快猫短视频

IN 2001, , an administrator at the Oregon National Primate Research Center in Beaverton, flew to Miami to be interviewed for a university position. When he arrived in Florida, his plane was met by an angry crowd of animal-rights activists wielding protest signs. They followed him, interrupted his meetings and literally chased him onto his plane back to the West Coast.

Not surprisingly, he didn鈥檛 get the job. But the incident, Conn says, was valuable nevertheless. It convinced him that he was involved in an outright war, that so-called 鈥渁nimal rightists鈥� didn鈥檛 merely want to protect animals, they wanted to destroy any science that used them. That epiphany eventually led to , a salvo fired back at the enemy.

鈥淲hat other word than 鈥榳ar鈥� can we employ to describe what is happening to the enterprise of biomedical research?鈥� ask Conn and his co-author James Parker, a former public information officer at the Oregon primate centre. 鈥淎ttack? Assault? Siege? All the words that come to mind come from the battlefield.鈥� They wouldn鈥檛 have thought in war-like terms in earlier decades, the authors say, but today the situation has become urgent.

Actually, the word 鈥渨ar鈥� did appear in the title of a 14 years ago. Still, The Animal Research War is packed with evidence that little has improved since. In fact, the relationship between animal rightists and animal researchers has deteriorated. 快猫短视频s seem more defensive and secretive about their work, activists more impatient and aggressive. And both seem less willing to listen to 鈥� or even acknowledge 鈥� valid points made by the other side.

Valid points do exist. Animal research 鈥� not all, but a respectable portion 鈥� has contributed to medical advances that have saved millions of human lives. Last century, the polio vaccines were developed using rhesus macaques from Asia; last year, scientists began work using the same animals on vaccines against the tropical infection lassa fever. These are only a few out of many examples. Still, even those valued animals are not always treated with kindness or even respect 鈥� I once interviewed the manager of a monkey research facility who told me he absolutely loathed monkeys (and would prefer to work with goats) 鈥� and the regulations set forth in animal-welfare laws are not always scrupulously followed.

Fair-minded balance, however, is not the organising principle of the book. Conn and Parker see the situation in stark black and white: animal activists are interested in harming research, destroying medical advances for the rest of us and engaging in domestic terrorism. By contrast, animal researchers are simple folk who labour, despite personal risk, for the good of humanity. The rest of us may be a mixed bag of good and evil. 鈥淏ut in the world鈥檚 ambiguity鈥� one group can claim credit for much good.鈥� And that would be: biomedical researchers. Conn and Park go on to suggest that such scientists belong among the chosen few 鈥渨ho would lead us into the peaceable kingdom鈥�.

鈥淎re animal-rights activists engaged in domestic terrorism?鈥�

Who comprises the audience for this haloed perspective? The book certainly isn鈥檛 written to win over animal rightists. It didn鈥檛 win me over, either. I find the hyperbole unconvincing at best and hilarious at worst. Excerpts from The Animal Research War, however, have already appeared in two magazines, , published by the scientific society Sigma XI, and , which covers the life sciences. The latter featured the book on its cover, with the headline: 鈥淭he WAR Against Your Work.鈥�

Will that rile animal researchers? That鈥檚 what Conn and Parker are hoping for. Their book is a battle cry: it asks the research community and its supporters to fight back against a well-honed opposition. As the authors illustrate in detail, both researchers and university administrators are far too prone to cower in dismay rather than stand up for their work. The real measure of Conn and Parker鈥檚 trumpet-blowing will be how, if at all, it redraws the battle lines.