Animal Rights Extremism: Recognize The Signs

[neuronline_admin]

Animal rights extremists are becoming more sophisticated by focusing on heavily limiting research through crippling legal ploys. Here are many of their targets and tactics.

Link back to full article

[nikolaos.aggelopoulos]

The issue that organisations do not want this kind of attention, regardless of whether the claims being made are right or wrong, is a critical one. Currently, for example, I believe only Air France accepts the transportation of primates. This is indicative of the attitude of administrators and organisations towards becoming associated with anything that might seem to be potentially controversial. This entirely unreasonable situation can probably only be reversed by exercising even greater pressure in the opposite direction from the scientific side, from grassroots groups, science societies, pro-research NGOs etc. This would take more than wistful thinking. It would require a change of culture and a serious pro-active approach from organisations such as SfN and universities and research institutions condemning the distancing of organisations or other similar institutions from supporting research.

At some point there needs to be a consensus involving also the public of how much of the share of expenses dedicated to scientific research should go towards time and money spent on regulating research and how much of that burden is the public willing to undertake. The question is not simply one of regulation but also of communication, as some of the public has the impression that research is not regulated, happens behind closed doors, is driven by commercial interests, has no consequence in improving human and animal lives, etc. Should taxes be used to employ specialists dedicated to regulating but also, equally - to be fair - to freely communicating research to the public and how much tax money is enough tax money to be dedicated in that direction?

[bsagot]

i think calling legal ploys “extremism” belies their more political nature. if they’re indeed legal ploys, then they’re well within the purview of the system we have setup… I imagine that what the author means is that they’re behavior is antithetical to ours. …which would mean that pursuing an understanding of whatever we agree on would be in order before defensiveness.