Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 27 February 2008 | Nature 451, 1034-1035 (2008) | doi:10.1038/4511034a
News
Animal-rights activists invade Europe
Experts fear extremists may be travelling from Britain.
A rash of vandalism, intimidation and arson across continental Europe in 2008 is evidence of a worrying new wave of animal-rights extremism being exported from Britain, experts say.
In early January, threats led to a Dutch developer withdrawing from a new, €60 million (about US$89 million) biomedical research park in Venray, the Netherlands.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
There seems to be an assumption when Nature and other science-related publications write of animal rights activity that all your readers will be of one mind: outraged that members of the lay public would actually interfere with whatever action certified scientists wish to take, however cruel. As one who has seen the atrocities committed against blameless lab animals on the flimsiest of pretexts - usually motivated more by quests for grant money than quests for knowledge - I can only say to those who make vivisection more problematic: More power to you. If experimenters really believe that their research justifies tormenting other creatures, then, surely, their own inconvenience and discomfort is a lesser concern, and they will not be dissuaded by any threats to their own lives, let alone to their SUV’s (I’m not aware of any actual harm to humans by animal rights activists thus far). I’m past the age when I might be tempted to take a hand in such actions myself, but I’m glad there are those at work in the night who attach some cost to what has, in the past, been complete indifference to the infliction of excruciating pain and misery upon experimental animals. Many scientists are finding other, more relevant means of doing research. I hope animal experimentation is soon added to the historical museum of horrors of humanity’s more barbaric past.
Our choice of words is so important. Those whom some may call extremists others will label as freedom fighters - depends on your perspective. The "extremists" reported in this article are taking the only action they feel is going to make any difference. What significant improvements to the unnatural lives of laboratory animals has been achieved by negotiation and legislation? For each animal living and dying under these awful conditions there is no redemption. We are all appalled by the Nazi treatment of, and attitude to the Jews and other undesirables. One day humanity will see our present-day attitude to, and treatment of non-human animals with the same disbelief and horror. I am glad there are people brave enough and committed enough to take direct action to try to alleviate the suffering of those who cannot defend themselves. Illegal acts can be moral acts.
It's an intersting point to note that thus far the only comments made on this article have been made in support of animal rights "extremist" groups. More to the point, they have been made by those who evidently are or have been close enough to animal-based research to take more than a passing interest and have more than a passing knowledge of the issue. The difficulty here, as noted previously, is one of perception. Science and morals and ethics mix badly, mostly because science is a discussion of truth and supporting evidence, whereas morals and ethics are philosophical debates concerning much more abstract issues. Science can always tell you "how" to do something, but never whether you "should" do something. There must, however, be some meeting point. Science cannot be done indiscriminately. And this is the place of regulators such as various animal ethics authorities, which, as many a scientist I'm sure will attest, are rigorous in their dissection of the ethics and morality of any animal-based research. And bear in mind that this research is being done in Europe, so it probably is subject to just such ethical examination. Extremist groups, however, give the entire process a bad name, attaching a stigma to animals rights organistations amongst scientists and the lay public as outlaws and, well, extremists. There are channels for dialog, there are protocols for discussion. Although, as noted above, some feel that these are a waste of time, they will not make any great changes if they persist taking "direct action" as militant fringe groups. Surely history has made it clear that discussion is the only way to arbitrate any major philosophical disaggreements. The other thing about reserach ethics regulators is that they constantly demand analysis of the costs and benefits of research. They weigh up the pros and cons. Something tells me that your average animal rights "extremist" probably doesn't use make-up tested on animals. But I'm willing to bet that if they're diabetic they take an insulin substitute that was discovered by research on pigs (I might have the exact species wrong here, it's not quite my field). The fact is that all of us live in society, and none of us is blameless, so raising the costs of research by irritating the actual research scientists serves very little purpose, and merely agravates a touchy issue to no useful end. Or, as a research ethics board might say, "the end result of the proposed activities does not justify the pain, suffering and cost imposed upon the subjects." And while we're on the subject of perceptions, we must take a look at another common misconception: that all animals are happy and healthy in the wild, and that all the evils inflicted upon animals are the fault of man. Not so. The fact of the matter is that many of the strains of animals used in laboratory work could not exist in any other situations (which itself as an entirely separate moral dillema). Further, individuals of "wild" species that are maintained in the lab often live longer, and are much healthier than any found out in their natural habitat. Is this a justification to keep these animals indiscriminately? Of course not, but it must be borne in mind that, when costs and benefits are weighed up, and if research can be justified, keeping animals in captivity is often far from a cruel and unusual fate compared to their natural existance.
The practice of vivisection is abhorrent and must be resisted and stopped. I do not agree that the current framework of regulation and legislation is effective toward this end. However, I cannot support vandalism and intimidation. The scientists conducting animal research are our colleagues despite the objectionable nature of their methods. We must strive to change their minds not intimidate them into acquiescence. The torture and mistreatment of animals cannot be tolerated but true change will be realized if we subject our fellow humans to the same treatment we reject for the animals. (P.S. Sean, no animal, human or otherwise, prefers the comfort of imprisonment to the trials of freedom.)
Animal Rights extremist are, nothing more, or less than terrorist – and should be treated as such. Unable to enter into rational and coherent debate, they resort to forcing there views upon other by threats and intimidation. This is unacceptable in today’s society and governments, both in the UK and the EU need to deal with these individuals and organisations swiftly and sternly. It is also important to be aware that Animal Rights is not the same as Animal Welfare; indeed often Animal Rights activists (terrorists) actions are detrimental to welfare of animals.
By definition, extremist is somebody who adopts either ends of an argument without mid-way compromization, which could be rarely favourable, like being extremist in loving somebody and keeping on doing it independenly of whatever reaction he/she has. So speaking about extremism here, i perceive it as a description and not an offense. I would ask these animal-kingdom-equalization defenders if any of them have experienced a genetically-deficit born doughter,a cancer-invaded mother or an AIDS-infected partner.
Samer, I expect that the query that ends your post is intended to suggest that one should be willing to abandon their convictions regarding animal mistreatment if it would save the life of their daughter, mother, partner, etc... A society's ethical standards need to be defined independently of the outcome of actions. It is always wrong to mistreat animals regardless of the benefits that such mistreatment may reap. Similarly, it is always wrong to intimidate and threaten people regardless of how much harm they are causing. Ethical standards do not exist on a sliding scale to be abandoned when a certain benefit is realized. Believing that you are on the righteous side is not a free pass to engage in unethical behavior, whether you are an activist or a researcher
The justifications for continuing experiments which cause suffering to our non-human relatives have all but withered away, with reports coming out continually from anthropology and linguistics to genetics and neuroscience on the intelligence, emotional range, and even consciousness of mammals, birds, reptiles, and even mollusks and insects (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7258822.stm). Those who choose to persist in their Cartesian thinking only demonstrate that they are behind the curves of both science and history and off the scale when it comes to ethics. The idea that humans are a special creation and markedly superior to everything else on the planet is a shameful holdover from primitive religious beliefs and should be an embarrassment to anyone claiming to be a scientist. Our detachment from nature has caused possibly irreparable harm to the environment. How can we morally oppose the torture and mistreatment of humans when we continue to inflict the same and worse on our fellow creatures? Personally, I am tired of the politically biased and unrepresentative manner in which these stories are uniformly reported. Perhaps we need some transparency on the independence of reporters and editors from institutions and corporations who have a vested financial interests in the subjects they cover. - a scientist and a supporter of human/animal rights
Sean Tomlinson states: "Science cannot be done indiscriminately. And this is the place of regulators such as various animal ethics authorities, which, as many a scientist I'm sure will attest, are rigorous in their dissection of the ethics and morality of any animal-based research." Perhaps he could explain why scientists are still (ab)using animals to study the effects of recreational drugs, alcohol, tobacco, another batch of "wonder" cleaning materials and cosmetics as well as studying maternal deprivation in baby monkeys - something that has been repeated on numerous occasions since at least the 1950s. Our scientists have only just decided to stop using goats for decompression tests when France stopped years ago and used non-animal methods. While I would not want to condone illegal acts, we should understand what motivates some to break immoral laws. And the condemnation of violence is pretty hypocritical coming from scientists who are happy to use animals to test biological and chemical weapons as well as conventional armaments at Porton Down establishments.
RE Samer Helal Zaky's comment. Yes, I have experienced a cancer-invaded mother. Science has been so held back by pointless experiments wasting time and money that I had to sit and watch my mom die. All they could offer her was morphine - had science relied on experiments performed on cats my mom would not even have had this as it causes maniacal excitement in cats yet is a pain killer and sedative for us. Who'd have thought different species would react in different ways... There is so much bias in the media towards animal testing that lies are heard by the public who then rather than research these findings for themselves just accept it as fact. EG 'Monkeys, Rats and Me' aired by the BBC; following a complaint made by Europeans for Medical Progress that deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson's disease resulted from experiments on monkeys the BBC have now admitted the programme was unacceptably unbalanced and must not be shown again! DBS was actually pioneered in patients! Vivisection is not only unreliable and kills animals both human and non-human, but it is immoral. Advances made in medical science exist despite vivisection, not because of it. No animal rights activist has taken a life, vivsectors take many lives every single day - I know who I think the 'terrorists' are...
I am sorry .. but what we see here is the consequences of decades of fruitless "rational and coherent debate", as Mr. Newman puts it. Of dispassionately discussing the mass abuse and murder of indivduals who are "used" and killed for Human interests and the simple reason that they cannot defend themselves against it. We consider them less, we do with them as we please. Is that it ? We once considered members of our own species less (last do do were the Nazis, and we know the outcome of that) and did with them as we pleased. That was o.k. with you, Mr. Newman and all who defend vivisection here, was it ? Yes, the ALF (and others like them) fight with what means they consider necessary. After talk, and more talk, and incremental improvements to the way these creatures are abused and killed .. that is nothing less than an act of desperation at the total unwillingness of so-called science and industry to relinquish their hold on millions of helpless victims each year .. who live and die in ways none of you (defenders of vivisection) can imagine in your wildest nightmares. They experience a horror far beyond anything that has ever been done with Humans. Why ? Because it is our whim to do so. "Animal rights" is akin to "Human rights". A concept none of you, I hope, would question. What is so very wrong then in the granting of animal rights, in those defending them ? Even today, the violent defence of Human life is accepted as maybe the last means (and the actions of the ALF never hurt a Human being, let us not forget that - but property and vested financial interests - like those of the slave owners 150 years ago), but accepted nevertheless. I came upon this quote recently that says it all: ------------------------------------------- "If we are trespassing, so were the soldiers who broke down the gates of Hitler's death camps; If we are thieves, so were the members of the Underground Railroad who freed the slaves of the South; And if we are vandals, so were those who destroyed forever the gas chambers of Buchenwald and Auschwitz.." Anonymous ------------------------------------------- Yes .. you hypocrites who hail the freedom fighters of the past, the troups that stormed Nazi death camps as heroes will all too readily condemn those who do the same for animals today ! It is a shame, I agree, that it has come to the point where animal abuse worldwide is so massive (in scale), entrenched and protected (via legislation like AETA) that fighting it means fighting dirty. Who, I wonder, has shown them how to do that ? Laws and illegality .. oh please. Laws of any one time and society are manmade, and are, at best, an approximation of man's varying beliefs - they do NOT reflect universal justice or even the most basic moral/ethic principles. The laws of Nazi Germany - that criminalized people like the Scholls (who were tried and convicted as terrorists) - are hardly something we should look back on with pride in terms of what is right or wrong (by law standards).
The idea that we have the right to use animals for our own ends is so embedded in our way of life, including how we do research, that no legitimate channels exist for questioning if this is ethical. There is the possibility to contest how animals are used, but not if they should be used at all. When the status quo is wrong, and no real means for challenging it exist, I can only applaud those who are brave enough to act ethically even when it means that they must break laws to do it. I don't think that the actions of these groups are extreme. On the contrary, I think that they are a reasonable response to a system that is prepared to engage in such cruelty, and that the extreme actions are the ones that involve the torture and killing of sentient beings. I would certainly prefer to see an actual dialogue between those who feel that animal research is necessary and justifiable and those who do not. However, since laws and (more importantly) the almighty power of making lots and lots of money brands AR activists as terrorists as soon as they so much as start up a website (as in the SHAC 7), I am unsure of exactly how such a discussion could happen right now.
No system of government and law is perfect. The very greatest fools imagine that we can have a perfect system. Democracy is the worst form of government after all the others. Some people believe that they are entitled to do whatever they wish, if the necessarily imperfect democratic system in which they live does not conform to their wishes. Anyone who feels themselves to be justified in taking the law into their own hands, in a modern democracy, is the greatest threat to their fellow men and women. If animal experiments were illegal, within a democracy, those who resorted to violence in order to coerce the rest of society into legalising them, would have to be dealt with severely by the law.
If animals researchers' claims that their experiments on animals lead to human cures were factual, there would be a lot of room for discussiion on matters such as: Do we have the right to inflict pain on other species in order to help ourselves? Because of differences in reactions between species, however, it is only about 10 percent of the time that the animal being experimented upon can be expected to yield a reliable indication of how humans will react. Even if we don't care a whit about other species, we should stop animal experimentation because its results can be very harmful for the first humans to undergo a treatment that looked promising on animals. The six young men who were maimed and almost killed in the trial of a drug (TGN 1412) that had appeared spectacularly safe for other primates, is only one example of the harm that can be inflicted on humans by relying upon responses in non-human species. Tens of thousands of people have been killed and injured by drugs that produced only benign effects in other species. What I can't understand is why animal experimentation to asssess human responses wasn't relegated to the medical dustbins half a century ago after it was determined that thalidomide, prescribed to relieve morning sickness, had maimed 30,000 unborn children and probably killed many thousands more.
I imagine how different we could be in the concept of relative "superiority" between members of the animal kingdome. But are you guys really speaking about animals and humans having the same rights? Are you really condemning the use of insecticides because it kills our "smaller brothers", are you judging the fishermen as group terrorists against our sea neighbours? Are you aplauding vegetarians because they don't feed on their collegues? Are you willing to destry zoos and circusses. I hope the plant kingdome will be safe from our debate otherwise we should hurry to invest in food out of polymers. It's all because of the evolution thing. The shimp is my grandfather and the frog is my history of pride.
Medical research needs to test new compounds on animals before adminsitering them to humans. In vitro experiments are cheaper and faster than in vivo studies, and every pharmaceutical company would be extremely happy to jump this step. Unfortunately in vitro data often provide only very unprecise estimates of what will happen in humans. Animal experiments represent (at present) the only setting to test new treatments in the complexity of a living animal. Every researcher knows the limits of animal experiments, and how careful we must be when moving from animals to humans. Furthermore, animal experiments are nowadays strictly regulated in all the Countries where I worked. Certainly, we are legitimated to perform experiments in animals only if we assume that humans are superior to other forms of life. If we do not recognise this, we would not be allowed to use animals for biomedical experiments. But we will also need to abstain from eating animals, or plants.
As a biologist who works with animals (mainly fish embryos), I can agree that there is litle discussion and no training in any substantive sense in the ethics and morals of animal research (so-called "ethics" training is usually a primer on institutional rules--confusing rules with ethics is a dangerous practice). To express distaste or unwillingness to do certain types of research (e.g. with mammals) would almost certainly elicit defensive taunts and perhaps misgivings from many colleagues. That said, the argument that animal research does not provide valuable data used in saving and improving human lives is ridiculous. It is simply not true. What is true is that a lot of animal research is either frivolous (either due to conceptual or experimental incompetence) or crosses a line in cruelty where possible benefits cease to outweigh the costs to our conscience. Where this line exists is a matter for discussion, but pressure to conform makes it one that scientists are reluctant to have. As bad as it is in academia, throw in the profit motive and industry's hostility to regulation of any sort...it's ugly. It seems frivolous to target the tiny world of academic research when you've got a galaxy of disgusting and cruel practices in the meat industry. If you want a big net reduction in cruelty to animals, there's your target.