In response to numerous acts of violence against UCLA researchers by animal rights activists, faculty and students have joined together to form UCLA Pro-Test.
The group, organized by David Jentsch, an associate professor of psychology, is aimed at promoting the university’s advocacy of animal research and showing solidarity for researchers who have been subject to harassment.
Jentsch said he decided to create the group after activists firebombed his car last month.
“One thing I realized when this happened to me is that it had an effect on a lot of other people, including my students and colleagues,” Jentsch said. “It caused them a lot of pain and frustration. I decided something had to be done.”
Jentsch said the group will hold a rally on April 22 to reach out to the UCLA community.
Tom Holder, who organized a similar animal research advocacy group at Oxford University, and John Young, the chairman of Americans for Medical Progress, are expected to speak at the rally.
Members of the UCLA administration, patients who have benefitted from animal-research findings, students and faculty will likely be in attendance, Jentsch said.
“My goal is to reach out to people not just in the university but people whose lives are impacted by research, basically everyone,” he said.
“We need to continue to pursue reasoned, valid research. Everyone has a vested interest in this,” he added.
Jerry Vlasic, a spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Front and advocate of animal rights activists, said he disagreed with the university’s endorsement of animal research.
“(UCLA) continues to advocate outdated research techniques instead of more modern, humane alternatives. They’re wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and killing more animals every year. There’s no science behind it,” Vlasic said.
The Animal Liberation Front speaks on the behalf of activists who commit acts of violence or harassment against animal researchers. The group endorses but does not participate in these illegal acts.
Vlasic argued that UCLA Pro-Test was formed to trick the public into sympathizing with animal researchers and avoid talking about substantial issues.
“These are the similar stale tactics that have been utilized before to advocate uneducated techniques ““ it’s the behavior of people who are unwilling to change or compromise,” he said.
Vlasic compared the animal rights movement to revolutions led by Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr.
He said activists only resorted to violence against researchers after years of failed attempts to negotiate with the university.
In a message posted on their Web site last Thursday, members of the Animal Liberation Front challenged Jentsch and other UCLA Pro-Test founders to a debate over the merits of animal research.
UCLA has shrugged off the challenge to debate.
“It is the university’s decision not to engage in debate or dialogue with those who have refused to condemn violence,” said Phil Hampton, assistant director in the UCLA Office of Media Relations.
He added that the university has made clear its belief in the importance of animal research in leading to important scientific studies and said the university is “committed to continuing the controlled, highly regulated, humane use of animals.”
Jentsch said he was more open to the possibility of holding a debate but agreed that this would not happen until animal rights advocates renounced violence.
He said the members of the Animal Liberation Front are dealing in black and white terms and refusing to see the merits of compromise.
“There’s a gray zone in which you can say biomedical research is valid, but you must take every step possible to make sure it is done in the most careful and moral way possible,” he said. “(Animal Liberation Front) won’t compromise. They want nothing less than everything.”
With each side accusing the other of refusing to make concessions, Vlasic said he still sees no end to the conflict in sight.
“As long as (UCLA) continues to refuse to talk or negotiate, they can expect that people will pursue more extreme actions,” Vlasic said.
“There is little to be gained in having a rational discussion with those who advocate the use of violence,” Hampton said.