Search News


Browse Archives

News

Fighting Back Against Extremists

August 28, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The University of California at Los Angeles is planning a series of steps -- including possible lawsuits against some animal rights activists -- to protect researchers whose work has been attacked and whose families have been harassed.

"We will not be deterred by the actions of a few fanatic and misguided extremists," said Norman Abrams, interim chancellor of UCLA, in an ad that will be published today in The Daily Bruin announcing the new steps. "Individuals are entitled to their views on animal research and to mount First Amendment-protected protests. But the kinds of activities engaged in by some animal research opponents have crossed the line of legitimate demonstrations and, in a number of instances, have involved patently criminal behavior," he wrote.

Among the steps UCLA is taking:

  • Exploring legal steps that may be taken against harassment that is not protected by the First Amendment.
  • Filing lawsuits against animal rights "ringleaders" who inspire illegal activity.
  • Improving security of faculty members' laboratories and homes, and including the security of professors' family members in university plans.
  • Promoting federal legislation to crack down on the harassment of researchers.
  • Offering reward funds for an attempted firebombing of a faculty member's home.

The announcement by Abrams follows an upswing in activities in which UCLA professors who work with animals have been targets. In June, the Animal Liberation Front took credit for trying to put a Molotov cocktail on the doorstep of Lynn Fairbanks, a researcher who does experimentation on animals. The explosive was accidentally placed on the doorstep of Fairbanks’s elderly neighbor’s house, and did not detonate, but had enough power to be lethal. This month Dario Ringach, an associate neurobiology professor, decided to abandon his research on primates because of pressure put on him, his family and his neighborhood. UCLA researchers and their family members have received threatening phone calls and e-mail, and had protests at their homes. (UCLA is also under pressure to protect Khaled Abou el Fadl, a professor who is an expert on Islamic law who has been a leading critic of Muslim fundamentalism and who has faced death threats and a bullet fired into his home.)

In the ad, Abrams said that while UCLA respects the rights of critics to offer analysis of anyone's research, the recent incidents are beyond a matter of open debate. He said he was "deeply saddened" by Ringach's decision.

A spokesman for UCLA said that the interim chancellor felt the need to speak out because of the pattern in which the university's researchers have become targets. The spokesman said that UCLA took very seriously its obligation to consider the appropriateness of studies involving animals and to promote their humane care, adding that studies involving animals undergo multiple levels of oversight.

UCLA also can't release too many details about the new steps, the spokesman said, as the university does not want to share too much information with the groups that have been going after its professors.

The recent incidents at UCLA "should be a wake-up call for every university" and the steps the university is taking "are extremely important," said Frankie Trull, president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, which supports the use of animals in research and spars with animal rights groups.

"Historically universities are open, almost by definition, so they haven't been equipped to provide the kind of security that is now necessary," she said. A number of universities have suffered violent attacks by animal rights groups, she said. For example, individuals claiming to be part of the Animal Liberation Front broke into a psychology laboratory at the University of Iowa, and removed 300 rodents from the facility. Acid was dumped on equipment and books -- and the rodents likely died painful deaths.

While the Iowa incident became public, Trull said that many incidents do not. Some researchers -- especially those fearful of attacks on their young children -- do not publicize harassment. She said that she is helping professors at "a handful" of universities who are currently facing such incidents outside of the public eye.

While campaigns against university researchers who work with animals are nothing new, Trull and UCLA officials said that they have seen a sharp increase in recent months. Trull said that there is no geographic pattern to the attacks, and that many professors who work with animals don't experience any harassment.

Generally, she said, targets are more likely to be professors who work with non-human primates or animals like cats or dogs, since many people have close emotional connections to such animals. Trull also said that animal rights groups are more likely to go after basic researchers. Many members of the public don't understand that basic research is a necessary prelude to studies that can more directly be linked to a cure or treatment for a disease, she said. "It's all about the PR," she said.

The North American Animal Liberation Press Office acts as the mouthpiece for the Animal Liberation Front, whose members are underground, and many of whom are wanted by federal authorities. Officials with the press office did not respond to calls or e-mail messages seeking comment on the UCLA announcement.

But Camille Hankins of the press office told the Los Angeles Times that the chancellor's comments were a "sad commentary" and that the underground group would not stop its activities. "There is a pretty active cell there," she said. "There have been quite a few underground activities and no indication that is going to stop."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Fighting Back Against Extremists

  • Animal Rights Terrorism
  • Posted by barrgain , Mr on August 28, 2006 at 8:05am EDT
  • Terrorism in the name of animals is terrorism. Why isn't it handled and prosecuted as such? Homeland security should be infiltrating and infibrillating these outfits. This isn't civil disobedience; it is use of terror to prevent the progress of knowledge. Where is the Government when we need it? I fail to see this as a university or educational issue at all. It's an issue of public safety. Universities shouldn't have to cover it. They shouldn't be configured to repress. That's the whole left-right thing, repressing the other side rather than debating it on its merits. ... Maybe it's an issue of "public philosophy" as Walter Lippmann once termed it. Do we want to attack the unknown together, or do we want to attack each other and let the survivors face the unknown bruised, broken, bleeding, and alone?

  • crime can be treated as crime
  • Posted by Larry on August 28, 2006 at 10:25am EDT
  • Barrgain, “Terrorism” is a word that is often used and rarely defined, so it is better used with caution. Statutory definitions are vague, in themselves, but for the most part it doesn’t matter since most actual acts of terrorism (e.g. blowing things up) include the more common crimes such as “murder.”

    Whatever the case, law enforcement has used standard techniques to investigate and prosecute such groups, including, but not limited to: 1) grants of immunity to cooperating witnesses; 2) electronic surveillance; and 3) undercover operations. I should note that indercover operations against groups with specific ideologies are very difficult, since unlike stings in the war on drugs, the people know each other quite well, and can verify each others’ stories with ease.

    (I don’t think that DHS would have jurisdiction to conduct an undercover operation against such a group, anyway.)

    It is worth noting, on the other hand, that many, in fact, most animal rights groups do not plan criminal activities, nor do they perpetrate them, and their proceedings and interactions are accorded the highest protection under the First amendment.

  • Terrorism or "cirme"?
  • Posted by Prof. Challenger on August 28, 2006 at 11:05am EDT
  • Depends on what your definition of "is" is, huh Larry?

  • Posted by ML on August 28, 2006 at 11:25am EDT
  • Planting a molotov cocktail on someone's steps may be terrorism. But the really frightening thing is that definitions of terrorism related to animal rights activity tend to include such activities as rescuing those animals who are victims of torture in researchers' labs. Those who rescue human victims of torture are heralded as heroes. Those who rescue non-human animals should be treated the same.

    To learn more about the horrors that non-human animals experience in the lab, the reasons why these horrors should not even be contemplated (for both ethical and scientific reasons), and the alternative research technologies available today, go to http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/index.html

  • Posted by Larry on August 28, 2006 at 11:55am EDT
  • Professor Challenger,

    As an academic I am sure that quite often you are faced with differences in the meaning of words. Indeed, between disciplines terms of art, and symbols often radically differ.

    Likewise, defining the word “is” without using the word itself presents a lofty problem for people. Indeed, when people are faced with past events that might have residual effect upon the present, whether the past event “exists” in our reality has always been a vexing problem for philosophers.

    In law, the definitions of words are quite important, as they often invoke other bodies of thought. Therefore, as you and I both know, we must be very careful to define words with precision.

  • Re: "terrorism"
  • Posted by Court on August 28, 2006 at 2:25pm EDT
  • I think applying the word "terrorism" is very dangerous, particularly in domestic cases. It should be used with great caution. The emotional connections to such are too high to allow a rational solution...

  • Animal Research Is Necessary
  • Posted by Clarissa on August 28, 2006 at 5:30pm EDT
  • ML, the difference between those who rescue human victims and those who ‘rescue’ animal ‘victims’ is that the heroes rescuing humans make sure the humans get to safety; whereas, the people ‘rescuing’ lab rats usually just let them out of the cages and leave them to freeze or starve to death in an environment in which they are unable to survive. Having been bred and raised in the lab, these animals lack the ability to survive in the wild, even if the climate happens to be mild enough to support them. Alternatively, there are the times when ‘liberated’ minks have been introduced as exotic invasive predators in ecosystems unable to control them. Sure the minks survive, but how many other animals where killed by such shortsightedness?

    Also, releasing lab animals can set research back years as studies must be repeated and more animals killed, not to mention the humans waiting on treatments for disease. Before you fall for the propaganda of the PETA splinter group you url links to, you should check out the scientific explanations as to why there are no alternatives that can replace animal research—reduce and refine, yes, replace, no. Computer models don’t do it—they can only tell us what we knew enough to program into them in the first place.
    http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_ToolbarID=2&i_PageID=48

  • Fighting back against the Extremists
  • Posted by Elizabeth Brinkley on August 28, 2006 at 7:15pm EDT
  • It is so wonderful to see people finally waking up to the agenda of the Animal Rights movement. Many of us who have been fighting these extremist for years prefer to call them "Animal Prohibitionists" since that is the ultimate goal of animal rights. To end all animal "use" including pets, meat, leather, fur, research, hunting,farming, etc. We need to stand up to those who want to tell us how we "should" care for animals when they have very few qualifications or background in animal welfare other than ownership of a pet and a "love for animals".

  • why experimenters?
  • Posted by confused on August 29, 2006 at 5:20am EDT
  • i understand the concern about animal experiments. but i'm a bit confused about why they should be the first targets, rather than the meat industry, which is responsible for the cruel deaths of millions and millions of animals every year. could it be that scientists are easier targets than CEOs, who would surely not give up without a fight? or that the average American is much more willing to give up the vague promise of a medical advance, than his daily hamburger?

  • Posted by Larry on August 29, 2006 at 9:45am EDT
  • That said, I am curious, Ms. Brinkley, Besides fashion, can you tell me one legitimate use of fur? Will rich women wearing fur cure AIDS or the clap?

    Look folks, this article and this issue has little to do with the ethics of animal experimentation. This article is dealing with issues of crime and safety.

  • No need to be confused...
  • Posted by Chydenius , Senior Fellow at Free Curricula Center on September 3, 2006 at 2:45pm EDT
  • Confused,

    If one were the kind of extremist, who puts gasoline bombs on little old ladies' doorsteps in the middle of the night, one probably would hesitate to go face-to-face with gun-toting cowboys.

    University professors are easy targets in sexy locales that will get the media's attention. There would not be much point in fire-bombing a Midwestern slaughterhouse. It is, undoubtedly much more fun to vandalize a school.

  • Posted by Fur is Dead on September 5, 2006 at 4:35am EDT
  • The word "terrorism" is misused often..who are the real terrorists? the ones who addict monkeys to narcotics..to find out affects..when we already know its bad for you...this isnt rocket science now..soo STOP the SENSELESS killing!....are we that dumb as a society to not see that animals are sources of life, can feel pain, and are unique in there very own ways?!......ASK the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask them why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction..............
    "Real Hereos Save Both Their Lives"

  • Resisting terrorism
  • Posted by Southern Hawker at Cambridge on September 5, 2006 at 8:20am EDT
  • There's been a lot of talk here about the threat posed by extremists/terrorists and the need for law-enforcement bodies to crack down on anti-vivisectionist extremism. This is all well but better law enforcement alone cannot solve the problem, the extremists must be shown that scientists and supporters of the use of animals in scientific research will not be intimidated.

    In the UK the Pro-Test (http://www.pro-test.org.uk/) movement in Oxford has done a great job of standing up for science against the extremists of SPEAK and the ALF. The new willingness of scientists to speak out, coupled with a crackdown on violent extremism has resulted in a new feeling of optimism in the UK Biomedical community that the threat can be overcome.

    Perhaps scientists, staff and students should establish a chapter of Pro-Test at UCLA. You never know, a march or two and the depressing picture might begin to look very different.

  • Standing up to extremism
  • Posted by Southern Hawker at Cambridge University on September 5, 2006 at 8:55am EDT
  • To follow up on my last post, I know that there are already organizations (AMericans for Medical Progress, Foundation for Biomedical Research etc.) in the US that are dedicated to explaining the key role played by animal research in biomedical science. However, these are organizations whose primary purpose is to provide information to journalists and the general public and lobby politicians and other policy makers on behalf of their mainly academic membership. That is all very well but it is also necessary to organize popular, street level opposition to the extremists, both to send a strong message to the extremists themselves and to generate favourable media coverage for scientists and their supporters.

  • UCLA animal experimentation
  • Posted by Lindy Greene on September 7, 2006 at 6:40am EDT
  • Ah - It's so easy to consign other sentient beings to torture when you, yourself, are comfortable and pain-free! Someone once stated it quite eloquently: "Human beings have an infinite capacity for suffering - as long as it's someone ELSE who's suffering!"

    The UCLA primate vivisectors addict monkeys to crystal meth when its effects are long known and well-documented in humans. While drug rehab centers flounder for lack of funds, the "researchers" lap greedily at the troughs of the government grant gravy train - purchasing luxurious homes and fancy cars.

    The medical and pharmaceutical industries are just that - industries. The primary objective of any industry is to maximize profit. Animal experimentation ensures that cures will come slowly or not at all - and human patients will be beholden to medical practitioners, surgeons, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies as they linger for years with chronic degenerative diseases.

    The results of testing on one species cannot be extrapolated to another. What lunacy to seek information about conditions affecting humans by examining mice, dogs, cats, fish, monkeys, horses, or frogs!

    And how utterly immoral it is to torture one living being to benefit another.

    "Terrorism" - the 21st-century bugbear. All any government hellbent on dismantling civil liberties has to do is conjure up some "buzzword" with which to whip up mass hysteria - and the good citizens will eagerly swallow the porpagandist ejaculate. Those who contend that species membership should not place someone outside the circle of moral compassion or beyond the reach of effective defense are the terrorists - while those who subject living, feeling creatures to tortures that would make Adolph Hitler blush are held in high public esteem.

    Doesn't that just speak volumes about basic human nature?

    Lindy Greene
    North American Animal Liberation Press Officer

  • Animal Rights Terrorism
  • Posted by Animal Researcher on October 19, 2006 at 9:10am EDT
  • This is a good topic, one for open sincere debate. No one in the biomedical research field will shy away from an open debate on these topics. If you surveyed all the American Medical Doctors (MDs), you would find greater than 90% of them support the use of animals in research. If you surveyed all the veterinarians and teachers, you would find greater than 90% of them support animal use in research and teaching.

    But more to the point, open, sincere, debate on the issue is perfectly acceptable to MDs, PhDs, DVMs, and teachers. As an animal researcher myself, I would gladly stop my research the instant the US legal system tells me to. The instant the majority of people in my country think that that cost of my research is too high for the benefits.

    However, right now, people in medicine and research feel the benefits greatly outweigh the costs. If we hadn't used animals, Jonas Salk would not have developed a polio virus - he isolated it from non-human primates who were sacrificed for science. Prior to Salk's work, 1 in 100 adults in the USA became permanently disabled by polio. How soon we forget. What is the price tag for permanent disability for 1% of the population? That is only a small raindrop in the ocean of improvement in society as a result of animal research, as people familiar with the field are all too aware.

    But still, NO ONE in the field wants people concerned with animal rights to be quiet. We simply want them to engage in civil debate, and stop leaving lethal force firebombs at our houses. It is downright childish and insulting, like a three year old throwing a temper tantrum to get his way. Someone engaged in legal biomedical research should not have to fear for his life from violent illegal attacks from extremists.

  • Debating Vivisection
  • Posted by Corinne Titus , Activist on January 23, 2007 at 5:45am EST
  • The previous animal researcher writes that activists should engage in civil debate. What about you vivisectors? Will you step up to the plate and debate a MD opposed to vivisecton?

    Ask UCLA why they have not debated vivisection in 20 years. It's funded with our tax money... don't you know.

  • Animal Rights
  • Posted by Paul Saldana on May 30, 2007 at 2:40pm EDT
  • It is not surpriseing to me that some activists prove we are animals and eventually resort to violence. It is unfortunate that in doing so, they hurt the cause they purport to be fighting for.