A singularly bad way to respond to an ethical problem.

We are a society and a country of law and order. Many of the laws are based on ethical principles, including, of course, laws against killing or maiming of, including the intent to do such harm to, fellow members of our society. We also observe laws that aim at protecting animals against cruel treatment. The animal rights people who are taking the law into their own hands, just like those who kill or intend to kill abortion clinic physicians, are individuals who exclude themselve from the law and order that our society accept. Nothing differentiate these people from muslim terrorists; their aim is to instil fear among those whom their activities they object. Reason has never been a tool that terrorists used. The terrorist's mindset allow her/him to be a terrorist because s/he is taught to shutout reason.

ah, S. Rivlin, watch out for that petard, eh?

We have procedures / laws / regulations for dealing with ethical misconduct in science. Those that don't like the outcome of this process and continue to attempt to "prosecute" someone who has been exonerated by the system are outside the "rule of law" in this regard, are they not?

This should serve to point out that Dr. Free-Ride skirts the issue at the heart of the matter. If the animal rights extremists are in the correct ethical position and science is currently in the wrong ethical position- what IS the ethical act? Any means necessary? Work within the system even though it is quixotic because you are in the tiny minority? Figure that, like human slavery, the "right" side will win out eventually even if it takes, oh, a couple a hundred years?

And on the opposite side. Suppose animal rights extremists are in the incorrect position and scientists indeed have the right of it. That we prioritize our own species' health and well being. Then what is the ethical act in dealing with animal rights extremists OR activists? Jail 'em for species-traitorism? Put 'em in mental institutions for re-education? Just tolerate bloviation but not things that would in any case qualify as criminal?

I suggest that discussing the tactics is somewhat peripheral to discussing the actual matter at hand.

Dr. Free-Ride: I'm not sure if you are being all PhiloProf on us today or if the post is an accident of your own ambivalence. But you seem to dance around the issue in many posts on this topic. Why not discuss the actual merits of the case for and against animal research science? The ethics of how we actually behave with respect to frank discussion of the science and/or bombing researchers' cars follows from this, does it not?

I'm not trying to be coy, but I don't think it's a black and white issue, as I discuss at length in this post.

Quoting myself from that post:

it is a strength of the community of scientists that scientists don't all march in lockstep on the matter of what humane treatment of laboratory animals require. Because different scientists have different views on this matter, they're more likely to actually talk to each other about it. In the course of these talks, scientists sometimes come up with clever strategies to get more scientific information with less -- or no -- animal harm. Given that scientists, as a group, have shown themselves to be quite good at answering hard questions using limited data, it might not take all that long for them to work out good ways to eliminate the need for animals in certain research projects, and to minimize the need for animals in others.

And scientists probably ought to care about animal-use worries of the public, not just of other scientists. At the same time, though, scientists should be ready to explain to the public how their animal use is essential to the research, and how that research benefits the public. Then, if members of the public disagree with the scientists (e.g., deciding to forgo a bird flu vaccine if it involves animal research of which these members of the public do not approve), that's their choice. If no one used a medical treatment because of ethical qualms, the demand for that treatment would evaporate, and the researchers would turn their attentions elsewhere.

Personally, I can live with careful and necessary animal experimentation, but I choose not to eat animals (because I can get the nutrients I need from non-animal sources). But the big point is ethical deliberation shouldn't come down to a matter of my (or anyone's) personal likes or dislikes. By necessity, ethics requires taking account of the interests of others -- even of non-human animals (though how to weight those with the interests of humans is obviously a source of disagreement between me and those who regard all animal research as ethically forbidden).

In any case, I don't think firebombs are ever a legitimate part of a public "discussion" about ethical commitments.

Exonerated? I guess Scooter Libby was also exonerated! Yes, we do have procedures / laws / regulations for dealing with ethical misconduct in science. However, when they are not followed, fraudsters are being exonerated. Is that what you mean by procedures / laws / regulations? The petard seems to be your mouth or your fingers on the keyboard.

Look S.Rivlin, I know it is hard to step back from our personal experiences and look at the broader picture. But this is the point of entering Dr. F-R's little Ethics101 class here on the web, isn't it?

1) Sometimes, the system works and the bad guys get nailed.
2) Sometimes, the system fails and the bad guys walk.
3) Sometimes, the system fails and good guys get nailed unjustifiably.

The US system of jurisprudence is set up to accomplish 1, while permitting a great deal of 2 to avoid as much as possible of 3. We can debate how well this works in practice but these are the very explicit goals. The design specs, so to speak.

The question is, how do we good and ethical citizens who believe in the system respond when 2 occurs? How do we go about "improving" the system? Do we just go out personally and shot the bad guys (yes, this happens even outside of Grisham novels)? Do we advocate changing the protections against 3 ("victims rights" efforts) to maximize 1? Do we try to improve the implementation to adhere to the design specs? What is the best way to act and why? Which types of responses are impermissible and why?

then we get around to

4, The system is broken because it fails to define as "bad" what I personally happen to think is "bad".

5, The system is broken because it defines as "bad" that which I personally happen to think is "good".

I am not being flip here. animal rights (4) and drug legalization (5) are but examples, you can no doubt dream up more. The historical perspective is healthy for our consideration, particularly with respect to 4 because institutionalized racial discrimination, religious persecution, sterilization of "mental defectives", frontal lobotomy and any other previously good or neutral that is now a "bad" can be a proxy for animal rights extremist positions. uncomfortable isn't it? but it focuses the debate to ask, how is this different? what am I really saying when I assert that the issues are the same? where does the essential principle lead us?

Janet, you say "If no one used a medical treatment because of ethical qualms, the demand for that treatment would evaporate, and the researchers would turn their attentions elsewhere." but in fact the animal rights position is that *everyone* should be prevented from treatments because of *their* beliefs. they do not operate under the "marketplace of ideas" framework you posit.

You say you can "live with" some animal experimentation and presumably you'd like to enjoy the fruits of some of the medical results (?). Yet, you want to quibble. You want to only support "necessary" research- a nice convenient throwaway that disavows your potential responsibility for deciding just what is going to go undiscovered because of X, Y or Z animal use that you find "unnecessary". This is the problem I have. It is all very convenient to look in retrospect and say "well that study was a waste and it could have been avoided". Our strength as a biomedical engine in the US, however, has been the underlying premise that we *cannot* predict in advance and thus will do minimal directing of where the research goes- "investigator initiated" is the NIH watchword for this reason. It is also very convenient to say "well there must be some abuses therefore the system is broken and we must change it". Are you really informed as to how "broken" or "functional" the oversight of animal research is? as i mentioned in another comment a long time ago, your outrage over being IRB'd suggests you may not be terribly up on IACUC oversight....

I'm happy to let IACUCs render the decision as to what animal research is necessary (or at least permissible) -- and again, part of my beef (if you'll pardon the pun) with the animal liberationists is that they aren't willing to engage in reasoned arguments but rather to impose their view through terrorist tactics.

BTW, the IRB "outrage" (which really was more like exasperation) had to do with an *administrator* insisting that a project that was NOT research be run by the IRB. Shortly after I submitted the paperwork, the IRB ruled that the project ... was not research, and thus didn't require their approval. So, I'm not really worried about our oversight mechanisms (although sometimes they seem to work better than others). Administrators with time on their hands, however ...

Drugmonkey, I appreciate the civic lecture. Your generalizations are all nice and good and accordingly, Rove and Armitage should be let go, too, by the exonerator (errr... the decider).

Look, the system that you talk about has never been in place. The bad guys are all over, including within the fake system that was in place. The system that you talk about and the system that I have encountered are not the same. There are not even resembling each other.

The system I have encountered is broken because it ignores the definition of "bad", which is what everyone else happens to define as "bad".

In short, a corrupted system will always exonerate the corrupted. By exposing the "exonerated" corrupted, one also exposes the corrupted system and this is a worthwhile effort.

We have procedures / laws / regulations for dealing with ethical misconduct in science. Those that don't like the outcome of this process and continue to attempt to "prosecute" someone who has been exonerated by the system are outside the "rule of law" in this regard, are they not?

Drugmonkey, you can watch me walk down that path a ways here. I'm not sure it leads where you think -- at least, where I thought -- it leads. I'm keeping my gob shut until I've read the book.

ethical deliberation shouldn't come down to a matter of my (or anyone's) personal likes or dislikes.

I'm puzzled. Isn't ethics essentially morality, and after all, morality boils down to personal likes and dislikes. Or "taste" or "aesthetics", if you will. Every moral system has to start with some axioms, which one can either accept or reject, depending on one's taste.

Oh, no fear Bill, I was watching.

Your error was in sliding from a (well justified) irritation with S.Rivlin's style to casting aspersions on the merits of his case. Despite what his bruised ego seems to think, I've not done so. It is perhaps a little sad that my gentler nudges didn't produce the results your did, i.e., "the goods" on who/what/where. We are all better off for having the specifics in front of us. S. Rivlin's agenda is better off as well, and not just because he sold you a book. others can start putting the parts together and see how sensible it seems. not as good as hard data but the next best thing is to assemble as many of the components as possible and say "does this seem consistent?".

but this does not mean that we can come to a perfect understanding of the situation from this one point of view and the limited evidence. even if we did believe it in whole, jumping to the blanket indictment of the scientific enterprise "the system has never been in place" and "the bad guys are all over" is a long stretch.

writedit (writedit.wordpress.com) has pointed my attention to a body of research on scientific ethics and fraud so perhaps we'll start seeing some indicators of how rotten the tree really is...

Drugmonkey,

Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that when I states "the system has never been in place" and "the bad guys are all over" I specifically speaks of my case and the institute in which it occurred and do not generalized to other cases or institutions?

S.Rivlin: Hmm. maybe because I'm mostly talking about the general type points that are the subject of the actual blog posts perhaps? and assumed you were as well? because if you were personalizing than you are just not getting my point about "sometimes the system fails and the bad guys walk". If your comments refer only to your situation than this is what we are talking about. Your situation was the "sometimes".

We get back to the point of the original post. What is the ethical step in these situations in which the "law and order" stuff, i.e., the "system" seems to have failed our position of what is "right"?

Working to change the system and putting up with the imperceptible pace? Working quixotically in a way that makes us feel good but does little else? ...or lighting incendiary devices under a car?

Drugmonkey, I find it somewhat presumptuous on your part when you determine that there are just these three options:

1. Working to change the system and putting up with the imperceptible pace;
2. working quixotically in a way that makes us feel good but does little else;
3. lighting incendiary devices under a car.

Maybe it is a squarelike thinking that do not allow you to come up with some additional options.

How about working to change the system by exposing its corruption for everyone to see, while also making us feel good?

How about bypassing the faked, corrupted local system and re-present the case to a higher-up system that oversees the corrupted local one?

How about exposing the culprit (the scientist who committed the misconduct) to everyone and force her/him out, such that s/he will never be able to hurt science, scientists or students again?

Here is something for you to chew on. Do not take my word for it. If you really care about doing something about misconduct in science, check one Douglas C. Dean, endowed chair professor at the James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, School of Medicine. Check his history at Washington University, St. Louis. Find out under what circumstances he had to resign from WUSTL. Write to the Department of Health and Human Services and ask, under the freedom of Information Act, for a copy of the ORI Oversight Report ORI 2002-12, Feb. 4, 2004. Find out what papers he had to retract. Inquire into how a scientist who was found by his own university's Committee on Research Integrity to falsify and fabricate research is now an endowed chair professor in another university. Who hired him at U of L? How come the administration at U of L never checked this guy's background? If nothing else, you could do a great favor to the family that naively and enthusiastically donated huge amounts of money to fund this endowed chair by exposing the truth about Douglas C. Dean.

Once you begin to scratch the surface maybe you will understand what I mean by "a corrupted system."

My reluctance to bloviate even more so than I already do is hardly a sign of my limited ability to imagine scenarios. Those types in Philo101 who need to exhaust every possible scenario relevant to a point when a few examples were enough to communicate the point and those unable to grasp the general from a few specific examples are equally tedious. I'm sure the good Professor has stories.

How about working to change the system by exposing its corruption for everyone to see, while also making us feel good?
yes, most definitely.

How about bypassing the faked, corrupted local system and re-present the case to a higher-up system that oversees the corrupted local one?
yes, this is indeed part of the system of oversight. you can take it all the way to ORI.

How about exposing the culprit (the scientist who committed the misconduct) to everyone and force her/him out, such that s/he will never be able to hurt science, scientists or students again?
and this, obviously, is where the ethics get...interesting. again, we are discussing general principles. your example can serve heuristic purposes but we get nowhere if we assume your experiences are the only ones relevant to the discussion. What about the case of false accusation? Various comments suggest you would like to crack down most severely at the slightest whiff of science impropriety. Surely you recognize this is going to come at the cost of false accusations and even undeserved sanctions?

I'll remind you, since you seem to be forgetting, that this post of Dr. F-R's was about animal extremism. A case in which the accusers seem to believe quite firmly that most if not all of the "system" of animal research is bad. I submit to you that this is a case of false accusation. Nevertheless the accusers believe just as firmly and emotively (perhaps more so) in the justness of their cause.

Dr. F-Rs instructive question remains- how is the minority critic of the "system" they abhor to behave ethically?

Funny, dear Drugmonkey, that the standard you use for yourself is that "a few examples (a)re enough to communicate the point and those unable to grasp the general from a few specific examples are equally tedious" yet, you harshly criticize me for using the same standard.

Yes, I do have stories and they all point at a serious problem that science so far does not deal with properly. Part of the problem is the many among us who, like you, prefer to accept the line that it is a minor problem and will only be persuaded when the number of exposed and proved cases reach a "critical mass." Unfortunately, due to cover-up, the problem resembles an iceberg, where only its tip is visible.