Illustration by Adam Peltier/Guardian
The mad scientist archetype seemed to die off with Dr.
Moreau. But the image is still very much alive and well in the minds of
animal-rights proponents, the most extreme of whom have subverted it to make a
Dr. Frankenstein of university researchers. As such, the activists have
dangerously taken researchers to task in a movement that sounds like an absurd
cross between slapstick comedy and action thriller. The problems have bubbled
enough to attract legislative action, which last week took a wise step in a long
road to curb violence against the university’s researching workforce.
The aggressive flurry against researchers began in October
2007, when the Animal Liberation Front flooded a UCLA researcher’s home, only
to return again in February 2008 with an incendiary device. No one was injured
by the incidents. But in Santa Cruz,
the action turned violent when masked perpetrators tried to break into a
researcher’s home, confronting and attacking her husband before finally
fleeing. A month later, UC Berkeley researchers saw their lawns occupied weekly
by protesters. The specter of animal-rights hecklers hangs so heavy that a
December bomb threat at UCSD was initially pegged as the work of ALF or similar
groups — it was later found to be a hoax.
Research suffers if researchers and administrators are
anxiously waiting for the other shoe to drop. The basic building blocks of the University
of California are researchers
themselves; they bring in grants, publish work and ultimately brand the UC name
across the academic world. But if a researcher fears the prospect of going home
to a faceoff with a violent zookeeper, the university suffers as a whole. As
such, the state Legislature has moved for a wise consolidation with its Animal
Enterprise Protection Act: The university, as “the employer of an alleged
victim,” would possess the power to sue as a whole even if the victim chooses
to drop the charges. This portion disables activists’ bottom-up method, as they
try to weaken animal-related research by picking off the university’s
researchers one by one. Now, similar action will bring the entirety of the
university to the forefront, a strong deterrent for anyone trying to avoid
years of courtroom wrangling.
But perhaps the most logical and impacting solution brought
by the bill is its coverage of privacy rights. The bill allows the university
to withhold public information it considers to be possible tools for
harassment. Blatant plastering of home addresses, phone numbers and the like on
Web sites allowed activists the chance to bring the fight to researchers’
doorstep. The state and university has rightly planted its “Keep Off” and
animal-rights extremists would do right to take heed.
Readers can contact Editorial Board at editor@ucsdguardian.org.
Readers have left 7 comments.  1. UntitledGuest User, UnregisteredCheck
out the website for the campaign in opposition to UC-Berkeley
vivisection, where 40,000 non-human animals are currently caged and
being tortured in the name of science:
www.pixelexdesign.com/stopcalvivisection 2. UntitledTracy, Unregistered We
don't need to torture animals to know that smoking is dangerous to
one's health or that it's addictive. And we certainly don't need animal
torture that is funded by Philip Morris. They don't care about humans
or other animals. They only care about profit. Don't torture animals to
solve problems that people create themselves. 3. UntitledGuest User, Unregistered When any of your mothers get cancer then you will find out thru your own pain why research is important. ![[smiley=think]](2008-04-23_editorial_ucsdguardian_files/smiley_think.gif) 4. UntitledGuest User, Unregistered This
article is an accurate summary of how radical, violent animal rights
advocates negatively impact medical research that will benefit humans.
My guess is that when of these naysayers develop Huntingtons that they
will change their tune.
Their basic problem is that they view
animals as non-human animals on equal footing with humans. Their
disregard for human life spurs them to violence and harrassment of
humans. If you think humans are just equal animals, their conclusions
are actually correct. We don't experiment on human 'animals' to advance
medicine.
Their basic flaw comes from their manufactured belief
that evolution has produced equal branches on an evolutionary tree. But
God created man above the animals. Man should care for the animals, but
they do not hold the eternal value man does. While man should be humane
in treatment of animals, he is not requred to view them as human.
Humans need animal research to conquer disease. They also need them for hamburgers and hot dogs. That's the way God planned it.
5. UntitledGuest User, Unregistered This
article is an accurate summary of how radical, violent animal rights
advocates negatively impact medical research that will benefit humans.
My guess is that when of these naysayers develop Huntingtons that they
will change their tune.
Their basic problem is that they view
animals as non-human animals on equal footing with humans. Their
disregard for human life spurs them to violence and harrassment of
humans. If you think humans are just equal animals, their conclusions
are actually correct. We don't experiment on human 'animals' to advance
medicine.
Their basic flaw comes from their manufactured belief
that evolution has produced equal branches on an evolutionary tree. But
God created man above the animals. Man should care for the animals, but
they do not hold the eternal value man does. While man should be humane
in treatment of animals, he is not requred to view them as human.
Humans need animal research to conquer disease. They also need them for hamburgers and hot dogs. That's the way God planned it.
— Guest User
So you speak with "God" ? Wow, now you can cut, dissect, burn, crush,
slice, poison and psychologically torment animals? What a bunch of
crap! The Frankensteins can use you in the lab. People are waking up to
the legalized, tax funded animal abuse/cruelty that is unspeakably vile
in labs across our nation. We will continue to speak and act for the
animals...even more so, in view of some of the selfish, violent
comments toward animals here. Whos the terrorist now? Animals are
suffering in agony, die in terror and betrayal by human hands. Who will
speak, if not us, who? 6. UntitledGuest User, Unregistered yes,
I very respectfully speak of God. The "god," and you do define your
own, is excedingly cruel in advocating human suffering for the sake of
animals. You also misquote me. I added: humans should be humane to
animals. I do not believe for a second that animal labs do not care
about the animals and treat them with all due care.
You create your own cruel God. I get my merciful God from church tradition. 7. UntitledGuest User, Unregistered What
kind of sick perverted "god" would allow her creations, capable all of
feeling pain, to be tortured to death in labs like those of UCSD? The
use of imaginary deities to justify atrocities has a long history, and
is being perpetuated by those like the writer above.
|
