At the recent SHAC trial in the US the defendants tried to hide behind the First Amendment – the right to free speech.  They were less concerned with their victims’ ‘inalienable right’ to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which precedes the First Amendment by 15 years.  The SHAC posse claimed that they could post what they liked on their website (home addresses, contact details, children’s school etc), but they were not responsible for the violence and intimidation thus incited: it was a legitimate tactic in their eyes.  The jury disagreed and the defendants are awaiting sentencing.

One posting on the SHAC site read, “Marsh employees: We know where you work, we know where you eat, we know where you sleep. Is HLS really worth it? We are winning.” SHAC took pains to claim that it was not responsible for the incidents, while at the same time applauded those who were.

If anyone was in doubt about the horrendous impact of these extremist tactics, then the account of Ed Walsh and his wife JoAnn McGee should put those uncertainties at rest.  Their work came under fire from PETA a decade ago because kittens were used in the study – never mind that the scientists hoped to help deaf children with their work.

Happily this sort of personal, individual harassment is rare; and thanks to recent changes in legislation, both in the UK and US, it is likely to become even more atypical.  Public acceptance of the need for carefully regulated animal research where there are no alternative has never been greater (opinion polls, Pro-Test, yadda yadda yadda), the media demonstrates an understanding of the issues involved, and scientists who speak out are no longer lone individuals but part of a group.