Animalistic Cruelty

Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals may want to preserve the dignity of research animals, but they seem to have no problem letting ethical standards slip when it comes to their fellow human beings: threats, harassment and intimidation are the stock and trade of these activists. Has SETA gone too far?

Fanaticism is the ugly side to any political movement. Ask the Anglicans in Belfast, the Jews in Israel, or any other group victimized by terrorist violence, and they'll tell you that fanaticism serves no purpose but to polarize the issue at hand, pushing compromise out of reach. It is easy for those who lean towards the fanatical to believe that what they're doing-regardless of chosen tactic-is right. Fanatics invariably lose perspective and do things they wouldn't do beyond the context of their particular issue. Once peaceful and easy-going individuals become fanatics, they start screaming at total strangers, vandalizing property, and making death threats. To them, these illegal and immoral acts are justified simply because they are done in the name of a worthy cause. The members of Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (SETA) have reached the point of reckless, possibly even lawless, behavior in the name of their cause. Not just a group of uppity hippies, this student-funded animal rights group terrorizes campus - primarily by breaking into research labs and harassing professors - on a nearly weekly basis.

And while victims of the group's methods say they totally support the group's freedom to hold and express their views, even individuals who strongly maintain the group's "right" to protest believe that there is a line which should not be crossed. This line is the division between freedom of expression and harassment. It is crossed when the expression of one's beliefs is carried out via methods which endanger and threaten the livelihood or rights of other free individuals. Several of those interviewed who have experienced SETA's tactics firsthand, claim this line is crossed deliberately and repeatedly by the group, as well as by other animal activists related to SETA.

What has SETA so stirred up is the animal biomedical research here at the University of Oregon. Not necessarily animal testing- in which the responses of animals to chemicals are studied- biomedical research attempts to discover and understand the fundamental mechanisms of life common to all organisms. The UO's research is focused primarily on the brain and nervous system, with specific emphasis on embryonic development, cell physiology and the molecular makeup of animals. By understanding these aspects of biology, researchers can then hope to apply this knowledge and cure a myriad of illnesses.

Of the 33,625 animals at the UO counted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Public Health Service in their report on Animal Care Facilities and Programs for July of 1998, only 901 were of a species other than zebra fish. These 901 amounted to 80 marine fish, 10 frogs, 10 newts, 700 mice, 45 rats, 42 owls, 11 rabbits, and 3 non-human primates. The UO has such a large number of zebra fish because it was here in the early 1980's that the fish was first cloned. These animals are all located in Huestis and Streisinger Halls, next to Willamette Hall and across 13th Avenue from Carson Hall.

Every animal, from the lowliest zebra fish to the prized primate, receives good care as mandated by federal, state, and institutional policies. In a prepared statement, Tom Dyke, UO Vice Provost for Research asserts, "The animals are treated in a manner respectful of their psychological needs and are not subject to harassment or mistreatment. Research animals here are not subjected to any type of painful procedure without benefit of anesthesia, analgesics or tranquilizers as appropriate."

This is not the image painted by SETA. On their website, in their flyers, and at their demonstrations only the harshest of claims are made against the UO for using animals in research. Of course, no member of SETA would go on record with the Commentator to explain the group's extreme stance or the alleged harassment of professors at SETA's hands. SETA ignored numerous attempts to contact them regarding this article.

Not only is the University criticized in SETA's materials and rhetoric, but the professors within the Neuroscience Department are personally attacked. SETA's information shows pictures of monkeys trapped in cruel looking vices, then lists the professors' names and telephone numbers, and encourages people to call and vent their rage. Some of the most disturbing claims made by SETA are against Professor Richard Marrocco, who uses rhesus monkeys in his research. The methods used by Marrocco, as described by SETA, sound more fitting for the Spanish Inquisition than for medical research. One SETA statement reads, "The rhesus monkeys have surgical steel caps implanted onto their scalps. The monkeys also have a coil of wire implanted in their eye which results in tissue damage and irritation. For the experiment, the monkeys are screwed into a 'primate chair' by their steel cap implants so they cannot move their heads. They live in barren steel cages in social isolation." This happy little paragraph ends by listing Marrocco's e-mail address.

The truth, according to Professor Marrocco is much different. He uses rhesus monkeys in his research on different types of attention, namely covert attention, which an organism uses to perceive and understand an object without directly focusing on it. To study covert attention, Marrocco logically needs the monkey's point of focus to remain still. He achieves this by attaching a small rod to the monkey's head with dental acrylic. This rod is then attached to a metal bar, which restricts the monkey's head from moving, yet the animal's body is free at all times. The "coil of wire" is not inserted into the monkey's eye, but is rather placed on the skin underneath it. The coil itself is only as thick as a hair, and when it has been sutured over, the monkey can not even feel it. Marrocco also stressed that the monkeys are never forced into being researched on, but rather are eager and willing subjects, and live in cages with interconnecting tunnels so they are definitely not in "social isolation," as SETA claims.

"At no point are the monkeys in pain. If the animals experienced pain they would be reluctant. [The animals] eagerly await the experiment. We play with them, talk with them; some of the graduate students have even developed a monkey talk," Marrocco said. He added further proof that the monkeys are not in pain by pointing out that a frequent problem is monkeys falling asleep while being tested. It becomes a bit ridiculous to argue that a monkey could be in dire pain and fall asleep at the same time.

The frustration Marrocco feels towards animal rights activists is plain, if unstated. He has good reason for such frustration. During his 25 years at the University, he has been the victim of almost constant harassment at the hands of activists, some of whom he believes were members of SETA. He has had both his life and the lives of his family threatened. He has received countless pieces of hate mail and been subjected to ranting telephone calls, both at his office and at home. At a SETA demonstration last spring in front of Huestis Hall, where Marrocco's lab is located, he said the crowd screamed, "There he is-get him!," when they spotted him walking his wife back to the Health Center, where she worked at the time. A demonstrator then proceeded to stand in front of Marrocco and start screaming at him within a few inches of his face. Only after another student intervened was Marrocco able to pass. Yet the harassment didn't stop there, as another activist followed him and his wife into the Health Center, muttering animal rights rhetoric and vague threats.

Professor Marrocco isn't alone in this. Another professor had his house vandalized after SETA and other activists protested outside of it. Several others have received death threats, and in the most blatant example of animal rights fanaticism, activists broke into the Neuroscience Department on October 26, 1986 and stole 125 research animals and vandalized equipment, supplies and facilities at a cost of $38,415. An activist named Roger Toren was later arrested and convicted for the break-in, and sentenced to 250 hours of community service and $34,900 in restitution to the University. Three other activists were later arrested for the crime as well.

In addition to SETA, there are other more violent groups at work trying to liberate research animals. The most well-known is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). But PETA has a less high-profile and much more violent cousin in the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The ALF has claimed responsibility for vandalizing and even burning down animal research labs. While some interviewed blamed SETA outright for violent and illegal acts, others couldn't be sure whether it was the student group or the other more outspoken national groups. Yet it was mentioned several times that the lines between the groups are blurred, and activists in the animal rights cause are known to travel between groups. Furthermore, each group supports the others, so while SETA may not claim responsibility as the ALF does, they do support the tactics used by the ALF.

Even though most of the harassment against professors here at the UO can not be squarely blamed on SETA, there are instances in which the group has clearly overstepped its bounds. One of these instances was during the Neuroscience's Open House in early April. Monte Matthews, the Veterinary Services and Animal Care Director for the UO, said that even though he was able to have "some interesting discussions," with a few SETA members at the open house, there were also those, "who made some disturbances."

During the open house the department offered tours so that interested parties, SETA especially, could see what really went on in the labs. On one of these tours, a professor was showing a group her lab when a SETA member started to verbally attack the professor and her work so viciously that the professor had to excuse herself from her own lab. SETA members were said to have created similar disturbances in other labs, and have disrupted lectures as well.

University student Aaron Sundholm and Lab Technician Victoria Robinson have firsthand knowledge of the disruptions that occurred during the open house. Sundholm, a junior majoring in Biochemistry, is especially outspoken in his criticism of SETA, questioning the effectiveness of their methods.

"I understand and respect their right to protest, but I expect them to respect us as well. Nothing has changed by their actions, not a damn thing," he said.

Another incident involving SETA, mentioned by Sundholm, Robinson, and others, occurred last year when 15 to 20 protesters stormed Huestis Hall and attempted to get into the labs. As the group marched through the halls chanting slogans, pounding on the walls, and disrupting classes, Professor Marrocco feared his lab would be trashed. He attempted to lock the doors, but was unable to do so, and was forced to stand in front of them to block the entryway. According to Marrocco, as the crowd approached him, they demanded that he step aside, and he refused. When one protester attempted to push him aside, Marrocco pushed back, though not violently, and the protester immediately began to scream that he had been assaulted.

Robinson, who was present in Huestis during this incident, said that one of the protesters in the group noticed a passing professor reaching behind himself to scratch his back, and the protester began to scream that she had been flipped off. Robinson, like others in Huestis, could deal with SETA voicing their opinions, but feels there's a definite limit. "It's the fanatical ones who disturb me. It is so unacceptable to go after someone personally," she said.

These tactics are disruptive, and in several instances threatening, but do they warrant any serious response? If the rules which govern the University's student body mean anything, there is no question that SETA's reckless behavior needs to be addressed in the harshest of terms. Moreover, under the ASUO Constitution and the Student Conduct Code, disciplinary action can be taken against SETA if any charges are found to be valid by the University.

The Conduct Code mandates that any student or student group is liable for disciplinary sanction when conduct interferes with the educational responsibility of the University, and if University property or personnel are endangered. Specifically, section 571-21-030 states, "Disciplinary action may be initiated by the University and sanctions imposed against any student or student organization found guilty of committing, attempting to commit, or intentionally assisting in the commission of any of the following prohibited forms of conduct: (3) Intentional disruption, obstruction, or interference with the process of instruction, research, and administration. (5) Unauthorized entry into or use of university property. (21) Stalking, defined as repeatedly contacting another person when the contacting person knows the contact is unwanted, or when the other person has reasonable apprehension of imminent physical harm, and when the contact causes substantial impairment of the other person's ability to perform the activities of daily life."

Making threats against several professors' lives, storming Huestis Hall, disrupting ongoing classes and research, following a professor and his wife while screaming at them, vandalizing school property, and many of SETA's other acts performed in the righteous defense of animals, clearly fall into the realm of illegality as defined by the Conduct Code and are thusly punishable by the University.

If found guilty, the group could face a ban from the use of University facilities, restitution payments, suspension of their group charter, and other sanctions. The individual members could face expulsion, suspension, disciplinary probation, community service, and even a revocation of any degree earned.

However, SETA doesn't spend all their time neglecting laws. They are also skilled at neglecting the weight of scientific evidence; specifically, the fact that after an increased use of animals in research, life expectancy has jumped up by almost thirty years. Further, immunizations for polio, mumps, measles, diphtheria, rubella, and hepatitis have been discovered; blood transfusions, intravenous feeding and medication, open-heart surgery, insulin, asthma medicine, kidney dialysis, artificial joints, mental illness medications, and treatment to prevent paralysis have been developed-all through animal research.

These are only a few of the advancements made possible so far by the use of animal subjects. Researchers are currently working to find cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, hypertension, infectious disease, cystic fibrosis, and AIDS. Additionally, nine out of the twelve Nobel Prizes awarded in biology since 1980 were obtained solely through animal research. SETA members, however, continually refuse to accept the benefits of animal research.

"The facts are there; there is just no question that many advances made in medicine and biology were possible with the use of animals," Matthews said. "Yet members of animal rights groups will tell you that there are no benefits. This is just clearly false. One of the most frustrating aspects of the groups is having to listen to their misstatements and outright lies that continue to perpetuate their propaganda."

Robinson seconded this opinion with an analogy. "There is a point where testing without animals will take you that can't be conclusive until you put your work into a real body to see if it'll work. It's like eating only supplements and vitamins; even though they technically fulfill the body's needs, without real food you'll eventually die of malnutrition," she said.

Regardless of whether SETA's obscure logic makes sense or not, the real issue is that a student group that may be breaking laws is currently a fully-funded ASUO program. SETA's illegal tactics have become a self-defining aspect of their mission as a student group.

Obviously it is counter to the mission of the University to allow a student group to disrupt research and harass professors and their student assistants. It seems only common sense that steps be taken to stop any such harassment by activists, for fanaticism not only worsens any situation, but makes the fanatics' goals harder to achieve. It is time for SETA to realize that no one negotiates with terrorists.

Andrew Adams, a sophomore majoring in Journalism, is News Editor for the Oregon Commentator