Animal Testing Blog: Some interesting reactions

Yesterday, I put this up.

Originally a spoken piece for the Pod Delusion, I thought it wise to put a written version up as well. Obviously, I made it as provocative as possible (in the title at least) to get attention, and also to vent a bit at the violent campaigners who feel it's fine to intimidate and threaten people in my profession.

And it is the violent, law-breaking, threatening ones I a talking about, not the respectful, organised, official campaigners. They're generally all right, I agree with them on most issues as well. I thought I'd made this clear in my piece. Apparently not. My bad, I suppose. Some of the responses have been quite interesting.

A lot of the traffic is coming from Metafilter. My piece has come under a lot of criticism, but primarily (at least at first) because they don't think it's funny. Fair enough, other people do, and they have credited me with far less self-awareness than than I do in fact possess (e.g. I'm fully conscious of the fact that making meat-based references in an animal-rights rant are neither 'edgy' nor particularly original), and if you listen to the Pod Delusion episode I hope you'll pick up on the sarcastic tone with which I make the aforementioned jokes. But then that's the problem with text; inflection is hard to get across. But no matter.

The comments on the blog post are a joy to behold, feel free to scan them. From interesting, considered criticisms to insane religiously-inspired condemning of me and my soul. And again, a lot of people feel that attempts to insert comedy into my rant nullifies the points I'm trying to make. An understandable viewpoint, but not one I agree with. I've learned first hand that inserting humour into serious things makes people MORE likely to listen and take it in, not less. Hence The Daily Show and its ilk are seen by many as the most reliable news source in the states, and Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell in the UK are arguably the most popular and respected pundits on all manner of subjects; they can take hard truths and unpleasant facts, and deliver them in an incredibly amusing, entertaining fashion. I would never claim to be capable of their standard of writing, but I'm willing to give it a go.

Also, this has always been a comedy blog, which has developed a worrying number of regular readers. A deadly-serious, passionate rant about such a controversial subject would be incredibly jarring. So I tried to stay 'in character', as it were.

Now, the fun begins.

My blog was lifted wholesale and posted on the animal activists website named 'negotiation is over'. The title alone shows what their stance on the issue is. I believe the lovely devout Lisa who bemoaned my toxic heart in the comments section is there. I do like the way it's put up as if I actually voluntarily sent them the piece to put up like a prick, and I love how I'm introduced as 'Mutilator Dean Burnett', but seriously, check out the website comments if you want to see extreme vitriol and a complete disregard for Godwin's Law.

Interestingly, my old school headmaster was called Mister Godwin, and he was a bit of a racist right-winger if memory serves. Life's weird like that sometimes.

And finally, the emails. I've had a few. Some have been supportive. Some have been critical but nice with it, some have been like this. Being a shameless attention seeker, I can't help but reply.

From: metalyty@hotmail.com

To: humourology

Subject: france

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:39:22 +0000

i'm french and i FUCK YOU, you says "go fuck" to animal lover ?

Come to see me in Marseille, i will show you, who will fuck who ... may be your mother want to come ? i will fuck her too !!!

BITCH !!

From: humourology

To: metalyty@hotmail.com

Thank you, Anonymous French person

Maybe it's a translation thing? At no point did I say "go fuck" to animal lovers, I'm not sure that even works as a threat or a command in English, but what I was trying to say was "go fuck yourselves" to people who think it's OK to threaten and intimidate people doing essential scientific research. Most animal lovers don't do that, so telling them to "go fuck" would be pointless.

I've never been to Marseille, is it nice? I'm actually quite busy at the moment, but I'll see what my mother is up to if you like, she's due a vacation.

Cheers again for the email, it will make an excellent addition to my blog.

All the best

From: metalyty@hotmail.com

To: humourology

I really Like to be a part of your blog thanks You !!!

Essential reSearch ?? CAN i laugh ? Essential money may be You want to say !

I don't like what i've readed when You speak about vivisection, and Marseille is not Nice ... Don't take vacation here, it's very dangerous.

Please link me your blog, this Will may be give me some buzz !!!!!! Thanks!!!

Nico

Anonymous French person is named Nico, as it happens. He/She doesn't like me and my kind. Fair enough, it's just nice to get the attention.

From: smaragda@icon.co.za

To: humourology

Subject: FEEL FREE TO FUCK YOURSELF TOO

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:25:43 +0200

THIS IS A JOKE, RIGHT? JUST CANNOT GET MYSELF TO LAUGH. AND YOU WONDER WHY YOU'RE OUT OF A JOB?

To: smaragda@icon.co.za

Subject: FEEL FREE TO FUCK YOURSELF TOO

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:25:43 +0200

Thank you, Anonymous person in South Africa

Thanks for the email. Not sure if it's a formatting thing, or if you meant it to be written in such a massive font, but rest assured that I read it fine, especially as I have a particularly large computer monitor as well

I'm sorry you didn't laugh at my article, that's the problem with comedy, it's very subjective, and it is a tricky subject to make jokes about. A lot of the crap jokes were deliberately inserted to lighten the tone in a self-depreciation style, but it's tricky to get this across in print.

There are many reasons for me being out of a job, partly because I'm an average Doctor of Neuroscience, not a great one, and partly because my wife's job means I'm geographically limited. Believe it or not, the inability to make random strangers in other countries laugh is not seen as a handicap when applying for scientific vacancies, so I tend not to mention it on my CV.

Cheers for the email, it will make an excellent addition to my blog.

All the best

From: smaragda@icon.co.za

To: humourology

BLAH BLAH BLAH ONCE YOU START TALKING SENSE ABOUT ANIMALS MAYBE PEOPLE WILL LISTEN. AS FOR THE REST, NOBODY'S INTERESTED IN YOU'RE LITTLE LIFE.

That last part is quite a strange thing for stranger who felt it necessary to abuse me via email to say, when you think about it.

And then it got serious

Diana Meinor

Mr. Burnett -

I am writing after having read your recent blog post at Science Digestive in
which you defend caging and killing nonhuman animals. I believe that this
will be appropriately interpreted by many as an open call to violence on
your part against nonhumans. In other words, it's an act of aggression.

In the course of the post you acknowledge being "trained and experience in
animal testing" and that you are "not ashamed". This means that you are not
a mere advocate for violence against the innocent but also an assailant.

I suspect that none of what I am saying comes as a surprise to you. Suffice
it to say that you have not gone unnoticed.

Sincerely,
Diana Meinor

To:

Diana Meinor

Thank you Diana

My post also contains the following phrases

"the conclusion that 'innocent creatures suffering is bad' is a very hard one to disagree with, and I won't attempt to do so"

"Huntington’s life sciences did terrible things to animals all those years ago, nobody is disputing that. If they are, they need to be escorted to the nearest padded room as soon as possible."

"I've worked in animal labs, and I've yet to meet anyone who, despite the accusations and implications, actually enjoys animal experimentation. Pretty much everyone who does it manages to develop a necessary sense of detachment, but it's never easy. As I always strive to point out, the vast majority of scientists are actually people, and we don't like psychopaths or sadists any more than the next person."

"A suffering animal is, scientifically, pretty much useless"

"the logic of scientific research means it's essential that animal subjects experience as little discomfort as possible."

"if there was an effective substitute that offered the same complexity and sophistication offered by a living organism, we'd be using it."

"Someone once asked me 'what gives us the right to decide how and when an animal dies?' I genuinely don't know, nor do I know if we can be said to have the right to anything we do as a species"

All of these phrases clearly advocate and support the ethical treatment of animals, for reasons of scientific research and basic morality. The fact that you have chosen to take select quotes and jump to wide conclusions that you use to make thinly veiled threats to me suggests that you have no interest in rational debate or discourse.

I doubt this will make any difference to your views, but as depressing as it is to have to resort this, I have forwarded your email to the relevant authorities such as the police.

I hope we can remain civil about this

Dr. Burnett

There's always someone who has to ruin it by making actual threats. I'll put up any further interesting ones if/when I get them.

People have described me as 'brave' for saying what I did. I don't think so, I'm just an attention seeker. But it's nice to know it's having some effect, as the responses clearly show. Fun times!

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Dear 'The Pope' (again), from Science (No. 16)

The guy just invites this sort of thing, doesn't he?

"Dear The Pope

Hello, it's me, Science. Did you not get my last letter? I know my tone was a little sarcastic, but then I long ago gave up bothering to sound serious and informed with your sort, it's a wasted effort on my part.

Just to re-cap, I was sort-of telling you off for saying how it's wrong for Gay people to do things like be Gay, and work for you. You set yourself up as the indisputable judge of all that is moral. I even had one of your followers having a go at me for confusing 'natural' and 'divine' law (which was in itself a dubious claim), where it's my job to say what 'is', and it's your job to say what's 'right'. Your way doesn't need evidence, apparently, just an elaborate hat.

I admit I wrote the last letter, and was chuckling to myself about your antics, thinking that you were making a spectacle of yourself. I remember thinking specifically, "he couldn't possibly make himself look any worse"

As you like to claim, I can be wrong. But, dude, seriously?

I admit, I don't like to shout about it when I get a null result or something, but... wow!

I mean, if I was the supposed divine representation of moral perfection, I'd, I don't know, not do certain... things?

Seriously mate, did you not think this was a bad idea? I'd have thought someone who was once in the Hitler Youth would have a little more regard for his public image in this day and age. But again, after my stern talking to on the differences between our responsibilities, I'm willing to listen to an explanation for how this sort of thing is OK by 'divine law' (assuming you have one?).

I mean, using contraception and/or pursuing a consensual, loving relationship with some with the same number of X chromosomes as you, these are things that will condemn you to hell for eternity? Whereas abusing children will get you... access to more children? I'm sorry to say I don't follow the rationale there (I realise asking for the logic behind the actions of you and yours is a bit like asking for the mode of action of homeopathy, but you, like them, usually claim to have one, however farcical).

Were you thinking like one of those old stories, where the child is found to be smoking their fathers cigarettes and is made to smoke several packs to 'teach him a lesson'? I, personally, would have said that the rights and innocence of children outranked disposable indulgences like cigarettes when considered as resources for punishment. But then, I'm not Catholic, and the rights of the individual has never really been something you guys have been bothered about (unless, as previously stated, he, and it's always he, has one of your elaborate hats, in which case any criticism must be condemned ferociously)

I don't approve of the 'make them keep doing it until they get tired of it' method of dissuasion anyway. Be it abuse or cigarettes, a child is going to end up severely damaged for the rest of their life. And it's not even punishment in the traditional sense, as it doesn't pair an action with a directly aversive stimulus. It essentially habituates the person to the stimulus which they previously found rewarding and makes them repeat the action until they lose the pleasurable response it normally elicits. Sex doesn't work this way of course, there's a lot of biological compensators in place to stop that happening. See what happens when you ignore evolution!

But then, what does my opinion matter? I'm only the personification of all human knowledge (that is evidence-derived and well researched)

I mean, I can't see the people in charge of the 'regular' law adopting this method for serious offences (child abuse is, by the way, regarded as very serious in terms of 'normal' law, rather than 'divine' law, which seemingly regards it as a mere bad habit).

And I know I said homosexuality is natural because it keeps occurring despite not having a reproductive element. At the risk of inciting controversy, this same argument could be levelled at Child abuse. I see it as different, in the same way murder is different; it involves severely damaged victims and the self-gratification of a sick individual, not social bonding and understanding. So, remember this, Homosexuality = good, Child abuse = bad. I'd have thought it was a simple system, I can't beleive you've been getting it wrong for so long.

Just to see if this is an isolated incident, perhaps you'd be willing to take a test? Tell me, if one of your priests was found to be one of those serial killers you get in TV dramas, the kind who preys on prostitutes, what would you do? Would you;

a) Punish him by sacking him from the church

b) Punish him by imprisoning him

c) Punish him by equipping him with a fresh knife and locking him in a brothel in a different area?

Now, as far as I'm aware, the correct answer is b). But According to your 'divine law', which is it? Getting the boot seems a bit mild a punishment for mass murder, but I don't know how well you guys pay. Or are you guys in it for the 'fringe benefits'?

When you ask yourself 'what would Jesus do?' how the hell did you come up with this answer.

Thing is, I could provide a lot of rationale and reasoning for why this sort of behaviour occurs. Not as an excuse, but as an explanation, and with the hope of preventing it in future. I can list psychological causes, impetus, disorders, mental instabilities that lead to this sort of thing. But I won't. Because, as you've been so keen to point out in the past, this isn't my place.

So I'm going to sit here, in my place, and watch your place as it falls apart.

Is it OK if I make some popcorn before the next scandal breaks?

Fond regards

Science (BA hons)

P.S. After I was mocked for (deliberately) mistaking you for right-wing fundamentalists in my previous letter, I wrote this entire thing with 'Duelling Banjos' playing in the background. I'll say this for the psycho's, they'd probably string up the child molesters, not supply them with more victims. You're currently ranking below the lunatics. What's that like?"

e-mail: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

twitter: @garwboy

"Dear Chiropractors, from Science" (No. 14)

I'm having a thoroughly annoying time of it at the moment, so what better way to vent than through the medium of Science?

“Dear Chiropractology (that right?)

It’s me Science. Can you refrain from suing me for 5 minutes and read this?

I really didn’t want to have to do this, but you’ve pushed me to it. I’ve tried ignoring you, I’ve tried using reason and logic to dissuade people from listening to you, I’ve even taken another look at the fundamental nature of biology, chemistry, physics and anatomy on the off chance you may have a point.

You don’t, by the way. And it didn’t take long to look up the basics, I left the bookmark in my notes from when I last looked after Homeopathy started making noise again.

So, Chiroprology, it’s come to this. Me writing you a bloody letter, like some sort of 18^th century scribe, just so you’ll have what I’m telling you in a visible format to double check for hidden meaning and all that. I’m the anthropomorphic personification of Science, I don’t have time to write pointless sarcastic missives to my detractors (and yes, I realise that plenty of evidence to the contrary can be found on this blog, but since when is evidence important, right?)

Basically, this is your last warning. Cut your crap and know your place, or you’ll get to see what I do when I’m REALLY angry.

You want to sue my boy Simon Singh? Shows how stupid you can be, I wouldn’t dare start on someone with the initials SS; I won’t be restraining him, and trust me, he’ll go Gestapo on your ass!

(Too soon?)

So listen, Chiroproctor and Gamble, we both know, as does Simon, that what you claim to be able to do is bogus. Yes, that’s right, I dropped the B-bomb! What you going to do? Sue me? You genuinely think you can sue an abstract concept? Admittedly, it’s only marginally more absurd than thinking you can cure bedwetting with a back-rub, but either way it won’t work.

What is it about the word ‘bogus’ that bothers you so much, anyway? Do you thing, we’re using some offensive acronym? Chiropractors are bogus (Blatantly useless guff, obviously stupid?)

Thing is, you campaigned for so long to be regarded as separate from medicine when you first started peddling your wares, so you could get round the whole inconvenient 'having to prove you have the first clue about human biology' thing that medics need to deal with, but now you want the same level of credibility? You can't have your cake and eat it!

Actually, that saying seems quite logically flawed to me, as having and eating a cake are intrinsically linked. What would be the point of having a cake if you couldn't eat it? They do sometimes look nice, but if used as ornaments they could only fill this role on a short-term basis. And it's logically impossible to eat a cake without 'having' it. If anything, consuming something and incorporating it's mass into your own is as extreme a degree of 'having' something as you can get, I think. Of course you could hurl yourself and the cake into a black hole, thereby merging yours and the cakes mass into the singularity at it's heart and unifying in one space-time flaw, but that seems needlessly complex a manner for disproving the whole have/eat cake cliché. I don't think we need to involve quantum physics in baking, it's tricky enough already. Ever tried making a flan? The mind boggles.

Bloody hell, got distracted again. Thing is, Chiropractus Rex, I'm willing to take on any wild notion as long as there is some proof of it. So you can see how extreme it is when I tell you that you're demonstrating yet another alarming case of colonic vocalisation (figure it out).

Thing is, that thing where I use big, complex words and make it hard for everyone to understand what I'm talking about? I try my best to not do that, it makes my job a lot harder in the long run, but sometimes it's unavoidable. It's an unfortunate side effect, it's not the thing that makes me credible. To put it more succinctly for your already bilge-filled brains, I'm not doing it on purpose!

I've had to point that out to Homeopathy, Nutritionism, Gillian McKeith, Fundamentalists, and now you. You're one of the worst, Chiropratacomefromalanddownunder. Vertebral Subluxtion? Sounds like something you'd treat with high doses of fibre.

If you genuinely believe that all that stuff about 'blockages' in the spinal column being responsible for disease, I can point you in the direction of spinal trauma victims who'd dearly love to make your acquaintance. Their bodies seem strangely reluctant to heal themselves, and seeing as you have the ability to help them along then perhaps you could spare them some of your talents? I know you have a lot of vitally important bed-wetting and colic to deal with, but could you take a moment to help out the paraplegics?

You're right though, the body does have a tendency to heal itself. While it's doing that, it might not be a great idea to keep pummelling it randomly though.

Seriously though, do you need some pointers on how the human body works? I'm happy to help if so. And this isn't me offering a 'contrasting opinion', this is facts, this is based on stuff you can see, and change, and adjust, and pull out and have dribble all over your hands.

If you want some cadavers to see what I'm on about, I'd happily provide some. Please, take them off my hands. I've got loads. In fact, I'll take a tip from your book and keep badgering you until you submit and just admit I'm right. I want you to take a look at my cadavers, so I'll be flinging them at your establishments, on the hour, every hour, for the foreseeable future. You want people to think you're buildings are just like hospitals? Then you need more dead people in them. Although if you keep offering to treat serious illness with your biobabble, you'll probably have more than you can deal with soon enough.

This is your last warning Chiropracorganic produce. You drove me to this, the gloves are off, and I'm sorely tempted to make some spinal adjustments of my own with a variety of my heaviest and bluntest tools.

Fondest regards

Science (BA hons)

P.S. Are you and Osteopathy related? You look sort of the same"

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy