Paul attempts to refute Medawar's claim that declining attacks on researchers do not mean a decline in ALF attacks on others, by citing a survey of researchers who feel themselves less under threat than before. Precisely.
The Bite Back website contains all sorts of absurd and alarming attacks, it's just that by and large researchers are not currently the targets of these.

This has happened before: when previous governments have protected the research community, the AR purse-string holders have diverted their resources elsewhere for a bit:
Paul Watson now has a 50 knot semi-submersible sea-going batmobile with which to further his deep wish to get someone killed, and we still await the trial of the AR activist who used a gyrocopter propellor to decapitate someone who simply dared to argue with him. (And point out that he had been breaking the law on a daily basis for six weeks beforehand, all without any discernible action by police or the CAA.)

Research remains the real target of those who buy or hire these expensive toys for AR lunatics, and sooner or later, when their numbers have been built up again, and more particularly when new tactics have been developed and carefully tested on farmers and the like, who enjoy little or no police protection, there will be a new onslaught against the researchers. This has been the pattern since the small brown dog affair in Edwardian times, and each time round, the anti-science campaign has been nastier than before.

As for Mr Watson's craft: he intends to sail this thing, at up to fifty knots, between whaling ships and their targets. If he is alone on the boat, that's his choice, but the vessel is almost entirely made of carbon fibre and Medawar has enough experience of carbon fibre tank turrets to predict that it probably won't take more than one harpoon strike to cause a local structural failure, which in such a hydrodynamically critical hull shape, will subject the remaining structure to large and rapidly-shifting stresses that will cause rapid disintegration. It might stand a harpoon in a static test, but not plunging through the waves at high speed. He mustn't be allowed to take any other volunteers with him.

Medawar thinks that the American millionaires who gave him this toy have decided that the AR movement needs another martyr or two, as Barry Horne fades from the memory. To this end, they have donated the means for Watson to martyr himself and his crew in the most spectacular manner possible.

Paul attempts to refute Medawar's claim that declining attacks on researchers do not mean a decline in ALF attacks on others, by citing a survey of researchers who feel themselves less under threat than before. Precisely.
The Bite Back website contains all sorts of absurd and alarming attacks, it's just that by and large researchers are not currently the targets of these.

This has happened before: when previous governments have protected the research community, the AR purse-string holders have diverted their resources elsewhere for a bit:
Paul Watson now has a 50 knot semi-submersible sea-going batmobile with which to further his deep wish to get someone killed, and we still await the trial of the AR activist who used a gyrocopter propellor to decapitate someone who simply dared to argue with him. (And point out that he had been breaking the law on a daily basis for six weeks beforehand, all without any discernible action by police or the CAA.)

Research remains the real target of those who buy or hire these expensive toys for AR lunatics, and sooner or later, when their numbers have been built up again, and more particularly when new tactics have been developed and carefully tested on farmers and the like, who enjoy little or no police protection,  there will be a new onslaught against the researchers. This has been the pattern since the small brown dog affair in Edwardian times, and each time round, the anti-science campaign has been nastier than before.

As for Mr Watson's craft: he intends to sail this thing, at up to fifty knots, between whaling ships and their targets. If he is alone on the boat, that's his choice, but the vessel is almost entirely made of carbon fibre and Medawar has enough experience of carbon fibre tank turrets to predict that it probably won't take more than one harpoon strike to cause a local structural failure, which in such a hydrodynamically critical hull shape, will subject the remaining structure to large and rapidly-shifting stresses that will cause rapid disintegration. It might stand a harpoon in a static test, but not plunging through the waves at high speed. He mustn't be allowed to take any other volunteers with him.

Medawar thinks that the American millionaires who gave him this toy have decided that the AR movement needs another martyr or two, as Barry Horne fades from the memory. To this end, they have donated the means for Watson to martyr himself and his crew in the most spectacular manner possible.

Thanks Paul, exactly the point we were trying to make. We also carried out a survey, the results of which back up this point.

We carried out this survey between January and February 2006 in order to understand the follow-on effects of speaking about animal research in the media.

100 individuals whose names had appeared in national newspapers in connection to animal research in the previous two years were selected. Out of 60 respondents, all but six received no attention from antivivisectionists or animal rights activists; four received a direct or indirect written response (for instance a mention on a website, a letter to the newspaper or a direct email). Only two of the respondents received threats or abuse following their media appearance – and both had been targeted before and/or came from an institution that was already a named target when they spoke out.

Thanks Paul, exactly the point we were trying to make. We also carried out a survey, the results of which back up this point. 

We carried out this survey between January and February 2006 in order to understand the follow-on effects of speaking about animal research in the media. 

100 individuals whose names had appeared in national newspapers in connection to animal research in the previous two years were selected. Out of 60 respondents, all but six received no attention from antivivisectionists or animal rights activists; four received a direct or indirect written response (for instance a mention on a website, a letter to the newspaper or a direct email). Only two of the respondents received threats or abuse following their media appearance – and both had been targeted before and/or came from an institution that was already a named target when they spoke out.

Medawar, the general experience of UK scientists who have spoken out about animal research in the past five years is that they have not been threatened or attacked. Leave aside that the identities of researchers can be found in the scientific literature and just think of all the news reports have you seen on TV or in newspapers where UK scientists discuss animal research they are engaged in? Ten or even five years ago their reluctance to put their names to the piece would have been understandable, but a lot has changed, witness the Pro-Test campaign in Oxford and the many scientists who spoke out in support of it and discussed their own animal work.

It was a good essay, but I can't help feeling that it was also a missed opportunity to present their own work to the public. Some of us would have been interested to learn more about this research that combines the most advanced computation and engineering with 21st century animal research techniques to push the frontiers of medical science.

Medawar, the general experience of UK scientists who have spoken out about animal research in the past five years is that they have not been threatened or attacked. Leave aside that the identities of researchers can be found in the scientific literature and just think of all the news reports have you seen on TV or in newspapers where UK scientists discuss animal research they are engaged in? Ten or even five years ago their reluctance to put their names to the piece would have been understandable, but a lot has changed, witness the Pro-Test campaign in Oxford and the many scientists who spoke out in support of it and discussed their own animal work.

It was a good essay, but I can't help feeling that it was also a missed opportunity to present their own work to the public. Some of us would have been interested to learn more about this research that combines the most advanced computation and engineering with 21st century animal research techniques to push the frontiers of medical science.

On the contrary, speaking out can get one targeted even if one does not perform ANY animal research role.

ALF attacks on researchers may indeed have declined, but persecution of farmers and fishermen remains common - and is almost totally ignored by police who will jump through hoops if a major company or leading scientist is bothered.

Question the political basis and ultimate objectives of the AR movement, and targeting is assured.

On the contrary, speaking out can get one targeted even if one does not perform ANY animal research role.

ALF attacks on researchers may indeed have declined, but persecution of farmers and fishermen remains common - and is almost totally ignored by police who will jump through hoops if a major company or leading scientist is bothered.

Question the political basis and ultimate objectives of the AR movement, and targeting is assured.