Sir

Your Editorial calling for government resistance to intimidation from animal-rights lobbyists (“Taking a stand on animal-rights violence” Nature 438, 1; 200510.1038/438001a). provides timely advice for researchers too, as our public scientific meetings are increasingly attracting disruptive protest if they involve animal research.

In October I participated in the annual scientific meeting of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. The focus was on the challenges of managing the impacts of over-abundant animals and pest species that threaten Australia's biodiversity and economy. These meetings are open to the public, and discussion is encouraged.

But the 2005 forum was systematically and strategically sabotaged by animal-rights lobbyists from at least six organizations. They monopolized question time and plenary discussion sessions with prepared speeches and interjections, all pushing a short-sighted single-issue agenda.

They were preaching to the converted about the fundamental need for animal welfare, as all who attended the forum share a concern for the protection of Australia's unique wildlife and environment. And by strangling discussion and learning among the very people charged with looking after Australia's wildlife and agriculture, these lobbyists did not help their primary cause: reducing the killing of animals by humans.

Many novel ideas on how to manage pest impact while minimizing the need for direct control were entirely lost in a flood of rhetoric that all animals should live. Yet this right to life apparently does not include those animals that are maimed, killed, displaced or even driven to extinction by the over-abundant pests that continue to plague Australia. Such animals were overlooked by these zealots with their ‘let it be’ approach to conservation.

This was a great opportunity lost. It sends a grim warning to other scientific societies and researchers hoping to exchange ideas in open forums about animal-related issues.