Animal activists charged with violence against UCLA researchers

Two animal liberation activists were charged with conspiracy, stalking and other felonies today after attacks on UCLA researchers who perform tests on animals and on the L.A.-based POM Wonderful Juice Co. Our colleague Andrew Blankstein on the L.A. Now blog reports:

Linda Faith Greene, 61, and Kevin Richard Olliff, 22, who prosecutors say are part of the radical Animal Liberation Front, pleaded not guilty to the charges after their arrest Thursday. Greene was held on $450,000 bail and Olliff on $460,000 bail.

The Los Angeles County grand jury indicted each defendant on three counts of conspiracy to commit stalking, three counts of stalking and two counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of threatening a public officer or school employee.

In the most recent attack on a UCLA faculty member, neuroscientist J. David Jentsch's car was set afire outside his Westside home. 

The Times' Larry Gordon recalled past incidents:

In the last three years, UCLA has reported at least 10 arsons, attempted arsons and other acts of vandalism against its professors and researchers, along with many unrealized threats. In February, four animal activists were arrested on allegations that they were involved in attacking and harassing animal researchers at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz, but no arrests have been made in any of the UCLA cases, according to FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller. She said the incidents are under investigation as acts of domestic terrorism.

The UC system has spent several million dollars in recent years to improve security around researchers' homes, classrooms and offices. Citing security concerns, Jentsch declined to have his photo taken for this article.

Two days after Jentsch's car was burned, a profanity-laced Internet message from the murky Animal Liberation Brigade took credit for the fire, as it had for past UCLA assaults.

For more information on the violence against UC researchers, see the Times' timeline of events.

-- Lindsay Barnett

Photo: A walkway at UCLA's Royce Hall. Credit: Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Drexel]

How is this 'Violence'? No one was hurt.

[Gwen]

@Drexel: How is it "violence"? These are terrorists! It's only by the grace of God that no one was hurt by their firebombings! Would you have said on 9/11, "Gosh, it was only a couple of plane accidents"????

As for the particular charges against these two, when the news report says something bland like "harassing," they mean threatening researchers with murder in front of their children.

Do not confuse a love for animals with these hateful fanatics. They are not the Sierra Club or the Humane Society; they are Al Qaeda for Animals.

[Reader]

You know what's consistently missing from this debate, including in the L.A. Times' amazingly one-sided "coverage" of this story is WHAT are the activists protesting? What are these scientists doing to animals, with zero governmental oversight? (and no, USDA certification doesn't count. USDA doesn't care if you hurt animals, so long as your floors are clean).

Is no one at the Times capable of asking why activists are so upset, what is motivating them to do these things? Aren't you ashamed to keep repeating the same half-story, without one reporter even being a tiny bit curious as to whether animals are in fact being misused, mistreated and/or killed for no good reason?

I'm not setting fire to anything, nor am I threatening anyone. But I know when something's fishy, and the Times' adamant refusal to ask even the most basic questions about what constitutes "animal research" at UCLA stinks to high heaven. Are you afraid of what you'll find out, or are you merely afraid to offend the large, powerful corporations that fund such specious "research" as the six million dollar anti-smoking research grant funded by (wait for it!) Philip Morris.

Yeah, can't wait to see how that research produces groundbreaking new knowledge that will end smoking in our time...

Notwithstanding the Times' shockingly compromised coverage of this story, this isn't about a holy bastion of education; this is about UCLA's business bottom line. Multi-million dollar grants (which are, after all, pocket change for conglomerates like Philip Morris) are what keep department heads at UCLA comfortably ensconced in Westwood condos and BMWs.

With all that to protect, who can be bothered to ask about some dead monkeys?

[Gwen]

There is plenty of government oversight:

http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04172009_statement_terrorism.htm

And as for what the research is for, those monkey experiments the terrorists are so proud of shutting down weren't funded by Phillip Morris, they were funded by the NIH--because they would have helped blind people regain vision.

[Denis Alexander]

@Reader: Nothing is missing from the story. Simply put, a bunch of lunatics are firebombing scientists because they do not agree with animal experimentation. They are not upset with a couple of experiments at UCLA... They are against ALL animal research.

[Reader]

Denis, nothing is missing for you because you believe everybody who opposes the unrestricted use of animals in research is a "lunatic."

You are wrong.

But the fact that you are on the side of less information, and less transparency is very telling. The bottom line is, those who want less truth are the ones who have something to hide. If you could tell me what lives have been saved, if you could prove the genuine efficacy of any of these experiments, you'd be doing it.

But you're not. You're trying to shut down debate, and smear anyone who asks questions. That's a pretty clear indication that more sunlight on this issue wouldn't help your position.

Frankly, your reaction gives me hope that all this will end sooner than later. The truth is on the side of those who oppose animal experimentation both for moral AND pragmatic reasons. Not only is animal experimentation probably largely immoral, it also doesn't work. It produces disasters like Thalidomide.

Also, not for nothing, but even the Times admits no one was "firebombed." Again, the truth is the truth, like it or not.

[Kay]

Actually, Thalidomide is a case that proves the value of animal research. The FDA researcher who was supposed to approve it for use in this country had suspicions about it before the tragic births, because she had done animal research with rabbits, "Recalling how quinine had affected adult rabbits and fetuses differently, Kelsey wondered what effects thalidomide may have if used during pregnancy."

Full story at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_2_35/ai_73064348/

As for "what lives have been saved," I met an elderly doctor who said that when he was young, they simply left the stroke patients in the ER to die, because there was nothing else they could do. Now we have surgeries and a life-saving drug (TPA), as a result of the interplay between clinical work and animal research on the fundamental workings of the brain.

"Interplay" is key. Those who are against animal research often point to clinical results as if all the answers could come just by observing human patients. But it's a back and forth process, in which what you see in the clinic is translated to research in the lab, and back again.

The argument you're trying to make-- "but they didn't catch this in the animal trials, so what good are they?" -- doesn't mean animal trials are useless, it means someone didn't ask a critical question. Scientists make mistakes, and sometimes they design stupid experiments, but for the most part the result is longer, healthier lives for humans and other animals.

[A scientist]

Reader- you have number of misconceptions, and I can see how if what you are saying was true, that would indeed be upsetting.

However lets start with "What are these scientists doing to animals, with zero governmental oversight?". It is absolutely incorrect (and, having had to jump through many administrative hoops to do my own research, actually laughable) to think that there is no governmental oversight. Not only are there national organizations responsible for setting the standards for laboratory animals, there are committees at every single institution doing research that have to approve everything that happens, and to whom you have to justify every animal you use and how you treat them. These committees include veterinarians, scientists, administrators, and members of the community. There are very few jobs in which everything you do is so carefully scrutinized (as it should be with this kind of work!). The government oversees it, and almost all funding for this work comes from the National Institute of Health (and you can see the NIH deploring the tactics of animal terrorists here: http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04172009_statement_terrorism.htm ). Therefore, the NIH has the opportunity to cut off useless or unethical work before it can even get started by denying funding. After obtaining funding, they tightly monitor your activity. Furthermore, all funding is public knowledeg and you, and anyone else, can look it up. You can also look up all the results and methods from all the studies these researchers are doing- they are available to you and everyone else at your local university library. Nothing about this is secret. How much more transparent can you get? You can read all the rules, you can read all of the results, you can see where the funding came from. If you don't understand something, and politely contacted a researcher, it is highly likely that if you were respectful and polite and didn't try to blow up their car, that they would have a dialog to help clear up misunderstandings. What else could you want?

Now for "Are you afraid of what you'll find out, or are you merely afraid to offend the large, powerful corporations that fund such specious "research" as the six million dollar anti-smoking research grant funded by (wait for it!) Philip Morris.". While it is true that some researchers get funding from private institutions, this is not true for all of them-- far from it! In fact, David Jentsch, who's car was just blown up by masked cowards in the middle of the night, does not take funding from drug companies- he is funded by the NIH. Neither did Dario Ringach, who had his family terrorized by the same masked cowards. This type of corporate money is a small percentage of actual funding, and it is a common fallacy propagated by the animal terrorist groups that this happens more often than it really does. However, it doesn't even really matter... getting funding does not mean a free license to do as you please. You still have to do it within the context of the rules and regulations of your institution, and all the previously mentioned checks and balances still apply. This is more regulated than you can possibly imagine. You might benefit from doing a little reading and looking into how these things are actually carried out, rather than getting all of you information from extremist propaganda.

[FYI]

There is plenty of oversight of animal research. At UCLA, specifically, vets from the Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine come through labs DAILY, looking for any issues with the animals. If they find an issue and it hasn't been addressed in 24 hours, they have the authority to euthanize the animal. They don't need the permission of the investigator to do so. Normally this doesn't happen, because no investigator has any incentive to lose research subjects due to negligence. Anyone working with animals must attend training sessions held by DLAM, and people performing surgeries must attend additional sessions. Their website is here:

http://www.dlam.ucla.edu/

Furthermore, research done at UCLA must comply with Animal Research Committee policies, and protocols must be pre-approved by the ARC. A list of ARC guidelines, with very specific standards on euthanasia, anesthesia, restraint, food restriction, housing, and so on is here:

http://www.oprs.ucla.edu/animal/help/manual/default.asp

You may take issue with some regulation or another, but you can't look at the table of contents of that document and dispute that animal research is HIGHLY regulated. A similar set of "Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee" regulations exists at every university performing animal research.

[Reader]

"Scientist"

Jentsch's car wasn't blown up. I'd be a lot more inclined to believe what you said if you could stop spouting that falsehood.

And how bizarre is it that you look at monkeys in cages, monkeys being forced to imbibe nicotine, or whatever poison, monkeys being operated upon, monkeys isolated, terrified, and killed at the whim of researchers who have no respect for life (except their own) and think the word "humane" has any place.

You think of these animals as subjects (which in this case is the same as metabolizing objects). You tell yourself that if they are kept sanitary, fed, and given water -- then you are humane. You have no respect for their fear, or their pain. You only care about what results you can get from them.

And the fact of the matter is, unlike monkeys, who have no choice, no human gets addicted to nicotine against their will. At one point do we stop making weaker people, or weaker species, pay the price for our stupidity?

NO ONE who is actively smoking today didn't know, at the moment they took that first puff, that cigarettes are poison. But they did it anyway. They get in a car, go to a store, take out their wallet, stand in a line, buy the cigarettes, unwrap the pack, light the cigarette, and start to smoke -- every single day they choose a complex set of entirely volitional actions to perform something they know, without doubt, will kill them.

Why should one monkey, even just from this day forward, have to live its life in captivity, loneliness, pain and death because that person chooses to be that stupid, day after day after day?

How do you look at yourself in the mirror after advocating that a living creature's one and only life should be turned into complete suffering (and I don't think even you could argue that monkeys in labs have good lives) because selfish, irresponsible people CHOOSE to smoke, knowing full well that it will kill them?

It's immoral. Isolating, tormenting and killing intelligent, social and completely innocent creatures because people who know smoking will kill them still shoose to take up smoking is utterly morally indefensible.

[A scientist]

Reader- David Jentsch's car was indeed blown up. You can refer to it as firebombing, as the FBI, the police, and the media do, but I'm not really sure that is going to gain you very many points. An incendiary device was placed on or near his car. That device exploded. The car caught on fire, and the gas tank of the car exploded. It is only by miraculous great fortune that the entire neighborhood did not catch on fire. The explosion was so damaging to the vehicle that it is absolutely unusable and has been taken by the FBI as evidence. As far as I am concerned, someone blew his car up. Maybe it is a colloquial term, but honestly, using the word firebombing makes them sound even worse so you might want to think a minute before you fight too hard to use that word yourself.

[A scientist]

Ah, in addition, Reader- I wasn't going to respond to the rest of your post because I didn't think you were making very interesting or relevant points and it didn't seem worth it. But, you really should know that research on non-human primates is a very small percentage of all research using laboratory animals. Likewise, nicotine research is a very small percentage of that.

I think it would be much more interesting to hear your thoughts on something more relevant, such as the use of mice in development of chemotherapy agents or antibiotics. Or, maybe I will wait until someone you love has cancer and needs chemo, or even until one of your children needs a tooth extracted and some anesthetic would help make that less painful. Would you be willing to deprive them of those treatments? Would you not be grateful when they recovered or when their pain was reduced? Many very basic medical treatments that we take for granted (like anesthetic during surgery) would be impossible without animal research.

[Pareidolius]

Reader, the way you throw about your poor strawman and your defenseless red herring is just cruel and wrong. Cruel and wrong and utterly, totally, morally indefensible. What did that poor herring ever do to you?

[lori santos]

My species is attacking their own species while I live in a group home full of men with disabilities. I had part of my brain removed 8 years ago, rehabbed myself starting 4 months after. Went to school and graduated with BA soc,BA psych, minor anthropology. I love animals and realize their importance to the rehabilitation connexion for people with acquired mid-life disabilities. Bringing animals into this group home environment for these men has helped them tremendously. Physiological research on other animal species has helped the human species tremendously and I know I would not be alive and funtioning today had research not been done. Science, although acquired knowledge it is not gifted. It is worked for, although it may be yearned for. All species have benefitted in the study of medical sciences. Consider, the same strain of rickets strikes the human species as strikes colts, therefore if people love animals, it is foolish to stop necessary research using animal subjects because varying animal species numbers are being especially hit hard with global changes. Only veterinarian medicine will be able to stabilize animal species numbers, but research does not pay for itself, and is usually done in conjunction with human species monitoring, disorders, and illnesses that likewise benefit other animal species having multiple medical purposes.

[glenn grab]

If his car was a Rabbit they would have left it alone.