Scientists Doubtful About New Law Aiming To Protect Animal Research Facilities

The act, they contend, will not deter violence by zealots Scientists whose labs and offices have been victimized by the arson, burglary, and property damage of animal rights activists insist that a new law, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, will not end the long string of violence. The legislation, signed two months ago by President Bush, adds vandalism of animal research labs, or "animal enterprise terrorism," according to the law, to federal criminal statutes. The Department of Justice has stated that the FBI will be primarily responsible for enforcing the law. Some pro-animal research groups lobbied hard for the measure as Congress was considering it. Yet many scientists--along with some law enforcement officials and several animal rights advocates--say the actions of militant animal liberationists are already illegal and carry hefty penalties in most states. So, they say, making these same crimes federal will have a minimal effect on their behavior. Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Ala.) first announced the introduction of the act while standing amid the smoldering ashes of the University of Arizona's rooftop microbiology lab on Aug. 3, 1989. This was one day after the lab was torched, with credit being claimed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). ALF is considered to be the most active and militant group of animal rights activists in the world. The law's language does not single out a specific organization. However, if the law is effective, its impact is expected to be felt most strongly by ALF, whose methods generally mirror the law's prohibitions. Specifically, in order for the law to apply, the perpetrators must cross state boundaries and cause property damage exceeding $10,000. Since 1982, the underground ALF--the identities and whereabouts of its members are unknown--has claimed responsibility for at least 17 major break-ins of animal-related university and veterinary school research labs and industrial farming facilities across the United States. To date, no ALF member has ever been identified or brought into a U.S. courtroom. The cumulative economic damage caused by these attacks is easily in the millions of dollars. For example, the University of California at Davis says the ALF burning of an unfinished veterinary diagnostic lab on April 16, 1987, caused $4.6 million in damage. Penalties under the new law depend on the magnitude of the offense. They vary from no more than a $5,000 fine and up to a year's prison sentence to life in prison for a criminal act that results in a death. However, even with the harsh penalties, many scientists have little faith the new law will stop aggressive animal rights activists like ALF. ALF's target during a raid it took credit for at Michigan State University in February was animal science professor Richard Aulerich. He notes that trespassing and destruction of property are already state crimes, so simply placing them in federal jurisdiction probably will not accomplish much. Aulerich's lab on the East Lansing campus investigates how environmental toxins affect minks and otters. It was almost entirely demolished by arsonists, who set fire to his papers, notebooks, and research materials (Matthew Devins, The Scientist, June 8, 1992, page 4). "We already have laws against what they did," he says. "That didn't seem to deter them. This new legislation is just more." Though both the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have been involved with the investigation from the beginning, university public safety lieutenant Bill Wardwell says there have been no arrests. "There are already criminal sanctions against what [ALF] did," he says. "Based on what knowledge I have of the people inclined to conduct these types of raids, I don't know if this [law] will slow them down at all." Susan Wilson-Sanders, associate director of the University of Arizona's animal care department, agrees that ALF cannot easily be stopped. Her office building was the site of the 1989 arson that sparked the legislation. ALF claimed responsibility for breaking into three research facilities and an admin- istration building on the Tucson campus. The group trashed files and smashed computers; spraypainted walls; set fire to a microbiology lab and a veterinary diagnostic lab, burning them to the ground; and stole 1,231 animals. A university spokeswomen estimates the total damage at more than $250,000. Since the break-in, Wilson-Sanders says, the university has spent more than $2 million on security. "Who this new law will affect is your more moderate animal rights person that would be less likely to get involved if they knew it was going to be a federal crime with a prison sentence," she says. "But it's already a crime, and that hasn't swayed them. I think ALF will continue to go about their business." Brian Seastone, a sergeant in the university's police department, says the three-year investigation has turned up no suspects. "These people broke into four facilities; they were masked, they wore gloves, and there was very little evidence to go on," he explains. "That's all we've got. Very little is known about ALF or who the actual members are. And that's why its so difficult to find them." John Orem, a professor of physiology at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Lubbock, adds that even though the FBI's interstate jurisdiction will be advantageous to local police, the real question to ask in order to stop ALF is "what fuels this deep distrust of scientists?" Orem's lab, which does sleep research using cats, was ransacked on July 4, 1989, with ALF declaring responsibility. "What is behind the disaffection that would turn people violently opposed to biomedicine?" Orem asks. The Animal Enterprise Protection Act had a broad base of sponsorship during its run through Congress. Lobbying support ranged from agricultural farming groups to societies with more scientific concerns like the National Association for Biomedical Research and the Industrial Biotechnology As- sociation, both of Washington, D.C. Americans for Medical Progress in Alexandria, Va., also has voiced favorable opinions about the law. Spokeswoman Jill Herndon says her group, which monitors efforts by animal rights societies (Ron Kaufman, The Scientist, May 25, 1992, page 8), hopes that making research facility break-ins a federal crime will help law enforcement agencies find and prosecute the perpetrators. "It is a matter of resources," Herndon says. "A small-town sheriff in Texas does not have the money or time to try and deal with an organization [like ALF] that moves over state lines. The FBI has bureaus in every state and a better ability to track the perpetrators." The Activists Many fighting for animal rights have no intention of slowing down and don't believe ALF will cease its violent operations. "There will be no effect," predicts People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) spokesman Steven Simmons of the new law. Washington D.C.-based PETA has often spoken on behalf of ALF, issuing press releases after an attack. "From what we know of those underground activists who risk life and limb as well as jail time to expose animal cruelty and rescue animals," Simmons adds, "we don't expect that this will deter them at all." He notes that ALF is already classified by the FBI as a terrorist organization. In her book about ALF and its anonymous founder, Free The Animals (The Nobel Press, Chicago, 1992), PETA director Ingrid Newkirk writes: "Making the offenses federal might entitle ALF members to better-quality prison, but it [is] certainly no deterrent." Veterinarian Elliot M. Katz, president and founder of In Defense of Animals in San Rafael, Calif., who himself has been arrested 25 times for nonviolently blocking the doors of research facilities, concurs: "I don't think it will have a chilling effect on the people involved with the break-ins. The biomedical community will just use this law as part of their public- relations efforts to characterize all animal rights advocates as terrorists." Though the American Civil Liberties Union neither endorses nor opposes the law, its chief legislative counsel, Leslie Harris, predicts the federal government will implement the law's provisions with great caution. "The law will probably only be used if the state law is inadequate," she says, "and even then, we expect its use in extreme circumstances." Yet even if the law is impotent, the government is showing signs of getting tough in other ways. Three federal grand juries in Washington, Oregon, and Michigan are currently investigating numerous break-ins, all avowed by ALF, at these states' respective state universities. The grand juries are proceeding under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The Michigan grand jury, in response to the break-in at Aulerich's lab, has issued subpoenas to many members of PETA in an attempt to identify ALF members. There is also speculation that if PETA is found guilty of aiding ALF in its endeavors, the fines may be costly enough to put PETA out of business. PETA is North America's largest animal rights organization, boasting a membership of around 400,000 and annual budget of $8 million (for 1991). "If you could destroy PETA financially through the RICO law, and along with them Ingrid Newkirk, it would probably set the movement back," predicts Texas Tech's Orem. "But still there are those 400,000 people who believe and give money to PETA. What then?"

Scientists Doubtful About New Law Aiming To Protect Animal Research Facilities

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of