Animal Activism and Intimidation of Scientists

Abstract

Science Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy is on the mark with his call for institutions to support their scientists and researchers under siege by animal rights terrorists (“Animal activism: out of control,” 15 Sept., p. 1541). As directors of Americans for Medical Progress, we feel that it is equally important to urge the entire scientific community and their supporters to rally publicly for those targeted by extremists. ![Figure][1] Animal rights activists march in Miami 20 November 2003.CREDIT: MARC SEROTA/REUTERS Our scientific brethren in the United Kingdom have been unified and proactive in their successful efforts to moderate the public debate over the humane use of animals in research. Initiatives expressing popular support for animal research, such as Pro-Test and The People's Petition, have demonstrated that science will not be cowed and have helped scientists to speak out in public. The assault on University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) primate researcher Dario Ringach is an attack on responsible research being conducted everywhere. It is not enough for UCLA administrators, faculty members, and researchers to support him. All scientists and advocates of biomedical research should abandon their silence, speak out, and show public solidarity with our colleagues who are under threat. # {#article-title-2} In Response to Donald Kennedy's Editorial “Animal activism: out of control” (15 Sept., p. 1541), we say a pox on both sides. Although we criticize illegal and harassing conduct, we also criticize the persistent opposition to animal welfare measures and strident antiregulation posture of the research community. Millions of Americans care about animal welfare and also hold that harassment and violence are wholly unacceptable and inconsistent with a core ethic of promoting compassion and respect. The Humane Society of the United States, which represents nearly 10 million members and constituents, has repeatedly criticized individuals who break the law in the name of supposedly protecting animals. However, reasonable animal welfare proposals have been ignored by biomedical research institutions or dismissed with claims that they would lead to the end of all animal research. The biomedical community has opposed providing basic protections to mice, rats, and birds; eliminating the Class B dealers who continue to mistreat and sell pets into research; and stopping the use of chimpanzees in harmful research. But even more damning for a community that professes to encourage open and vigorous debate, organized academe dismisses legitimate animal welfare critics as dangerous zealots and engages in blatant political control of the terms and the content of the animal welfare debate. The biomedical research community plays into the hands of the radicals when it resists reasonable reforms. Their obduracy also hurts the efforts of groups like the Humane Society of the United States when we counsel young people to work through the system. # {#article-title-3} Donald Kennedy's Editorial “Animal activism: out of control” (15 Sept., p. [1541][2]) addresses an issue rarely raised in scientific journals despite an onslaught of activist and public agitation. Intimidation of scientists, whose studies are dependent on laboratory animals, has a long extremist-based history in both the United States and Europe. Congressional action on H.R.4239 (the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act) to defend against direct and indirect attacks on those involved in research and their families is encouraging and should be supported by all in the scientific community. The failure of the scientific organization hosting the research to publicly defend the use of animals by one of its scientists is not uncommon. Such reluctance seems irrational in light of the fact that institutions review such research before it is conducted, assure granting agencies such as the NIH that appropriate care and use of animals will occur, and accept the funding, including indirect costs, to conduct the studies in question. Likewise, corporate and privately funded institutes dedicated to the advancement of biomedical research are often less-than-inspired defenders of their employees and the need to utilize animals in the advancement of knowledge. Admittedly, there have been some rare cases where scientists have failed to comply with the common-sense and legal requirements that enable us to have the privilege to work with animals. However, the future of life sciences and those interested in pursuing science as a career depends on our scientific institutions publicly expressing support for the type of work needed to advance mankind, including the use of research animals. [1]: pending:yes [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1134384