Where's Richard?
by MikeGeneIt looks like Oxford University is going ahead with its plans to build a new research facility. But there's a problem: "Hundreds of animal rights activists marched through Oxford in protest at a new animal testing laboratory."
Actually, it's worse than this.
The animal rights activists have begun a campaign of torching Oxford University:
"The reason for the attack was as follows: Oxford University's holdings now own the contract to build the South Parks lab. As far as the ALF are concerned this means that Oxford University as a whole must accept the consequences. From here on nothing you own, rent or have dealings with is off limits until the project is scrapped. To warn builders and suppliers that they are going to get some, even if their involvement comes to light years later, we will not let you off the hook!"
Has Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, said anything about this? Nope. Not a word.
Since Dawkins likes to attack religion, advocate for The Brights, and trash Bush in the pages of The Guardian, will he have something to say about this :
"The question is not whether science is a necessary evil, but whether a science based on the suffering of countless sentient beings can ever be justified. The price for all of us is simply too high."
The public looks to the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science to weigh in. He is often described as one of those rare thinkers who will tell it as it is, no matter who he offends. We eagerly await his words. Then again, as Oxford burns around him, will he still be complaining that he was quoted-mined by a creationist?
July 24th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
Mike, if you don't mind me saying (but I'll say anyway), you like this example too much, and I think it's a poor analogy. Unless you really LIKE animal testing and think it's absolutely necessary (which it's not so much anymore), why would you complain about leftovers from the "old world" (where regulatory agencies and their nations require animal testing that's not particularly pertinent)?
If anyone knows the limitations of animal testing, it should be evolutionary biologists. And scuttlebutt there is the same as anywhere. Occasionally it gets critically analyzed from 'on high', and turns out to describe an empirical reality. Not even gross toxicity tests are foolproof, even with primates.
Medical science makes the greatest use of animal testing, though the commercial industries go through more animals (as required by law). And medical science has been badly burned more than once by doing so, nearly as bad as they got burned for buying into the neo-darwinian paradigm (complete with "Weissman Barrier"). They're actively moving way beyond those limitations now, thanks to new technologies and ways of looking at things (design). The designs are species-specific apart from general commonalities, and those quite often turn out to be species-specific too.
We have excellent databases, and some excellent algorithms (based on design/function) coming in daily, designed for the process. We have learned a lot. A design paradigm won't harm us, IMO, because it allows for this very sort of research. And it doesn't compromise the findings. There are some novel things that will have to be animal-tested before they are tested on humans. But they aren't many, if the databases of accumulated knowledge from previous testing are collated. If any case of data development demonstrates a need for going back to animal testing, it can be evaluated on its own, along with whether or not it made proper use of what is already known.
The AR PETA type folks are going to hate everything you do. They hate me because I live where people dump their unwanted pets, so I've got 4 dogs and 4 cats (and assorted other critters) that I feed, shelter and care for (including neuter/spay always). They rotate a few years here or there, so I've got a Pet Semetary (is that how King spelled it?) too. These are pets, but the hard-cores hate even that. Nobody's ever going to make reality comfortable for these folks.
My guess is that Dawkins doesn't care to get involved with the AR movement or speak about its goals. Because he is an evolutionary biologist hooked enough into the uplevel mainstream of "what's current" that he already knows we can deliver a lot less suffering on the animal world and still learn what we need to know. IOW, he's not agin' it.
…which makes me want to look into that issue some more. I did that since you have been bringing up this topic, and I find that while I do not agree with tactics, i do agree with some of the criticisms. I guess sometimes it takes some distance from the subject to appreciate it. I don't really care if my agreement with Dawkins on this issue (if we agree, which hasn't been determined) makes him look a little closer at my issue (intelligent design) or not. He's not condemning or supporting the activists. He's just keeping quiet, which is indeed a statement in itself.
I just don't necessarily disagree with it.
Comment by Joy — July 24, 2005 @ 7:31 pm
July 25th, 2005 at 5:47 am
Dawkins has been as active as the entire intelligent design in biology team against PETA. That is to say, no one in ID has done anything.
In contrast, serious researchers have recognized the problems of anti-researchers for many years: http://freeinfo.org/tch/winter...
Comment by edarrell — July 25, 2005 @ 5:47 am
July 25th, 2005 at 9:39 am
Joy: With respect, I think your sensitivity to this issue means that you are missing the point. Dawkins is quick enough to challenge creationists or ID proponents if he thinks that they are in danger of having some influence, on the grounds that he is a fearless champion of freedom of thought, and "religion" is opposed to this. Here we have a group of people that are basically saying they are going to trash one of the oldest universities in the world. It is actually irrelevant what their motivation is - their means are in opposition to freedom of thought - it is the approach of the mob or the terrorist, not the rationalist. And this is Dawkins' university.
So what's the problem? Where are his pronouncements of righteous indignation? Where are his concerns that these people may be damaging science - not because they are opposed to animal research (which as you point out may be of marginal value) but because they are talking about shutting down a world-class university - and potentially the careers of thousands of staff and the education of tens of thousands of students - in support of their position? Or is he worried that, unlike creationists, animal rights radicals might bite back? Or that they have sufficient popular support that he might decrease his own popularity by speaking out against this threatened vandalism?
Comment by Exile From Groggs — July 25, 2005 @ 9:39 am
July 25th, 2005 at 10:37 am
"The question is not whether science is a necessary evil, but whether a science based on the suffering of countless sentient beings can ever be justified. The price for all of us is simply too high."
What good is a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science if he won't give the public his answer to this question? They are threatening to burn down his school and the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, with an opinion on everything, doesn't seem to have an opinion on this.
Comment by MikeGene — July 25, 2005 @ 10:37 am
July 25th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Exile said:
Oh, I understand that Dawkins is an incurable hypocrite. I knew that long before he didn't bother to voice his concern about the AR folks. I just think it's a separate enough issue to not require him to say much (or anything) about it, since evolutionary biologists know better than just about anyone that animal testing doesn't provide correlative data. Thalidomide is a good example. In none of the animal testing - including primates - was it established that the chemical was a nasty mutagen/terotogen for humans. That wasn't discovered until the women who had been prescribed Thalidomide for morning sickness gave birth to horribly deformed children.
There are other examples as well, of things that turned out deadly to humans but weren't deadly to critters. Primate research is apparently already illegal in Britain. And while there's no love lost between me and mice or rats, they're not particularly good models of human physiology either. We could do a lot less infliction of suffering on animals. Dawkins doesn't speak out against the protests because basically, he agrees with it. Whether that's a fondness for anarchy or agreement with the premise I don't know.
As biological science becomes ever more comfortable with the fact that gene expression is way more important to species' physiology than are the simple protein codes, the paradigm that states all similar proteins work the same in all creatures will go the way of phlogiston. This is IMO a good thing - a plus for teleological design. Microarray technology has done more for design than anything in the past 150 years, and its getting more useful every day. These are patterns - designs - of expression that are dynamic and intimately responsive to interior and exterior signaling. And while the proteins, enzymes and other pieces-parts are similar across the animal board (else, what would we eat?), that structural similarity doesn't predict specific function or patterns of expression.
Dawkins doesn't say anything because saying something would highlight his prejudice. It would also highlight the fact that genomic determinism is garbage, and he's made his whole career out of singing the praises of genomic determinism. He's between a rock and a hard place, and risks his entire fame and fortune if he suddenly starts speaking about reality instead of atheist fantasies. He's smart enough to know what the problem with animal models is, but he's already committed to a course that insists there's no fundamental difference between mice and men.
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2005 @ 11:25 am
July 25th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Joy, this is exactly what I like this example too much. If people don't speak to this issue, Dawkins will never have to speak to reality.
Comment by MikeGene — July 25, 2005 @ 11:37 am
July 25th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Yeah, but Dawkins is already committed. He can't retract, nor can he enjoin the AR activists because he's already committed. You're never going to get anywhere expecting him to speak to the reality of his untenable position, or the hypocrisy inherent to that position. He's made his bed.
Given that, it's probably a pretty good argument to be forwarded on the non-genomic determinist (or teleological design) point of view. But all it's ever going to do is highlight the hypocrisy. And there's a goodly section of people who agree with his evangelical atheist stance - thus anything he has to say about science - enough to be blind to the hypocrisy. They just won't see it. You'd be surprised at how blind scientists can be, for nothing better than political or ideological reasons.
…or maybe not. You might have an idea by now how the office politics works. Scientists aren't any more sociologically adept than anyone else. Maybe worse, if they've bought into the elitist thing.
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2005 @ 1:52 pm
July 25th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Hi Joy,
Glad to say hello again on this channel! Hope the summer is finding you well.
You wrote:
Well, not everyone. Sociologists are certainly more "˜adept' than scientists at the social dimension of this conversation. But they seem to be ignored, condescended upon (though, thankfully, not by M. Gene) or otherwise simply banished from ID discussions, since to include them would ultimately lead to splitting the "˜big tent' of ID. Such scary potential!
Recently I got a response from R. Dawkins' secretary about a question or two I had posed to him at his e-mail. She said that perhaps my message would get onto the FAQ's sometime. But no direct response was offered. He's probably a busy man, with many animals demanding his attention, ethologist that he is.
Well, then again, Dembski shows himself an animal too. But he is ultimately a less persuasive rhetorician than Dawkins. Perhaps because he is less continental and more analytic, he has found both local success and general failure with his self-declared co-conspirators Nelson and Meyer. I guess my "˜descent' is just not so uncommon as Dembski's and his crew.
Thanks for the lead-in, Joy.
Gregory
Comment by g arago — July 25, 2005 @ 3:42 pm
July 25th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
Hi, Greg! Summer is… hot. Like summer usually is, even here on the mountain. Only one copperhead and one timber rattler so far, both of 'em relieved of their heads. Catching up on my reading, my frisbee golf game, that book I've been promising to write for the past 25 years or so, bottle rocket and roman candle wars, and old friends. Knee deep in 'mater pie, grandchildren and blackberry cobbler, just as it should be…
Don't hold your breath for answers from wannabe Pied Pipers on either side. I agree that sociology probably has (or should have) some insightful things to say about the ridiculous rhetoric flying about in CvE debates. But that's about all, far as I can tell. Dawkins and Co. aren't going to succeed in converting humanity to atheism by requiring a semester of neo-darwinism in high school or by insulting everyone who believes in God/gods. Conversely, Dembski and Co. aren't going to succeed in converting humanity to fundamentalist Christianity by getting a mention for ID in that high school semester.
Looks like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me, except that the evangelical atheists are more overtly insulting. Meanwhile, a design paradigm still proves its worth in applied science where academic "orthodoxy" doesn't hold sway and making Big Bucks is way more important than playing ideological head games with rebellious teenagers and hedonist megalomaniacs.
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2005 @ 9:30 pm