Josie Appleton has an interesting article for the online magazine Spiked about the best way to deal with animal rights extremism. Appleton’s argument is that rather than ignoring the animal rights movement, researchers and others should meet their arguments head on without apology. This is certainly good advice, but it will only go so far.
Appleton writes,
Yet the defensive reactions of the government and the media allow them to think that they are martyrs to a cause, telling the truth that society can’t bear to hear.
Few people will challenge activists’ arguments head-on, and defend the moral value of animal research. Few people will argue that research that saves human lives and furthers scientific understanding justifies the death and maiming of animals. Instead both government and scientific authorities seem to be embarrassed about the matter, mumbling that they aren’t really doing that much research on animals, or that they are looking for ways to try to avoid it.
. . .
Meanwhile, animal rights activists have found that their ‘direct action’ protests can win huge strategic gains and media attention. In the past year alone, activists have won the cancellation of the Pound 24 million primate research centre at Cambridge, and the postponement of the Pound 18 million animal research facility at Oxford. Tactics such as sending threatening mail, harassing staff and attacking construction sites have led to companies withdrawing funds and major projects collapsing.
. . .
If scientific and political authorities stopped jumping at activists’ every threat, and started arguing with them, the protesters’ cloak of martyrdom would soon start to slip.
This is partially correct. Certainly in Great Britain the Labor government openly courted animal rights activists when it was out of power and is now dealing with a movement that it encouraged. Meanwhile, the British government seems to have flailed around hopelessly looking for a policy to deal with animal rights extremism. Several years worth of empty promises of a crackdown on extremism has only served to further encourage extremists while leaving researchers and companies to face the brunt of such extremism.
Part of the problem faced by researchers in Great Britain is a general anti-science strain that has seen its expression in everything from hysteria over the MMR vaccine to the relatively successful anti-genetically modified food movement. The case for animal research is compelling, but it is also complex. Many stories about animal rights protests in Great Britain, after all, do include statements by researchers or universities pointing out that most medical advances rely on animal research. But the analysis rarely goes beyond such generalities because newspapers are not very well equipped to be forums for explaining the process of scientific investigation in biomedical sciences. Newspapers are, however, very well suited to publishing the latest atrocity claim from animal rights groups or reporting on victims of animal rights extremism.
Finally, it is reassuring to think that if only most people did have a basic understanding of animal research and the important role it plays in biomedical research that this would eliminate animal rights extremism. It is, nonetheless, wrong. Animal rights extremism is utilized as a tactic precisely because the animal rights movement has generally failed to implement its program. Even in Great Britain, which is far more sympathetic to the animal rights movement than the United States, the animal rights movement has to fall back on basic animal welfare principles in order to push its agenda. The debate over fox hunting, for example, is not framed over whether or not foxes have rights that are violated by hunting, but rather whether or not fox hunting is consistent within the wider range of animal welfare concerns.
Meanwhile, technological changes from the Internet to cell phones and faxes now make it possible for small groups of dedicated activists to connect and coordinate sophisticated attacks on targets. Any number of fringe political groups could use such tactics, but to my knowledge the animal rights movement is different in that it is the only fringe political movement in which mainstream leaders have endorsed, encouraged and celebrated such tactics.
The best response in such a situation would be a two-pronged approach involving: 1) turning up the heat on mainstream groups that endorse animal rights extremism. It’s interesting that the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection has been going out of its way recently to highlight the pacifist, non-violent approach of its new president. Clearly they seem to perceive there is some price to pay for being associated with extremists; and 2) increasing legal penalties and criminal enforcement against animal rights extremists. Moreover, efforts should be made to increase the publicity of such prosecutions as a deterrent. Obviously it is not a total solution, but I’d imagine that many people might at least hesitate before committing an act of arson, for example, if they’re aware that they could end up like Jeff Luers.
Source:
Animal activists: martyrdom for mice? Josie Appleton, Spiked, September 8, 2004.