New Federal Legislation Can Be Effective In Fighting Terrorism Of Animal Rights Extremists

The frustration and fears of researchers whose labs and work have been destroyed by the Animal Liberation Front--along with those who, though yet unharmed, must work in continual dread of violence at the hands of animal rights extremists--are completely understandable. At the least, these researchers can take some comfort in new federal legislation. A recent article in The Scientist headlined "Scientists Doubtful About New Law Aiming To Protect Animal Research Facilities" (Ron Kaufman, Oct. 26, 1992, page 1) may have conveyed the inaccurate notion that the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 is toothless. However, the legislation--sponsored by Sen. Howell T. Heflin (D-Ala.) and Rep. Charles Stenholm (D-Texas) and signed into law in August--is very strong indeed. Unfortunately, the new research facility protection law cannot rectify the injustice suffered by past victims. It is also true that the worst animal rights zealots will not be deterred by this or any law. Such disregard has already been flaunted by those responsible for the acts of arson that did more than $100,000 damage at Utah State University last fall. As The Scientist's article correctly points out, this kind of action was illegal before passage of the Heflin/Stenholm bill. Yet, despite existing federal and state laws, the criminal activity aimed at animal research facilities during the last decade had escalated in severity and frequency. Vandalism turned into arson, then more damaging arson. So far, thank God, the car bombings that have occurred repeatedly in England have happened just once in the United States. No one was hurt, and the individual who planted the bomb was caught and convicted. This case was the rare exception, though. Illegal acts by animal rights activists, however, were being committed in the U.S. with virtual impunity. In view of the interstate nature of the crimes, local investigations were halfhearted and largely unproductive, and few arrests were made. Clearly, existing federal and state laws were not working. State and local law enforcement did not understand the pattern of these crimes, there was little cooperation across state lines, and a centralized source of information about prior incidents was unavailable. Federal authorities were slow to get involved, if they did so at all. It is no coincidence that these crimes started to receive more serious attention after the Senate passed Heflin's original bill in 1989 and the House barely missed taking action a year later. Anyone who thinks the subsequent formation of a federal law enforcement agency task force and the convening of three federal grand juries to pursue animal extremist crimes in Michigan, Oregon, and Washington are unrelated to this show of congressional interest does not know how the political system works. The Scientist reported the tougher stance, but failed to make the connection. Whether federal law enforcement officials took action in anticipation of Congress's giving them a specific mandate or in hope of avoiding one does not matter; the result was the same. The visibility of the problem and the priority for its solution were raised. All the better that the new law finally was approved by the subsequent Congress in 1992. The significance of the scientific community's success in accomplishing its objective cannot be overstated. Champions in Congress, willing to take the unpopular stand of saying "no" to the animal rights movement, were identified. For more than four years, individual scientists and the national organizations that represent them focused an enormous amount of effort--writing thousands of letters, making hundreds of visits, and giving first-hand testimony to members of Congress. An effective coalition of hundreds of organizations was built, including agriculture interest groups, voluntary health agencies like the American Heart and Diabetes associations, and other consumer advocates. In the process of working for the Heflin/Stenholm bills, scientists were able to better educate Congress about the impact on public health of uninformed opposition to this animal research. When you stop to think that no less than 6,000 bills are introduced each session, but scarcely more than 500 are passed, enacting this law was an impressive--next to impossible-- victory. Never mind that we made it through that well-known legislative burial ground, the House Judiciary Committee. That was just part of the fun. Clearly, Congress believed it was meaningful to underscore the fact that animal rights terrorism will not be tolerated. Since 1988, 30 state legislatures have also agreed that stronger, specific laws were warranted to protect research facilities. My organization, the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), is very proud to have led the legislative effort and grateful to everyone who got involved. Without question, the ideological tyranny, as well as the terrorism, of animal extremists is antithetical to science. More scientists absolutely must get involved in counteracting the animal rights philosophy. But that will not happen if those who do make the effort are not given the credit they deserve. As for the idea that the proponents of animal research--and the law they helped pass--are impotent: 'Tain't so. Barbara Rich is executive vice president of NABR, an animal research advocacy organization headquartered in Washington, D.C.

New Federal Legislation Can Be Effective In Fighting Terrorism Of Animal Rights Extremists

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of