Debate continues on bombings of UC Santa Cruz researchers

The recent bombings of UC Santa Cruz animal research scientists reverberates once again in today's Times. Frankie Trull, president of the Washington-based Foundation for Biomedical Research, opines on the matter, doling out criticism of law enforcement's lax efforts to protect researchers and animal activists who use violent tactics in their efforts:

These attacks, considered domestic terrorism and attempted homicide, should be a wake-up call to law enforcement. Congress recognized the danger that animal rights militants pose when it passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in 2006. This law gave the FBI additional tools to pursue animal rights extremism and increased penalties for crimes related to it. The FBI has not apprehended anyone since the law was passed. It needs to make these crimes a higher priority.

The Santa Cruz bombings are just the latest instances of animal rights terrorism, a nationwide problem, although there seems to be a particularly active group of extremists in California. The attacks have included firebombs lobbed at homes, letters rigged with razor blades, firecrackers placed in mailboxes and vandalism.

Animal rights groups sensationalize animal research by portraying scientists as violent animal torturers. In fact, researchers who use animals in their quest for new drugs and medical breakthroughs are human beings who dedicate their lives to alleviating the pain and suffering of both people and animals.

Last week, we told you about Times columnist Al Martinez's take on the bombings with a tale of his cat's confrontation with a mouse.

-- Francisco Vara-Orta

Photo: Shmuel Thaler / Associated Press

Comments

[Brien Comerford]

Human stem cells, skin cells and other human tiisues can be efffectively used for medical research. Experimenting on animals is cruel and bereft of efficacy.

[Carl]

Another point of view: The Center for Consumer Freedom is arguing that it's perfectly natural for animal rights radicals to start hurting people in the "defense" of creatures. As soon as you start believing animals deserve the same rights as humans, there's no reason you won't use the same level of force as you would if you were protecting people. Makes sense to me. So the animal rights movement is bound to be violent by its very nature. There's a great op-ed that ran in Sunday's Santa Cruz Sentinel on the subject too.

[sandra m]

Animal related violence distracts from non-violent efforts to reduce and replace animal test subjects. The concern is not just about treatment of the animals, although that's important. It also stems from a series of recent tragedies-Vioxx and Merk's HIV vaccine are the best known-in which pharmaceutical products that seemed safe in animal tests injured or killed consumers or participants in human trials. More than 90 percent of drugs tested in people after seemingly successful animal tests are not approved for wider use because they don't work or they are unsafe. We should emulate the European Union regulation that requires the use of non-animal and other alternate testing methods, when available.