Davidson's primary claim, that compassion and loving-kindness are enhanced by "compassion meditation" as practiced by the Dalai Lama and Davidson himself is evidently false.

If his claim were true, then over time his research methods would have become more kind and compassionate, but they haven't. In the mid 1990s Davidson discovered a way to identify particularly fearful young monkeys. Since making that discovery, he has continually published papers documenting the effects on the young monkeys' fear responses after various brain damaging procedures. It can be argued that Davidson's methods have actually become more brutal over the time that he has been practicing "compassion meditation." In a recent paper in this area, they explained: "Both hemispheres were lesioned in a single procedure by lifting the brain to expose its ventral surface. Using microscopic guidance, electro-cautery and suction were applied to the targeted brain area." (Role of the primate orbitofrontal cortex in mediating anxious temperament." Kalin NH, Shelton SE, Davidson RJ. Biological Psychiatry. 2007.)

Years of meditation, retreats with the Dalai Lama, and being a part of the Tibetan Buddhist community in Madison, have had no discernable effect on Davidson's research methods.

He actually addresses these concerns at the end of his talk on 'be happy like a monk'...

Darran,

I don't think he does. Maybe you can quote something specifically? Typically, at least in the five or so times I've heard him address the matter of using monkeys (only after being asked about it specifically), he says that he turns to the Dalai Lama for guidance on this issue, who says (according the Davidson) that so long as your intent is good, your actions are good. In other words, good intentions pave something other than the road to Hell.

He has never addressed the question of why, over the period of time that he has been practicing "compassion meditation" that his own work has not become less cruel. If you have a statement from him that addresses that, I'd be very very interested in reading it.

Honestly, you're overestimating the situation, and conflating Davidson's profession with his personal life. As a scientist, he directs 2 major laboratories that employ literally dozens of researchers who study all sorts of neuroscience questions. The monk studies get a lot of play in the media because people think they're going to see God on a monitor or something. :P

His professional responsibility to these researchers and to science shouldn't be limited by his personal meditation practice. Pointing fingers at the Buddhists is just a red herring. The ethical questions raised by primate research are valid, but there are other organizations that oversee this, with extraordinarily strict guidelines and high standards for any justifications about what is OK to include in a protocol.

Imagine if he were an Orthodox Jew -- would you then expect him to decree that no one works over the Sabbath? And if he didn't set that limit, would you then say "well, that proves that Judiasm is fake"? Seriously. I don't know what you do for a living, but does anyone expect your professional life to "prove" whether your personal interests are "real"?

I think you haven't heard him speak very often in a public venue. He spends much time on his Buddhist monk studies (and never mentions his monkey studies unless asked) and rarely fails to mention his personal relationship with the Dalai Lama. (He seems to always show images of himself and the Dalai Lama together.) His whole schtick in these presentations is that he can show scientifically that "compassion meditation" leads to one being more compassionate and happy; his "evidence" is the change he points to in the brain scans.

If his personal meditation practice and relationship with the Dalai Lama have not yielded the sort of changes in his own behavior that he claims to be documenting in people practicing "compassion meditation," then it suggests that his claims are wrong. Red herring? More like snake oil.

Ask him about the Dalai Lama's connection to the CIA. Ask him how much gold the DL got when he ordered gold turned in by serfs in Tibet. Ask him about the DL's enslavement of his people when he was there. The Dalai Lama is a con artist. Rick, you are so right. Changing the brain in this situation does not lead to more compassion. But it looks like we are embarking on a long road to funding more DL type research. BLECH!

I think these scientific studies are about creating a space for people to consider that these practises have some benefit before spending some time cultivating them - but actually we have our own research laboratory between our ears and its quite easy to see whether they would have benefit.
My own suggestion would be bring to mind a situation when you felt love from someone, spend a time recalling the details and don't get distracted by the "yes, but..." commentary that sometimes arises. So ask yourself (not a scientist or someone else) do you feel better as a result? If you do feel a benefit practise it often as you and see if it changes your own behaviour for the better. If you don't feel benefit just ignore it. I think this is the best validation.