Good Editorial About Animal Liberation Front Terrorists

[dawgmom]

The Washington Post
December 8, 2008 Monday

Terrorizing Medical Research
P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker

Terrorists have struck again. In the predawn hours one morning last month, they used an incendiary device to destroy two cars. You may not have heard about this, even though it followed a series of firebombings of homes and other vehicles. The attack didn't take place in Mumbai or Baghdad but in Los Angeles. Yet the news couldn't break through the reports on the holiday season and our economic woes.

The intended target of this violence, a researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles, was a scientist who uses animals in his work. But the terrorists, reportedly from an organization known as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), had bad aim. The burned cars belonged to people with no relationship to UCLA or even to animal research.

Black comedy? No, because lives hang in the balance, and not just those of the intended targets, their families and anyone who happens to reside nearby. Because of such terrorism, many medical researchers are rethinking their choice of profession, putting all of us at risk of losing out on medical advances that can dramatically improve, and save, our lives.

In our book, "The Animal Research War," we profiled researchers who have abandoned successful careers because they are unwilling to put their families, in many cases including young children, in danger. One scientist sent an e-mail to his harassers with the subject line: "You win." "Please don't bother my family anymore," he wrote, promising to walk away from an animal research program that had yielded insights offering hope to visually impaired children. Walk, he did.

In Santa Cruz, Calif., in August, a firebomb targeted a researcher who uses rodents in his work. The attack sent the man, his wife and two young children scurrying to safety out a second-story window. The fact that they were targeted at 5 on a weekend morning -- when the whole family was likely to be at home -- frightened researchers everywhere.

The Foundation for Biomedical Research, which tracks attempts to intimidate researchers, has found that a handful of sporadic actions 10 years ago has ballooned to more than a hundred annually. Most involve nonviolent harassment, but a growing number have been violent.

Some of our own colleagues in Portland, Ore., have had to endure black-hooded "ALF-ers" chanting in front of their homes, "2, 4, 6, 8, we know where you sleep at night." The message is clear: Continue your research at your peril.

But set aside the danger to researchers and their families for a moment and think about this from a purely selfish point of view. Those whose life's work is fighting deadly diseases are now themselves under attack. Can we expect them to continue their efforts if they aren't safe in their homes or can't park their cars on public streets?

Research is a trade-off: To learn how to help humans, we engage in animal experimentation. But as part of this trade-off, we have an obligation to see to it that the animals don't feel pain or suffer in other ways. The extremists who threaten scientists ignore the extensive regulations that protect animals used in research. They place their own definition of animal rights ahead of human well-being. They believe in the abstract principle that we can't use animals to supply our food or clothing -- or to support our health, even if doing so, to take just one example, can improve the chances that a child can see.

Whether or not we agree on animal rights and animal research, we should be able to agree that fire-bombing homes and threatening families is not an acceptable way to try to bring about change in a civilized society.

As Michael DeBakey, the famed heart surgeon and Congressional Gold Medal winner, has said, "It is the American public who will decide whether we must tell hundreds of thousands of victims of heart attacks, cancer, AIDS and other dread diseases that the rights of animals supersede a patient's right to relief from suffering and premature death." The time for deciding is now.

P. Michael Conn is a senior scientist at the Oregon Health and Science University's Oregon National Primate Center and a professor at the university's medical school. James V. Parker is a former public information officer at the primate center.

[LeftishBrit]

1. Very interesting article.

As I've probably already told you, my name and address are on a target list of such a group, because I work in a university which is building an animal lab, even though I've never experimented on animals in my life and wouldn't know how to - my research is in a HUGELY different area. Three of my colleagues had their cars torched. None of them worked with animals either; but it doesn't matter; it's all guilt by association.

[semillama]

2. People like ALF only diminish the moral power of the animal rights movement's arguments

I don't see why that is not perfectly clear to these people. Of course, if they were operating rationally, they wouldn't be resorting to terrorism.

[MrMonk]

3. People like ALF

are more likely to be people who'd take any excuse to thug and torment others. "Animal rights" just gives them an excuse.

Just my opinion, based on years of direct and vicarious experience with "zealots".

[dropkickpa]

4. Yep, this is why I'm careful about personal details

No "I work here" no "Here's a paper I'm associated with" no "I know/work with these guys" no specifics about breakthroughs or advances I'm closely associated with etc. even when I'm really excited about something extremely promising. I do not hide the fact that I work in biomedical research, specifically research using animals. And I address fallacies about animal research when i see them, because the general public AND animal rights groups just have no idea what is involved so there are a lot of misconceptions and myths passed around.

The worst part is these people are total hypocrites. They have no problem utilizing the advances made using animal research when they and their loved ones are ill. They're simply misanthropic bullies and thugs dressed up in self-righteous sheep's clothing.

[Deep13]

5. If animals have a moral value equal to people, then ALF is completely justified.

It is only the dogmatic belief of the moral equivlency of humans and animals (I hear some won't eat honey because it abuses the bees) that leads to this conclusion. Once accepted, everything else they do is a logical and rational response to what they see as mass murder.

So like Evangelical members of Congress and Islamic terrorists, irrational dogma convinces intelligent and often good-intentioned people to do horrible things.

[cosmik debris]

6. I used to belong to the

Plant Liberation Front.

We attacked an orchard and set all the trees free.

They didn't seem to appreciate it very much.

Oh well.

[dawgmom]

7. They can be awfully grouchy

Especially the apple trees. Did they throw fruit at you?

[LeftishBrit]

8. Well, they did at Isaac Newton...

[dawgmom]

9. Or so he thought

But then, he was a bit mad.

(Twas the mercury poisoning, no doubt.)

[LeftyMom]

10. .

:eyes:

[TZ]

11. ALF vandalized a building I used to work in.

Ironically the building that had animals was next door.
Needless to say we were a bit put off after that.
What people don't understand is the truly scary effect these people can have on the environment. Many of these animals have been exposed to or carry some frightening diseases (not necessarily on purpose either!) and if they got out and effected the wildlife...well that could be really bad.

To me ALF is little better than the Pro-life movement. They use the same slimy tactics to attempt to impose their beliefs on everyone.