Pushing the Limits

EDITORIAL Pushing the limits Responding to escalating violence by extremist animal-rights groups, academics are working proactively to prevent the harassment and harm of scientists. he issue of animal-rights extremism, last discussed in a Nature from the threats of radical animal-rights groups. Immunology editorial in April 2004 (http://www.nature.com/ni/ In response to the escalation in animal-rights extremism, and bolstered Tjournal/v5/n4/full/ni0404-345.html), has been addressed by new by increasingly stringent legislative and law enforcement efforts, academics government legislation. Measures passed by the UK Home Office in July are taking a stand. In February 2008, UCLA successfully sought a restrain- 2004 and the US Congress in late 2006 classify as a criminal offense the use ing order to protect against harassment by animal-rights groups. The uni- of force, violence and harassment against people and institutions engaging versity is also providing private security on campus and at the homes in animal testing. Unfortunately, these measures have apparently done of threatened faculty members and is no longer releasing detailed infor- http://www.nature.com/natureimmunology little to dissuade fringe animal-rights activists groups, as recent events mation about biomedical primate research. Also in February 2008, the show an escalation in the severity of their attacks. Society for Neuroscience released a document entitled “Best Practices for In June 2006, a Molotov cocktail–style firebomb was left at the home of Protecting Researchers and Research: Recommendations for Universities Lynn Fairbanks, a primate researcher at the University of California, Los and Institutions” that provides guidelines for universities and institutions Angeles (UCLA). One year later, an explosive device was found under the aiming to proactively protect and to stave off attacks on staff and students. car of Arthur Rosenbaum, another UCLA primate researcher. Fortunately, In response to extreme animal-rights tactics that resulted in halted con- both incendiary devices were defective. In October 2007, the home of their struction on biomedical animal research facilities at Oxford University and colleague Edythe London was flooded with a garden hose, and in February Cambridge University, the group ‘Pro-Test’ was founded in Oxford, UK, 2008, masked people suspected but not confirmed to be involved with in 2006. Thus far, this academic-run group has held two rallies, organized animal-rights groups entered the home of and physically attacked a fam- public meetings, and conducted polls finding that 94% of Oxford students Nature Publishing Group Group Nature Publishing ily member of an animal researcher at the University of California, Santa support construction of the Oxford biomedical animal research facility, 8 Cruz. Farther afield, in 2008, the Biomedical Research Institute of Hasselt which recommenced in late 2004. 200 University in Belgium was burned down and the offices of Novartis in Perhaps not understood by extremist organizations is the fact that the © Barcelona were vandalized. creation of suitable alternatives to animal testing would be welcomed Claiming credit for many of these attacks are organizations such as by many academics, most of whom are frustrated with the enormous Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Animal Liberation Brigade (ALB). financial and administrative burdens associated with animal research. As Distinct from organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of stated in original European Union Council Directive 86/609, designed to Animals and the Humane Society, which use only legal, nonviolent meth- protect animals used for experimental purposes, “experiments must only ods to promote their cause, ALF engages in, as the organization puts it, take place if there is no alternative method that does not entail the use “direct action against animal abuse in the form of rescuing animals and of animals”; similar statements are found in the UK Animal (Scientific causing financial loss to exploiters” and acknowledges that their actions Procedures) Act and the US Animal Welfare Act. may be illegal. Although they describe their efforts as nonviolent and Encouragingly, efforts to devise alternative methods are underway, as promise to “take precautions not to harm any animal (human or other- indicated by the February 2008 announcement of a program in which wise),” their recent use of incendiary devices, flooding and, potentially, the US Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program physical attacks suggests that this is not the case. ALF and ALB efforts and National Institutes of Health will join forces to develop and test new are aided by organizations such as the UCLA Primate Freedom project, in vitro methods for evaluating chemical toxicity. However, efforts by the which has used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain and publish UK-based group Animal Defenders International to revise European the names, photographs and home addresses of researcher ‘targets’ on its Union directive 86/609 to establish a timetable for complete replacement website, which also offers defamatory downloadable flyers for posting in of primates in biomedical experiments might be premature. the neighborhoods of these scientists. Although data on responses generated in animals, even primates, are The consequences of these attacks, in addition to the obvious personal not always predictive of responses in humans, many past immunological distress, are manifold. In August 2006, UCLA researcher Dario Ringach, advances (e.g., infectious properties of disease-causing agents and bio- fearing for the safety of his family because of demonstrations outside his logical principles underlying transplant rejection) depended heavily on home and because of phone and email harassment, decided to cease pri- experiments with live animals. The development of drugs to prevent and mate research. The repeated targeting of the UK Huntingdon Life Sciences treat such conditions also relied strongly on animal research. As in the past, contract animal testing firm and many pharmaceutical companies has for the foreseeable future and until technological advances provide suit- prompted some to move their animal testing operations to China, where able alternatives, animal research remains essential to biomedical research they adhere to US animal testing standards but are free, at least for now, into understanding and combating human disease. NATURE IMMUNOLOGY VOLUME 9 NUMBER 5 MAY 2008 445.

Load more