The HSUS is, and always has been, unequivocally opposed to violence in the name of animal protection. In speaking out against violent acts, we have questioned the perpetrators\u27 means of trying to advance their cause, but we have not questioned their commitment to animal protection. Animal-research advocates are already invoking the specter of violence to advance their agenda beyond simply discrediting animal protectionists

Stephens, Martin L.

English

WBI Studies Repository (WellBeing International)

BY DR. MARTIN L .  STEPHENS he use of animals in reseai:ch and testing is an issue that went from relative obscurity in the 1970s to prominence in the 1980s. In .the process of gaining currency among the general pnblic, the laboratory-animal issue became preeminent in the aninial-advocacy movement. There is cause for optimism about .the prospect that the momentum generated in the '80s Will be translated into important gains on behalf of animals in the '90s, despite attempts by some animal researchers and their allies .to organize and fight back. The progress made in_ coming years, however, could be sig­nificantly compromised if acts of violence are undertaken by those who espouse the cause of animal protection. Will animal ad­vocates commit violent acts that undermine whatever gains the movement has achieved or preclude additional gains? Will any such acts give our opponents the anamunitioo they need to undercut our efforts? Just as · a fulling tide lowers all boats, violence on the part of only some animal advocates could set back the efforts -of all such individuals and organizations, in­cluding The HSUS. Likewise, certain in­dividuals and organizations could be u n ­fairly labeled as violent or supportive of violence. Webster's New »brld Dictionary defines violence as "physical force used so as to in­jure, damage, or destroy." In the United States, violence on behalf of animals in laboratories has taken several forms, in­cluding vandalism, arson, and bombing. In ­stances of arson and bombing are exceeding­ly rare. Vandalism, though not rare, i s  un­common and tends to occur during break­ins at reseai:ch facilities. To date, no one has been physically injured, let alone killed, as a result of animal-rights activism in the United States. What is perhaps the most serious incident occurred at the "headquarters -of the U.S. Surgical Corporation (USSC) in Connecti­cut on November 11, 1988. New York ac­tivist Fran Trull was arrested as she placed an explosive device near the parking space of USSC's chief executive officer, Leon Hirsch.* A threat of injury or death can .also be considered a form of violence, as can a threat of vandalism, arson, or bombing. It is difficult to verify that a threat of personal injury or property damage has been made and therefore difficult to get an accurate count of such threats, but dozens of people in the animal-research field claim to have received .them. Animal-research proponents have des­ignated the violent acts and threats as ter-rorism. The label has not only s!Uck but also *-USSC had long been a target of protest. At issue was the company's .pmctice of having its salespeople use live dogs in demonstrating the operation of its surgical staplers to surgeons. After Ms. Trutt's ·arrest, the police found additional bombs at·her New York residence. She was convicted of illegal possession of explosive devic�. She was also charged with attempted murder. Ms. Trutt maintained. that she had planted a bomb-to scare Mr. Hirsch, not to murder him. Many members of th_e animal-:rights community viewed her trial as an opportunity fo resolve an ·aliegation tl,iatshe had ·been a victim of ·entrapment Ms. Trott eventually :pkaded no contest to the Charge of attempted murder, stating that doing so would permit h.er to ·have the earliest reunion with her dog&, HSUS NEWS • Spring 1991 The HSUS is, and always has been, unequivocally opposed to violence in the name of animal protection. 21 In speaking out against violent acts, we have questioned the perpetrators' means of trying to advance their cause, but we have not questioned their commitment to animal protection. 22 been applied broadly and uncritically. A June 1990 news-wire story began, "The na­tion's top health official portrayed animal­rights activists as 'terrorists.'" The story was referring to a remark made by the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Louis Sullivan, during a pro-animal-research press conference held a few days before the June 10, 1990, March for the Animals in Washington, D.C. (The press conference was timed to undermine the impact of the march, which was a peaceful and lawful gathering of tens of thousands of animal activists.) Animal -research proponents have too readily applied the term violence-as well as terrorism-to such acts as breaking into laboratories and stealing animals and doc­mnents or other materials. Those acts, though illegal, do not constitute violence unless accompanied by vandalism or threatening messages left for laboratory per­sonnel. To be sure, however, vandalism and threatening messages are not an infrequent accompaniment of the break-ins. Most Americans object to violence as a means of advocating social change and believe in the pursuit of social change throngh nonviolent means. There is at the same time considerable public support for nonviolent but illegal activities such as non­violent civil disobedience. At issue fa violence's terroristic nature. Americans abhor terrmism. The HSUS is unequivocally opposed to violence conducted in the name of animal protection. That has always been the case, but we have felt the ueed recently not only to decry violent acts b.ut also to counter the statements of our-opponents, who have seiz­ed upon the issue for its propaganda value. Early in 1990 The HSUS, in conjunction with the American Society for the Preven­tion of Cruelty to Animals and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, drafted and endorsed a resolution on nonviolence. The three organizations distributed the resolution to scores of other animal-protection groups and encouraged them to endorse it as well. On January 29, 1991, the three sponsors ran a full-jlage advertfaement in the New Jbrk Tzmes containing the nonviolence resolution and other "joint resolutions for the 1990s" (see the text of the resolutions on page 24) in addition to a list of the endorsing organizations. To inform the scientific community of the position expressed in the resolution on non­violence, The HSUS sent a letter to the editor of the leading international scientific journal, Science. That letter appeared on September 21, 1990. We have also written to Secretary Sullivan to take issue with his Tepeated characterization of animal­protection activists as terrorists. In testimony submitted to two congres­sional committees that were considering legislation designed to protect research facilities from being subjected to illeg,;l acts, I wrote: Let me begin by stressing our long-standing and finnly held view that we abhor violence in any fo1m and have consistently used, and encouraged the use of, legal means for achieving the protection of animals. The HSUS not only opposes arson, vandalism, theft, and threats and acts of violence against people but also believes that such acts do not advance the cause of animal protection. In speaking out against violent acts, we have questioned the perpetrators' means of trying to advance their cause, but we have not questioned their commitment to animal protection. Nor have we overlooked the fact that violence and intimidation have also been directed at animal protectionists. It is undeniable that oµr opponents are exploiting the issue of violence as a pro­paganda tool. In his 1990 report to the members of The HSUS, delivered at the society's annual conference in October, President Joim A. Hoyt observed: It should be clear to the most casual ob­server . . . that many animal users, such as the furriers, researchers, and agribusi­ness leaders, are attempting to discredit all animal activists by placing labels such as '•violent'' or ''destroyer of property'' on everyone and every group working on behalf of animals. And, unfortunately, they are suc­ceeding in convincing a large segment of Congress and the American public that what they say is so. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is a growing backlash against almost any kind of activism on behalf of animals. Animal-research advocates are already in­voking the specter of violence to advance their agenda beyond simply discrediting animal protectionists. In .addition to seek­ing federal and state legislation that would prohibit violent acts, our opponents have HSUS NEWS • Spring 1991 sought legislative provisions that would erect iron curtains of secrecy around laboratories. They have aggressively opposed greater public i.nvolvement in, and access to, animal-r�earch review committees, argu ­ing that violence and disruption would result. The chief rationales for violence in the name of animal rights are economic sabo­tage and intimidation. Repairing damage to laboratories is costly, as is installing new security systems; when such expenditures are required, Jess money is likely to be allocated for animal research. Intimidation is meant to drive the scientists subjected to it and other scientists out of the animal­research field. Sabotage and intimidation may have the intended effects over the short term, but even if one leaves aside their ethical ramifications, is there any evidence that they produce success over the long term? The economic damage inflicted to date bas been relatively insignificant. Attempts at in­timidation can backfire-and to a certain ex­tent already have done so-and inadvertently build resolve within the target population. There is no question that some nonviolent but illegal actions have fostered insights that might not otherwise have come to light as well as a new awareness of anima l ­protection issues. Few people who viewed the videotapes stolen from the University of Pennsylvania's head-injury laboratory in 1984, which depict experiments performed on baboons, could thereafter cling to the naive view that all is well in the nation's animal-research laboratories.* * Unfortunately, incidents of.theft and other illegal acts are likely to .occur as long as some . animal advocates reel that they have no other recourse in the face of what they believe to be intolerable conditions for animals. It is, of course, imperative to in­stitute measures that will not only prevent conditions from becoming intolerable but ** The videotapes were shot by researchers and in­tended to sefVe as a visual archive of their work. In a typical experiment, a baboon was strapped to a table and its head was cemented to a helmetlike device. The device was designed to jerk the animal's head extreme-ly rapidly and thereby inflict brain damage. The tapes also depict laboratory personnel joking about the ap­pearance of a disoriented and incapacitated baboon, smoking during Surgery, and injuring a baboon's e� as the helmetlike device is being chipped off the animal's head. Also depicted fa an obviously under­anesthetiz.ed anima1 about to be irijured experimentally. HSUS NEWS • Spring 1991 also rectify conditions that, for one reason or another, have become seriously deficient. Even that is not enough, however. The public should not be kept in the dark about what is happening behind laboratory doors. Secrecy breeds suspicion, and suspicion often breeds a reaction of an undesirable kind. The process of animal research must be subjected to more public scrutiny and ac­cess. To do so would be goodpublic policy, not appeasement. To be sure, even' if such -me:asures were put in place, violence .and illegal acts at laboratories would probably not disappear altogether. The practice of conducting a break-in in order to liberate animals, for e x ­ample, is likely to continue for as long as animals are used in laboratories. However, when violent and illegal acts did occur, they. would find even less fuvor among the gen­eral public, trigger an even greater backlash, and perhaps eventually diminishin numb.er. Violence, break-ins, and other illegal acts no longer serve to bring animal research to the attention of policymakers anc! the public. Such research has already been made a significant issue.of our time. Now that we have that attention, we should work . peacefully but aggressively for much,needed reforms and hope that our opportunities to do so are not jeopardized by well-meaning but misguided acts of violence. Ill Animal-research ad­vocates are already invoking the specter of violence to ad­vance their agenda beyond simply dis­crediting animal Dr. Martin L. Stephens is vice presidentfor protectionists, laboratory animals of The HS[JS. 23 

Clarifying Our Position

https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&amp;context=newshsus

Clarifying Our Position

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

WBI Studies Repository (WellBeing International)