April 18, 2008

California Seeks Controversial Legal Protections for Animal Researchers

In a bid to provide legal protection for scientists who use animals in experiments, the judicial committee of the California Assembly approved on Thursday the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, which was strongly supported by the University of California. The legislation now moves to a vote in the Assembly’s appropriations committee.

The bill, which was described this week on the University of California at San Francisco’s Web site, would establish new criminal penalties for harassing researchers who work with animals and would provide employers of researchers the power to sue in civil court on behalf of their employees.

That ability could give universities new legal muscle against animal-rights extremists, according to a fact sheet prepared by the university system. The bill would also allow universities to withhold information from public records about animal research if they consider that releasing such data would expose researchers to harassment.

But the Legislature’s own analysis of the bill notes that it is opposed by civil-rights organizations, which view it as an infringement on protesters’ freedom of speech. Despite the activists’ protests, animal research has continued unabated, according to a recent analysis by The Chronicle of Higher Education. —Richard Monastersky

Comments

1. citizens are supposed to be protected by law under whatever circumstances. This case will provide an example or a mirror for specific occupation groups to protect their everthing including theor privilege. In my opinion, legislators who make any “right” act should balance each side of involved groups.

   — Hsien hong lin ( Joe ) doctrol candidate of higher education administration of KENT STATE UNIVERSITY    Apr 19, 08:59 PM    #

2. This is an issue where ordinary common sense should prevail. It isn’t that hard to distinguish animal rights activists who are merely voicing their opinions from those who under cover of the most transparent euphemisms are engaged in intimidation and extortion directed at individuals who dare to question their philosophy. In the latter case, the First Amendment offers no protection. Direct threats have never been protected speech, and one must be obtuse not to recognize that publishing the names and addresses of medical research workers (or abortion service providers!) by groups or individuals who have proclaimed that such people are fair game for violence is evidence of the intent to threaten and intimidate.

   — Norman Levitt    Apr 20, 02:38 PM    #

3. Eliminate the animal reference and this is intimidation or thuggery in every other dimension. Put ‘em away!

   — John    Apr 21, 06:45 AM    #

4. An animal rights group published on the internet the address where my daughter and grandchildren lived (my former residence), with the claim that I was one of the “worst animal abusers” in the Washington, D.C., area, and urged “people of conscience to let conscience be their guide” with regard to “direct action” at that address. My crime? Providing behavioral health services to promote the well-being of primates at an NIH contract research facility. It was alledged that by improving facility design and environmental enrichment to enhance the quality of life for laboratory primates, I was an “enabler” of animal research, which was, by definition “torture.”
   In fact, I am a strong advocate for animal welfare and regulation to ensure that laboratory and zoo animals are well cared for, and that efforts are made to promote conservation of natural populations of primates. Many animal rights extremists deliberately misinform the public about research involving animals and derive support from the innocent and caring people they deceive. The freedom of people to promote animal welfare should be protected, along with that of people who learn from animals in the service of human and nonhuman animal health. Extremists who advocate or promote violence, disruption, and anarchy, and extort money from caring people by misinforming them, should bear responsibility for hateful distortions and their consequences.

   — Joe Erwin    Apr 21, 06:54 AM    #

5. Every time one of these harassers is convicted, sentence should be to take the place of an animal being studied.

   — an indecent proposer    Apr 21, 10:49 AM    #

6. In the above comments I see unconcern for the enormous amount of physical suffering and the miserable deaths inflicted on many unfortunate animals in the research environment, pace Mr. Erwin, behavioral palliator. The sort of smug commentary above does not promote support for funding for higher ed. You remind me of my moral obligation to write to congressional representatives urging no more support for funding for animal-based research projects, and to my CA representatives to ditch this bill at once. Thanks.

   — Disgusted    Apr 21, 11:30 AM    #

7. Ahem.
   In the above comments (#6), I see unconcern for the enormous amount of physical suffering and mental torture inflicted on many unfortunate people working in the research environment. The sort of smug commentary above (#6) does not promote support for “animal rights”. My darling “Disgusted”, you remind me of my moral obligation to write to publications such as this urging no more support for the vague platitudes and vacuous comments of people who can insulate themselves from the real world while boosting their poor self esteem by pretending they’re making a difference and doing something worthwhile. Thanks.

   — Jim    Apr 21, 01:25 PM    #

8. I am an animal lover, but I also know that many of the great strides we have made in the treatment of both animal and human diseases is the result of animal testing. I hope Disgusted never becomes ill and requires treatment with a medication first tested on animals. What choice will Disgusted make: to possibly survive the illness by taking a medication tested on animals or to succumb to the illness in support of animal rights.

   — Pragmatic    Apr 21, 04:18 PM    #

9. I am also an animal lover, and I recognize that humans are but one of many forms of animal life. We are animals. We are mammals. We are primates. We share with our nonhuman relatives many features of biology and behavior, including sensations and cognition and numerous aspects of structure and function. I feel that our interactions with our animal cousins, as our interactions with each other, should be guided by due consideration. Due consideration implies knowledge and understanding. We have much to learn from animals for their benefit and for our own. The least considerate thing we could do for animals is ignore them. By learning about them and from them we can gain greater respect and regard for them. The scientific study of nonhuman animals is not just one thing. The topics and methods vary. The degree of invasiveness or intrusion varies. The urgency of the work varies dramatically. Trivial, intrusive, harmful, wasteful studies, especially those involving unrelieved pain and/or irreversable damage should not be, and are not, allowed. Studies of great importance and significance that involve little or no intrusion on animals should certainly not be prohibited nor discouraged. SOME kinds of research should not be done. SOME kinds of research certainly SHOULD be done. Those who promote violence toward people whose research is carefully and humanely conducted, with consideration and respect for human and/or animal research subjects, harm us all, and they should not be encouraged nor allowed to do so. Advocate all you wish for improved research methods and greater respect for human and animal research subjects, but please do not advocate for ignorance. And please do not mislead people with inaccurate overgeneralizations about no research involving animals being of any benefit to human or nonhuman animals. I’m all for continual vigilance to ensure humane care and procedures, and continuing efforts to improve methods of learning more in less invasive ways. One can oppose SOME kinds of research and/or testing without opposing ALL animal-related science. One can be passionate and compassionate without accepting unsupportable dogma and promoting hatefulness.

   — Joe Erwin    Apr 21, 08:45 PM    #

10. How many people would remain in the terrorist “animal rights” grooups if, to prove their sincerity and conviction, they were required to carry a card preventing any medical treatment for themselves or members of their family that existed because of animal research? One way or the other, they wouldn’t be around very long.

    — Cathy    Apr 23, 11:48 AM    #

Previous: Controversy in Colorado Hits Itinerant Institution
Next: Professors Sound Discordant Note Over Sale of Musical Instruments