Terrorism isn't protest

July 21, 2006

Matthew Humphrey and Marc Stears find the fact that medical researchers are protected by legislation "problematic" ("Disruptive politics must be allowed to muscle in", Opinion, July 7).

They suggest that animal-rights activists need to "disrupt the settled practices of our daily lives. As they do so, some may stray into violence and, when they do, they should be constrained."

None of my fellow medical researchers has any problem with legitimate protest. But the words of the article disguise the physical assaults, planting of car bombs, stealing of a corpse and violent intimidatory tactics employed by extremists. They also take no account of the effect on medical advance were these extremists to succeed.

Sophisticated arguments cannot disguise the actions of the terrorist elements of some so-called animal-rights advocates.

David Eisner Manchester University

登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。




  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论


Log in or register to post comments


Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October