Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Commentary

We Must Face the Threats

Dario L. Ringach and J. David Jentsch
Journal of Neuroscience 16 September 2009, 29 (37) 11417-11418; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3738-09.2009
Dario L. Ringach
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. David Jentsch
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Scientists at the University of California using animals in research have long faced harassment and attacks from animal-rights extremists. In the latest wave, which started in 2003, we have seen our cars and homes firebombed or flooded, and we have received letters packed with poisoned razors and death threats via e-mail and voicemail (Miller, 2007; University of California, 2008, 2009; Anti-Defamation League, 2009). Our families and neighbors have been terrorized by angry mobs of masked protesters who throw rocks, break windows, and chant that “you should stop or be stopped” and that they “know where you sleep at night.” Some of the attacks have been cataloged as attempted murder. Adding insult to injury, misguided animal-rights militants openly incite others to violence on the Internet, brag about the resulting crimes, and go as far as to call plots for our assassination “morally justifiable.” Consequently, animal-rights extremism must be addressed seriously and forcefully; the passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in 2006 was one step in this direction, but its constitutionality is now being challenged by animal-rights activists who claim that it is overly broad and inhibits constitutionally protected speech (Mintz, 2009). In addition, it is certainly only one mechanism to achieve the relief scientists need to continue their work.

Although animal-rights activists are against all forms of research involving animals, the majority of the recent attacks have concentrated on those using monkeys in their investigations. Obviously, the use of nonhuman primates in research presents a unique set of ethical issues because of their complex cognitive and emotional abilities, and accordingly, they represent fewer than 1% of all the animals used in research. For those researchers studying complex brain functions, including vision, hearing, memory, attention, thinking, and planning, as well as how those processes fail in diseases of the CNS, rodent species simply are not adequate alternatives because of the evolutionary elaboration of these processes in nonhuman and human primates.

Although there has been a focus on primate research, “mainstream” animal-rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States, openly oppose all types of animal research, calling it flawed, unnecessary, and unethical. They call it flawed because, in their opinion, results from animal research cannot be translated into treatments for human disease. They call it unethical because, in their view, even if animal research were to be useful, it would be wrong to kill an animal to save human (and animal) lives.

These organizations also mislead the public, suggesting that alternatives to animal research exist or that they could be easily developed, such as the argument that functional magnetic resonance imaging and computer simulations have rendered invasive electrophysiological studies useless. Their message, catered to children in grades kindergarten through 12 (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2009a) and college students (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2009b), is finding increased reception as they muddle the discussion with issues regarding the environment (Department of Homeland Security, 2009) and the growing negative social perception of companies involved in pharmaceutical development. “Animal law” programs at various universities are increasingly developing theories of natural rights for nonhuman animals and arguing in favor of providing animals legal standing in our justice system (Wikipedia, 2009). Animal-rights philosophers favoring the total abolition of animal use by humans endow their movement with a perceived intellectual standing and a sense of moral superiority (Francione, 2009), one that quickly dissipates when others provide justification for, or (at the least) equivocate on the “morality” of, violent methods to achieve their desired goals (Best, 2009).

The entertainment industry has also contributed to the misperception of science, producing movies that increasingly portray humans and technology as the source of evil, in which mad scientists populate their scripts while animals are often the source of wisdom, kindness, and truth. Some Hollywood celebrities wear AIDS/cancer ribbons one day and participate in PETA fundraising and advertising on another, although research in animals is likely to hold the keys to cures for these conditions. Pseudo-science populates television talk shows, in which some celebrities now advocate for the end to childhood vaccinations.

Regrettably, the attacks and messages from the anti-research lobby have been presented to the public with little opposing force from the scientific community. Traditionally, academic institutions and individual researchers have opted to remain silent about the activities of animal-rights extremists and organizations. Such reasoning was based on the fact that, unless the attacks were directed at you or your institution, it would be unwise to draw attention by offering a response. This attitude is no longer tenable. To underscore this point, a recent survey by the Pew Research Center (2009) demonstrated that only 52% of the public views animal research favorably in the United States. For these reasons, neuroscience research stands to suffer tremendously if our community does not act in concert immediately.

Time has come for the scientific community to make a concerted effort in condemning animal-rights extremism and in reaching out to the public to explain our work, its importance, and our commitment to the strictest ethical guidelines of animal research. A special effort should be made to emphasize the irreplaceable role for nonhuman primates in neuroscience research to the public. Although scientific societies can play an important role in this respect, such as the many outreach efforts by the Society for Neuroscience, individual investigators cannot delegate their responsibility any longer. We must acknowledge an increasing divide on how animal experimentation is perceived by the broad public. We should open a discourse on the topic, explaining the key role animal research plays in our work and what our society stands to lose if we were to stop it.

Everyone agrees that the welfare of animals and the ethical issues raised by their use in research cannot be taken lightly, but the general public seems to be under the impression that investigators are free to experiment on animals in any way they please. Much needs to be done to explain what exactly goes into conducting animal research: the various settings in which students and trainees are exposed to complex issues of ethics in research, the multiple levels of scrutiny, including review of our grants by the National Institutes of Health, the approval of the research by a university committee (composed of veterinarians and community members), the inspections from federal and state regulators, and accreditation from independent organizations that evaluate the compliance of animal programs. Above all, we should convey to the public our commitment (from students, staff, and faculty) to animal welfare, to refining our procedures, and to reducing the number of animals used in our studies. We should also consider allowing members of the public access to research facilities so that they can observe, firsthand, the measures taken to ensure the well-being of the subjects involved in our scientific enterprise.

We must now face the many threats to animal research in general and to neuroscience in particular. We must prove that “scientific community” means something more than the mere fact that we publish in the same journals and attend the same conferences. We must stand together to defend those colleagues under attack and defend the research we believe to be ethical and critical for our understanding of the brain in health and disease. The public is ready to listen.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Anti-Defamation League
    (2009) Animal rights extremists target the University of California. http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/university_of_california_animal_rights_extremism.htm.
  2. ↵
    1. Best S
    (2009) http://www.drstevebest.org/.
  3. ↵
    1. Department of Homeland Security
    (2009) Ecoterrorism: environmental and animal-rights militants in the United States. http://www.scribd.com/doc/12251436/DHS-Eco-Terrorism-in-US-2008.
  4. ↵
    1. Francione GL
    (2009) Animal rights: the abolitionist approach. http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/.
    1. Martosko D
    (2009) Dr. Jerry Vlasak quotes. http://www.activistcash.com/biography_quotes.cfm/bid/3437.
  5. ↵
    1. Miller G
    (2007) Science and the public: animal extremists get personal. Science 318:1856–1858.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Mintz H
    (2009) Federal judge to weigh constitutionality of animal rights anti-terrorism law. http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_12825570.
  7. ↵
    1. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
    (2009a) PETA kids on animal testing. http://www.petakids.com/testing.html.
  8. ↵
    1. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
    (2009b) Peta2 site. http://www.peta2.com/.
  9. ↵
    1. Pew Research Center
    (2009) Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1276/science-survey.
  10. ↵
    1. University of California
    (2008) The Regents of the University of California vs. UCLA Primate Freedom; Animal Liberation Brigade; Animal Liberation Front; Linda Faith Greene (AKA Lindy Greene); Hillary Roney; Kevin Olliff; Ramin Saber; Tim Rusmisel and DOES 1–100, inclusive. http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/document/Regents_Complaint.PDF.
  11. ↵
    1. University of California
    (2009) http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/extremists-repeatedly-target-ucla-87202.aspx.
  12. ↵
    1. Wikipedia
    (2009) The Great Ape Project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_Project.
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 29 (37)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 29, Issue 37
16 Sep 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
We Must Face the Threats
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
We Must Face the Threats
Dario L. Ringach, J. David Jentsch
Journal of Neuroscience 16 September 2009, 29 (37) 11417-11418; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3738-09.2009

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
We Must Face the Threats
Dario L. Ringach, J. David Jentsch
Journal of Neuroscience 16 September 2009, 29 (37) 11417-11418; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3738-09.2009
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

  • Public Discourse on Animal-Based Research
    Ray Greek
    Published on: 28 September 2009
  • Published on: (28 September 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Public Discourse on Animal-Based Research
    Public Discourse on Animal-Based Research
    • Ray Greek, President, AFMA

    Allow me to begin by stating most forcefully and without reservation that I and Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA), of which I am president and co-founder, condemn violence, intimidation, and illegal activities. Second, I should point out that AFMA is not opposed to using animals in science and research per se (see www.curedisease.com).

    We do take issue with the claim that animal models can be used to pre...

    Show More

    Allow me to begin by stating most forcefully and without reservation that I and Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA), of which I am president and co-founder, condemn violence, intimidation, and illegal activities. Second, I should point out that AFMA is not opposed to using animals in science and research per se (see www.curedisease.com).

    We do take issue with the claim that animal models can be used to predict human response, a claim that is common in the scientific literature as well as prominently made in public forums. In defending the use of monkeys in research of diseases of the CNS, Ringach and Jentsch appear to make such a claim. Expecting a different species to predict human response to disease is not in keeping with current scientific knowledge vis-à-vis evolutionary biology, complex systems, genomics, evo devo, and vast amounts of empirical evidence.

    All serious and responsible adults agree violence is wrong, but there are real and critical disagreements on the scientific value, and place of, animal models in medical research in general, and neuroscience research specifically, and these disagreements need to be discussed in a public forum involving both scientists and the taxpaying general public. Ringach and Jentsch discuss the need to “open a discourse on the topic.” Public debate is an old and respected tradition in American society and is frequently used by all parties in a contentious issue to explain their positions. I would like to hereby go on record as volunteering to publicly engage in this discourse.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Neuroscience Milestones: Developing Standardized Core-Competencies for Research-Based Neuroscience Trainees
  • Lessons from the Stories of Women in Neuroscience
  • Toward an Anti-Racist Approach to Biomedical and Neuroscience Research
Show more Commentary
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.