Ethics of Research involving animals
The context of the debate - continuation II
Violence and intimidation
15.47 The current climate in which animal research takes place has been influenced by several factors, including protests that often entail threats, harassment and violence (paragraphs 2.22–2.24). The effects of these actions have been highly disproportionate to the very small number of activists involved.20
15.48 It is tempting to dismiss animal rights extremism as being wholly unwarranted. Yet those who resort to violence maintain they have the moral high ground. This can be frustrating to those who campaign within strictly constitutional limits, and who fear that violent and abusive actions damage their legitimate cause. Those who promote violence and intimidation to pursue their case against animal research often attempt to justify their actions on the basis that they are liberating animals in much the same way as the Allies liberated Europe from the Nazis. They believe the democratic process is too slow, and moreover that the voting system is invalid, in that animals are disenfranchised. In the wake of their activities are others who would not themselves use violence but who are prepared to threaten it, persuading themselves that bullying is acceptable because it is aimed at people who are bullying animals.
15.49 If some of those engaged in the animal rights movement were able to force research abroad or prevent multinational companies from opting to conduct work in the UK, by means of militant actions, they would claim such outcomes as a victory.21 During our fact-finding meetings we heard different accounts of the effects of the actions of groups involved. Some of those working in the pharmaceutical industry and the contract research sector said that the presence of animal rights extremism was not a major factor in considering whether or not to opt for a different research location. But there have also been reports to the opposite effect, and attention has been drawn to possible economic and scientific setbacks for the UK, should protestors be able to continue their activities.22 In 2004, multinational companies repeatedly urged the UK Government to amend the legal framework applicable to animal rights-related extremism, emphasising that the status quo was unacceptable and might influence decisions about investment. In 2005 the UK Government responded by making amendments to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill.23
15.50 We conclude that all approaches based on violence and intimidation are morally wrong: democracy is a precious achievement that allows conflict to be resolved without recourse to violence. It cannot permit exceptions where militant activities displace debate and consensus, otherwise anyone with any strongly held view would be able to prevail over the majority. The debate about animal experimentation must be conducted in a reasonable and civilised manner. Seeking to force research out of the country is not a solution to the complex issues it raises. We therefore fully concur on the issue of militant protest with one of the leading animal rights advocates, Professor Peter Singer:
’I cannot support the use of violence in the cause of animal liberation. It sets a dangerous precedent – or, one might say, it follows dangerous precedents. In the United States, ‘pro-life’ extremists have fire-bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors who terminate pregnancies. I consider these defenders of the sanctity of human life from conception to be misguided; but no doubt they are just as sincere in their convictions as defenders of animals. It is difficult to find democratic principles that would allow one group to use intimidation and violence, and deny the same methods to the other.’24
Open laboratories
15.51 In a highly polarised debate where many people hold strong views, the only option for making progress is for all concerned to engage in debate fairly and respectfully. Members of the public should have the opportunity to discuss animal experiments with researchers, and to visit laboratories to see the facilities and the animals that are being used. We realise that this suggestion raises a number of practical issues. It would be unacceptable if visitors to laboratory facilities abused the opportunity by protesting against research involving animals, using argumentative or unruly behaviour or by gathering intelligence so as to cause damage to property or harm to staff. Laboratories need to ensure that visitors have no such aims. Measures are also needed to prevent the exposure of visitors to allergens and to ensure that they do not disturb animals or spread infections.
15.52 Despite these possible problems, and the fears of members of the research community of being targeted by militant protestors, some academic and industrial scientists and scientific institutions involved in animal research are willing to engage with the public (see paragraph 2.30). Others are reluctant to do so. The Working Party experienced the fragile climate of trust at first hand, as it was not possible for all members who wished to attend fact-finding meetings at research facilities to do so (see Appendix 4). We take the view that in order to improve and sustain public trust, researchers at animal research facilities must find more ways to open themselves to dialogue. We therefore recommend that those involved in animal experimentation should take a proactive stance with regard to explaining their research, the reasons for conducting it, the actual implications for the animals involved and the beneficial outcomes they intend for society. These discussions should take the form of a two-way process, in which scientists not only inform the public about their research, but also listen to and understand concerns by members of the public.
Footnotes20 Militant extremists have brought considerable fear to the lives of those whose work involves research on animals, and to their
families. Many people who do not have direct association with animal laboratories but who work for institutions that provide services that facilitate animal experimentation have also been affected. Similarly, several charities which fund research involving animals have stated that they do not wish to engage in an open dialogue about the legitimacy of research on animals for fear of becoming a target for extremists. Animal rights extremists threaten not only scientists engaged directly in
research, but also those working for legitimate animal welfare organizations such as the RSPCA and professional bodies such as
the IAT and LASA. For example, for the past four years, the IAT has not been able to hold its annual conference in the UK because of threats from extremists. LASA has also had to hold all its meetings in undisclosed locations to minimise the attention of militant protestors. See also Home Office/DTI (2004) Animal Welfare – Human Rights: protecting people from animal rights extremists, available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/humanrights.pdf. Accessed on: 21 April 2005.
21 See, for example the Initiative Gateway to Hell, available at: http://www.gatewaytohell.net. Accessed on April 21 2005.
22 According to the ABPI, more than 65,000 people are directly employed by the pharmaceutical sector and a further 250,000 are
dependent on it for their employment. In 2003, the industry contributed £2bn to the UK economy and generated exports of
£7bn and a trade surplus of £2.3bn, the third highest after power generation and oil products. Members of the ABPI spend a
combined £30–70 million a year on security, see Hennock M (2004) Pharma firms take on the extremists BBC News online,
available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3933939.stm. Accessed on 21 April 2005; Evans M (2004) Extremist animal rights
activists pose main threat to economy The Times online, available at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1396891,00.html.
Accessed on 21 April 2005.
23 The Bill received Royal assent on 11 April 2005 and thus became the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, available at:
http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/20050015.htm. Accessed on: 5 May. Sections 145–149 make it a criminal offence to cause ‘economic damage’ by means of organised campaigns of intimidation. They are intended to improve the enforcement of legal sanctions of attacks against businesses, company employees and their family members, charity shops and universities. In addition to other measures in the Act, new offences are introduced to respond to typical forms of protests. These include a new offence of protesting outside someone's home in such a way that causes harassment, alarm or distress to residents. There are additional powers for a constable to direct a protestor to leave the vicinity of a home and not return within such period as the constable may specify, up to three months. Individuals guilty of an offence under section 142 or 143 are liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both. Since these provisions were agreed after the final meeting of the Working Party, we do not comment on the appropriateness of the Act, although in principle we welcome regulations seeking to prevent harassment and intimidation.
24 Singer P (2004) Humans are sentient too The Guardian 30 July, p21.
24 Singer P (2004) Humans are sentient too The Guardian 30 July, p21.
30 See Richardson CA, Flecknell PA (2005) Anaesthesia and Post-operative Analgesia Following Experimental Surgery in Laboratory
Rodents: Are we making Progress? ATLA 33: 119–127; paragraph 12.26.
31 In a different context, one journal has recently reviewed its policy on the provision of information about statisticalmethodology in published articles. Research had revealed that this information was of varying quality, and the editors therefore decided to introduce a requirement for authors to submit specific information about statistical methods used in the methodology section of each article, see Editorial (2005) Statistically significant Nat Med 11: 1-1.
28 Issues arising from different legislative and regulatory requirements in other countries, and problems in harmonising guidance internationally are discussed in paragraphs 15.84-15.91.
29 Animal Procedures Committee (2003) Review of cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research, p77, available at:
http://www.apc.gov.uk/reference/costbenefit.pdf. Accessed on: 4 Apr 2005.
32 A(SP)A, Section 5 (a).