I was just checking for BTCU news, and I found this message on tweeters. I
went back and read all the relevant messages that preceded it. I may offend
here, but it's because I am deeply offended. Anyone who wishes to stay out
of controversy, please delete. I'm writing this only because of a very
one-sided presentation of opinion, to which no one, to my disappointment,
has responded sufficiently.

Jack Bowling wrote:

"I wasn't joking, Chris. 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."

I know tweeters isn't really the place for such a debate, but the
statements in this paragraph, seemingly pursuing a personal vendetta, cause
me to jump in with both feet. I'm a scientist, and I'll be damned if I let
my group be so maligned!

I believe this paragraph was written from a combination of ignorance and
prejudice. Prejudice is basically the condemnation of a group because of
certain objectionable actions of individuals belonging to that group or
from ill-founded beliefs in some general attributes of the group. I can't
imagine anyone viciously impugning women, or African Americans, or
homosexuals on tweeters, but that is exactly what Jack Bowling has done
with scientists. He has jumped all over science and scientists because of
*one* person's action on *one* bird, read in a secondary source with no
further information. This study, probably done 20 years ago (and perhaps
not doable in today's climate, as Deb Beutler wrote), is held up as an
example of the "unbridled hubris of the scientists involved."

I'll deal with the last sentence first. I would claim it is simply false, a
result of ignorance. The basic essence of science is the search for truth.
It is occasionally mispracticed, just as all human endeavors are
occasionally mispracticed. For the most part, we try not to condemn
humanity because of the behavior of its lowest elements. And the
correlation implied is nothing more than imagination bordering on
sophistry.

I think there is no basis whatsoever to say there has been a "growing lack
of respect for life forms other than our own." Going back in literature as
far as the Bible, humans have "held dominion over the fish, fowl, etc. of
the earth" (I'm paraphrasing here). There is no evidence that our ancestors
would hesitate for a second before killing an animal. Animals represented
food and/or clothing, and if they were worshipped, it was because of what
they provided, not that they were considered on a level with humans. Long,
long ago, we domesticated the wolf as a working animal, and millenia later,
dogs have now become members of the family for millions of people. This is
new; throughout much of history, in many cultures, dogs represented
primarily a convenient food source. Fortunately, that viewpoint has almost
(but not entirely) disappeared from the world.

I think any ethic against killing "other life forms" has developed quite
recently. There is absolutely no evidence that life forms are being
respected less now than they ever were; in fact, I would claim exactly the
opposite. It was only a brief moment ago in time that animal-rights
movements came to be, not to mention the environmental movement that at
least in part is based on a respect for other life forms. And I don't know
what any of this has to do with science.

To try to link any disrespect for life with science is the *ultimate* in
misunderstanding what science is all about. Sure, there are people all over
the world who don't treat animals well. It sounds as if Jack is implying
that *scientists* are the best example of these people! I am really amazed
that he is that biased against scientists, as, for some reason, I thought
he was one (from his obviously great knowledge of meteorology). Does he
think meteorologists hold the high ground against biologists? I should add
that, ignoring his occupation, I hope Jack is a vegetarian and uses no
product from any animal that was killed in any way as cruelly as that
nutcracker!

Jack's disturbance at and objections to the possible death of a Clark's
Nutcracker are entirely reasonable, but he then goes on to claim that
experiments of this sort are conducted on the basis of "they may or may not
find something useful," because of his personal prejudices not even
considering that the well-respected avian physiologist who performed them
may have had an important hypothesis in mind and would only have sacrificed
an animal for what she considered a good cause. Why her "good cause" is not
acceptable to Jack is a personal matter, not a condemnation of her methods.

To go from the death of a nutcracker, if it did die, to a linkage of
science with Auschwitz is a greater leap of prejudice than I could have
conceived before reading this. To compare the death of laboratory research
animals (always intended to be for a good cause, even if that is debatable)
with what went on during the Holocaust is at best in poor taste, at worst
an insult to my sensibilities as a rational human being, much less as a
practicing scientist.

I'm profoundly disturbed that there are attitudes like this in our society,
and I'm especially disappointed when they are expressed by an obviously
educated person. The irrationality of the comments to which I am responding
reminds me of T. Kaczynski's attitudes toward scientists. An anti-science
bias has been on the rise in recent years, often coupled with the rise of
spiritualism and metaphysics as guiding principles and a rejection of
rational thought. Along with anti-science goes anti-evolution. I don't feel
in jeopardy of being lynched, but I am running a little scared.

Dennis Paulson, Director phone 253-756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax 253-756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416
http://www.ups.edu/biology/museum/museum.html