A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required) highlights a recurring theme in the struggle between researchers engaged in responsible, legitimate scientific study of animal subjects and critics of that research. That is, an open willingness of a few fanatical elements within the animal rights movement to embrace violent acts and an effort of more “moderate” elements to personally distance themselves from the perpetration of violence, while tacitly justifying it, in the same breath.
Jerry Vlasak, spokesperson for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, is quoted:
If Jentsch won’t stop [using animals in his research] when you ask nicely, when you picket in front of his house, or when you burn his car,” says Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for underground animal-rights groups, “maybe he’ll stop when you hit him over the head with a two-by-four.”
This chilling statement, while steeped in hatred and sociopathy, is not surprising. Mr. Vlasak has created a cottage industry around making such statements, likely because of the notoriety and public attention he receives when he makes them. The repetitive nature of his open embrace of such threats of harm belie the fact that he really has little else of any merit to add to the discussion of the ethics and science of animal-based research.
What is increasingly noteworthy, however, is the willingness of self-identifying non-violent activists to justify, explain away or apologize for the violent acts used to intimidate researchers.
In February of 2010, Pro-test for Science joined together with a student animal rights organization, Bruins for Animals, to host a civil dialogue on the science and ethics of animal-based research. Despite our attempt to build a rational and open discussion with the group, the Chronicle reporter indicates that Bruins for Animals:
does not endorse violence, but Kristy Anderson, who founded it in 2004, says she understands the anger behind the attacks on researchers and wouldn’t be surprised if, sooner or later, a scientist got hurt.”
If animal rights activists feel that they are being moderate when they do little more than refuse to “endorse violence”, they are deluded and wrong. Moderation and civility involves the repudiation of violence – a far cry from the poorly veiled attempt to pin the blame for animal rights extremism on researchers who are doing nothing more than engaging in legitimate, ethical and legal research intended to save life.
Robert Jones, a philosophy faculty member at CSU-Chico, restates Ms. Andersen’s take on extremist violence when he tries to explain their position.
They believe what you are doing is morally wrong, and they feel disempowered to stop it,” he told Mr. Jentsch.”
What the author of the Chronicle article did not describe is his unwillingness to say that what animal rights extremists are doing to scientists is wrong, or – for that matter – his unwillingness to criticize similar efforts by anti-abortionists like Operation Rescue or anti-gay hate groups. One only has to stop for a moment to realize just what Ms. Andersen and Mr. Jones are really saying: if animal researchers, abortion providers or people practicing their sexual preferences in private make you mad enough, it is only understandable that you might turn around and hurt them; if one feels powerless to stop perceived unacceptable and immoral behavior of others, “any means necessary” is an unfortunate but expected consequence.
The parallels between elements within the animal rights movements and the hate mongers from the religious right are revealed in these statements. All these groups involve zealots who hold a point of view that they believe is uniquely enlightened. Each has a self concept that incorporates moral superiority and purity of vision. All believe that those who violate their moral framework are sinners, and that they are entitled to mete out justice in turn.
So, what happens when a group like this sets their sights on you because of your job and/or characteristics? Will others turn away and “understand” the violence and hatred directed at you?
Or will we all, as members of a civilization of rational human beings, come together and say – once and for all – that harassment, intimidation and threats are unacceptable and must be stopped? And, more importantly, will we start to combat violence and confront extremism now, before it finds its way to the door of others?
David Jentsch
Perhaps you would be less offended by Dr. Vlasak’s comments if they appeared in the methods section of a journal article and if he put proposed subjecting a sufficient number experimenters to such treatment so as to obtain statistically significant results?
Or perhaps if Dr. Vlasak suggested anesthetizing experimenters before the two-by-four treatment so that they didn’t suffer…
Perhaps you should look up the word “democracy” in a good dictionary.
Vlasak is a thug, by attempting to equate his threats of violence against human beings to the work of scientists who are striving to improve medicine through humane and ethical animal research (alongdide many other approaches) you are just showing how misanthropic you have become.
Intervening, even with force, to stop violence against the innocent is not misanthropic…and the appropriateness of such an intervention does not hinge on a vote.
Gerald,
Just curious – do you also endorse violence towards those who use animals for other purposes? Say, food, clothing, entertainment?
“…does not hinge on a vote”
On what does it hinge then? That justification would be suffient for any group, no matter how marginal its views to use force to impose its positions on the rest of democratic society.
While no political sysem is perfect the various checks and balances in the US political and judicial system make the use of intibidation and violence in pursuit of political aims unjustified,and immoral.
Would you extend to anti-abortion activists the same justification you make for the actions of animal rights extremists?
“That is, an open willingness of a few fanatical elements within the animal rights movement to embrace violent acts and an effort of more “moderate” elements to personally distance themselves from the perpetration of violence, while tacitly justifying it, in the same breath.”
There’s a difference between justifying something and stating that you understand the reasons why people feel they should do that thing.
“The parallels between elements within the animal rights movements and the hate mongers from the religious right are revealed in these statements. All these groups involve zealots who hold a point of view that they believe is uniquely enlightened. Each has a self concept that incorporates moral superiority and purity of vision. All believe that those who violate their moral framework are sinners, and that they are entitled to mete out justice in turn.”
And all scientists make stupid generalisations…
We can all understand how the anger felt by an individual may justify violence in their own eyes, but the language used by many AR supporters goes beyond that. I grew up in Ireland and can “understand” why some kid growing up in Derry in tha late 1960′s might be motivated to join the IRA, but that understanding does not prevent me from condemning without reservation the actions of that terrorist group (just as I condemn loyalist terror groups and some of the actions of the British security services). It is this condemnation that is missing from the language used by some – not all – “moderate” AR activists.
What David wrote is not a stupid generalisation, it unfortunately happens to be true for all to many of those involved in the broad movements he refers to.