CLARIFICATION: This article was submitted by Christopher J. Evans on behalf of the members of the Neuroscience Planning Committee representing neuroscience leadership at UCLA: Tyrone Cannon, Ph.D.; Marie-Françoise Chesselet, M.D., Ph.D.; Jean Devellis, Ph.D.; Christopher J. Evans, Ph.D. (Chair); Fawzy Fawzy, M.D.; Michael Levine, Ph.D.; Neil Martin, M.D.; John Mazziotta, M.D.; Roberto Peccei, Ph.D.; Alan Robinson, M.D.; Barney Schlinger, Ph.D.; Peter Whybrow, M.D.
SUBMITTED BY: Christopher J. Evans
UC President Mark G. Yudof and 10 UC Chancellors stated on Feb. 26, “We have a responsibility to speak out against activities that promote intolerance or undermine civil dialogue.”
As faculty concerned about the recent responses of a minority of animal rights activists, we wholeheartedly agree with the UC leadership’s sentiment. We express our strongest support for the efforts of our colleagues to begin a civil dialogue around the issues of animal use in research and condemn any attempt to derail these efforts via threats, harassment or violence.
The polarization of factions in support of, or against, research that involves animal subjects is not conducive to resolving the core issues that fuel the actions of animal rights activists. The attacks on researchers, their families and associates, that in turn require counter-responses by law enforcement, can only increase the polarization and worsen the situation. Reasonable approaches other than protests and threats must be put in place to find some acceptable common ground and code of conduct.
Bruins for Animals and Pro-Test for Science took what we feel is a step in the right direction by jointly hosting a debate of the thorny issues. An informative and lively discussion ensued on the science and ethics of biomedical research using animals. Arguments on both sides had validity but the important point was that there was discussion and a heartfelt sharing of views on the issues held by those on each side. Fully understanding the issues and beliefs by both sides are critical elements to reducing the escalating confrontations.
Disappointingly, just preceding the recent debate, some animal rights extremists had harassed UCLA investigators and debate participants at their homes and via Web sites. Organizers and panelists on both sides of the event condemned this harassment and to their credit, the debate was not derailed.
Subsequent to the debate, there has been a completely intolerable response by some animal rights activists. There was suggestion made that the children of animal researchers debating the issues should be legitimate targets of protests, which in our view would be harassment of the most despicable kind.
We support fully the opinions voiced by Pro-Test for Science that no one should tolerate the attempts to bully and silence voices of either scientists or animal rights activists who are committed to an open dialogue that will allow the public to become better educated on the important issues involving animal use in research.