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
Register to continue
Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.
Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:
- Sign up for the editor's highlights
- Receive World University Rankings news first
- Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
- Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?Sign in now