History of Protests Against Animal Tests

Animal protests have a long and turbulent history, from their emergence in the twentieth century to the last decade. Since the 1960s and 1970s, protests increased a great deal although they have fizzled out somewhat over the last several years. This is due, in part, to the fact that many of the more aggressive protesters have been arrested and several are behind bars. Extremists have unfortunately put a poor spin on animal testing protests through their dangerous and irrational actions. Fortunately, however, improved laws and regulation have helped to address the most volatile extremists in the area of animal testing protests.

Cosmetics Testing

The mid-twentieth century through to the 1980s saw a strong focus on protests against cosmetics testing. Large companies such as Revlon and Avon were targeted, with both eventually abandoning animal testing and adopting strong anti-animal testing policies. The abundance of media attention and protests also led up to the banning of animal testing for cosmetics purposes in several countries, including the United Kingdom (UK). In fact, the European Union is now poised for a near-full ban on animal testing for cosmetics by 2009, although there is opposition from a small number of countries such as France.

Leading Groups in Animal Testing Protests

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) does strongly support illegal activism although they cite that it should be non-violent. Despite this stance, they have taken responsibility for literally several dozen attacks and hundreds of thousands in damages to facilities across North America.

One reason for the extremism is that numerous animal welfare groups, particularly ones such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) believe that the use of force is appropriate because the 'ends justifies the means.' They cite that animal suffering is equivalent to human suffering, which means that a rat is no different that a person.

Huntingdon Life Sciences has been targeted quite frequently by animal rights activists over the years. Because Huntingdon uses a large number of animals each year, with many killed, they have been particularly vulnerable to protests and pickets. In 1997, protests by Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty occurred quite regularly. Pickets and threats to researchers were done to try to stop animal testing in the facilities. The group targeted not only the scientists and animal technicians, but also shareholders and others affiliated with the animal testing.

Because so much of medicine relies on animal testing, however, to actually be consistent in one's approach to animal protests would ultimately mean shunning most medical treatment today. This type of consistency would be difficult to maintain for even the most adamant animal rights activist.

Preventing Research

Protests against animal testing have actually kept companies from conducting research in the UK. Fear of threats, intimidation and disruption to the research has had an enormous impact on those who conduct animal testing, historically causing some to withdraw from the experiment and effectively 'give in' to the threats. Other firms have outsourced their animal testing to areas such as China, where animal testing regulations are poor and minimally - if at all - enforced. While animal welfare groups may consider this impact a victory, others cite that it only makes animal testing more poorly regulated because the testing will simply occur elsewhere. With the UK having some of the most - if not the most - stringent animal testing regulations in the world, the question of protests preventing testing from occurring in the UK is a crucial one.

Right to Protest

It is more likely those protests that involve intimidation and threats to the safety of researchers that ultimately prevent research from occurring on UK grounds. Hopefully, the public can continue to exercise their right to protest against animal testing but do so respectfully and peacefully. This should allow researchers to still feel some impact from the protests but not to the extent that they look to conduct research elsewhere under less rigid animal testing laws and regulations. It's important for the public to be able to challenge animal testing and draw attention to areas of weakness, while still allowing researchers to reflect on their actions without fear of continuing their research in the UK or elsewhere.