On Saturday April 24, 2010, the Animal Care and Experimentation Committee of the American Physiological Society sponsored a symposium on Trends in Animal Rights Activism and Extremism. This event was part of the Experimental Biology 2010 meeting in Anaheim and featured UCLA Senior Campus Counsel Amy Blum, University of Iowa Attending Veterinarian and Office of Animal Resources Director Paul Cooper, Pro-Test for Science founder, David Jentsch, and Americans for Medical Progress Hayre Fellow Megan Wyeth. In introducing the symposium, session chair Bill Yates underscored the importance of animal welfare and the obligation human beings have to provide for the well-being, humane care, and judicious use of animals in research. Those who utilize animal experiments to advance our understanding of biological processes recognize the value of animal welfare. He contrasted this with, some individuals who reject the notion that research with animal models plays a critical role in advancing knowledge and the search for cures. Some extremists who hold this belief use tactics such as violence and intimidation to prevent researchers from conducting studies using animals. The intent of the symposium was to inform researchers about the tactics of animal rights extremists and what researchers and their institutions can do to protect themselves and their work.
UCLA Senior Campus Counsel Amy Blum opened the symposium by suggesting steps researchers can take to protect information that may be subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or state open records laws. She explained that FOIA requires federal agencies to disclose records concerning the general activities of government and also applies to information in their files that comes from institutions that receive funds from the government, including grant funds. Some animal rights extremists have used information obtained under FOIA to target investigators for intimidation and harassment. Thus, although FOIA is a mandatory disclosure statute, information may be exempted from disclosure under specific circumstances and researchers and institutions should consider the potential exemptions to be utilized to protect them. Exemptions that might apply in some cases include privileged communications between attorneys and clients; trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information; personnel and medical files; or information that might endanger a person’s life or safety. The details of other public records laws vary from state to state but generally are similar to FOIA, with additional exemptions.
Exercising care in how documents and communications are written to avoid unnecessary disclosure of sensitive information are actions that may be “difficult in the short run” but will “make your life easier in the long run,” Blum said. She suggested that researchers use particular care in drafting email messages, which can be subject to disclosure. For example, all work-related business should be conducted using a work account, while a personal account should be used for all non-work related communications. “If you use your personal account for work discussions, it becomes subject to disclosure,” she explained.
The subject line should define the scope of the message. “If the scope changes then modify the subject line,” she said. “Keep messages short and on point,” she added because this makes it easier for attorneys to determine what must be disclosed. Avoiding the use of jokes or sarcasm is wise because those statements may take on a different meaning if taken out of context. It is also a good idea to avoid putting personal information such as names and addresses in an email message. In addition, use the “to” line only for those who are expected to take action. Those who merely need to be kept informed should be listed on the “cc” line.
The National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), Society for Neuroscience (SfN), and Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) have developed a “best practices” guide for responding to FOIA and state open records law requests.
University of Iowa (UI) Attending Veterinarian and Office of Animal Resources Director Paul Cooper reviewed the 2004 Animal Liberation Front (ALF) break-in during which some 400 rats and mice were stolen from the facility—and almost certainly died of suffocation as a result; lab equipment was carefully disassembled and destroyed; researchers’ offices were trashed; and research records were destroyed with acid. Cooper showed clips from a 45 minute video supplied by ALF as well as images captured by UI security cameras before and after the break-in. As a result of the break-in, which clearly involved individuals with employee access to the facility, the UI stepped up its security measures. His message was clear: Every research institution has to take its security seriously because if an ALF break-in can happen in Iowa City, it can happen anywhere.
David Jentsch, a UCLA professor of psychology and psychiatry and bio-behavioral sciences, reviewed the history of animal rights extremism at UCLA, including the 2009 firebombing of his car in an arson attack that took place in the middle the night in the driveway of his home. Such events “are a reality,” Jentsch said, “but there are things you can do.” His response was to found Pro-Test for Science, an organization that subsequently staged the first major public demonstration in support of animal research in the United States.
Jentsch described the escalation of animal rights activities at UCLA over the past decade, emphasizing that the institution’s unwillingness to respond to these activities led to a crisis of confidence among researchers. From 2001 to 2003, there were annual demonstrations where animal rights demonstrators criticized the university, researchers, and their work. “When they do that and you make no response, you are contributing to the decline in public confidence,” Jentsch noted. Starting around 2003, extremists began sending threatening emails and vandalizing researchers’ homes during late-night visits, which led to a climate of increasing fear. Extremists left a Molotov cocktail on the doorstep of one UCLA researcher—except that they actually left it at the home of the researcher’s elderly neighbor. (Fortunately, the device failed to detonate.) Another faculty member and his family were subjected to repeated home demonstrations and threats. The university’s only public comment during this period was a statement denouncing terrorism. This was consistent with views widely held across many institutions that they should not respond to accusations against researchers because that would add to the critics’ credibility. It was the university’s pursuit of this strategy of silence in the face of increasingly hostile and violent attacks that ultimately precipitated a crisis: In the fall of 2006, a researcher who was studying how the brain processes visual information announced that he would terminate his research program. He asked in return that animal rights activists leave him and his family alone. He delivered his plea in an email message to the North American Animal Liberation Press Office with the subject line “You win.”
In the wake of this episode, and continuing threats, harassment, and vandalism against other UCLA researchers, the faculty demanded that a serious reappraisal of the university’s approach. This led to a series of recommendations from a task force comprised of representatives from the faculty and other critical sectors within the university. The task force recommendations stressed steps that the university should take to ensure that its faculty can pursue their research in a safe environment. It also recommended that when researchers are under attack, campus leaders should publicly defend their work and make provisions to protect them both at work and at home.
Although the University’s responses improved, the activists’ attacks did not abate. In 2007, there was an unsuccessful attempt to firebomb one faculty member’s car, the home of another faculty member was deliberately flooded. In 2008, the door to the same individual’s home was set on fire; a commuter van belonging to the university was burned; and cars were vandalized in the driveway of a post doc’s home and at the home of a researcher’s neighbor. Finally, in early 2009, Jentsch’s car was firebombed in the driveway of his home. This “intensification to a climax of violence” demonstrated to Jentsch that the “strategy that the university was using wasn’t working and wasn’t going to work.”
The first Pro-Test for Science Rally was held April 22, 2009. The goal of the rally was to let the public know that “animal research is contributing to basic science understanding of physiology and helping us to solve an array of problems in biomedicine.” Although counter-protesters showed up to take pictures, Jentsch said that not only did this fail to intimidate the participants, it was “fair to say that everyone who came left feeling that there was something they can do” to support research.
“Get ahead of the issue,” Jentsch urged. “Don’t wait.” He recommended that every individual scientist get into the habit of engaging the public about science: “Tell them what you do—be your own advocate.”
Americans for Medical Progress Hayre Fellow Megan Wyeth spoke about public outreach for the early career scientist. Public outreach can take many forms, she noted, recommending that everyone work within his or her own comfort levels. She urged those who teach to cite the basic animal research that led to the breakthroughs in order to raise their students’ awareness of what animal research has contributed. “Tell people what you do,” Wyeth said. She suggested emphasizing that animal research saves lives; that it is necessary for medical progress; and it is a humane and highly regulated activity.
For additional information about research advocacy on university campuses, see Speaking of Research.
Additional coverage of the event is available from ASPET.