An article in the July issue of BBC Focus highlights dangerous jobs in science. It’s all about people risking their lives to advance our knowledge and understanding of the world today - covering everything from volcanologists and hurricane hunters, to deadly snake venom collectors. You may think perhaps a lab worker dealing with deadly cultures may be included in the roll call of dangerous jobs. However, it is not the working side of being a researcher that gives Michael Conn his place in the article.

Conn is an Associate Director of the Oregon National Primate Research Centre, and has been targeted by the increasingly powerful animal rights extremist movement in the US. It is the actions of this group that prompted him to draw on his experiences and write a new book with James Parker, called The Animal Research War. It looks at the arguments used by animal activists, and explains the truth behind animal research. 

With attacks on animal researchers on the increase in the US, over 60 scientists have produced a strong statement of support.  The commentary in the most recent issue of Biological Psychiatry calls for public support to help quash attacks that have been not only on scientists, but also their families.

From the statement:

These terrorist acts might intimidate people and institutions that would otherwise speak out in support of nonhuman primate research and against terrorism. By failing to take public action, we contribute to the isolation of the scientists involved and the institutions in which they work. Frustration with the absence of a vigorous public response to recent terrorist attacks led Robert Palazzo, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, Maryland to ask ‘Where’s the noise on this?’

Biological Psychiatry has provided free online access to this article.

The science journal Nature reports today that the ‘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’.

The UK crackdown on animal rights extremism – many extremists have already been prosecuted or are in jail awaiting trial – has led to a string of serious incidents on continental Europe, where the laws against such activity are worryingly lax.

All but two of the 150 Dutch MPs yesterday supported a motion standing up for biomedical research and condemning animal rights extremism. Christian Democrat MP Henk Jan Ormel had filed the motion during a parliamentarian debate on animal welfare. The only two MPs not to support the motion represent the Party for the Animals.

Following the UK government’s commitment to crack down on animal rights extremism with better laws and policing, the situation here is much improved. But unfortunately we have seen extremism displaced to other countries.

Since the high profile ‘Operation Achilles’ police raids and charges brought against around 20 animal rights extremists last year, it’s been rather quiet on the extremism front. Hardly surprising perhaps, since so many of the leading activists are serving time or are on remand.

Further positive news has surfaced this week.

Congratulations to Dr Vicky Robinson, Chief Executive of the NC3Rs, for the carefully worded response to the announcement that the Animal Liberation Front released 129 rabbits from a breeding facility in Lincolnshire.

The NC3Rs statement expressed great concern about the release of these animals. It pointed out:

These are captive bred animals which are not prepared to cope with life in the wild or as a pet. Putting them in this situation is not in their best interests and is likely to be stressful for them, regardless of ones view on the rights and wrongs of using animals in research.

In today’s Chronicle of Higher Education Mary Beth Sweetland – until recently VP and director of research and investigations for PETA and a close Newkirk associate – made a comment that is almost certainly not condoned by Newkirk and other animal rights bigwigs.

My years of experience with whistle-blowers have forced me to realize that I cannot label as monsters all who work in animal laboratories
- Unfortunately you need a subscription to access the full article

It’s a revelation that will come as no surprise to anyone that’s done animal research, or knows people who do.

However, this isn’t meant to be a gloat, and I hope Sweetland’s comment isn’t used against her by other activists.  It’s nice to see that some committed activists do appreciate the nuances of the debate.

All too often we only hear the views of people like Newkirk(1) who persist with the old, tired position of ‘anyone connected with animal research = sadistic torturer’.

Long may sense continue.

------------------------------------------------
(1) Described by Alex Pacheco, her PETA co-founder, as “a media whore” (USA Today, 19th Nov 2007), other mainstream activists such as Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, feel her ‘neither condemn nor condone’ attitude towards ALF actions is unhelpful – and morally wrong:

‘We’re demanding ethical consistency in the way people live their lives,’ Pacelle says. ‘Once you move into the domain of intimidation or illegal conduct beyond civil disobedience, you’re moving into a dangerous pile of quicksand.’
- PopMatters.com, 19th Nov 2007

The animal rights group SPEAK, campaigning against the new Oxford University biomedical research centre, is currently exercised by lack of support from the local Green party. They wrote recently to the Green party candidate, Chris Goodall, whose reply included the following: 

‘All [members] agree that we should focus strongly on advancing the methods used for testing so that we get rid of the need for animal experimentation soon…. I do stress that some members believe that a good portion of the work to be done in the [Oxford University] Lab is ethically imperative…. The Party feels that the moral and scientific case against the Lab, or some of its experiments, is undermined by the tactics used by some protestors. At certain times, the protests have been intimidatory and frightening, both to scientists and bystanders…. In particular, we understand that Martin [sic] Broughton has refused to rule out violence in the pursuit of the closure of the Lab.’

On a more light-hearted note (perhaps the animal rights groups do have a sense of humour after all?) Wendy the Windy Cow (I kid you not) launched Animal Aid’s Vegan Month on 1 November. Wendy will be:

‘farting her way across the country, stopping in other UK cities to deliver the message that animal farming has a massive impact on global warming. As part of her tour, she will be encouraging local people to take the veggie or vegan challenge.’

So animal rights groups like to colour themselves green, but only when it suits them. In fact, in relation to safety testing of chemicals that can affect the environment, the antivivisection and green agendas are poles apart.

The University of Oxford animal house is nearly completed. Now, animal rights extremists are desperately trying to ‘deploy new tactics’ for the time after the lab’s opening. Mel Broughton told The Oxford Student, ‘there will be a battle that we take to the University and the lab. Our tactics are evolving. We will be there fighting.’

Leading activists like Broughton and his friends from the ALF seem to have realised that they have lost all hope of stopping the Oxford lab. It looks like the extremists are under pressure from their supporters to show some action. The leaders of the animal rights movement have to justify why they are rapidly loosing public support. I could imagine many supporters of the movement are frustrated because the animal house is going to open soon and their (violent) tactics, justified by Broughton and his friends, seem to have clearly failed.

The extremist group SPEAK recently put out a call on its website (strangely it now seems to have disappeared) for ‘supporters of all varieties who are keen to speak to SPEAK’. Apparently the solicitors engaged to represent Mel Broughton (sued as representative of SPEAK in the Oxford injunction) are behind this call. Apparently this appeal ‘represents the only method SPEAK has of identifying who its supporters are, where they come from and how they identify with the campaign.’ It suggests that SPEAK has little real idea how many (few?) supporters it is has and what they are up to; the support base is unlikely to be as big as it claims. What is for sure is that it doesn’t have a clue how many of its supporters are law-abiding. 

Bad politics or bad blood?

What is going on between the radical animal rights group SPEAK, and the newer organisation known as SPEAK Political? We assumed that SPEAK political was the political wing of animal rights group. But we now understand they have little or nothing to do with each other. Have they fallen out?

There are no links on the SPEAK website to SPEAK Political, and vice versa. Neither organisation mentions each other in the ‘about us’ section.

All of this gives room for speculation: was SPEAK too radical for SPEAK Political? Did they fear they would reduce the already narrow chances to win any votes in the political centre ground? Or did an internal leadership struggle occur? Was it about funding? We may never know. The animal rights movement is renowned for its infighting and constant fracturing.

What seems to be clear is that there are serious doubts in the animal rights movement about the future of extremism. Some activists now recognise that supporting violent and illegal actions undermined their credibility. They seem to have finally realised that the vast majority of the British people do not approve of such tactics. I don’t know if the whole animal rights movement understands these changes, but the leading figures in the movement certainly have to answer some inconvenient questions now.

It is satisfying to hear that Julia Didrikson from Poole, Dorset has been sentenced to 5 months in prison for sending intimidating and threatening hate mail to employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Clearly these threats, described as vicious by the police, were very distressing for those involved. Didrikson used SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) websites and her own research to conduct an email hate campaign. She is the first person in the UK to be convicted under a section in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which deals with intimidation of persons connected with an animal research organisation. People who send threatening letters to individuals and their families are not above the law.

Jerry Vlask, self-appointed Animal Liberation Press Officer and swearer of the ‘Hypocritical’ Oath has once again publicly advocated misanthropic violence against researchers in defiance of the physician’s duty to ‘do no harm’.

Vlask’s latest rant is in comments on a pro-AR blog entry ‘arguments against violence as a campaign tactic’(!) – his comments are down the page and titled Animal Liberation Press Office said. They are so extreme, particularly the first one, that he alienates other AR commentators.

I could wax lyrical about the inconsistencies in his position, but someone has beaten me to the punch… I’ve just discovered a new blog ‘exposing animal rights idiocy’ which is entertaining, well-written and incisive. The Speciesists’ Corner is a (fairly) new kid on the block, from February this year.  Hopefully it’ll be around for the foreseeable future.

Okay - this is an exaggeration. The item is posted on the notorious ‘Biteback’ website, where the animal rights extremists post details of the various unpleasant actions they have taken against those they accuse of abusing animals. In fact that the claim is merely that they ‘rescued approximately 100 tadpoles from a fast drying pool’.

But there is a serious point here. Of the 266 incidents posted since the beginning of this year, only 44 are claimed for actions in the UK. And these have tailed off remarkably in recent months - there were only 12 in the past three months, including saving the traumatised tadpoles.

As reported last weekend in the Guardian, we have seen a sudden decline in the targeting of individual researchers around the country. At the same time, there is a steady rise in the number of institutions and individuals prepared to explain to the public why we need to use animals in research. It is vital that we keep this up. There has never been a safer time to speak out.

Around thirty people have been arrested today for alleged offences relating to animal rights extremism in raids across the UK and mainland Europe. The police say the ‘substantial operation’ targeted burglary, conspiracy to blackmail, and offences against animal research operations.

Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Leppard, who commanded the operation, said: ‘In recent years, animal rights extremists have conducted sustained campaigns of harassment and intimidation against the animal research industry, seeking to achieve their objectives by creating a climate of fear’.

The arrests are a great step forward in the fight against extremists and positive news for the European research community, which has the right to conduct its work without the fear of harassment and intimidation. The arrests in the Netherlands and Belgium show that the law enforcement agencies are increasingly successful in co-operating on an international level too. This has become necessary since animal rights fanatics widened their range of activities to mainland Europe. Today’s police action was successful and much evidence should have been secured that will aid in prosecution.

Whilst not every arrest leads to a successful prosecution, we hope this is a major step in bringing animal rights extremists to justice.