Running scared

The cowardice is breathtaking. At the first whiff of gunpowder the captains of industry, the big banks, stock brokers, financiers, pharmaceutical companies and even cancer research charities turned tail and fled.

There are precious few famous scientists and doctors putting their heads above the parapet either. The vigilante terror campaign of the animal rights lunatics has all but silenced the voice of reason.

Huntingdon Life Sciences is being hung out to dry, taking the strain for the whole world of scientific research - or indeed sanity in general: a fish and chip shop got a nail bomb this week from animal madmen - a "legitimate target" because fishing is cruel.

A year into the campaign against them, Huntingdon's share price collapsed (1.75p yesterday) and its £22m loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland is in the balance.

As the protestors targeted RBS banks all over the country yesterday, their website invites action against HLS shareholders with county by county lists of their full names and addresses: "To get a list of shareholders in your area click here".

This week Lord Winston, research director at the Hammersmith Hospital, announced a breakthrough in leukaemia, soon treatable with an injection, following tests on mice.

Good news - but that connection between pictures of animals in labs (bad) and new cures for dying children (good) is never made in the same story. Passers-by giving the thumbs-up to animal rights demonstrators outside the Royal Bank of Scotland yesterday were probably also pleased by that cancer news.

So who spells out the truth - no animal tests means no cancer cures? Who debunks the animal rights myth that testing is unnecessary or even bad medicine? The government banned all animal testing for cosmetics in 1999, yet people are still easily persuaded research is frivolous. Since animal testing is by far the most expensive method, it is only done when there is no cheaper alternative. Would people choose to be human guinea pigs instead?

Or refuse a helpful new drug because it had been tested on animals? Every medical treatment should carry a label stating that it has been animal-tested, confronting people with this reality every time.

Inside Huntingdon Life Sciences, (HLS), half the research is carried out on animals, most of the work is on new medicines for dementia, asthma, Aids and diabetes.

The biggest contract research firm in the UK, in the last 10 years nearly every new drug has had some of its research done here.

The company was prosecuted when a worker was caught in an undercover film hitting a dog, but the protest is against all animal testing everywhere.

Liberators in balaclavas are always shown hugging beagles, but 86% of all animal tests are on rats and mice, 0.3% on dogs and cats, 0.2% on primates.

Public opinion is fickle: according to Mori, asked cold if they support tests on animals, 64% say no, 24% say yes. Given a long question mentioning research on pain-relief and leukaemia, the majority swings the other way.

Too often people are just presented with the emotive pictures of dogs undergoing extreme tests, with no reminder of what the research is for.

The activists think no animal life is worth a human life and many talk of the need to cull the human population to give animals more space - justifying bombs, spraying acid in HLS employees eyes and other acts of violence.

But who is out there making the case against them? Every day the television cameras film the protesters at Huntingdon's gates, but no counter-demonstration offers sound bites for reason. As the company's future hangs in the balance, other research establishments and their funders tremble. Greg Avery, protest co-ordinator, talking on his mobile (07940228484) says they'll decide which lab is next as soon as HLS collapses.

The Association of Medical Research Charities says that if HLS goes under, other research in universities and elsewhere will fold under similar pressure.

So why aren't the research charities out front counter-blasting the demonstrators? Catching a Cancer Research Campaign officer off his guard, he said, "Oh we wouldn't want to draw attention to ourselves".

Imperial Cancer Research said if they took a stand they feared terrorist reprisals on their "little old ladies" working in their charity shops. Though if the little old ladies went out to argue with the animal rights protestors they might make a rather better public case for research.

The corporate cowards include Huntingdon Life Science's brokers WestLBPanmure, who panicked and ran away as soon as the animal intimidators waved a fist at them.

Phillips and Drew, one of HLS's biggest shareholders, chickened out and sold off their 11% stake once challenged by the protestors, causing a further drop in the share price - "no comment" yesterday.

Servier UK is the latest company to rat on HLS: they refused to speak about it, beyond a statement proclaiming their disengagement. East Anglian Pharmaceuticals has closed its account with immediate effect: when I called, its finance director would only say: "I am not prepared to discuss the reason why".

The biggest rat of all is HSBC, which ducked out of holding HLS shares for others: "We no longer wish to act in this capacity. We are not taking a moral stance in relation to this debate". No, like the rest they are certainly not. For evil to flourish it only takes good men to do nothing - (though "good" here may be doubtful.)

Despite the prime minister's belated statement yesterday supporting HLS, Labour has tried to appease the animal rights lobby and has so far failed to take action against this serious intimidation.

A law against secondary demonstrations, like secondary strikes, restricting protest to the company itself, was dropped from the Queen's speech. The Home Office has dithered.

Only science minister Lord Sainsbury has struck out publicly against the animal madness: as a result yesterday his personal security was tightened for fear of reprisals.

If everyone runs away, the animal terrorists will win. What matters now is gaining wide public support for essential animal research.

This craziness can only be seen off by a public hardening of attitudes which requires vigorous advocacy from cancer charities, scientists, politicians, doctors, nurses, teachers and all who are alive because of research.

Those who pride themselves on opting for "ethical" investments should eschew all funds that make an empty-headed, knee-jerk boast that they never invest in animal research. I talked to many companies and researchers yesterday who thought it quite reasonable "to take account of our personal safety".

Among the brave are the dying: Andrew Blake of Seriously Ill for Medical Research campaigns for animal research to cure fatal wasting illnesses such as his - and even he gets death threats. Time to name and shame the cowards who just hope that if they keep their heads down someone else will win this argument for them.

comment@guardian.co.uk