Intimidation is ineffective
But there is a striking difference between demonstrations that enlighten and foster changes in attitudes or policies and demonstrations that intimidate people and, thus, do nothing to further the conversation about an issue. Recent demonstrations by animal rights protesters outside the homes of University of Utah researchers fall into the latter category.
Even though the First Amendment protects their right to assemble and speak out, do members of the animal rights organization Utah Primate Freedom honestly believe that harassing scientists — and by extension, members of their households — will further their cause of ending animal experimentation? Such tactics do not further the understanding of issues nor stimulate discussion.
At the end of the day, these objections have to be addressed in the established review processes at the university. It would be more productive to approach these review organizations in good faith, rather than to target researchers on Web sites, picket at their homes and leave pamphlets with neighbors impugning the researchers and their work.
Moreover, any animal research conducted at the U. undergoes a rigorous approval process to ensure the work conforms with federal guidelines, developed by experts and national research organizations. Upon approval, researchers are bound to comply with federal regulations as they test drug therapies and attempt to cure diseases.
Such demonstrations have piqued the interest of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who is sponsoring legislation aimed at "eco-terrorism." In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Hatch wrote in part, "These groups have utilized scare tactics, threats of violence, property damage and physical violence to intimidate businesses and personnel involved in animal research and associated activities."
Although Utah Primate Freedom's protests have been largely incident free — save an assault against an animal rights activist during a recent demonstration outside the Salt Palace — the organization's Web site plainly states that members intend to return to the researchers' homes "time and time again."
These demonstrations may be legal, but they are highly intrusive. Seemingly, animal rights organizations' energies would be better spent exploring established review processes and availing themselves to more traditional forms of redress such as protests in public forums, writing letters to the editor, conducting press conferences and perhaps legal challenges, if warranted.
Protesting at the private residences of men and women who have legitimate research interests does not lend credibility to one's cause. It tends to silence what ultimately could be productive exchanges and it denigrates men and women whom society should rightly consider as heroes, not villains. The U. should exploit all available resources to ensure that their research can continue in a safe and supportive environment.
Recent comments
It is admirable to stand up for animal right but nobler to stand...
Gloria Jensen | May 7, 2008 at 11:15 a.m.
