my illegal research on humans at Ryerson on Jan 12 i read about Rye's new labspace at MARS, and thought: is Rye now running animal labs? i emailed Warren Wakarchuk, Chair of Chem & Biology: dear Dr. Wakarchuk, i read this morning about the completion of the new space at MARS, and my first thought was: does this mean Ryerson is now running animal labs? my [acquaintance] works in the East tower for a mouse lab - i know that MARS is an epicentre, and i wonder what 'wet lab' means, in Rye's case. please forgive what may strike you as an intrusive (crossfaculty) missive, but i'm find it distressing living in a world where humans do so much willful harm to our fellow Earthlings. and when it comes close to home (in this case, to my university) i feel compelled to speak for them. i thought i'd try addressing you, first. it seems you've thus far outsourced mouse-work to other labs (e.g. UNC and Queen's); but i suspect that will change, now. i wish there were a way you could do your (from what i can tell) important work without using animals. i had a long conversation with a U of T post-doc student last year (from [my acquaintance's] lab) and while he expressed much regret for what happens to the creatures therein, he took off his glasses, rubbed his eyes and conceded that the mouse model is still the 'gold standard', and the 'sacrifice' would continue for the foreseeable future. but he hopes for better (ethically) models. the computer models aren't quite there, perhaps. i wonder, then: shouldn't we be waiting till they are? the paradox of our use of non-human animals in research is that it is predicated on their similarity to us (hence the usefulness of the results even (often) in Psychology!); yet we must suppress that similarity to make it ethically plausible. [. . . ]i think of [rabbits and rats] as my mammalian brethren - perhaps you'll say i'm overstating their similarity. but in a lonely, mostly lifeless universe, man & mouse seem quite bound, to me. sincerely, paul bali dept of Philosophy i received no reply from Warren, so on Jan 22 i emailed his colleagues (in Bio & Chem) a tenquestion survey i composed at Survey Monkey. the survey and its results are Appendix A. dear Chem / Bio faculty and associated researchers: as part of my ongoing inquiry in animal ethics, i'm surveying Ryerson scientists about their views on & experiences with in vivo research. from what i can gather, Ryerson has so far outsourced in vivo experiment [e.g. Wakarchuk et al, 2016]. with the new wetlabs at MARS West, the construction of the Daphne Cockwell centre, and the opening of iBEST at St. Mike's, i wonder if Ryerson will now be collaborating more locally, or directly using animals in-house. the survey can be found here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/J22VYXV it might take ten minutes to complete, and results are anonymous. you're welcome to answer selectively, ignoring questions as you see fit. the ten questions are organized into three topics: 1. your own attitude to animal 'sacrifice' in Science. do you think it morally justified? are there any species you're unwilling to experiment on? (some researchers e.g. will 'do' mice & rats but not dogs or cats; will do dogs & cats but not primates, et cet.) did you have any qualms, verbalized or non - ? have you ever discussed the moral dimensions of animal use with colleagues, students, superiors? i'll also ask you to engage in a thought experiment, wherein a cognitivelydominant species breed and sacrifice humans to their superadvanced Science. 2. your personal experience with animal experiment. when (if ever) was your first use? your views on the prospect of animal use @ Ryerson. do you anticipate, in your own research, future animal use? 3. your views on alternate methods such as Virtual models, in vitro techniques. your familiarity with The Oxford Report on in vivo research [Normalizing the Unthinkable]. your familiarity with the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing [CAAT]. though i'll quantify, your comments (in the provided comment fields) are especially valuable to me. i'm strongly against in vivo research, whatever the gains. i'm also aware of the myriad ways all our lives are predicated on human dominance, of how implicated we're all in the benefits of in vivo research. i'm not, in this part of my research, concerned to judge so much as understand. sincerely, paul bali Dept of Philosophy i sent out to 68 Ryerson addresses, of which 11 were bouncebacks - i had to guess at the institutional addresses for some of the researchers - and over the next twelve days six people completed part or all of the survey. i thank those who took the time to reflect and respond. i've never doubted the decent intentions of most of our researchers, and i was confirmed in some of the responses. the last comment, to the last question ["you need ethics approval to do this survey with humans"] i thought was a petty snap-back, a joke. Phase 2 of my research Phase 2 of my research, a judgmental phase, began on Feb 3 when an email arrived from Ryerson's Research Ethics Board - a body i was ignorant of, whose requirements (in line with Federal ones) my survey had violated. my survey, it seems, is research involving human subjects, which needs an Okay from the REB. i could still apply, but if/when approval for your research is granted, it cannot be granted *retroactively*, so any data you've already gathered would need to be destroyed. our email exchange ends with the REB warning they're passing the case on to Ryerson's lawyers, accusing me of bringing Rye into violation of Federal Law. the day's full exchange is Appendix B. yes, i'm supposed to get approval. and had i sought it (before ever sending out my survey) the REB would likely have granted it. for me that's not quite the issue, now that an issue's being made. my view amounts to this: my survey should require no approval process whatsoever, apart from the decision of individuals to participate in it. on the other hand, research that involves e.g. gassing or decapitating the "subjects" should never be approved; and any body, board or college that approves such research is illegitimate. a necessary sacrifice in fact Ryerson has had Senate policy in place for animal research since Feb 1 2000, i now know. Senate policy asserts that animals may be used only if "every effort has been made to find a substitute." a typical in vivo policy: you can use them if there's no alternative. note, though: one alternative is simply not using them, and not doing the research. i know that hairless rats are killed off-campus and brought in for undergrads to dissect. perhaps this meets the Senate requirement in that it's not technically in vivo research - though note that most in vivo research ends with a dead animal, often dissected. also, Senate policy insists that "animal use" includes projects carried out in the field or in a facility not owned by Ryerson, or in collaboration with an outside institution(s) or co-researcher(s). so: how are these hairless rats being bred, fed, housed, killed? and in what sense is their use necessary, without alternative? these undergrad dissections are "necessary", perhaps, not for increasing human knowledge of rat physiology, but for getting future scientists accustomed to using animals. it's a ritual necessity, a "sacrifice" (the standard lab term) that initiates undergrads into our lab-culture. a semantic suggestion i advise saying in vivo only for research such as Jane Goodall's, whose subjects survive the research - a minimal requirement. we've much to learn from true in vivo research: such as rabbit-style kung fu which i've learned from my rabbit friends, and am using right now, typing out this sprightly doc. we've clearly learned much from the old Cartesian, murderous form of in vivo, too. humans have long drawn from the sacrifice: their centres of power are often altars where pure white beings are put to the blade and offered up for gain. these gains are real, by which i mean: Satan or something we may as well call Satan is real and we're deeply indebted to him: a being who keeps pristine accounts & is legal-minded. so what about all the ways my aging mother has benefitted from animal experiment, all the pills for her migraine? well, who gave her that migraine, first of all. and perhaps if we really want to help our mother we could start by henceforth refraining from stealing, genetically hobbling, and murdering her children. a request for info, denied on Feb 10 i submitted a Freedom of Info [FIPPA] request to Ryerson, seeking overview data on the last five years of in vivo research here. most Canadian Universities submit overview data, voluntarily, to the Canadian Council on Animal Care, so they can say "we've voluntarily submitted overview data to the Canadian Council on Animal Care" - which makes them sound like they care about animals. i asked for (i) the number and type of animals used in [Rye] teaching and research; (ii) the Purpose of the research [grouped into the CCAC's five categories]; and (iii) the Invasiveness of the research [again, grouped into the CCAC's categories]. i heard back from Rye's Privacy Officer on March 10. [pls see Appendix C] She denied my request, citing FIPPA exemptions 14(1)(e) and (i), according to which a public institution can withhold public info if they fear such info could "endanger life or physical safety of a person" or "endanger security of a building". perhaps the Privacy Officer googled me and learned of my vandalism at U of G in summer of 2015. but she cited a June 2016 precedent at Queen's University, who cited the same exemptions for a similar FIPPA request, and whom the Privacy Commissioner favoured in an Appeal. i wrote back to the Privacy Officer, same day: her Decision does confirm "that there is one (1) responsive record held by the Office of the Vice President Research and Innovation." one (1) responsive record, i like that. perhaps it's one (1) animal, daily fed & watered, in a room signed 'Utility' in Kerr Hall South, under the Gym where i'm often lost & turned back on my 'shortcuts' to class. this one (1) responsive record: a pkd Zebra, a McKenna Type One Entity, our own winking Eggy - the Animal seen as best he can, thru a cryptic redaction. this one (1) responsive record: the Tay-Sachs Ram? what Wakarchuk oversees, his compact lamb: [mouse, kid, ram, lamb - the Tay-Sachs Org themselves elide. ] when Temple fell in 70 A.D. the sacrifice was ended. [ a temple of Baal; where children were bled. ] or Temple's remade in the Research U & Hospital friends: in U of T, a rising Rye, we've Sick Kids, MARS, and the old Mount Sinai. or Temple's remade, in mosques at Eid.1 1 i'm not anti-semite, i'm anti-King and his quisling scribes. am anti the men with the knives. i'm one-third jewish, my mother is Jewish and i side with Isaiah, with Yahweh and Yeshua who spoke against the Sacrifice. i side with Asherah, the tree. here, my Appeal in lieu of a wearying, and likely-losing, Provincial Appeal i'll end, for now, by printing what i would've said, by writing under their heads: FIPPA requests are often re contentious issues, for info that could show the Providing Institution in a bad light - info that could make a college enemies. we need FIPPA precisely because of this. if a college can invoke the 14(1) exceptions to withhold info it worries could turn some of us against it, then the Act is undermined. almost any 'damaging info' could, conceivably, inspire vandalism, violence against the institution. swastikas are now and then scrawled on a carrel, on a toilet stall wall. can a college then invoke 14(1) to bury info on relations with Israel, on diversity stats of student/faculty? anti-abortionists might hound Departments who harbour liberal feminists, whose scholars, a FIPPA request reveals, are funded by women's clinics; eco-activists might smash the transom of a President's office shown to funnel Endowment into conflict minerals - might. for exceptions 14(1)(e) and (i) to apply, the petitioned institution should point to, if not demonstrate, a credible threat, local and specific. am i, paul bali, the threat to Rye? i did spraypaint ABATTOIR on a wall at U-Guelph in summer of 2015., am guilty of Criminal Mischief. yet Rye's decision cites the Queen's U precedent. did Queen's, too, have a local threat, deny e.g. Will Kymlicka? Professor Kymlicka condemns the Left for abandoning animals yet doesn't so far as i know vandalize. nor do i, anymore. i offer just my tiny survey and summing doc. am shamed by my Judge into a scholar's style, am older & cautious. we already know in vivo happens at Rye. the info sought would be of no use in planning an ALF invasion. the data could be damning - should twist good hearts into revulsion & rage. but the FIPPA exception doesn't quite say: 'we'll not release stuff that makes people mad.' i'll update this doc to version 3, if any development . . . Appendix A: survey on in vivo @ Ryerson

Appendix B: exchange with Ryerson Research Ethics Board. [some blurring of personal info]

Appendix C: Response from Ryerson Privacy Officer