Q&A on animal research at UCLA and the threat posed by extremists
By UCLA Media Relations
May 01, 2008
Why is UCLA being targeted by those opposed to the use of laboratory animals in research?
Like all major research universities, UCLA has thousands of research projects under way at any given time, and a certain percentage of those involve the tightly regulated and humane use of laboratory animals. We also happen to be located in a major media market and are well-known internationally — all of which makes UCLA an attractive target. In recent years, those opposed to animal research have dramatically escalated their activities by placing Molotov cocktails near the homes of faculty members, vandalizing homes, making violent threats and engaging in other forms of harassment.
What is UCLA doing about it?
The tactics used by extremists are unacceptable in a civilized society, and protecting UCLA personnel from harassment and harm is our primary concern. UCLA is cooperating with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies investigating unlawful activities directed at researchers and has offered reward money for information leading to convictions. In February 2008, the campus obtained a restraining order prohibiting the harassment of faculty members engaged in animal research by three groups and five individuals, and the court recently expanded the order to a preliminary injunction. UCLA supports legislation sponsored by the University of California known as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AB 2296), which is being carried by state Assemblyman Gene Mullin. The bill would enhance the tools necessary for law enforcement officials to prevent, investigate and prosecute those persons who practice intimidation, harassment and violence. It also would increase penalties for those who engage in such tactics. For more about the bill, visit www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/animalresearch/welcome.html.
Has the court order been effective?
The court order has sent a powerful message that we take the threats seriously and will not tolerate illegal harassment of those conducting important and often lifesaving research. As a result of the court order, one of the groups has removed from its Web site personal information on UCLA researchers, including home addresses, which, in effect, had encouraged illegal harassment. As required by the court order, demonstrators have refrained from using bullhorns during their protests. And two people named in the restraining order were arrested for violating the requirement that they stay at least 50 feet away from researchers' homes during a demonstration.
Do the court order and AB 2296 infringe upon the free speech rights of those opposed to the use of animals in research?
UCLA and the rest of the UC system have long been committed to the free and open exchange of ideas. But Molotov cocktails, vandalism and violent threats constitute unlawful harassment, not protected speech.
Would AB 2296 prevent journalists from finding out what kind of research UC faculty members are conducting and what kind of research is being funded?
The primary intent of the legislation is to help protect people from harm and strengthen law enforcement's ability to catch and punish people who seek to harm others. As a public institution, UCLA, and the rest of the UC system, is open and accountable to the public, including the media. We also have a duty to keep our campus and personnel safe, and it is important to remember that some researchers have been targeted by extremists only after details of their research were provided in response to records requests. It is unfortunate that extremist have used this public information to encourage harassment of researchers. The elements of the bill concerning information disclosure strive to balance the public's right to information and the need to protect personnel from extremists who have perpetrated and threatened violent acts and engaged in illegal harassment.
Does UCLA consider the harassment directed at its researchers to be acts of terrorism?
People have their own definitions, and labels aren't that important. What is important is that extremists opposed to the use of animals in research have claimed responsibility for planting Molotov cocktails near the homes of UCLA researchers; they have vandalized homes; made violent threats to the researchers, their spouses and their children; descended on homes wearing masks; and banged on doors in the middle of the night, shouting obscenities and epithets. It is a clear campaign of harassment intended to intimidate or coerce — consistent with the definition of terrorism. It's also important to note that the FBI has identified the Animal Liberation Front — which has claimed responsibility for much of the illegal activity directed at UCLA personnel — as a top domestic terrorism threat.