you believe that progress is a sometimes slow but unwavering transition to a world where everyone – both humans and animals – are healthier and where we all know more about the nature of the universe around us, then scientists are the activists that are creating the change you seek.

Because science pushes forward towards unknown discoveries, it will always be frightening and threatening to a few that do not understand it. But their fear must not be allowed to stop progress – real progress. The progress that all forms of research – including humane animal research – has brought and will continue to bring our world.