Insidious tactics of animal rights groups in Portugal

Since 2000 there has been a rise in the opposition to animal research across much of Europe. The tactics of animal rights groups in Europe have been very similar to those in the US, including rallies, hate campaigns, vandalism and targeted-violence. These activists have targeted both companies (such as Novartis, in Spain, Switzerland and Italy) and universities (Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, UK) and they have even targeted individuals (such as Andreas Kreiter, in Germany, who was targeted with newspaper ads). There are exceptions to this increased opposition, for example the UK, where scientists are better organized to counter animal rights claims, support for animal research remains high, and in Italy, where support for animal research has increased recently as the scientific community there has started to speak out.

Though quite predominant in the northern Europe, this movement has been mostly absent from southern countries, with the notable exception of Italy, and almost non-existent in Portugal. However, in recent years, there has been increasing interest on this matter amongst the general public, as well as the appearance of new AR movements that are against all forms of animal experimentation. Moreover, more and more groups and individuals are bringing up the discussions about animal rights.

Groups such as Liga dos Direitos dos Animais (Animal Rights League), Associação Animal (Animal Association), União Zoófila (Zoophile Union), among others, were founded by the late 80’s, early 90’s, but are increasingly active. It must be said, however, that most of these groups are non-profit public utility associations, mostly involved with the protection of domestic and wild animals, bringing together volunteers working at municipal kennels, catteries or programs for the conservation of endangered species. They try to promote awareness to issues pertaining animal rights and they also help to raise money for important Conservation Programs (such as the Grupo Lobo that focuses on the conservation of the endangered Iberian Wolf, or the Lynx Program, organized by the LPN). They do some important work in a country where bullfighting and pet abandonment are unfortunately still relevant issues. For some of these groups, however, this is not the case and, though their tactics remain relatively peaceful, their goals are closer to those of other international AR groups, such as PETA.

One of these, Associação Animal, is arguably the most active AR group in Portugal. Just like their international counterparts, it stands for the “ethical treatment of animals” and opposes animal experimentation, including for scientific research. Also similarly to what happens for other groups, their website is filled with the most basic arguments against animal research, and the most glaring lies.

In the section explaining their view on Animal Experimentation (no English version for the website), they start their article with a photo of a monkey and the sensationalist title “Animal Experimentation: Violence in the name of Science”; this, despite the fact that there is no animal experimentation on monkeys in Portugal. The article goes on explaining to the readers that “in the UK alone, almost 3 million animals are killed annually in laboratories. In Portugal, the use of animals in experimentation is currently an unregulated field”, which couldn’t be further from the truth. There is definitely room for improvement when it comes to surveillance and there is a need for better record-keeping. Nevertheless, the very same laws applied in the rest of the EU pertaining animal experimentation, are also being applied in Portugal.

animal research statistics portugal

Most animal research, in Portugal, is done on rodents and fish. Animal experimentation follows EU guidelines and all projects involving animal research have to be evaluated by an Ethical Committee, before being approved. (Full statistics can be found here)

Another interesting “fact” that we can learn from their website is that “at least 65% of the [animal experimentation] procedures are done without anaesthesia” and that “in the remaining 35% of experiments regularly done, it’s certain that these imply the infliction of pain and suffering”. It is unclear where these statistics come from, nonetheless their use is misleading. Anaesthesia should only be used when its administration doesn’t cause more pain or distress to the animal than the procedure one needs to perform, without anaesthesia. So, in fact, this number may only show us that the majority of the procedures performed don’t require anaesthesia – they tell us nothing regarding their necessity. As for those “remaining 35%”, if they correspond to experiments done under anaesthesia, and if they are done properly, then their whole point is to alleviate any “pain and suffering” for the animal.

The next topic, “Animal Experimentation in Portugal”, seems, at last, to bring us some actual facts: “In Portugal, there is also animal experimentation, specifically in the National Lab for Veterinary Research, in the zootechnical stations of the Ministry for Agriculture, in the Faculties of Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Sciences, Pharmacy and Psychology, in some scientific research facilities and in some private labs”. But, alas, they end the topic showing a tremendous taste for misinformation, mentioning experimentation in cats and primates, which are not used for experimentation in Portugal at all (see graph above). All their other arguments are so commonly used and so basic that they are barely worthy of attention. But for information sake I’ll just leave a synopsis of their two big arguments against animal research: 1) animal testing leads to “dead-ends” that block scientific progress, and 2) while researchers are still resorting to animals as “cheap and easy to get and to use research resources”, there’s no true stimulus to find non-animal alternatives for research. I will not take my time rebuking these, for they have been extensively addressed by SR before (1 2, 3, 4, and our FAQ).

Associação Animal has been rapidly gaining momentum and their arguments are designed to convince people who have no other sources of information than the one they provide. As for demonstrations, they have been relying on the general anti-bullfighting movement, by organizing anti-bullfighting demonstrations, but then introducing “anti-vivisection” signs in the middle of the crowds.

Interestingly, both a review from 2012 and the 2010 Eurobarometer conclude that the majority of the Portuguese population is favourable to animal experimentation for Biomedical Research purposes, most of them regardless of the animal species used.

Interestingly, both a review from 2012 and the 2010 Eurobarometer conclude that the majority of the Portuguese population is favourable to animal experimentation for Biomedical Research purposes, most of them regardless of the animal species used.

Their increasing notoriety seems to coincide with the legal creation, in 2011, of PAN (Party for Animals and Nature), a Portuguese party that managed to gather 1.72% of all votes in the last European Elections (though voter turnout was only 33.67%), thanks to the most basic and sensationalist arguments.

Banners from PAN that can be found on their Facebook page. They all read “You are responsible for the torture, dismemberment and the slow and painful death of thousands of dogs, rats and monkeys every year. And you don’t even know it.”

Banners from PAN that can be found on their Facebook page. They all read “You are responsible for the torture, dismemberment and the slow and painful death of thousands of dogs, rats and monkeys every year. And you don’t even know it.”

Among other things, PAN has started a petition to “substitute animal experimentation for alternatives that – to paraphrase Animal Welfare Specialist Nuno Henrique Franco – makes me wonder how much of what it implies is the result of deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

All the ideals of PAN and Associação Animal are making their way into the media, their demonstrations having more and more supporters and their media attention increasing. Also, the impact of such groups in Portugal is becoming very clear, though their tactics seem very peaceful. Recently, the Bioterium of Azambuja (a central breeding centre for animal research purposes) was dropped by the Portuguese Government after pressure from the Plataforma de Objecção ao Biotério.

On the other side, on the scientists’ side – who should be the first to speak up – there seems to be only silence, either for lack of concern, for lack of organization, or for fear, I can’t say. What I know is that, if nothing is done, we very well may find us in a country where these kind of arguments, fallacious and false, might just be the only ones who actually reach people. And if people and politicians make their judgement (and vote accordingly) based solely on that information, we can’t condemn them in the end – only ourselves.

Inês S. Albuquerque, PhD student
Lisboa

We Need You – Help us keep SR running

Speaking of Research (SR) was founded in 2008 thanks to the support and generosity of American’s for Medical ProgressMichael D Hayre Fellowship in public outreach. SR’s ongoing website costs, then around $100/year were paid by AMP. In February 2011, the British advocacy group Pro-Test wrapped up their operations and left a small sum of money (~$300) to SR which has thus far funded our website costs. This money has now run out, and we would like to give our supporters an opportunity to help us continue our activities. We now require around $150/year for website costs.

We like to think we have used the little money we have effectively. From around 25,000 website views in 2008 we have grown to well over 500,000 views/year in the last 12 months. Does HSUS, with revenues over a million times ours, achieve a million times the web reach? We sincerely doubt it.

Speaking of Research Funding

HSUS – The Humane Society of the United States – 2012 Annual Report
PETA – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals – 2013 Financial Statement
AAVS – American Anti-Vivisection Society – 2012 Annual Report
NAVS – National Anti-Vivisection Society – Animal Action Report 2013

We are asking for any small, individual donations, up to $15 (£10/€10), which would put towards our website costs. Any excess that we receive will go towards other online activities such as promoting posts on various social media platforms in order to boost our readership. Please use the donate button below. We thank you in advance for your kind support.

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Please do not give larger donations. We would like to have a large base of small supporters donating. Any donations are accepted on a no strings attached basis. This donate button also exists permanently at the bottom of our “About” page.

Some people have had problems making donations by debit/credit card. If you find changing the country from UK does not change the British “provinces” (to, say, US “states”), try picking a random country first, wait for it to change the menu options, then change to your chosen country (and wait a few seconds). This should work.

Remember that donating is not the only way of supporting SR. We need your help to share and like our posts on social media on Facebook and Twitter (and Reddit and Google+ and every other social media platform). We need your help to link to our website. We need your help telling your friends and colleagues about the role of animals in medical research. And, perhaps most of all, we need your help writing for Speaking of Research – either as guest posters or as part of the committee – so please get more involved today.

Speaking of Research

Is British Animal Rights Extremism Back? A Profile of National Operation Anti-Vivisection

There was reason for celebration on 12th August 2014 when SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) announced an end to its fifteen-year campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), an international contract research organisation who have been the subject of a long campaign of violence and harassment. The campaign has seen around two dozen activists sentenced to over 100 years’ worth of jail time in the US and UK, with more sentences due to be handed down next month in the UK. This comes at a time when animal rights extremism remains at an all-time low in the UK.

However, within a month of the SHAC campaign ending, a new animal rights campaign has sprung up in Cambridge (UK), which bears many hallmarks of SHAC.

national operation anti-vivisection

National Operation Anti-Vivisection (NOAV) claims to be:

“a completely grass-roots network of animal rights activists opposed to vivisection in the UK … We feel strongly that institutional animal abuse of all kinds will continue while the benefits to the companies abusing animals outweigh the detriments. Through campaigning, lawful protests, boycotts and all other lawful means we intend to create those detriments!”

The call to keep the campaign legal is laudable, but few animal rights extremist organisations openly declare illegal intentions. Indeed SHAC, with its 100 years of jail time, claimed that it “[did] not encourage or incite illegal activities.” NOAV go on to say that:

“The time for talking, thinking and plotting is over – it’s time for action! We are not a talking shop or a social club, we are a no nonsense anti-vivisection activist group! If you are ready to take action to stop animal testing, please check out our campaign pages!”

The campaign pages bring up two separate campaigns NOAV are running. The first, which offers cash incentives to students, for the details of fellow student animal researchers so that they “can be used for covert monitoring or naming and shaming student animal abusers.

The poster (below, left) produced by NOAV shares much likeness of a similar campaign poster (below, right) created by American animal rights extremist group, Negotiation is Over, led by Camille Marino. If you look carefully below you will notice the use of language, and structure of the poster is remarkably similar. Both offer students “easy cash/money” for the names, pictures, addresses, contact details, and experiment details of students involved.

Posters offering cash for details of student researchers by National Operation Anti-Vivisection (left) and  Negotiation is Over (right).

Posters offering cash for details of student researchers by National Operation Anti-Vivisection (left) and Negotiation is Over (right).

We have condemned the targeting of students before, and we do so again. Stalking and harassing students is not a legitimate way of running a campaign. It is these sorts of actions which can force brilliant minds out of the life sciences out of fear, as happened after an NIO campaign targeting Scripps student, Alena, in 2011.

National Operation Anti-Vivisection’s second campaign targets a new animal research facility being built by the British-Swedish pharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca, in Cambridge. What makes this campaign concerning is a section of the website called “Secondary Targets”.

NOAV - secondary targets SHAC national operation astrazeneca

The webpage then provides names, addresses, pictures and contact details of individuals and organisations who are involved in building the new facility in Cambridge. This tactic is similar to SHAC’s campaign against HLS; as John Salon described these tactics in a Salon article:

“SHAC’s modus operandi is simple, elegant and shockingly effective: Publish the names, home addresses and telephone numbers of executives and employees of Huntingdon and any companies it does business with; identify these individuals as ‘targets’”.

It is at this point we may care to question why SHAC closed down its operations. SHAC’s wide reach and big impact in the preceding 15 years has made it a prime target for legal action by firms wishing to protect themselves. At least 18 companies, including Oxford University and AstraZeneca, have won legal injunctions to prevent or limit SHAC protests aimed at themselves, their employees, or their stakeholders. Any activists running under the SHAC name are therefore restricted in acting against these companies. Many may believe that by running under another banner they can avoid those legal injunctions imposed on SHAC.

Does National Operation Anti-Vivisection (NOAV) represent a violent threat at a time when extremism is almost unheard of? Time will tell. A rise in legal activism by animal rights groups is bringing fresh money into the movement. While most of this goes on above-the-level campaigns, it is often hard to prevent some of it spilling into more questionable hands. SHAC collected almost “£1 million in donations to SHAC’s collection buckets and bank accounts” back in the early 2000s.

Organisations and individuals must continue to be open in explaining why they conduct animal research. In this way the public and younger potential-activists will be dissuaded from supporting or joining these fringe animal rights groups, which threaten research and the benefits it can bring.

Tom Holder

Time for a change? A Scientist’s View of Public Interests in Animal Research and Welfare

Each fall since 1950, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science has held its annual National Meeting. During the five days of the meeting, members and nonmembers come together to enjoy the workshops, lectures, poster sessions, and exhibits. The AALAS National Meeting is the largest gathering in the world of professionals concerned with the production, care, and use of laboratory animals. 

The September 2014 issue of AALAS’ signature publication, Laboratory Animal Science Professional, focused on the upcoming 65th National Meeting to be held in San Antonio, Texas, October 19-23, 2014. The magazine was delighted to publish an article from Allyson J. Bennett, this year’s Charles River Ethics and Animal Welfare Lecturer. Dr. Bennett shared thoughts from her upcoming lecture and was featured on the magazine’s cover.

“Time for a Change?” by Dr. Allyson J. Bennett appeared in Laboratory Animal Science Professional, September 2014, and is reprinted by permission.

Laboratory Animal Science

Time for a change? A Scientist’s View of Public Interests in Animal Research and Welfare

Public interest in animal research and welfare extend well over a century, with deep roots in different views of moral action, and the power to ignite highly charged emotional responses. Public interests are of two kinds: One is as recipients of the benefits that research delivers. The other is as decision-makers whose actions and views shape the social contract and conditions under which animal research is done—or not.

Decisions about animal research have consequences at societal and individual levels. As a result, serious consideration of the facts, inherent moral dilemmas, and future of animal research should extend far beyond the research community. What we often see instead is public interest in laboratory animal research represented not as the complex thing it is, but rather as a simple split: scientists on one side and animal rightists on the other. Logic versus compassion. Harm to other animals versus benefit to humans. Saving sick children versus hugging puppies. Heroes versus villains.

In this cartoon vision, opponents stand at an unbridgeable gap armed with different conclusions from facts that may, or may not, overlap. Each argues their case to sway the public, legislators, media, and youth to “their side.” This approach persists despite the long history, complexity, and critical importance of animal research to public interests.

Often animal research discussions begin and end without thoughtful dialogue, or even full acknowledgement, of what gives rise to opposed positions. Most obvious is the divide over whether animals should ever be part of research and, if so, which animals and for which purposes. Less obvious are some fundamentally different understandings and visions of how science works, how deeply it is woven into more than a century of profound changes in health, environment, and technology and out understanding of the world.

Scientists, laboratory animal research community members, advocates, and educators can play important roles in advancing the public dialogue beyond old and polarized scripts. Conveying accurate and substantial knowledge about animal research is a primary responsibility. We can share why we believe the lines of division are false, why identifying heroes and villains falls short, and why we should reject the science versus compassion formulation.

We can contribute to the dialogue with specific examples illuminating why it is wrong to cast the issue as science versus animals, or to divide along the lines of those who conduct the work and those who protect the animals. We can demonstrate that scientific study is responsible for much of what we understand about other animals and for advancing better animal welfare. Animal research has fostered better medical treatment, conservation strategies, and care for other animals.

At its heart, the purpose and motivation for animal research is the drive to reduce suffering and improve human and animal health. There is no compassion in ignoring the suffering of humans and animals threatened by Ebola or any other disease. Nor should a small, privileged segment of global society make decisions that disregard the world’s population, animals, and environment.

As knowledge, need, and perspectives continue to change, these and other topics will be central to advancing a deeper consideration and informed dialogue that can protect public interests in animal research.

This cannot be the job of scientists alone, nor does it require information and expertise available only to scientists. It may require additional effort from all of us to better understand the topics, core moral issues, and consequences of different courses of action. It will require time and change to place serious and full consideration of these issues at the center of public dialogue, but it is time well spent to move forward in addressing the difficult choices and challenges we encounter as we seek to improve a shared world.

Allyson J. Bennett, PhD is a developmental psychobiologist on the faculty of the Department of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is the Chair of the American Psychological Association’s Committee on Animal Research Ethics. Dr. Bennett is part of Speaking of Research, a volunteer organization that seeks to improve public education and dialogue about animal research. Speaking of Research’s news blog can be found here: http://www.speakingofresearch.com

Extremism is Not the Only Threat to Medical Research

Research into heart disease was dealt a blow when Maastricht University decided to suspend a scientific study involving dogs in August after growing pressure by animal rights groups in the Netherlands.

The University gave a statement saying that their Animal Experiment Committee had approved the cardiological study involving Labradors, but that “societal concerns with respect to the use of laboratory animals” had forced them to suspend the study “to take additional time to consider the case further”. The University then went on to assure readers of their commitments to the 3Rs, and say that “in some cases the use of laboratory animals remains necessary to achieve medical breakthroughs that will benefit both people and animals”.

The decision was questionable at best. On 28th August a statement by the University announced they were “stick[ing] by [their] researchers” and not “shap[ing] [their] course solely based on demands of activists with a pronounced view on the matter”. Four days later they announced that the “experiment has been suspended, and is unlikely to resume in the foreseeable future” and that they had given the eight dogs at the facility up for adoption.

So why had they given in? The animal rights group Anti Dierproeven Coalitie (ADC), the Dutch sister organisation to the UK’s Anti Vivisection Coalition (AVC), collected 120,000 signatures (online) and carried out a series of demonstrations outside Maastricht University.

protest animal rights labradors

Protest outside Maastricht University by the ADC

ADC and AVC have been growing in the UK, Netherlands and Belgium (as CAV). They are one of the few animal rights groups in those countries still drawing a crowd for semi-regular rallies and are increasingly making their presence known in the media (mainly local newspapers). Nonetheless, they have a chequered background. Five ADC activists (including co-founder Robert Molenaar) are currently on trial for breaking into a beagle breeding facility and stealing six dogs. In the UK, AVC has similar characters. Its former head was twice-convicted extremist, Luke Steele, and many of its current members have come in from the leftovers of the recently ended (and historically very violent) SHAC campaign.

The research in question had received funded from the medical research charity, the British Heart Foundation (BHF), who have been ahead of the curve in explaining the animal research they fund. The BHF put up a fantastic statement of support for the research, saying:

Recently, a BHF-funded study at Maastricht University involving dogs was suspended after a campaign by an animal rights group. This has been reported in the UK by a national newspaper.

Explaining why the BHF funded this project, our Medical Director Professor Peter Weissberg said: “This study could help to improve a pacemaker treatment for people suffering from severe heart failure – a debilitating condition that ruins the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the UK.

“The treatment, known as cardiac resynchronisation therapy, can help control the symptoms of heart failure which commonly include overwhelming breathlessness and chronic fatigue. But this treatment does not entirely relieve the symptoms, the risk of death remains high and in some patients it does not work at all.

“If this treatment were to be made more effective, it could dramatically improve the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of people living with heart failure.

“The researchers are working to improve this pacemaker treatment but these studies must be carried out in animals before they can be assessed in clinical trials in heart failure patients. The electrical wiring and size of a dog’s heart is very similar to a human heart, allowing the researchers to see how pacemakers might behave in patients. There is currently no alternative that could be used to carry out this potentially life-changing research.

“Our research has led to life-saving medical advances for heart patients over the past half century. But there’s so much work to be done and, for the foreseeable future, that will involve using animals in research.”

To anyone who doubts the importance of heart research, I recommend they watch the following video produced by the BHF and a heart disease victim

In the last decade there has been a large, and long overdue, crackdown on animal rights extremism. This is positive, but is not enough. Unless scientists take advantage of this new found safety by speaking up in support of their research, it will still be at risk in the fight for public opinion.

The Maastricht University dog study provides a worrying case study for anyone not willing to put up a fight to defend their research, because in the end, we all lose out.

Speaking of Research

Show that you care about the future of research that is crucial to medical progress by signing this petition to urge the U. S. Surgeon General to Voice Support for Animal Research, and then making a donation to the British Heart Foundation.

Learn more about the role of animal research in advancing human and veterinary medicine, and the threat posed to this progress by the animal rights lobby, follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Why Animal Research-based Criticisms of the Ice Bucket Challenge are Misguided

The following is a guest post by Caitlin Aamodt, a neuroscience graduate student at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is a debilitating motor neuron disease that progressively destroys the neurons required for voluntary movement, speech, and eventually breathing and swallowing, killing patients in just three to five years.  Through the Ice Bucket Challenge the ALS Foundation has raised over $100 million in funding while simultaneously providing a platform for over three million people to voice their support for scientific research.  But the wildly successful social media campaign was not without its critics.  Some were hesitant about the idea of wasting clean water, a luxury that isn’t afforded to many parts of the world and one that is growing more and more precious as the drought in the West worsens.  Others, particularly religious leaders, were unhappy with researchers’ use of embryonic stem cells, citing a conflict with their belief that life begins at conception.  But one of the most common criticisms, and the most dangerous, is that organizations that fund animal research should not be supported.

Aamodt Article Fig

Pete Frates, for whom the ice bucket challenge was created.

Initially it may seem harmless.  One might see a post about it in their Facebook feed and think, “Oh, so-and-so really has a soft spot for animals,” and then continue on without giving much thought to the implications of what they just read.  The issue can become murky, since the vast majority of people support the idea that animal abuse is wrong.  However, animal research is not abuse, and it is dangerous to voice opposition without considering the implications of what that really means.

What would one have to do to really extract him- or herself from taking advantage of the benefits of animal research?  To start this would involve declining any and all vaccinations, accepting vulnerability to dying from disease.  This actually extends to any intravenous injection, so all life saving therapies involving this simple procedure would be eliminated.  Death from blood loss due to a traumatic injury could not be prevented by a blood transfusion.  All surgeries would be off the table.  The basic antibiotics we take for granted would no longer be an option. No insulin treatment for diabetics.  No dialysis for those suffering from kidney failure.  Any hope for those suffering from breast cancer or depression would be lost.  Even the most recent medical advances, such as transplanting organs engineered from a patient’s own stem cells, would all be unavailable.  With these and countless other treatments directly resulting from animal research you would think that these activists would be sending us thank you cards instead of blind criticisms!

Could this hypocrisy be mitigated by any validity to their claims?  Absolutely- except for the fact that these concerns have already been addressed and protections already put in place.  Researchers and lay people alike want to ensure that no animal needlessly suffers.  Multiple oversight committees govern research activities conducted at universities. All federally funded research centers have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) made up of experts in the field as well as lay people to ensure that experimental design is deemed humane by both scientists and people unfamiliar with research practices alike.  Considerations include alleviating pain and side effects, minimizing the number of animals used, ensuring that animals are used appropriately and only when necessary, overseeing their healthcare and living facilities, and even requiring that a plan be in place to save the animals in the event of a natural disaster.  Research animals should be respected, and in keeping with that ethical consideration IACUC and many other oversight organizations ensure that they receive the best possible care.

The general perception of animal rights activists is that they are well-intentioned, if uninformed, individuals who are exercising their First Amendment right to protest whatever they want.  Unfortunately the reality is that their members include dangerous extremists willing to harass and carry out attacks on researchers.  At UCLA researchers are all too familiar with anti-research terrorism.  In 2006, 2007, and 2008 firebombs were planted at the homes of UCLA scientists.  In 2007 Dr. Edythe London’s home was flooded, along with a threatening note.  Dr. David Jentsch’s car was set on fire while he was in his home in 2009.  The terrorists also left a note filled with razorblades detailing a fantasy about sneaking up on him and slitting his throat.  On-going harassment includes yelling slurs at scientists outside their home.  In 2011 they referred to the daughter of holocaust survivors as “Hitler with a cunt,” and directed the homophobic slur “You cocksucking bastard” among others toward another researcher.  These extremists even directed their terrorism toward the children of Dr. Dario Ringach.  In 2010 they put on masks and banged on his children’s windows to terrify them and sent letters threatening to target them at school.

In the words of Dr. David Jentsch, “The anger generated by their failure to make a persuasive argument to the public, amplified by their sense of self-righteousness, is sufficient to convince them they are entitled to use violence to achieve their goals.”  We can no longer afford to be silent.  Animal research saves lives.  Anybody who reaps the benefits of animal research while claiming to oppose it should be made aware of this hypocrisy.  It is also essential that we banish the myth that modern-day biomedical research animals are tortured.  There are many layers of protections in place to ensure that they receive the best possible care.  There is no excuse for terrorism.  Nobody should fear for their lives or that of their children, especially researchers who dedicate their lives to scientific progress.  Now is the time to disseminate the truth about animal research and stand up for the welfare of all biomedical researchers.  The next time you hear someone claim to oppose the ice bucket challenge on the grounds of animal research be sure to speak up and educate them.  Society needs to hear the voices of the scientifically literate.  Don’t let them be drown out by ignorance.

Caitlin Aamodt
UCLA neuroscience graduate student

References

[1]  http://www.alsa.org/about-als/what-is-als.html
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4137497/
[3] http://www.alsa.org/news/media/press-releases/ice-bucket-challenge-082914.html
[4] http://www.refinery29.com/2014/08/73360/grimes-als-ice-bucket-challenge-peta
[5] http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/timeline/
[6] http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/tutorial/iacuc.htm
[7] http://unlikelyactivist.com/2014/02/03/join-pro-test-for-science-to-end-the-age-of-terror/
[8] http://unlikelyactivist.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/arson.jpg
[9] http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2010/02/23/time-to-get-mad-time-to-speak/
[10] http://fbresearch.org/als-ice-bucket-challenge-for-a-cure/

Urge the U. S. Surgeon General to Voice Support for Animal Research

Your scientific activism is only a click away.

A new petition in Change.org urges the U. S. Surgeon General, Rear Admiral Boris D. Lushniak, to voice support for the humane, and regulated use of animals in medical research.  It reads:

There is a growing pressure from animal rights organizations that would deny Americans the health benefits derived from the use of animals in medical research.

Opponents of animal research represent a small minority of the population, but they engage in misleading, visible and vocal campaigns that can impact the ability of scientists to conduct medical research with animals.

The scientific consensus is clear — recent polls by Nature Magazine and the Pew Research Center show that 92% of scientists believe that animal research remains essential to the advancement of biomedical sciences.

We call on the U. S. Surgeon General to publicly recognize the past contributions of the humane use of animals in research that has improved the well-being of human and non-human animals, and to stress the essential role they continue to play in advancing medical science and knowledge.

By acting on this petition the U. S. Surgeon General would be publicly reaffirming the scientific consensus and join the many medical and scientific organizations that have already adopted resolutions in support of the responsible and regulated use of animals in research.  These include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Neurology, the American Heart Association, the American Veterinary Medical  Association, the Society for Neuroscience and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, among others.

Please consider signing the petition and share it with your colleagues and friends!

Thank you!

The marchers begin to walk towards the center of the UCLA

Ask the U. S. Surgeon General to Voice Support for Animal Research!