February 6, 2008

UCLA Professor's House Is Firebombed

The house of a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles was damaged by a firebomb left at the front door early Tuesday in an attack apparently orchestrated by animal-rights extremists, the university said in a news release. No one was at home when the device ignited, charring the door.

The incident was the second attack in four months against Edythe D. London, a professor of psychiatry and of molecular and medical pharmacology who uses primates in her research on nicotine addiction.

A statement issued today by the North American Animal Liberation Press Office said “animal liberationists” were responsible for placing the incendiary device. The press office relays messages from the underground Animal Liberation Front, but is not officially related to the group.

Gene Block, chancellor of UCLA, said in the university’s release that “these kinds of deplorable tactics have no place in a civilized society.” He added: “We will not stop beneficial research activities because of the illegal, violent acts of a handful of extremists.”

The incident happened on the same day that the Utah Senate, responding to concerns among animal researchers in that state, passed a bill that would allow a range of personal information about them, such as telephone numbers, to remain secret. Animal-rights activists have used the data, which would otherwise be a public record, to harass the researchers.

The Animal Liberation Front had previously claimed responsibility for vandalism last October in which someone broke a window and used a garden hose to flood Ms. London’s home, causing more than $20,000 in damage. At the time, a news release by the group said: “Edythe, water was our second choice, fire was our first.”

According to the university, the Animal Liberation Front also targeted two other UCLA researchers in the past two years, but the incendiary devices used in those attacks failed to ignite.

In a commentary that ran in the Los Angeles Times last year, Ms. London said she uses research animals to study “how nicotine, methamphetamine, and other drugs can hijack brain chemistry and leave the affected individual at the mercy of his or her addiction.” She described a personal connection to the work, in that her father suffered an untimely death from complications of nicotine dependence.

She said that threats of violence had caused one researcher at UCLA to abandon his studies of the visual system. “We must not allow these extremists to stop important research that advances the human condition,” she said at the time.

After the attack on Ms. London’s house last fall, the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement condemning attempts to intimidate scientists who use animals in research. “If intimidation drives scientists from their valuable efforts and discourages young scientists from pursuing fields of inquiry that require the use of animals, medical progress will be seriously impeded,” it said. —Richard Monastersky

Comments

1. Animal liberationists should go and seriously get a life. SERIOUSLY.

   — Nixon    Feb 6, 11:25 PM    #

2. The North American Animal Liberation Press Office “relays messages from the underground Animal Liberation Front, but is not officially related to the group”? But they are physically related in the sense that they’re in communication somehow. If the press office won’t help the authorities find these people, why aren’t they charged with arson?

   By the way, I can’t understand why the “liberationists” stop with non-human primates. Why not the bacteria we kill with every step? Or the plants these idealists probably gorge on after one of their midnight missions? Or for that matter, salt, rocks, and water, all part of the natural world? Well, hold on, that would be silly, I guess.

   — S. Britchky    Feb 7, 12:27 AM    #

3. These acts should be called what they are. Acts of Terrorism. This is not just arson but the act of terror to promote fear. As all Americans confirm there is no place for acts of terrrorism in civilized society. Let us debate and let us evaluate our ethical perspectives, however let us not be coward by cowardice and demand that the Animal Liberation Press name their contact associated with the Animal Liberation Front or be listed as a terrorist supporting organization.

   — R. White    Feb 7, 05:14 AM    #

4. As a primatologist who is aware of the tremendous value of knowledge coming from carefully and humanely conducted research involving nonhuman primates, and as someone who works every day to promote ethical and considerate care for captive primates and the conservation of natural populations, I find it hard to understand how hateful and destructive some people can be in the name of kindness to animals. What just happened is, indeed, a terrorist act, and THS should treat it—and those who know who is responsible, just as they would the perpetrators of other hate crimes. Well, I’m not suggesting anything like “waterboarding,” but there is a level of fanatacism that resembles that of other hateful groups. It is important to note that not all people who identify with animal welfare groups are terrorist fanatics, and they should not be treated as such. However, there is no question that many kind and gentle people provide support and encouragement for the radical fanatics who are attracted to movements for which they can engage in “jihadic” violence. They wish to do violence, so they find some “cause” that will justify their actions. Not good, folks. Any reading this who support causes that inspire violence need to step back and think of constructive alternatives. While we are at it, perhaps we should also give some thought to national policy and how we can help it be less destructive and more constructive.

   — Joe Erwin    Feb 7, 07:42 AM    #

5. While I do not support this type of behavior I think we should be careful about calling this a “terrorist act.” Also, Britchky, I think research on primates is much different than research on rocks (last time I checked rocks weren’t living) This was not a hate crime – different motives driving this crime. I don’t condone this behavior, but the reality is that those primates will continue to be injected with terrible drugs. If you think that is fine all in the name of science, there’s not much to debate about. I am in support of constructive alternatives but I also hate to see us bystanders get on the “lets the terrorists!” bandwagon. Lets treat this for what it is.

   — Bobo the Chimp    Feb 7, 10:05 AM    #

6. For too long researchers have lied about the conditions of animals they use/abuse in research. Only the efforts of animal rights activists have improved the situation. There are extremists in every group but the fundamental claim that animals deserve much better consideration is right on target.

   — Ian    Feb 7, 10:10 AM    #

7. The politics of the past several years has made me wary of tossing out the “T”-word, so I understand Bobo’s reluctance to weild it in this case. That said, the very spirit of terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate a group of people into certain actions. This would, to me, seem to fit that bill.

   Non-violence is the only acceptable path— regardless of how passionate you feel about the issue. Call it terrorism or not, I don’t really care, so long as these people get the message that this is unacceptable in a peaceful, civil society.

   — Anthony    Feb 7, 11:11 AM    #

8. This wasn’t protest, this was intimidation and blackmail. When (note, ‘when’, not ‘if’) caught the perpetrators should get 5+yrs

   — watcher2    Feb 7, 11:29 AM    #

9. Consideration and care and kindness are all very important in dealing with people and other animals. Yes, I consider people animals. We are primates. We share with other primates many aspects biology, brain, and behavior. Many aspects of these can be productively studied in humans and nonhuman animals without harm or pain. “Bobo” above, seems to quickly generalize from “terrible drugs” to all science. One can be, as I am, opposed to hurtful and harmful procedures without indicting all science and scientists and discarding all research. I have often volunteered to serve as a subject for research, I have worked in human hospitals as well as nonhuman primate facilities, have been a zoo curator, and have observed many primate species in the wild. In my experience, which includes knowing personally several UCLA primatologists, it is clear that much effort is made to provision of high quality care. I have seen much progress, and expect to see much more. There is always room for improvement, and I’m confident that continued progress will be made. But those who claim that we have nothing useful to learn from nonhuman primates or other animals (about health or anything else), or who make nonsensical claims that “research on humans is immoral, so it must be for other primates,” the need is highlighted for people to become better informed and think more critically. People are constantly fed misinformation and lies about research and researchers by by what has become a rather hateful and distorted movement. I have received much hate mail, based on misinformation posted on the web for all to see, including such things as urging people to go to the home where my grandchildren lived (where I no longer lived) and “let people of conscience do whatever their conscience allows.” This over false allegations that I was an “animal abuser.” My offense? Assisting research facilities and zoos in improving the quality of life for captive primates! Someone simply told someone else I was a bad guy, and the reverberations went on for many years. It mattered not that what they had said was not true—my offense became that I was an “enabler” because I designed improved conditions and advocated development of environmental enrichment plans, etc. There are some good and conscientious people in the animal welfare movement. There are some misguided idealists. There are also some seriously mentally disturbed, violent, vicious, and hateful people who are attracted to animal rights and anarchist hate groups. If you care about animals (hopefully including people), feel free to seek facts and expose abuse in order to reduce animal suffering, but do not resort to blowing things up. It is unattractive, ineffective, and unworthy of efforts to promote peace and kindness. Let’s all do our best to be considerate and learn what we can as best we can. If firebombing is the best option your creativity provides, you need to do some work on your creativity, and maybe you ought to get some therapy.

   — Joe Erwin    Feb 7, 11:30 AM    #

10. The higher the level of “moral outrage” expressed, the more likely it is that “moral sadism” lies below the surface (i.e., the cloaking of harm with moral grandstanding). Branding the protesters “terrorists” and condemning their violence is easy, but seeing “one’s own” violence is (as always) much more difficult. (Percieve the venom in the “defending use of animals” responses above.) It is really too bad that we have not yet discovered life elsewhere, life forms more evolved than humans. On the basis of the “of course it is okay to use animals a bit lower on the evolutionary scale than us” defenders, then logically, they should step up to be mutilated (and offer their children for the same) to a more evolved species, voluntarily. Who out there really thinks that they would do so?
    Simone Weil gave us a powerful example of what she calls a “defect of perspective:” “the massacre of one hundred thousand Chinese hardly alters the order of the world as [people] perceive it, but if instead a fellow worker has a slight rise in pay which they have not, the order of the world is turned upside down!” (“My father. . . “) The protesters are not the only ones with a “defect of perspective” concerning the issue of animal rights.

    — Chris    Feb 7, 12:11 PM    #

11. ‘research’, when causing pain and death, is cruely. it is the ultimate terrorism – (that word people throw around like penny candy) – to cause pain and suffering to innocent and defenseless living beings.

    some researchers have hidden behind the cloak of the academy, denying the horrors of their labs, actions, and indifference to the pain they cause in the world.

    there are other ways to study all issues and problems that do not rely upon the purposeful infliction of pain and suffering on others.

    i wonder about the kind of person who can and does cause pain, creates a life of misery in an otherwise healthy living being, and is able to witness that pain, daily, and feel no remorse, shame, or guilt.

    vivisection, animal testing, and its others are to many people, repulsive, sociopathic, and should not be tolerated in a just society.

    you may disagree, and that is your right. it is just a matter of time before the academy evolves to a place where it understands that animal testing is a crime.

    — dr. ross    Feb 7, 12:20 PM    #

12. Nice strawman, dr. ross. Animal research is highly regulated. You can’t do vivisection… nobody does that. Don’t you realize that all research must be approved by an IRB?

    I do disagree with you. But I would never, ever threaten violence against someone that I disagreed with.

    — J    Feb 7, 12:29 PM    #

13. I suggest that those who do not want humane testing performed on animals be the only ones to volunteer for clinical trials for all medicines that are being developed.

    Furthermore, there should be an option to carry laminated cards that say, “I do not support animal testing. Please do not treat me with any procedure or medicine that has been tested on animals.”

    These seem to be the most “money where your mouth is” actions that the anti-animal research community could take. It would truly exemplify the passion and commitment they seem to express in their words, literature and, now, in the case of Dr. London, violent actions.

    — DrFunZ    Feb 7, 12:35 PM    #

14. “It is really too bad that we have not yet discovered life elsewhere, life forms more evolved than humans. “

    Something tells me that if we did, and they did testing on Martian chimpanzees, you would no longer consider them more evolved. This would make your profound scenario kind of meaningless, as your definition requires your point of view to begin with.

    — Jake    Feb 7, 02:01 PM    #

15. Well, if fire-bombing the Dr’s house is not terrorism, then may I presume that Bobo won’t object if, say, friends of the doctor grab a couple of those passing out the info from the ALF and set them on fire a little until they give up everything they know about the ALF and said friends then go and set them and their stuff on fire?

    Just askin’.

    Or is morality all one-sided?

    And personally, I would have nothing against waterboarding them.

    — JorgXMcKie    Feb 7, 02:35 PM    #

16. It is terrorism. Arson used to be a capital crime for a reason. I hope the perpetrators are caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Our country has lots of avenues for peaceful protest should they wish.

    — Stewart    Feb 7, 03:24 PM    #

17. Lets call this what it really is. TERRORISM!!! There is no difference between this activity and the terrorist who flew into the twin towers. 20 years to life would be an appropriate sentence when these people are caught.

    — Warren    Feb 7, 04:03 PM    #

18. I am such an animal lover, sometimes my strong feelings for the welfare of animals is overwhelming even to me. But, if you truly love and care about animals, how can you possibly think about hurting a person? Instead of spending time and money trying to hurt these researchers, why don’t these people go rescue the millions of other animals whom they have the instant abillity to help? Tackle the easy animal problems first – that will keep them busy for a very long time and I’m sure they will find no resistance in doing that. At the very least they wil be doing a lot of good for other animals and not doing anyone harm!

    — donna    Feb 7, 04:08 PM    #

19. “Furthermore, there should be an option to carry laminated cards that say, “I do not support animal testing. Please do not treat me with any procedure or medicine that has been tested on animals.””

    Amen to that.

    Of course, none of them have the stones to do that. Their “courage” only comes when skulking around at night.

    — Greeneck    Feb 7, 04:10 PM    #

20. You can argue about whether the act is terrorism, but you can’t deny that the act is criminal. Fire was their first choice. What is the next step in their criminal escalation – kidnapping, torture, murder?

    — John    Feb 7, 04:30 PM    #

21. Go to this link:
    http://leo.huan.co.uk/images/imguploads/img110.jpg

    Print the card, laminate the thing, and keep it in your pocket.

    And Chris, learn to spell. Don’t write “percieve”, when you mean perceive, nor “rise”, when you mean raise.

    — Carded    Feb 7, 04:39 PM    #

22. A bunch of useless losers who never grew up from their youth miseries. Often mentally ill. The sense of contempt will not prevent me from advocating a full force of the law to be applied to them though.

    — Mark de Goz    Feb 7, 05:16 PM    #

23. Did the firebombers verify none of the London family pets were home at the time of the attack?

    Oh, and about the Utah rule. If the ALF can’t get personal information on researchers, how can they be expected to desecrate their dead family members’ remains? Geez people, work with us here. (Yes, I’m referencing an actual event.)

    — Former animal rights activist    Feb 7, 05:32 PM    #

24. We’ve seen the problems over and over again when grant greedy scientists attempt to apply animal findings to humans. It doesn’t work. Perhaps Ms. London would like to volunteer one of her family members for her important research.

    — Bunny Primate    Feb 7, 05:41 PM    #

25. Animals are not people. We all have ethical responsibilities to animals and to people, but those responsibilities are different. People count more than animals- period. This act was terrorism and should be prosecuted as such.

    If we shouldn’t apply animal findings to humans, then what’s the alternative? Going straight to humans for experimental subjects?There is no logic or sense in such a comment.

    — Al    Feb 7, 05:49 PM    #

26. She uses research animals to study “how nicotine, methamphetamine, and other drugs can hijack brain chemistry and leave the affected individual at the mercy of his or her addiction.”

    What more need we understand about horrible substances like nicotine and meth? Wouldn’t it be more productive and humane to focus on prevention campaigns and educational programs?

    — Jodi    Feb 7, 05:53 PM    #

27. Chimpanzees are more intelligent and more capable of suffering than many people. If you would never condone medical testing on infants or the severely mentally disabled, you shouldn’t support inflicting pain on chimpanzees. There’s nothing special about human suffering as a category – if a being is sentient and capable of suffering to the same degree that many of us are, it should be as off limits to these procedures as are weakest among us.

    — Amanda    Feb 7, 07:35 PM    #

28. Let’s talk about a consistent ethic of life, if an ‘ethic of life’ is what is motivating the firebombing cowards. What, do you think, are the chances the terrorists are actually pro-life. I don’t just mean anti-abortion, but also anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-oppression? Like many extreme environmental activists, I’ll bet they ‘care’ more about animals than humans.

    Once we create a world where no human being is victimized, from conception to natural death, then we can start talking about the animals.

    I would love to live in that world, and to have those discussions about how we treat the animals in our world. But that’s a far second to how we treat humans.

    — Profet    Feb 7, 07:42 PM    #

29. One wants to remind these so-called “activists” that there were also animals living in the house, i.e., human beings, otherwise known as homo sapiens. I have had enough violence in the name of life and freedom: we get that kind of rationalization everyday from the military and from presidents. This sort of thing reminds me of the Weathermen, preparing to blow people up to protest the Vietnam War. A consistent pacifism requires non-violent means to promote its ideal ends.

    — Landrum Kelly    Feb 7, 08:00 PM    #

30. There can be a consistent ethic applied to humans and nonhuman animals. Due consideration. The “golden rule” expands nicely, and can be applied rather directly across species, but only if it is based on knowledge. The better we understand something or someone, the greater capacity we have for treating it with due consideration. Careful and considerate research on human subjects is essential and is underway all the time, including treatment and trials on infants and the developmentally disabled and critically ill. More humans are involved in clinical trials than nonhuman primates are involved in research or testing. Many people make a lot of assumptions about what goes on inside laboratories without really having any direct knowledge. Some assume the worst. Some who have commented here seem indifferent to nonhumans. The humane scientific study of animals is essential to understanding their health and behavior, quite apart from any contribution the knowledge might have to human health. If you oppose pharmeceutical testing involving animals, you should be trying very hard to invent more reliable methods of assessing the safety and efficacy of compounds. You should then work to get those methods accepted and used, and you should seek changes in the laws that now require the kind of testing that occurs now. Attacking those who carry out the mandate of society intended to protect the health and safety of people and other animals is simply insane and hateful. If you think anarchy is such a great idea, use all your creative intellect to help the rest of us understand why—don’t firebomb people and whimper about being called a “terrorist.” Violence is what people do when they lack the intellect or imagination to do something constructive and effective. Sadly, stupid and mentally ill or weak people are led to engage in violence by those who fan the flames of their anger with hateful rhetoric and deliberate distortions and lies. It is just like firing up desperate people who feel powerless to do suicide bombings. Matyrdom for a cause. Why not choose to live to do constructive acts, rather than dying to do something destructive?

    — Joe Erwin    Feb 7, 11:35 PM    #

31. When animal rights supporters stop taking FDA-approved medications—every single one of which was first tested on animals—then I’ll take them seriously. Until then, they are just hypocrites.

    — Jane Hatfield    Feb 8, 01:22 AM    #

32. As a small correction to Mr Kelly’s comment: the Weather Underground didn’t “blow people up to protest the Vietnam War.” They blew people up because they were trying to overthrow the government of the United States. Even after the war ended, their campaign went on. Ironically, though, the only people they ever succeeded in blowing up was themselves, when a nail-filled bomb intended to kill off-duty soldiers at a dance in New Jersey exploded prematurely in March 1970 taking three Weathermen with it.

    — Gustave    Feb 8, 04:47 AM    #

33. The onlly difference between this and arson is the press releases. Shut down the press office by arresting them as accessories to the crime and pursue the arsonists. If the press coverage stopped the incidents would stop.

    — John    Feb 8, 06:29 AM    #

34. Who are the “Terrorists” here? Terrorists inflict torture upon the innocent, often helpless, which is precisely what these lofty, protected scientist do. You mean they haven’t figured out the reasons or consequences of addiction by now??? Even a crack head is aware of this information, but institutionalized, legal Animal Cruelty is a BIG BUSINESS. If government funded torture of animals ceased, these folks would have to get a real job . A slaughterhouse would be perfect for them. After all, don’t they “care” for the animals they terrorize, maim and murder. From all the comments here, I surmise there are lots of you who need an education in what defines cruelty, and first off, a warning: BEWARE OF MAN! Leave the animals alone.

    — Kelev    Feb 8, 08:33 AM    #

35. Day after day we learn of the intelligence and sensitivity of primates. They are much more like us than many people care to believe. A chimp has the same mental capability as a young human child. Since we see ourselves so highly elevated above all other species, how come the primates are not up there with us. Since we consider themselves so humane let´s prove it and stop using animals in laboratories. Any serious study shows there are plenty of alternatives that are currently being used and studied. I wonder is it because some so called scientists just don´t give a damn about the unspeakable suffering inflicted upon animals. I fear that may be the case after researching what many of these animals go through. A famous quote : ´People prefer to believe then to know´.

    — Renewoods    Feb 8, 09:07 AM    #

36. Law enforcement has to finally take this group seriously; find the criminals and put the away for a long time. The FBI has often said they are a top priority for them. This is clearly not the case. How far will these fanatics allowed to go before the system reacts?

    — Victor    Feb 8, 09:53 AM    #

37. For all of you who believe the ALF are ‘terrorists’ or should ‘get a life’ need to read http://www.kirotv.com/news/15189249/detail.html. As Gandi said best “The greatness of nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”.

    — Red    Feb 8, 10:09 AM    #

38. To “J”:
    Are you aware of the content of the regulations you mentioned that cover animals in research? The word Minimal doesn’t even fit. PITIFUL does. The few laws of protection/animal care (Care? for the tortured?)are, have been begrudgingly offered to the millions of animal victims of research by government (our tax dollars) and self-serving institutions, and would not exist if not for animal advocacy group’s efforts. If you treated your animal pet in this manner, you would be arrested. Institutionalized animal cruelty is protected by government and unthinking, unquestioning, selfish society. “Regulations of torture of animals” = Cruel Kindness? What a deal!

    — Kelev    Feb 8, 10:12 AM    #

39. Perhaps it is the research community that is to blame for not exploring an obvious alternative. People who are so passionate about the cause of reducing the suffering of animals that they would resort to violence should be given the opportunity to volunteer themselves as subjects in the research. They would be providing a valuable service to humanity and would end the suffering of the animals. It would greatly accelerate the research and development process, because human subjects can communicate exactly how they feel during the experiments. It is a win/win opportunity that should be explored. Unfortunately, I don’t see the extremists being that courageous. They seem more bent on harming others than making a useful contribution.

    — Jim Peacock    Feb 8, 11:36 AM    #

40. It’s a shame when whackjobs pull something like this, because it discredits anyone who criticizes the morally reprehensible research performed on animals. Let’s be clear about this: Very little research performed on animals is necessary to save human lives. I mean, come one, do we really need to blind animals so that we can better understand our own color blindness? No animal should die so that someone can get tenure. Not even one mouse.

    — The Hamster of Love    Feb 8, 03:10 PM    #

41. The attack is criminal. The failure of UCLA to have security and monitoring devices installed at Prof. London’s home is reprehensible.

    — Frank    Feb 8, 03:44 PM    #

42. To Red:

    At least I know how to spell Gandhi. Stop trying to use grand quotations as flimsy evidence to support your radical and myopic crusades. I second the individual above who illuminated the hypocrisy of animal liberationists vis-a-vis FDA pharmaceuticals.

    Why don’t we go a bit further, shall we? We’re all living on lands that used to be animal habitat. Indeed, we STOLE from the animals so that we might build our empires. I call on animal liberationists to return their lands to animals as a gesture of true committment.

    — Nixon    Feb 9, 02:51 PM    #

43. Someday our evolutionary successors will use us for experimentation, and your child will be taken from the cage next to you, and you will watch as they put her in a harness so that she cannot move, then they will drill out sections of her skull and attach electrodes to her brain and leave her like that for four days while they subject her to various stimuli, and then they’ll kill her when they’re done. You will watch it all, and when you scream “please, please don’t do it,” they will either laugh or sedate you. But it’s for a higher purpose.

    — marci    Feb 11, 04:44 PM    #

44. I’ve noticed that on my campus, acts of assault or classroom disruption are usually targeted at women instructors, not men. Does it make any sense to love animals but hate women?

    — Dr. Bob    Feb 12, 05:39 PM    #

45. Why not go the faculty lounge and ask for smokers to volunteer for this study? Or to the streets and ask for crack addicts to volunteer? The smokers and addicts will get their fix for free and the chimps can go back to…where ever they came from. I have nothing against animal testing, but since there are so many humans who are willing to subject themselves to these drugs in particular, why not use them instead? It’s a win-win.

    — Tracy G.    Feb 13, 05:23 PM    #

46. …and props to Profet for an excellent posting. I suspect ALF’s “animal activism” has more to do with nose-thumbing, creating havoc, and fighting “the power” than it has with “caring” for animals or protecting life. ALF’s members surely must know that it is easier to set fire bombs for others than it is to come to terms with their own demons.

    — Tracy G.    Feb 13, 05:37 PM    #

47. 1. It’s sloppy thinking to treat the outfit that passed on a message from the arsonists as guilty accessories; there’s no reason to think they have any knowledge at all of who did this.
    2. Did the IRB have any reasons to think the research could not have been done on volunteers? If not, some more sloppy thinking; in any case, why isn’t UCLA looking into this? The UCLA IRB is in fact almost unique in the quality of their thought, so I won’t condemn them till I hear some more on the nature and justification of the research.
    michael scriven

    — michael scriven    Feb 15, 07:20 AM    #

48. Just to be clear, for all the posters who say that “well, firebombing is a bit too far, but….” Ever actually do animal research? Ever have to deal with an IRB? With federal regulators? Doing this research is very difficult because of compliance issues, as it should be. Animals are treated much more humanely than people were 50 years ago (Milgram and Tuskgeegee, anyone?).

    Why do we condemn alleged cruelty to animals, when the ALFers and their enablers don’t really seem to worry much about the cruelty done to the researchers, their “innocent” colleagues (I suspect someone is going to go all Ward Churchill on this point), and, especially, the families of the researchers? What makes blowing up a lab any different from blowing up an abortion clinic? There are many, many forms of direct action short of terrorism that can and have influenced all manner of research policies. And I don’t think it’s unfair to call any violent action intended to terrify and intimidate its targets terrorism, particularly while its perpetrators operate underground and in the dark, knowing that their actions can kill and injure people, about whom they care far less than animals.

    Tracy G is right—these ALFers are more about puerile “fight the power” sixties nostalgia than they are about being constructive contributors to a very important debate about animal welfare. By their actions, they reveal that they care not at all about anyone’s welfare but their own.

    — Tom in Raleigh    Feb 15, 12:14 PM    #

49. Tracy G., please be aware that no chimpanzees nor other endangered primate species were involved in research at UCLA.

    — Joe Erwin    Feb 25, 03:46 AM    #

Previous: Regulation of College Endowments Has Support in House
Next: Move to Lift Head-Scarf Ban Wins First Approval in Turkey's Parliament