OXFORD UNIVERSITY REGISTRAR SPEAKS OUT ON ANIMAL RESEARCH

[Guest guest]

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article354759.ece

 

 

*David Holmes: We are besieged by hatred and vitriol*

An issue such as the usanimals e of in research should be the subject of

reasoned debate Published: 31 March 2006

 

*Freedom of expression is the best-qualified midwife for delivering advances

in human knowledge and understanding. Without it, the pursuit of truth and

the sharing of wisdom atrophy and die. All great universities have this

reality at their heart; they cannot remain great otherwise. Oxford

University certainly knows it and lives it: argument is how Oxford cuts its

teeth. *

 

*But this freedom, we also know, has to be exercised responsibly. The right

to free expression operates within constraints designed to protect the

rights of others from the illegitimate infringement of their liberty:

incitement to racial hatred is an obvious instance where protection trumps

free speech.*

 

*It is precisely because we recognise both the importance of freedom of

expression and the importance of exercising it in a way that does not

unfairly constrain the freedom of others that Oxford is seeking a fresh

legal ruling over the activities of animal extremists.*

 

*The context of the University's decision to return to the High Court to

seek a new injunction is that its staff, students, funders, contractors and

suppliers have all been the targets of a rising tide of threats and

intimidation. The goal appears to be the use of fear to halt not only the

building of a new biomedical facility but also any research involving the

use of animals, regardless of the benefits it can bring humankind.*

 

*The methods being used have grown alarmingly in both range and intensity

since the University was first granted a measure of protection by the courts

for the project over a year ago. Far from recognising the case for

reasonable limits on their activities, extremists have sought to extend

their intimidation to anyone and everyone with any connection to the

University.*

 

*Their combined effect far exceeds the limits of legitimate protest.

Extremist tactics include abusive e-mails and letters, claims to neighbours

that individuals are paedophiles, death threats, and damage to private and

University property. A member of staff at an architect's firm, which had

once done some work for the University - nothing to do with animals - had

his car and garage vandalised. A college boathouse was burned down.*

 

*Sadly, but understandably, this campaign of hatred and vitriol has had an

impact on the terms of debate. It is crucial that an issue such as the use

of animals in research should be the subject of full and reasoned

discussion, the kind of rational and intelligent conversation that this

University is built on.*

 

*Scientists need to be able to say why research is necessary. At the same

time, it is hardly surprising that anyone told they, their families and

their livelihoods are at risk might think twice about exposing their safety

to this kind of threat. Yet the overwhelming scientific consensus on the

subject is clear: without this limited and highly regulated research

countless human lives may continue to be lost to diseases that could be

cured. It is this reality that has helped to inspire the recent grassroots

demonstrations in favour of the new facility in Oxford.*

 

*Given the extraordinary scope of extremist intimidation, the University has

been forced to seek to extend the scope of the legal remedies and protection

available to it. So far, thanks to a recent interim order, our staff and

students have been granted temporary relief from the siege to which they

have been subjected while trying to enter, work and study in departments

that happen to be close to the new facility. Amplified abuse shouted through

a loudhailer for hours on end and tapes of air raid sirens played through

windows makes people's lives a misery; so does the aggressively targeted

taking of people's photos - intimidation that the court has also now

constrained, for the time being at least.*

 

*At a further hearing we will ask that these temporary measures be made

permanent. We will also ask for the size and duration of protests to be

reduced and for a restricted area round the construction site to be

expanded. In addition, we believe that university funders and suppliers, who

are now subject to threats themselves, are entitled to specific protection

under the law.*

 

*What of the right to legal protest? Activists would still be able to hold a

weekly demonstration in view of the construction site and could continue to

apply to the police to demonstrate at other times in the normal way. Those

who believe that the evidence supports legal changes to prevent such

research in its entirety should surely seek to change the law through the

democratic process, not through undermining and subverting it.*

 

*The writer is the Registrar of Oxford University *

 

*Freedom of expression is the best-qualified midwife for delivering advances

in human knowledge and understanding. Without it, the pursuit of truth and

the sharing of wisdom atrophy and die. All great universities have this

reality at their heart; they cannot remain great otherwise. Oxford

University certainly knows it and lives it: argument is how Oxford cuts its

teeth. *

 

*But this freedom, we also know, has to be exercised responsibly. The right

to free expression operates within constraints designed to protect the

rights of others from the illegitimate infringement of their liberty:

incitement to racial hatred is an obvious instance where protection trumps

free speech.*

 

*It is precisely because we recognise both the importance of freedom of

expression and the importance of exercising it in a way that does not

unfairly constrain the freedom of others that Oxford is seeking a fresh

legal ruling over the activities of animal extremists.*

 

*The context of the University's decision to return to the High Court to

seek a new injunction is that its staff, students, funders, contractors and

suppliers have all been the targets of a rising tide of threats and

intimidation. The goal appears to be the use of fear to halt not only the

building of a new biomedical facility but also any research involving the

use of animals, regardless of the benefits it can bring humankind.*

 

*The methods being used have grown alarmingly in both range and intensity

since the University was first granted a measure of protection by the courts

for the project over a year ago. Far from recognising the case for

reasonable limits on their activities, extremists have sought to extend

their intimidation to anyone and everyone with any connection to the

University.*

 

*Their combined effect far exceeds the limits of legitimate protest.

Extremist tactics include abusive e-mails and letters, claims to neighbours

that individuals are paedophiles, death threats, and damage to private and

University property. A member of staff at an architect's firm, which had

once done some work for the University - nothing to do with animals - had

his car and garage vandalised. A college boathouse was burned down.*

 

*Sadly, but understandably, this campaign of hatred and vitriol has had an

impact on the terms of debate. It is crucial that an issue such as the use

of animals in research should be the subject of full and reasoned

discussion, the kind of rational and intelligent conversation that this

University is built on.*

 

*Scientists need to be able to say why research is necessary. At the same

time, it is hardly surprising that anyone told they, their families and

their livelihoods are at risk might think twice about exposing their safety

to this kind of threat. Yet the overwhelming scientific consensus on the

subject is clear: without this limited and highly regulated research

countless human lives may continue to be lost to diseases that could be

cured. It is this reality that has helped to inspire the recent grassroots

demonstrations in favour of the new facility in Oxford.*

 

*Given the extraordinary scope of extremist intimidation, the University has

been forced to seek to extend the scope of the legal remedies and protection

available to it. So far, thanks to a recent interim order, our staff and

students have been granted temporary relief from the siege to which they

have been subjected while trying to enter, work and study in departments

that happen to be close to the new facility. Amplified abuse shouted through

a loudhailer for hours on end and tapes of air raid sirens played through

windows makes people's lives a misery; so does the aggressively targeted

taking of people's photos - intimidation that the court has also now

constrained, for the time being at least.*

 

*At a further hearing we will ask that these temporary measures be made

permanent. We will also ask for the size and duration of protests to be

reduced and for a restricted area round the construction site to be

expanded. In addition, we believe that university funders and suppliers, who

are now subject to threats themselves, are entitled to specific protection

under the law.*

 

*What of the right to legal protest? Activists would still be able to hold a

weekly demonstration in view of the construction site and could continue to

apply to the police to demonstrate at other times in the normal way. Those

who believe that the evidence supports legal changes to prevent such

research in its entirety should surely seek to change the law through the

democratic process, not through undermining and subverting it.*

 

*The writer is the Registrar of Oxford University*