NEWS

Animal Rights Violence Spreads Fear Through U.K. Research Community

John Illman

More than 500 British medical scientists have protested against violence by animal rights groups in the United Kingdom by supporting a declaration backing animal research. Drawn up this summer by the Research Defense Society, a scientific campaign group, the declaration includes the signatures of three Nobel laureates, 190 fellows of the Royal Society, and more than 250 academic professors.

But few British scientists are prepared to speak out individually against the violence—characterized by car and letter bombs—brought by extremist groups. Of 25 leading cancer researchers contacted for this article, only three responded, all requesting anonymity. One of these three—who holds one of the approximately 3,000 government licenses to conduct animal research in the United Kingdom—described how the police had advised him to install "a kind of protective Berlin Wall" around his northern England home.

Although there is no evidence that cancer research has been directly hindered by violence from animal rights extremists, institutions and researchers have been disrupted by dozens of protests. In the first 6 months of this year, there were 35 reported cases of damage to private property and two reported cases of damage to company property by animal rights extremists, compared to 56 and 29 reports, respectively, in the same period last year.

But, in addition to violence against researchers themselves, some groups have turned on suppliers and local services. Plans for an £18 million (US $32 million) science center at the University of Oxford were thrown into disarray recently when the main contractor pulled out after receiving threatening letters. A spokesperson for the university said, "We're determined to go ahead, but the building program is on hold."

In rural Staffordshire, a farm that breeds guinea pigs for medical research closed in August after activists had vandalized a local golf course because one of the farm owners was a member, threatened to contaminate supplies to a local pub used by the farm owners, distributed letters to neighbors of the owner of a fuel delivery service denouncing him as a pedophile, and stole the body of a relative of one of the farm owners from a grave at a local church. In late September, police made five arrests in connection with the theft.

In the latest attack in September, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) claimed responsibility for an explosive device left on the porch of the Oxford home of a senior pharmaceutical executive. His company has a contract with the animal testing group Huntingdon Life Sciences. The device was disabled and little damage was done. The extremists also attacked a University of Oxford pavilion. In another development, a chain of children's nurseries withdrew a childcare voucher plan it offered to employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences after being warned to sever all ties within a week or face violent consequences.

No one knows how many extremists are active in Britain, but the figure could be as low as 40, according to one estimate. The ALF, one of the more vocal groups, explains: "Because ALF actions are against the law, activists work anonymously, either in small groups or individually, and do not have any centralized organization or coordination."



View larger version (122K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
In rural Staffordshire, a farm that breeds guinea pigs for medical research closed in August after animal rights activists targeted businesses and people affiliated with the farm with violence and threats.

 
The ALF Web site says that it is dedicated to saving as many animals as possible, disrupting "animal abuse" and "forcing animal abuse companies out of business." It claims to be running a nonviolent campaign and to take all precautions not to harm any animals (human or otherwise).

Under newly passed legislation to safeguard Britain's £3.6 billion (US $6.4 billion) biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, which provides more than 22,000 jobs, extremists face jail sentences of up to 5 years for attempting to drive research groups and their suppliers out of business. The extremists may not enjoy much public support, but many people share their sympathy for animals. In 2002, a public opinion poll for the Coalition for Medical Progress showed that 67% of Britons were either very or fairly concerned about the use of animals in research despite a sharp fall in the number of animal procedures. The overall number of animals used in research in the United Kingdom is reported to have been halved in the last 30 years to about 2.75 million in 2003.

Cancer specialists fear that the public's perception of animal research may be influenced by claims that such research has had a very limited effect on cancer therapy. According to a statement from Animal Aid, one of many lawful British animal rights groups, which emphasizes its commitment to peaceful protest, says, "It is the failure to produce an overall reduction in cancer deaths that is the greatest indictment of animal research. With most cancers difficult or impossible to cure, the answers must lie with prevention."

U.K. cancer specialists disagree, but organizations like Animal Aid, with its 20,000 members, are highly vocal, a key factor in the emotional propaganda war. However, according to government statistics, only 12% of all nontoxicology, animal-based medical research is for cancer, and all but about 1% of that work is carried out on mice and rats.

"This is an extremely important statistic because there is a lot of misinformation about ‘smoking beagles' and cancer research," said the northern England cancer research director, speaking of animal rights campaigns that use photos of research on familiar animals to try to appeal to the public's sensitivity.

The vocal and violent movement has left individual researchers and large organizations alike concerned about drawing the attention of animal rights groups by speaking out against them, and many prefer the cover of organizations such as the Research Defense Society that have been publicly defending animal research. But the Research Defense Society wants researchers and institutions to actively defend animal experimentation and to publicly support the 500 scientists who signed its declaration. "In many instances, institutions have been actively trying to prevent scientists from speaking out," said Research Defense Society director Simon Festing, Ph.D. These institutions "think they're going to be the next target, but speaking out does not make you a target of animal rights extremism. If anything, it makes you more robust and less likely to be a target," he said.



View larger version (123K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Simon Festing

 


             
Copyright © 2005 Oxford University Press (unless otherwise stated)
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement