Can end result justify means?
HAND outstretched and a concerned look on her face, Heather Nicholson strokes a donkey at an animal sanctuary in Devon.
The photograph nestles alongside other images in the family album, displaying the childless divorcee's love of all creatures great and small.
Her father, George Barwick, a retired carpenter and strict vegan, casts his eyes over the pictures.
"I'm so proud of her," he says through his greying beard.
"She has always loved animals and been committed to trying to stop cruel and the barbaric torture of them."
Earlier this month, Heather Nicholson was handed an 11-year jail sentence.
She had founded campaign group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), which was determined to shut down a controversial testing lab.
Practices at the lab included getting rats to breath in cigarette smoke until they had convulsions.
Leaflets were handed out and protests were staged. But when they were not being taken seriously and the experiments continued, SHAC upped the ante.
Terrorism-style tactics were introduced.
Bomb-hoaxes, paedophile smears and chilling threats of violence were dished out — with a top judge labelling the campaign "relentless, sustained and merciless".
But why does the issue of animal testing provoke such heated reactions?
Although experiments on animals date back as far as 400BC, serious questions about its ethics were not raised until the 17th Century, when Irish physiologist Edmund O'Meara said "the miserable torture" placed the creatures in an unnatural state — bringing the reliability of any tests into question.
But scientists hit back, with the godfather of vivisection Claude Bernard arguing: "The science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall, which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen."
Scientific group Pro-Test argues animal testing is necessary.
A spokesman said: "Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century — for both human and veterinary health.
"Seventy-one of the Nobel Prizes for medicine won in the past 103 years were awarded to scientists who used animals in their research.
"Smallpox has now been eradicated entirely and polio has been eradicated from North America.
"Insulin is now able to help control diabetes, and there are vaccines for tetanus, rubella, anthrax and rabies."
However, while testing for medical reasons is seen as a necessary evil, it is conducting experiments for cosmetic purposes which touches a nerve the most.
George Barwick, said it was these kind of tests that sickened his now imprisoned daughter.
"She was against animal cruelty, not humane forms of testing," he added.
"How can you justify experiments where immense suffering is caused to cats by stabbing probes into their brains just so you can find a new form of bleach?"
Abuses of animals during testing were well publicised throughout the 1990s, and served to create a public frenzy on the issue.
Cosmetic testing has been banned in the UK since 1998. But anti-testing groups still say more needs to be done.
The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection estimates 115 million animals worldwide are "tortured" every year.
However, it argues companies should be made to say precisely how many animals they test on.
A spokesman said: "It is shocking so many countries think it unimportant to count the number of animal suffering in their laboratories.
"It is impossible to have a clear and honest debate about the role of animal experiments in the 21st Century when the official numbers of animals involved is outrageously underestimated.
"Vivisection is considered one of the most controversial uses of animals.
"It's about time governments, including our own, brought the truth into the open."
But while testing at facilities such as Huntingdon Life Sciences, continue, the issue won't go away.
Nicholson denied causing any physical harm to anyone. The 41-year-old co-founder of SHAC insisted she had done nothing wrong and pleaded not guilty.
Her father said: "In her eyes, she was innocent.
"She could have pleaded guilty and got a lesser sentence, but she was prepared to stand up for what she believed in."
More hard-line campaigners actively advocate terror tactics to justify their actions
A recruitment poster for one group reads: "A little jail time is nothing compared to what lab animals go through."
But criminal defence lawyer Clive Rees, of Swansea, said campaigners would not be doing their cause any favours.
He said: "Heather Nicholson was involved in a deliberate and very nearly successful campaign to terrorise a large number of people who — whatever you may think of the subject — had committed no crime and their families, who were obviously innocent of any involvement in animal testing.
"The sentence reflects the despicable actions of her group, the terror felt by those who were affected by their actions, and the complete absence of remorse shown by her."
12 Comments
View all
by CatC, London
Wednesday, February 04 2009, 9:15PM
“Rob, Swansea - I am not an 'animal welfarist' I am for animal rights, there is a fundamental difference.
Also, it is not my argument, it is the argument made by the numerous scientists and medical professionals against vivisection - and the argument.is based on hard, scientific, indisputable facts re species' differences....I take it you didn't bother to look up the word 'pharmacogenetics'!
The fact is that, due to tiny, tiny genetic differences between individuals of the SAME species, 'every prescription is a clinical trial' - I do not understand why you would support randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans, which IS the situation with vivisection.
Further, it is simply not true that people are living longer because of experiments on other species, rather it is well recognised that clean drinking water, sufficient food and sanitation are the crucial factors.
I have outlined why experiments on other species are not valid - but are dangerously misleading - for humans, ie immeasurably complex genetic differences between all species...
yet you clearly dispute the argument so please do enlighten us as to any fact-based, scientific case for vivisection......if you can....
and if you can't actually do that then, as there is no basis for your belief other than unthinking blind faith, you really should reconsider your position.”
by Rob, Swansea
Wednesday, February 04 2009, 2:47PM
“Great argument CatC - really well thought out. The reason so many people are suffering from the diseases you list is beacause the majority of them are associated with old age. And thanks to experiments on dogs, cats, monkeys, rats or whatever, humans in developed countires are now living on into the 80s. People didn't used to get cancer etc because they died when they were 35!!!
Why don't all you animal welfarists just shut up, go back to your miserable lives surrounded by your stinking cats and opt out of anything that has ever been tested on animals.
Please, do everyone a favour and boycott EVERYTHING that has ever been tested on animals.
Good luck with that.”
by anon - dont want messages from the people haters, anon
Wednesday, February 04 2009, 12:18PM
“Perhaps this lovely young lady would like to volunteer for the testing of the life saving drugs HLS work on.
David Miles, perhaps a little education for you is required. How is Alzeihmers (sorry for my spelling) avoided by changing of lifestyle? MS, parkinsons? To name but a few?
Of course Heather and her delightful ilk put animals before the lives of people.
And as someone else said if she REALLY believed in what she said she would carry documentation stating she did not want any care based on animal research.”
by Lindy, Notts
Tuesday, February 03 2009, 9:30PM
“Peter Guy, West Yorkshire,
I find you very naive... and you are assuming that Heather hasn't already done that when you don't even know.
Was it Kennedy that said "those that make resolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable"
History has repeatedly shown that to be true -think of the suffragettes.”
by Lindy, Notts
Tuesday, February 03 2009, 9:12PM
“Peter Martin, Neath, - She IS a hero, a selfless hero for the animals. She is a very brave and compassionate woman and will go down in history for what she has done!
When animal testing is finally banned and the truth comes out the general public will be absolutely horrifed. They won't be able to believe the horrors that they are doing to these animals. It's a shame more don't find out now while it is happening and then help to stop it! Heather was a threat to a multi billion pound industry backed by the government and that is the reason she is incarcerated and not because she is a criminal!”
by steve, swansea
Tuesday, February 03 2009, 5:00PM
“i gather this person carries a card stating in a medical emergency do not treat with anything which has been tested on animals
me thinks not”
by Peter Guy, West Yorkshire
Tuesday, February 03 2009, 12:07PM
“The (ex) government minister told those opposed to the hunting ban that if they disagreed with the legislation they should make their views known through the ballot box.
Why do people like Heather Nicholson feel that the same process doesn't apply to them?”
by CatC, London
Tuesday, February 03 2009, 2:09AM
“It is the 21st century, we've been experimenting on animals for around 2000, yes two thousand, years -
so, IF experimenting on other species did 'work' for humans why is it that still today humans are suffering, and dying, from cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimers, diabetes, heart disease, MS, etc etc etc.
Experimenting on other species is nonsense because the hard, scientific, indisputable fact is that each species is different at the cellular and molecular levels, which is where disease occurs.
These genetic differences make it impossible to take results from one species and scientifically /safely apply them to ANY other species.
Further, tiny, tiny genetic variations between individuals of the SAME species make ALL the difference - they mean that a drug which helps some individuals can harm or even kill other individuals...and they do.
The current situation WITH vivisection is that some humans are being harmed and killed for the intended benefit of other humans - this is the situation which is supported by Pro-test, to their shame.
Those against vivisection on scientfic grounds are calling for an end to experimenting on different species - instead we are calling for scientific, HUMAN-relevant research and testing, and individually tailored medicines.
I'm sure that if people knew the actual facts they would NOT agree with vivisection because they wouldn't support killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans.
Anyone who doubts that we must end vivisection please search the web for the word pharmacogenetics.”
by Paulfortin, Toronto, Canada
Monday, February 02 2009, 10:15PM
“How very sad that this special person should be incarcerated instead of being honoured by the Queen.
People do a lot of sick and vile things, but standing up for defenceless animals is not one of them.
I hope justice will prevail and this fine woman will be set free. There are many others that should be tried and jailed, such as those that lead us and profited from our current finacial demise.
Life is clearly not fair - in fact it is sickening!
Paul”
by Peter Martin, Neath
Monday, February 02 2009, 10:09PM
“She IS a criminal, she's been found guilty of a crime and jailed for 11 years. Can we stop painting her as some sort of hero?”