Gilroy 35 Miles Over the Hill From Santa Cruz | February 26, 2009
The following appears today in the Wall Street Journal, pg A10.
Jacquie/AMP
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561403539778087.html?mod=todays_...
Animal Research Exposes Clash Between Safety, Disclosure Laws
By DIONNE SEARCEY
Scientific researchers whose work involves testing monkeys, dogs or other creatures sometimes face the wrath of animal-rights activists.
Now, their employers -- public universities and research institutions -- are curtailing information they once made public to protect the scientists, saying existing laws justify the blackout. Citing recent acts of violence against scientists, institutions are withholding identities, locations and other details from documents concerning experiments involving animals. Animal-rights groups, who worry institutions are covering up inhumane practices, are turning to the courts for help.
At issue is whether the spirit of laws that protect the identities of police officers and crime victims can be used to shield scientists at the expense of other laws mandating public disclosure. In other words, public safety is pitted against the public's right to know.
Public institutions typically must comply with state or federal open-records laws designed to shed light on the use of taxpayer dollars. The laws vary widely by state, but many keep certain information secret for individuals whose safety might be at risk. Courts have upheld the protection of identities of everyone from federal informants to undercover police officers. In Massachusetts, public employees who have been victims of certain crimes, including domestic violence and rape, can petition the state to withhold their names and place of employment from records.
"The notion that safety can be a factor in determining when records have to be made public is well-established," says First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams.
Animal-rights activists accuse the institutions of exaggerating the danger as a way of skirting the law and concealing potentially controversial experiments. Some First Amendment experts also say the potential danger isn't as ever-present for scientists as it is for undercover detectives or battered wives.
"The new tactic is, don't let them see anything so that they can't make us look bad," says Kathy Guillermo, director for laboratory investigations at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
With mixed results, research institutions have lobbied for legislation that withholds animal researchers' identities. California recently made it a crime to publish the names of animal researchers or their family members and their addresses with the intent to commit violence. Similar legislation in South Dakota stalled as lawmakers cited concerns about limiting freedom of information.
In recent months, a handful of institutions including New York State Psychiatric Institute and Stony Brook University in New York have refused to release complete records over privacy or safety issues. A spokeswoman for the psychiatric institute declined to comment, citing safety concerns. Stony Brook said it provided redacted records in one instance, but didn't elaborate.
Some of these efforts have landed the universities in court. The University of California was sued last summer by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that advocates eliminating the use of animals in research, to obtain records involving experiments. In its complaint, the group said "only through access to the records...can it be determined how public funds are being spent and how animals are being treated."
The university argued to keep the records private, saying in court documents that the request came amid "a rising wave of harassment, threats and criminal violence perpetrated by extremist organizations."
The violence against researchers includes an incident a year ago in which protesters burst into a University of California, Santa Cruz, scientist's home during a child's birthday party. In another incident in August, a UC Santa Cruz biologist and his family fled from a second-floor window when his house filled with smoke from a firebomb.
Both the physicians group and PETA say they don't condone violence.
Christopher Patti, a lawyer for the University of California system, says the university used to liberally disclose details until it saw information repeatedly used to target researchers. "We've tried to adjust our practices to balance safety and public disclosure," he says.
State Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled the University of California records should be released, but allowed them to be heavily redacted. Researchers' names, laboratory floor plans and other information were blacked out.
Though the Physicians Committee technically won the suit -- the university agreed to cover some legal fees -- it said the redacted documents were unusable. Violent acts against researchers are extremely rare, says Dan Kinburn, the group's general counsel. "The fact that a few crazy people might do criminal things shouldn't interfere with the rights of the overwhelming law-abiding majority."
Write to Dionne Searcey at [email protected]
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
AMERICANS FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS
[email protected] - 703.836.9595
Unsubscribe here
|
Disclosure Laws
