Links for Keyword: Animal Rights

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, or subscribe to our mailing list, to receive news updates. Learn more.


Links 41 - 60 of 109

Our author finds Jeffrey Masson's "divertingly amateurish" style likely to broaden the audience for the animal-rights movement in a way that Peter Singer and Matthew Scully never could by B. R. Myers Although linked by a subtitle to his innocuous best sellers about dogs and cats, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson's The Pig Who Sang to the Moon reads suspiciously like a veiled attack on meat-eating—until page three, that is, when the veil comes off. It is a more muddled attack than we have come to expect from the animal-rights movement, but that may be why it works so well. Most of us want to be talked out of enjoying our favorite foods about as much as we want to be talked into studying The Watchtower in our spare time; we're more likely to let people try to convert us if we don't think they've spent years perfecting their harangue. Masson, then, may be just the sort of spokesman the animals have been waiting for. His approach is so divertingly amateurish, his logic so far from airtight, that we see no harm in letting him ramble on for just one more chapter—only to find we've turned the last page, and he has affected us by the simple decency of his example. Unless the author thinks that quoting Gandhi is the way to cast an awed hush over neighborhood barbecues, he did not write The Pig Who Sang to the Moon for the average American meat eater. The publishers, for their part, must have known that the PETA crowd would be put off by the open-doored fantasy barn on the cover and the absence of grisly photographs inside. No, this book is aimed squarely at the James Herriot-reading fellow travelers of the animal-rights movement: those kindhearted people who are always looking for ways to help, even if it means donating a perfectly good exercise machine to the Humane Society thrift shop; the ones who are so appalled by factory farms that they've pretty much given up meat entirely, especially veal, unless, of course, they're at someone's house; these are the people who assume an air of solidarity with the movement that drives it stark raving mad. Copyright © 2004 by The Atlantic Monthly Group

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 5167 - Posted: 06.24.2010

By PATRICK HEALY HICKSVILLE, N.Y., — Animal activists said on Wednesday that they were outraged by a history of problems at the Long Island Reptile Museum and called for the gallery of snakes, lizards and turtles to be shut down. The activists, who have visited the museum and taken some of its animals for rehabilitation, called conditions there the most deplorable they had ever seen. During a visit by the activists in the spring, they said, the reptiles were emaciated and dehydrated, some were covered with red and black mites and some dead animals remained on display. In addition, they said snakes and large lizards had escaped from their cages and were crawling around the rafters, a potential threat to visitors. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 4611 - Posted: 06.24.2010

By MARK DERR Polar bears, lions, tigers, cheetahs and other wide-ranging carnivores do so poorly in captivity that zoos should either drastically improve their conditions or stop keeping them altogether, biologists from Oxford University report today in the journal Nature. Zookeepers have long recognized that some species thrive in captivity while others languish. Today the researchers, Dr. Georgia Mason and Dr. Ros Clubb, say the problems — including high infant mortality and a tendency to pace around and around in the cage — are directly related to the size of the animal's home range in the wild. The typical zoo enclosure for a polar bear is one-millionth the size of its home range in the wild, which can reach 31,000 square miles, the authors said. Some captive polar bears spend 25 percent of their day in what scientists call stereotypic pacing, and infant mortality for captive animals is around 65 percent. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 4324 - Posted: 06.24.2010

By DAVID GONZALEZ CANCÚN, Mexico — Thousands of tourists come here every year to swim with dolphins, expecting mystical encounters or unmatched educational experiences. Whether at water parks or even at a mall, the price for an hour's swim is about $100 — not counting the videos, photographs, T-shirts or dolls to commemorate fleeting moments riding atop the snouts of two sleek creatures. But the real cost is much higher, according to a growing international protest movement of environmentalists and animal rights advocates who say there is nothing educational about turning wild animals into lucrative rides and who are outraged over the recent deaths of two captive dolphins at an amusement park. Their past protests led the Mexican government to ban the capture of local dolphins, and the legislature is considering prohibiting imports as well. Now the protesters have turned the tourist-rich Yucatán Peninsula, where there are now nine swim programs, into the front lines of the dolphin wars. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 4323 - Posted: 06.24.2010

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN UNITED NATIONS, — Monkeys experimentally infected with a new coronavirus have developed an illness similar to the mysterious human respiratory disease SARS, and it is now almost certain that the coronavirus causes the disease, a World Health Organization official said here today. Dr. David L. Heymann, executive director in charge of communicable diseases for W.H.O., said the agency "is 99 percent sure" that SARS is caused by the new coronavirus based on the monkey experiments in the Netherlands. Experiments on animals are necessary because the lack of an effective treatment for SARS and the relatively high death rate make it unethical to conduct such experiments on humans. Preliminary findings show that the monkeys developed an illness resembling SARS after the coronavirus was put in their nostrils. Some monkeys developed pneumonia, and examination of their lungs under a microscope showed that the coronavirus caused a pattern of lung damage similar to what affected humans have suffered. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 3696 - Posted: 06.24.2010

By IVER PETERSON PRINCETON, N.J., — An odd teaming of animal rights advocates and sports hunters have at least temporarily derailed Princeton Township's ambitious program to thin its deer population by using professional sharpshooters. On Thursday, the state's Fish and Game Council, a majority of whose voting members represent hunting interests, narrowly voted to stop the five-year program after its second year because they were offended by some of the methods used by White Buffalo Inc., the professional hunters, and because they wanted Princeton to open its public lands to sports hunting instead. "They were concerned that the town and the White Buffalo group were killing deer that hunters should be able to kill," the council chairman, W. Scott Ellis, said today. Mr. Ellis said he had been surprised by the 5-4 vote, with one member abstaining and Mr. Ellis, as chairman, not voting. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 3316 - Posted: 06.24.2010

by Dave Munger The recent fatal attack of a SeaWorld trainer by the orca Tilikum has led to renewed questions about how humans should deal with potentially intelligent animals. Was Tilikum’s action premeditated, and how should that possibility influence decisions on the animal’s future treatment? Orcas, like their close relatives, dolphins, certainly seem smart, though researchers debate just how intelligent these cetaceans are and how similar their cognition is to humans. Should we ever treat such creatures like people? For centuries it seemed obvious to most people what separated them from other animals: Humans have language, they use tools, they plan for the future, and do any number of things that other animals don’t seem to do. But gradually the line between “animal” and “human” has blurred. Some animals do use tools; others solve complicated problems. Some can even be taught to communicate using sign language or other systems. Could it be that there isn’t a clear difference separating humans from other life forms? Last week, Brian Switek, a science writer who blogs about biology and paleontology, found a study demonstrating that tool use in chimpanzees isn’t a new phenomenon. For decades, scientists have been observing chimps using sticks and other objects as tools. They have even seen chimps modifying these tools and transporting them for anticipated use in the future. But until recently, there had been no evidence that tool use among chimps had a very long history. Wild chimpanzees in the Tai National Park in Côte d’Ivoire have been observed using stones as hammers and anvils for cracking large nuts. A team led by archaeologist Julio Mercador found evidence that these tools were being used as long as 4300 years ago: Ancient stones shaped similarly to those being used today as tools. Their research was published in PNAS in 2007. ©2005-2009 Seed Media Group LLC

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook; Chapter 15: Emotions, Aggression, and Stress
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior; Chapter 11: Emotions, Aggression, and Stress
Link ID: 13904 - Posted: 06.24.2010

Randy Harris THE first farm animal Gene Baur ever snatched from a stockyard was a lamb he named Hilda. That was 1986. She’s now buried under a little tombstone near the center of Farm Sanctuary, 180 acres of vegan nirvana here in the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York. Back then, Mr. Baur was living in a school bus near a tofu factory in Pennsylvania and selling vegetarian hot dogs at Grateful Dead concerts to support his animal rescue operation. Now, more than a thousand animals once destined for the slaughterhouse live here and on another Farm Sanctuary property in California. Farm Sanctuary has a $5.7 million budget, fed in part by a donor club named after his beloved Hilda. Supporters can sign up for a Farm Sanctuary MasterCard. A $200-a-seat gala dinner in Los Angeles this fall will feature seitan Wellington and stars like Emily Deschanel and Forest Whitaker. As Farm Sanctuary has grown, so too has its influence. Soon, due in part to the organization’s work, veal calves and pregnant pigs in Arizona won’t be kept in cages so tight they can’t turn around. Eggs from cage-free hens have become so popular that there is a national shortage. A law in Chicago bans the sale of foie gras. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 10531 - Posted: 06.24.2010

Andy Coghlan Experiments on non-human primates are the only option for some areas of medicine, according to a report published by the UK’s Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust on Friday. The report lists medical advances that they claim would have been impossible without experiments on monkeys. The publication of the report looks set to aggravate a bitter propaganda war between pro- and anti-vivisectionists trying to win public support on the issue of primate experiments. On Monday, a report is expected to be launched by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection calling for a complete ban on monkey experiments in the UK on moral as well as scientific grounds. At the heart of the debate is a controversial animal testing laboratory under construction at the University of Oxford, which will be used to investigate neurological diseases through experiments on monkeys. It has been the focus of ongoing protests by animal rights campaigners and more recently by pro-vivisection groups such as ProTest. Speaking at a press conference on Friday, Wellcome Trust director Mark Walport told journalists: “No one likes doing primate experiments, but some research can only be done on monkeys.” © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 8998 - Posted: 06.24.2010

Notebook by Mick Hume TO BE HONEST, I never expected to find myself in bed with Esther Rantzen. I now discover, however, that she is a patron of Patients’ Voice for Medical Advance (until recently known as Seriously Ill for Medical Research), a fine organisation that defends animal experimentation. Which puts us on the same side on one of the most divisive issues of the day. “Whose side are you on?” is a famous slogan of the old Left-Right divide, which you don’t often hear in our age of soulless managerial politics when, as the Monty Python song predicted, accountancy really does seem to make the world go around. But there are different divisions that matter today, drawing new lines in the political and cultural sands. One such divide is embodied by two protests around animal research due to take place in Oxford tomorrow. On one side will be the usual anti-vivisection demonstration against the building of Oxford University’s biomedical research laboratory. On the other side will be a demonstration in support of the lab and animal research. It has been called by a group called Pro-Test, set up by a 16-year-old from Swindon and now run by Oxford students, that stands for “science, reasoned debate, and above all, the welfare of mankind” (www.pro-test.org.uk). Neither of these is likely to be a mass demo. But the clash does symbolise something bigger, and to declare which side you are on is to make a statement about the sort of world in which you want to live. Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 8601 - Posted: 06.24.2010

Juliet Clutton-Brock In Hunters, Herders, and Hamburgers, Richard W. Bulliet divides the history of human-animal relations into four eras: separation, the time when he presumes that humans or pre-human hominids became self-aware as a species; predomestic, the period of hunter-gathering; domestic, lasting from the Neolithic until, say, 1900, when around 40 per cent of US citizens lived on farms and were self-sufficient on their land; post-domestic, our present age of mass production when only about 2 per cent of US citizens live on farms. These divisions are used by Bulliet as a basis for his hypothesis that the changing patterns of how humans perceive animals, both wild and domestic, are a reflection of the development of societies over time. However, the divisions might have been easier to understand if domestic had been named the “age of the home farm” and post-domestic the “age of the factory farm”. In Bulliet’s view, domestic societies lived close to the land, and people took for granted the killing of farm animals and had few moral qualms about consuming animal products. In early domestic societies, the sacrificial killing of animals was common practice, while later, in Europe, blood sports such as bear- and bull- baiting were immensely popular. In post-domestic societies, there has been a great change, and with the divorce from the realities of keeping, breeding and killing livestock, people experience feelings of guilt, shame and disgust when they think about the industrial processes to which domestic animals are subjected. In future, as urbanism spreads, post-domestic people will be separated increasingly from live animals and they will gain their only experiences of them from print and from the electronic media.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 8156 - Posted: 06.24.2010

A documentary film proves that laboratory rats can still survive in the wild. MARK PEPLOW An award-winning film has created some unusual stars: lab rats. The documentary, which follows 75 lab rats after they were released into an Oxfordshire farmyard, has surprised biomedical researchers by proving that lab rats quickly recover their wild behaviour once liberated. Manuel Berdoy, an animal behaviourist from Oxford University, didn’t set out to make a documentary. He was simply curious about whether lab rats retain some of their wild instincts. So he took 75 docile rats that had spent their lives in the laboratory and released them into the wild. Berdoy expected the rats to cope with their new conditions, but he was impressed by how quickly they adapted. The rats found water, food and hiding holes almost immediately. They started to establish social hierarchies within days, and it was only a few weeks before they had established an extensive pattern of paths across the colony. Although the rats had spent their whole lives being fed on pellets, the females immediately prepared for pregnancy by foraging and storing appropriate food. © Nature News Service / Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2004

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 4909 - Posted: 06.24.2010

Geoff Brumfiel A rash of vandalism, intimidation and arson across continental Europe in 2008 is evidence of a worrying new wave of animal-rights extremism being exported from Britain, experts say. In early January, threats led to a Dutch developer withdrawing from a new, €60 million (about US$89 million) biomedical research park in Venray, the Netherlands. A month later, Hasselt University's Biomedical Research Institute in Diepenbeek, Belgium, was set on fire. And in Barcelona in Spain, vandals targeted the offices of biomedical-research firm Novartis. The pattern “is quite clear-cut”, according to Simon Festing, director of the Research Defence Society, a London-based group representing medical researchers. Festing says that he believes new, more stringent enforcement in the United Kingdom has led many extremists to move their activities overseas. “Activists are not finding it easy here,” he says. “So they're just going across to Europe.” Over the past year, the United Kingdom has cracked down on animal-rights activists who break the law. Last May, police carried out Operation Achilles that led to charges against 16 activists. A trial involving several of them is expected to begin later this year. © 2008 Nature Publishing Group

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 11344 - Posted: 06.24.2010

Notebook by Mick Hume NONE OF MY best friends are chimpanzees or gorillas. I have never had a problem seeing “our closest cousins” as suitable subjects for scientific research that could improve the human lot. Better to be thought a “speciesist” than be a specious sentimentalist. Now scientists have mapped the genetic blueprint of the chimpanzee, establishing that we share almost 99 per cent of functional genes and 96 per cent of our wider DNA. Arguments about our genetic closeness were used to ban experiments on great apes in the UK in 1986. But look at things from the perspective of human liberation for a change, and we could draw the opposite conclusion. Surely it is our genetic similarity to these great apes that could make it medically useful to experiment on them. And it is the yawning difference between us and them that should make it morally acceptable. “The philosophical goal is that we all want to know what makes us human,” says one of the international research team that sequenced the chimp genome. “The pragmatic goal is that it will help us understand diseases and conditions that are unique to humans.” No doubt genetic research will bring many benefits. However, studying the genetic make-up of great apes, or indeed of Homo sapiens, will never tell the full story of “what makes us human”. Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 7854 - Posted: 06.24.2010

By Jennifer Squires SANTA CRUZ -- A vandal cut the brake lines on a UC Santa Cruz researcher's SUV late Saturday or early Sunday, and the Police Department has called in the FBI to help investigate. However, unlike prior attacks on UCSC staff, the scientist's work did not involve medical testing on animals, police reported. About seven FBI agents were at the researcher's Westside home Monday afternoon. Some agents peered under the sport utility vehicle to inspect the damage and collected pieces of snipped brake lines in plastic evidence bags. Other agents canvassed the neighborhood for witnesses. The 55-year-old researcher, whose name was not released, called police around 11 a.m. Sunday to report the vandalism to his SUV, which was parked in front of the researcher's house on the 1200 block of Laurent Street, according to Santa Cruz Deputy Police Chief Rick Martinez. "It's not something we see every day," Martinez said, referencing the cut brake lines. "Why was this one vehicle specifically targeted? ... Was this to injure the driver? Was it to send a message? Was it a threat? These are all questions we're trying to sort out right now." University officials had no comment about the incident and referred all questions to Santa Cruz police. A public records search of the house's address cross-referenced with the UCSC faculty directory showed the researcher works in the biology department at UCSC. The Sentinel is not naming the researcher. © 2010 - Santa Cruz Sentinel

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 14113 - Posted: 06.24.2010

Amber Dance Scientists in the United States must publicly discuss the merits of animal research if they are to win over the public and neutralize the threat from activists. That was the view of animal-research supporters at a landmark panel discussion yesterday, which saw them come face to face with anti-vivisectionists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). In recent years, University of California scientists have faced threats of violence from animal-rights activists, with firebomb incidents at the Los Angeles and Santa Cruz campuses. But Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist at the University of Oxford, UK, and a vocal supporter of animal research who has faced numerous attacks from activists, said that scientists in the United Kingdom have made progress in dealing with the problem by engaging with the media and the public. "The only way to breakthroughs is to have the courage to be open," Blakemore told Nature. But examples of such dialogue have been few and far between in the United States. "Scientists for a long time have not fulfilled society's expectations of being fully engaged about what they're doing," said J. David Jentsch, a UCLA neuroscientist and founder of the UCLA Pro-Test for Science animal-research advocacy group, before the event. "We really felt the time was ripe." © 2010 Nature Publishing Group

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 13782 - Posted: 06.24.2010

by Ewen Callaway WITH "hormone-free", "cage-free" and "antibiotic-free" becoming common labels on our supermarket shelves, might "pain-free" be the next sticker slapped onto a rump roast? As unlikely as that may seem, progress in neuroscience and genetics in recent years makes it a very real possibility. In fact, according to one philosopher, we have an ethical duty to consider the option. "If we can't do away with factory farming, we should at least take steps to minimise the amount of suffering that is caused," says Adam Shriver, a philosopher at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. In a provocative paper published this month, Shriver contends that genetically engineered pain-free animals are the most acceptable alternative (Neuroethics, DOI: 10.1007/s12152-009-9048-6). "I'm offering a solution where you could still eat meat but avoid animal suffering." I'm offering a solution where you could still eat meat but avoid animal suffering Humans consume nearly 300 million tonnes of meat each year. Our appetite for flesh has risen by 50 per cent since the 1960s, and the trend looks set to continue. Most of this will likely come from factory farms, notorious for cramped quarters and ill treatment of animals. Battery farm chickens, for instance, routinely have part of their beaks removed without anaesthetic or pain relief to prevent them from pecking their neighbours. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook; Chapter 8: General Principles of Sensory Processing, Touch, and Pain
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior; Chapter 5: The Sensorimotor System
Link ID: 13242 - Posted: 06.24.2010

By Steve Connor, Science Editor The number of animals used in scientific research last year rose by 15 per cent on the previous year bringing the total to nearly 3.6 million - the greatest number of animals involved in laboratory experiments for almost 20 years. Statistics released today by the Home Office showed that the number of experiments involving animals that were started in 2008 also rose by about 14 per cent to just under 3.7 million "procedures", an increase that closely matched the total number of animals used. This represents a 39 per cent increase in animals experiments since Labour came to power in 1997. The number of animals used in experiments had begun to fall in the 1990s but in the past decade it has increased steadily each year largely due to the rise in the number of genetically modified mice used in biomedical research. Last year's increase in the number of animal experiments was the biggest for more than two decades. Lord West, the Home Office minister responsible for regulating animal research, said that an overall increase in the amount of biomedical research carried out in Britain largely explains why there has been such a large rise in the number of animals used in experiments as well as the increase in procedures. "Today's statistics show an increase in the number of procedures being undertaken, and the overall level of scientific procedures is determined by a number of factors, including the economic climate and global trends in scientific endeavour," Lord West said. ©independent.co.uk

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 13088 - Posted: 06.24.2010

by Peter Fraser ANIMAL welfare legislation generally applies only to vertebrates. There are, however, moves to include invertebrates. Proposed changes to European law, for example, would extend welfare laws to crabs and lobsters. Up to now the only invertebrate protected is the common octopus. "Invertebrate rights" has become a campaigning issue. Advocates for Animals recently produced a report which concludes that there is "potential for experiencing pain and suffering" in crustaceans. The group is particularly concerned about boiling lobsters alive. The wider public is also showing interest. Research supposedly demonstrating that hermit crabs feel and remember pain received worldwide news coverage (Animal Behaviour, vol 77, p 1243). I find the evidence unconvincing. One key argument put forward for protecting crustaceans hinges on similarities between their nervous systems and our own. Such similarities are taken as prima facie evidence that mammals feel pain. Surely this applies to invertebrates too? It is true that crustaceans have neural systems similar in some respects to those involved in human pain, but there are also important differences. The brains of lobsters and crabs have only 100,000 neurons compared with 100 billion in mammals. Their nerves conduct signals 100 times more slowly, and their brains lack the higher centres necessary for a mammal to suffer pain. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 13043 - Posted: 06.24.2010

Animal rights activists have claimed responsibility for the Saturday firebombing of a vehicle outside a UCLA neuroscience researcher's home, the Daily Bruin reports. No one was injured in the latest in a string against scientists who use animals in their research. There have been at least four firebombings since the beginning of 2008. On Monday, the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which says it speaks on behalf of the activists, posted a statement on its website that threatened to continue to harass the targeted researcher until he stops his study. FBI and university police are still investigating the attack, and extra security has been placed at the home of the scientist, whose name is being withheld. So far, police say they have no leads, but they are offering a $445,000 reward for information leading to the arrests of individuals responsible for the various attacks on UCLA researchers. That includes $25,000 added after Saturday's attack. © 2009 U.S.News & World Report LP

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 12636 - Posted: 06.24.2010