 | |  |
 |
|
|
|
Scientific
Research Targeted by Anti-Animal Testing Activists |
Posted:
10.04.06
|
|
|
A proposed law could affect animal activists who use extreme
tactics that some scientists and lawmakers say go too far and
stand in the way of scientific progress.
Printer-friendly version: PDF
|
|
|
|
|
 Three
animal rights activists were sentenced to four to six years in
prison last month for stalking and intimidating employees of a
company using animals for laboratory research.
The activists are part of an animal liberation movement aimed
at stopping animal testing, with the belief that it is cruel and
that animals should have the same rights as humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Activists
who commit crimes |
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation under review
in Congress -- the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act -- would strengthen
the law used to prosecute these activists and provide more protection
for individuals with any ties to institutions that conduct animal
testing.
Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science magazine, wrote in
a September editorial that the new bill should be put to a vote
"as soon as possible, before somebody gets killed."
Extreme animal activist groups claimed responsibility for 1,200
crimes between 1990 and mid-2004, according to the FBI.
The work of peaceful animal activist groups to create awareness
about animal testing and alternatives has been overshadowed in
recent years by the work of more extreme groups.
|
|
|
|
Scientists
under fire |
|
|
|
|
|
Extreme groups' tactics include listing addresses and phone numbers
of researchers on Web sites and encouraging people to harass them.
Scientists have reported receiving death threats and hate mail.
In August, Dario Ringach, a neurobiology professor at the University
of California at Los Angeles, decided to stop his research on
primates because he feared for his family's safety.
 Ringach
was using monkeys in vision experiments for information processing
research.
He received threats and pressure from a group called the Animal
Liberation Front. After the ALF targeted another UCLA researcher's
home with a home-made bomb, Ringach sent the group an e-mail saying,
"You win."
A statement from UCLA after the incident said using "violent
tactics aimed at halting animal research is to take away hope
from millions of people with cancer, AIDS, heart disease and hundreds
of other diseases."
In England, where the animal testing debate has been especially
heated, activists succeeded in suspending construction of an animal
research facility at Oxford University by using threats and destroying
university property. The project has since resumed, but large
scale protests have kept the university on edge.
|
|
|
|
Other animal
rights approaches |
|
|
|
|
|
Extreme activists are a small but visible part of the much larger
campaign against using animals in testing.
Animal rights groups try to educate the public about conditions
and procedures animals are exposed to during testing. Some lobby
the government to strengthen regulation of animal testing and
work with scientists to develop alternatives.
 Undercover
investigations done by groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, or PETA, have exposed animal abuse and torture in
some laboratories.
PETA also runs ad campaigns and conducts other outreach, and
has had particular success reaching the 13-24 age group.
"We reach out to youth and let them know how powerful their
voice can be," said Lisa Lange, vice president of communications
for the group. "We don't just address cruelty, we address
the reasons [animal testing] doesn't work."
|
|
|
|
Animal testing |
|
|
|
|
|
In the United States, an estimated 25 million vertebrate animals
-- those with backbones -- are used each year in research, testing
and education, according to the Humane Society.
 Almost
all the animals used in testing are eventually euthanized.
Animals are used in medical testing because they have biological
similarities with humans and are a way to gauge a living being's
reaction to a treatment or process.
For example, pigs have cardiovascular systems that are similar
to that of a human, so they are used to test heart medications.
Genetic disorders are often studied using mice, which share 98
percent of their DNA with humans.
|
|
|
|
Looking for
better solutions |
|
|
|
|
|
Animals are not perfect models for testing human treatments,
however, and there have been cases where human reaction to a medication
is wildly different from the test results on animals.
"Many researchers have found that when you use animals that
are in distress and pain the result won't be accurate," said
Betsy Nessen Merrill, director of communications at the Johns
Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing.
There is hope that eventually animals will not be necessary in
labs, and that new ways of researching and testing will be even
more effective.
 Already,
computers can be used to create virtual cells, tissues and organs.
Real tissues can be grown in labs and more powerful scanning techniques
are being used to get better insight into the human body.
Scientists working on finding alternatives to animals operate
on the three R's: replacement, reduction and refinement. Replacement
is the ultimate end goal. Reduction is finding ways to reduce
the number of animals used and refinement is finding ways to reduce
pain for the animals.
There is some concern among scientists that alternatives to animal
testing will make it harder to make advances.
"Some scientists think you are going to take a step backwards,"
Merrill said. "What we are trying to do is use the latest
techniques to do the best science in a humane way."
--By
Talea Miller, NewsHour Extra
Do you have an opinion about this article? Or do you have
a personal experience related to this article that you'd like
to share with our readers? Click
here to submit your story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American schools and financial aid should be only for legal citizens of the United States. There should be no exceptions to this.
