A nimal research is a very sensitive subject for many people. There are those who feel that animals have the same rights as humans, and that they shouldn't be sacrificed, no matter what the potential benefits to humans. Animal rights advocates have presented many problems, both professional and personal, for researchers in the past. It is only logical and prudent to assume that they will continue to do so at great expense to taxpayers and private corporations.With this in mind, it is perfectly reasonable, and necessary, for animal facilities to have adequate security provisions. I was aware of these concerns from the beginning of my research. However, I could never have prepared myself for the reaction I received from the scientific community here at UCSC. From the outset, they were mistrustful of my motives and tried their hardest to present me countless difficulties.
At first, the only hardships I encountered were when dealing directly with the scientific community. People were reluctant to speak with me, even more reluctant to provide substantive information. Statements like, 'I'm not trying to hide anything,' were invariably followed with a, 'but you must understand that there are people out there who could cause me a lot of trouble.' Many of them made calls to administrators, complaining that I was harrassing them.
During an interview with Rob Irion, I asked an innocuous question about Ralph Berger's work. His response was, "[Long silence] Uhm... I would prefer that you not use Ralph Berger's name, because he has specifically requested that he remain out of the public limelight."
Shortly after, I found that people began checking up on me. The director of the SOAR office, Barbara Silverthorne, called the campus animal rights organization, SETA, to ask if I had contacted them, if I was a member, and if I was involved in an animal rights crusade. She says thst she doesn't remember how she got my name. In addition, the police were contacted in response to my request for public documents from the Drafting Office at Campus Facilities. Unfortunately, they released the security-specific blueprints to me which they shouldn't have. Their mistake launched an investigation into my activities by the campus police; an investigation of which I was never formally notified.
Officer Powell, one of the officers involved in the investigation said that it was just a "basic follow-up, no charges are being pressed. As far as we're concerned, it's all done with." He then followed that with, "By the way, do you still have the plans?"
Evidently, Dr. Barenfus was a little nervous, too. After we had scheduled a preliminary interview, but had yet to meet, he allegedly called the campus police. According to Officer Powell, "Morris Barenfus called us once wondering about [your first interview.] He thought that perhaps things could get violent at that meeting and wanted to know if we could make an officer available. I told him that I didn't think there would be any problem, but told him that we would [make one available.]"
Barenfus said that, while he had had similar conversations with Powell in the past, neither my name nor our meeting had been the subject of such a conversation. He later added that such issues had come up, but never in connection with our scheduled interviews.
Barenfus also strongly suggested that I go through the Human Subjects Review Board, a committee that decides on ethical considerations for social scientific research, ostensibly so people would feel more comfortable speaking to me. He backed this suggestion up with a call to the Contracts and Grants representative of the board, also incidentally a member of the UCSC Animal Research Committee, who politely suggested I refrain from doing any more interviews until I filled out the proper forms. Only after consultation with the Ombudsman and General Counsel was I able to convince them that journalism clearly was not scientific research involving human subjects. Barenfus later clarified that he made the suggestion in good faith, at the time feeling that it was a justified request.
Getting permission to tour the facilities took me two months of fairly constant work. At UCLA, Berkeley, and Santa Barbara, the only three other UC campuses I spoke with, lab access for the press can be arranged very quickly, and is in fact encouraged. UCLA actively invites the press to tour its facilities during animal rights week.
Dean of Natural Sciences Dr. David Kliger refused to speak with me without my teacher, Sara Diamond, present so he could make sure that she was, "grading my performance adequately," and that he wouldn't be misquoted. When she refused, he granted me an interview - two weeks after I had asked for it. When I asked him for a list of committee members, which was publicly available information by law, he responded, "I have a list, but I would want to make sure that each of those people would agree to have their names released." (see sidebar #2)
Michael Houlemard, public information coordinator, admitted that there was "a certain reluctance," to furnish information for my use, even to the administration which is legally charged with providing information for the media's use. In fact, the legal time limit was exceeded in all of my requests for information. By the end of the year, after two months, I got one piece of paper - a list of members of the Animal Research Committee.
Secretaries in Dean Kliger's office were specifically ordered not to furnish me with information, even if they knew I had the legal right to see it. Kliger went on to say that some members of the committee actually threatened to resign if I were allowed to sit in on a meeting or talk to them.
"Morris says that some members of the committee feel very strongly [that you should not be allowed to attend a meeting. Some people have told Morris, 'If you do this, if you have somebody come to me and talk to me about this, I'll quit... I'll resign from the committee. So it's a real dilemma. It should be public information, but people have the right to some privacy, and if all the people threaten to resign, what'll we do? We can't not have a committee, because the law requires it. I don't want to tell them, 'Well, you have to talk to Chris,' and then not have a committee."
The University also posted 3-4 guards per night, for about three weeks around animal liberation week. The guards were kiosk and parking control officers. Dean Kliger was of the opinion that hiring the guards was in response to rumors of a break-in. John Mills, Cowell Preceptor, has more specific information.
"A Cowell faculty member approached me to make me aware that two members of my residence hall, and two former staff members of the FishRap had put the Chancellor in a very uncomfortable situation. It was described as, 'The Chancellor is over the moon.' This was a direct result of you and Erik [Grimm] going to Camfac and securing plans to the fourth floor or Thimann. As far as they're concerned, the fact that you got them was a mistake, and caused the Chancellor's office to change the security system, or at least the codes, as well as hiring armed guards to protect the building from being entered or accessed. I was advised not to share the information."
Officer Powell maintains that hiring the guards was merely a routine matter, and has been done every year.
In addition to these formal actions, every person on campus that I have spoken with, including researchers and administrators, has known a considerable amount of information about me personally, and about my article. Since I first started, word of everybody I spoke with, where I live, how I spend my time, and everything I did in connection to the story has been spreading like wildfire. My housing director and Provost even tried on a number of occasions to convince me to drop the story and return the blueprints.
The administration did an effective job of slowing me down and smearing my name, but at what expense. "I think it's unfortunate," said Kliger. "When I first heard [that you were doing this story,] I told Morris, 'Things had better be handled well here [with the animals,] and if they are handled well, it's best for people to know that they are handled well.' From everything I can tell through talking to these people, things are on the up-and-up. I think that [being free with information and access] would be in their best interests, as well as those of the campus, and I would have hoped that they'd be more willing to talk to you, but they're very nervous."
When Interview turns into Interrogation
People affiliated with the science end of the administration didn't want to give me any specifics, they wanted to know why I wanted to write this story, they wanted me to tell them how I felt personally about animal research. After much pressure, I eventually got a small amount of specifics. Reprinted here is a portion of an interview where specifics were somewhat lacking. I had requested the interview in order to find out about animal research. Instead, the interview was turned around and made an opportunity for administrators and researchers to interrogate me.
For the record, my answers here are honest - I had no concrete intentions to publish the story, and I had no hidden agenda; I was just curious about what they were doing on the roof of Thimann. I obliged their questions with honest answers, they disbelieved. Case in point - while I was interviewing the campus veterinarian, one of the most outspoken animal researchers on campus, Dr. Charles Daniel, walked in.
Knock Knock
Dr. Barenfus: Excuse me... Charles!
Dr. Daniel: I want to talk to you. Are you busy?
Dr. B: Uhm... Well, wait. Maybe this is opportune. This is Chris Ridder, a student here, and we're talking, coincidentally, about animal research. And, Chris, maybe in looking through some of those [grant applications,] you saw some of his work?
CR: Yes. Uhm... I just wanted to let you know that we're recording.
Dr. B: We're both recording each other.
Dr. D: [Laughs] Well, I don't care. Why would I care? It's a little puzzling, but it's allright.
Dr. B We're in the process of discussing the kinds of animal research on campus, and we're kind-of taking it from a broad perspective right now.
Dr. D: Well, since I don't have much time, why are you interested in animal research? Where are you coming from?
CR: Well, it's for a class I'm taking.
Dr. D: What class?
CR: Investigative Reporting.
Dr. B: We're really inquiring from what perspective and context [you're coming from, Chris.] Can I phrase it that you're interested in some political aspects of animal research on campus, rather than from a biased perspective?
CR: Well...
Dr. D: Why are you doing a paper on animal research? Why aren't you doing it on something else? Why are you doing it on animal research?
CR: Why do you ask?
Dr. D: Well, because in my experiences in 25 years on campus, I've almost never found anybody who was interested in animal research in the abstract. I mean, it isn't anything that people just get interested in particularly. I mean, people get interested in a particular discipline or problem, but animal research is usually something people approach from a political perspective. I mean, I've never had anybody come to me asking about animal research as an entity.
Dr. B: Usually there's an agenda... 'We're science students. We're doing a project pro-animal research.' Someone else can really come up frontally and say 'I have this concern about how animals are used, and why they're used, and kind-of in the abstract, Charles is right. I've never encountered it either, but your little story about curiosity seems to be the issue - you became curious.
CR: Yeah. Either you can believe that I'm curious, or you can suspect some hidden agenda...
Dr. B: ...Here we have a scientist who's very concerned. ...We're looking at a time when it's become a very polarized issue. We want to be careful that what we talk about doesn't become ammunition for the adversary. So is it reasonable to expect that you're doing this in good faith as an independent, and that in no way is anything that's revealed is just fodder to shoot back at us?
CR: Yeah. But I guess you'll just have to take that on faith.
Dr. B: So your audience is the campus community?
Dr. D: Wait. I thought it was a paper for a class.
CR: Yes, that's correct.
Dr. B: So this might be read outside of your class.
CR: Yeah, there's a possibility, but I don't have any plans yet.
Dr. B: Okay, so you have a researcher here, and you have a campus veterinarian, so why don't we give you the floor...
CR: Okay. Basically, I wanted some basic information such as how many animals there are, what kinds, history...
Dr. D: ... Let's back up for a minute. Why do you care how many animals are used? Why is that of interest to your article?
CR: I think that would be important if you were doing an article on animal research...
Dr. D: Why? [Pause] I mean, I can't see that. What's the difference whether there are 500 or 1000 animals, or 200...
CR: I couldn't really see an article on animal research where that information wasn't presented.
Dr. D: I've never seen an article where it was presented.
Dr. B: What direction are you coming from? This is what I guess both of us are asking in our own way. I'm walking on eggshells, Charles has less time.
Dr. D: Yeah, I don't have time. I'd be glad to talk to you about why animals are used... I've got this other meeting. Obviously when somebody comes up and wants to know about animal research, I am suspicious, I can't help it.
Dr. B: Yeah, I warned you about that. It's part of the turf.
Dr. D: ...I just wonder what the basis is of why you want to know 'how many animals.'
CR: I think it's something that readers would be interested in.
Dr. D: What, you want to know what the breakdown is? - how many of this, how many of that. I don't know, it just seems like numbers to me. I can't see how anybody could be interested in that.
Never Underestimate the Power of Your Enemies!!
The Dean of Natural Sciences' office knows when a situation has gotten well out of hand, and my story fit the bill. The Dean's office also knows that if that situation involves a temporary employee, it is easily rectifiable.
Such a situation was allegedly rectified in just such a manner on Friday, May 31st of last year. Sue Muttersbach knew that the information I had requested was unquestionably public. So did the rest of the world. What made Sue so special, though, was a fierce sense of pride in her principles. She said that if I asked, she would furnish me with documents she knew to be public.
I caught wind of this through a friend who had spoken with her on the bus one day, and decided to call her. What I didn't know, however, was that while I was deciding to call her, trouble was already brewing in the Dean's office.
Doris Finke, personal secretary to Dean Kliger, ordered Ms. Muttersbach not to provide me with any information, regardless of my legal right to it. She alluded to a phone call Dr. Barenfus made to the Dean's office complaining that, "[Chris Ridder] is harassing too many people." When Sue replied that if I asked for information, she would provide it, Doris became irate.
"Doris was furious," says Muttersbach of their argument the day before she was dismissed. "She said, 'If you give him that information, you can just walk. You're just a temporary.' She used the word 'Shit,' and called me 'trash.' I was so emotionally distraught by the argument, that I didn't go to work the next day.
Knowing that Sue might be a good source for information, and unaware of the information restriction policies in the Dean's office, I called on Thursday, May 30th - six days after her argument with Finke. I was informed that she wasn't in, and left a message asking her to call me back.
Muttersbach was in, and she never received the message. The next day, at 10:00 a.m., she was dismissed. The reason - the Dean's office couldn't afford to keep her around. Muttersbach worked part time, and was only scheduled to be in the office for two more weeks.