In light of the escalating levels of intimidation and violence that some activists are using to protest animal testing in California, the University of California’s recent push for further legislation to protect its researchers is both commendable and necessary.
Traditionally, even the most extreme anti-animal-testing protests were limited to breaking open cages and abducting animals in illegal midnight raids of testing facilities. Though these practices damaged property and compromised lab security, they generally did not threaten the safety of the people working there.
In recent months, however, the Daily Bruin and other California publications have been reporting a new kind of animal activism ““ one that focuses instead on targeting researchers themselves, often in their own homes, and sometimes even threatening their families.
Many people rightly feel that this kind of “protest” sounds a lot less like free speech and a lot more like terrorism. In fact, despite the more global and extreme connotation that word has taken on in a post-Sept. 11 atmosphere, the recent attacks on researchers and their families could be accurately characterized as such.
For instance, in one well-publicized incident at UC Santa Cruz, masked protestors banged on the door of a researcher’s house and hit her husband with an object when he came to answer. In another recent attack, a small firebomb was ignited at the home of a UCLA researcher. Recognizing acts like these as terrorism would help justify strengthening existing laws to protect such researchers.
Since a large portion of California animal testing is hosted by the UC system, it is in the UC’s best interest to show support for its researchers through this legislation. Even when research is not directly funded by the university, the UC is informed of the nature of all research performed under its auspices and, therefore, offers at least some implicit approval of the methods undertaken by researchers, including animal testing. The UC, as well as the state of California, also ultimately tends to benefit from the results of such research. Therefore, the university has a responsibility to ensure the basic safety of the people performing such research.
The bill itself would significantly restrict access to personal information about researchers, such as phone numbers and personal addresses, and also give the UC the right to file civil suits on behalf of harassed employees.
Issues of freedom of information and freedom of speech have come up in arguments both supporting and opposing the bill. While some worry that the bill could be exploited to curtail legitimate protest, others are concerned that academic freedom cannot survive without it.
Many people have legitimate concerns about the ethics of animal testing; some feel passionately enough about it to participate in protests or affiliate themselves with animal rights groups.
The editorial board wholeheartedly believes that the ethics of animal testing is a difficult issue worthy of intelligent and ongoing debate. Those who are against animal research are entitled to disagree with and protest researchers’ actions. But they must not resort to immature and violent tactics that alienate people who may sympathize with their cause.
The tragedy of these recent attacks on researchers, their homes and their families is that they draw attention away from effective forms of protest and discussion, and tend to reduce the overall support for animal rights.