The FBI placed Daniel Andreas San Diego on it’s Most Wanted list of terrorists. He is apparently the first domestic terrorist to be added to a list which mostly contains international figures. The news release from the FBI:

“We have added San Diego to the Most Wanted Terrorists list to increase public awareness about this domestic terrorist fugitive and to aid in his arrest,” said Michael J. Heimbach, Assistant Director of our Counterterrorism Division, at a press conference today at FBI Headquarters in Washington. “We will not relent until San Diego is apprehended and his potential for future acts of violence and destruction is eliminated.”
Animal rights and environmental extremism pose a significant domestic terror threat. To date, extremists have been responsible for more than 1,800 criminal acts and more than $110 million in damages. Currently, we are investigating approximately 170 such extremist incidents across the country.

San Diego was initially identified as a suspect after being stopped by a local police officer for a minor traffic violation in Pleasanton about an hour before the Pleasanton bombing. A subsequent search of his home and vehicle revealed bomb-making materials similar to those used in both attacks, and he was later indicted for the crimes.
San Diego has been on the run since October 2003. He is six feet tall, weighs about 160 pounds, and has brown hair and brown eyes. He wears glasses, is known to carry a 9mm handgun, has traveled internationally, and may be living out of the country, possibly in Costa Rica. He is a vegan, and avoids consuming or wearing anything made with animal products. He also has distinctive tattoos–one on his chest is round and shows burning hills and plains with the words “It only takes a spark.”

Nice guy. An agent involved with the manhunt notes:

“The second bomb actually was wrapped in nails, and we believe it was intended to harm or kill the first responders.”

Read the rest of this entry »

A comment on a previous post alleged that the scientific enterprise has not taken the 3Rs (Reduction, Replacement and Refinement) seriously, leading to a failure to reduce the number of animals used in research. Subsequent comments from Paul Browne and Luigi provided links to actual data which refute this claim, however it remains an interesting question to explore.
One of the thornier problems in thinking about the justification of using animals is when two or more laudable goals call for opposing solutions. For today’s edition of virtual IACUC we will consider what to do when Refinement calls for the use of more animals, in obvious conflict with Reduction.

Read the rest of this entry »