Get Involved

Action Alerts & Updates

California: Despite Serious Cause for Concern, The Researcher Protection Act of 2008 Passes

October 21, 2008

The Researcher Protection Act of 2008, AB 2296, has now been approved and signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger.  Formerly known as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, this legislation was later reframed as a bill for academic research. Despite objections from animal advocates, the final approved version of AB 2296 includes language which may undermine animal welfare efforts. One primary objection is that AB 2296 suggests that the right to academic freedom includes a constitutional right to do animal research.

Farm animal advocates are concerned because within the last few decades, an increasing number of scientists are using farm animals in research. This has occurred partly to replace the use of animals such as cats and dogs and primates, which is no longer widely supported by the general public. However, the constitution does not include any mention of animal research and AB 2296's suggestion that such a right exists is misleading, and could be misinterpreted as affirming such a right.

AB 2296 defines academic freedom to include the "lawful performance, dissemination or publication of academic research or instruction," which presumably includes research on animals. Such a broadly-defined right simply does not exist, and AB 2296 should not affirm such a right. If such a right were to exist, animal research would rise to the level of constitutionally-protected speech, and large swaths of the United States and California code governing animal welfare would be unconstitutional. While courts have spoken in broad terms about the right to academic freedom, it is exclusively in terms of speech in the classroom.

Additional background and points to make in your communications

• Section 1 of AB 2296 references a constitutional right to academic freedom. Given the definition of academic freedom contained in Section 2, AB 2296 incorrectly suggests that this right includes a constitutional right to do animal research.

• AB 2296 defines academic freedom to include the "lawful performance, dissemination or publication of academic research or instruction," which presumably includes research on animals. Such a broadly-defined right simply does not exist, and AB 2296 should not indirectly affirm such a right.

• If a constitutional right to do animal research were to exist, animal research would rise to the level of constitutionally-protected speech, and large swaths of the United States and California code governing animal welfare would be unconstitutional.

• There is no constitutionally protected right to engage in animal research, lawful or otherwise. AB 2296's suggestion that such a right exists is misleading, and could be misinterpreted as affirming such a right.

• Cats, dogs, nonhuman primates, pigs, sheep and other farm animals are covered by the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act and California statutes. Over 1 million animals covered by the AWA are used in research every year in the U.S. (Millions of additional animals used in research, including mice and birds, are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act and go unreported.)

• AB 2296 contains overbroad language that threatens to chill lawful, legitimate political speech.