On Wed, 20 May 1998, Jack Bowling wrote:

> Chris Hill wrote -
>
> I wasn't joking, Chris.

Gotcha.

I think the assumption that the scientists had necessarily killed the bird
seemed so odd to me, combined with the lighthearted tone of your
criticism, that I didn't read your intent.

> And the death of the bird would not be the
> ultimate outrage. That would be the unbridled hubris of the scientists
> involved thinking they could play Auschwitz because they may or may not
> find something useful. As I mentioned to another offline, it is with
> deep sadness that the rise in science over the past several hundred
> years has coincided with a growing lack of respect for other life forms
> other than our own.

As a general rule, I take the first Nazi reference as a sign that an
internet discussion has deteriorated beyond repair. :)

But since it's Jack Bowling (I can't imagine being in a flame war with
Jack Bowling! My self esteem would plunge pretty deep), and since
prudence was never one of my strong traits, I'll continue just a little
bit further. Some strong emotions on both sides, I guess.

Bottom line with respect to the Nutcracker is that the article doesn't say
that the bird died. Jack assumed it did. I assume it didn't. It's
probably quite possible to contact the experimenter cited, and that's the
only way to tell for sure.

As for the comment in another e-mail that "lungs freeze" at -65C (sorry, I
deleted before noting the author's name), there's a walk-in -70C freezer
at the UW that I visit fairly regularly, and with no particular
discomfort. Human lungs don't freeze at those temperatures.

Scientists do some nasty things to animals on occasion, no question. But
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts (that's about 3:2 odds in today's market)
that the particular case Jack brought up was *not* an example of that.

Christopher E. Hill
Department of Zoology
University of Washington
P. O. Box 351800
Seattle, WA 98195-1800