Friday, November 5, 2010

One of the "20 best primatology blogs" advocates murder of animal researchers

It's come to my attention that Primate Freedom, one of the blogs on the list I posted yesterday, is a site that advocates extremist violence against animal researchers (or "vivisectionists"). I apologize for not catching this sooner and offering that disclosure with my original post. I have decided to NOT delete my original post, however. I think it's important we know about these sites and groups. Not notifying our community of their existence does not change the reality that they do in fact exist.

I encourage BANDIT readers to leave a comment on the 20 best blogs site to let them know the full nature of the blog they are promoting. This link is chilling, and you can follow a link therein to the original Primate Freedom blog post.

I have left two comments that are currently awaiting moderation. Stay tuned to see if they see the light of day...


  1. This is why the "top 20" blog posts are bogus. No one who knew anything about primatology or primatology blogs would put that in there. How frustrating!

  2. Thanks for getting the word out on that Julienne.

  3. Just an FYI, seems to be a scam site, so don't link back to them. I think they are just trying to increase their search rank by getting lots of link back.

    If you read the other posts they made, it seems that they are just fishing for blogs to link their site.

    The higher your search rank is, the more "expensive" your site is. It seems like that is what they are trying to do. If I'm correct, they will be selling that domain name later.

  4. Thanks for the comments, folks. I agree that the site is just an aggregator-for-hire, but since it is out there and it is seeing some traffic, and because for the most part the blogs they chose and the analysis of each was pretty good, some effort is going in to these lists. Our students may come across them and have questions about the inclusion of sites like Primate Freedom, so I view this as an educational opportunity, as it has been for me.

  5. Anyone actually reading the posts on the Primate Freedom blog would know that this isn't true, and relying on selective quotations from an industry front group as proof doesn't show much critical thought.

    The use of violence is examined openly on the Primate Freedom blog so its pretty easy to make false claims to the effect that the essays there promote its use.

    Here are some examples of that discussion:

  6. Interesting comment from Rick Bogle, the founder of Primate Freedom and the author of the following words, posted on his own blog after the more moderate-sounding posts he offers us:

    "Trauma surgeon Jerry Vlasik has suggested, and I think he's right, that if just a few vivisectors were murdered that millions of animals might be spared much suffering. Many vivisectors would simply quit. I don't see how this isn't likely to be true; the hypothesis hasn't been tested though. It might be the same with furriers, ranchers, and others.

    Extending this line of thought, if one were to start killing vivisectors in order to terrorize other vivisectors into stopping their diabolical investigations, should the murders be secret? sanitary? neat? Maybe not. It makes a certain sort of dark sense that one very sensational murder could have a greater impact than many hidden murders. There is an equation of sorts suggested by this. If it's true that a series of murders might slow the attack on animals in the labs, wouldn't lives be saved if the smallest number of murders possible were employed? What might be done to make one murder more noteworthy or a more efficient tool than another?"

  7. Lest there be any doubt on Rick Bogle's position on murder and violence of researchers, let me offer you his own words. This text is extracted (unedited) from an email he sent a young UCLA graduate student about me (Dated 5 May 2009). I'd be happy to provide the actual email to anyone for the purposes of verification:

    Rick Bogle: "I guess I am in the "small camp" that would condone violence against people who do things to others like Jentsch does; I personally find what he does so far outside the bounds of moral behavior that any means of ending his work is justified. Cruelty can indeed be so gross
    as to warrant means that would otherwise be unthinkable.

    Maybe I wouldn't have had the courage to have killed Mengele, but I wouldn't have criticized anyone who did, and I can't imagine very many
    other people doing so either."

    First off, his understanding of my scientific work is grossly deficient. Feel free to read through the comments on this blog to hear his analysis of my work and my responses to it (

    Secondly, according to him, not "many other people" would criticize murder? Certainly, his understanding of the moral and ethical position of the vast majority of humans is terribly askew. Fortunately, only a tiny and deranged minority share his dreams of and lust for the assassination and murder of humans.