In Animal Rights Debate, A `Modulating Influence' Is Misunderstood

reviewer of grant proposals and, since 1988, as a member of the advisory board. Given the position of CAAT, expressed clearly in its mission statement (see accompanying item), it is not surprising that radical animal rights activists have not embraced the center. However, over the years, I have learned that many academicians who are biomedical researchers also have a negative view of the center, a view that is usually based on ignorance and/or misconceptions about CAAT, its mission, and its ac

Robert Roth
May 30, 1993
reviewer of grant proposals and, since 1988, as a member of the advisory board.

Given the position of CAAT, expressed clearly in its mission statement (see accompanying item), it is not surprising that radical animal rights activists have not embraced the center. However, over the years, I have learned that many academicians who are biomedical researchers also have a negative view of the center, a view that is usually based on ignorance and/or misconceptions about CAAT, its mission, and its activities. When my academic colleagues learn that I am associated with CAAT, they are usually surprised, and the news is met with a chilly response. When I am asked by them, "Why are you involved with CAAT?" the implication is usually "Why do you associate with an organization working against the use of animals in research?

Further discussion often reveals one or more misconceptions. Some colleagues are not familiar with...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?