Get Involved

Action Alerts & Updates

California: Action Needed to Stop Legislation Attempting to Codify a Right to Animal Research
August 26, 2008

Dangerous legislation, formerly known as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, was amended and passed the Senate and is now heading for a final vote of concurrence by the Assembly. The latest version of AB 2296 has been reframed as a bill for academic research and includes language which threatens to undermine animal welfare efforts. The newly amended version 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.

The bill 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 this bill 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.

What You Can Do:

1. Please make a quick phone call urging your State Assembly member to oppose AB 2296.
   You can identify your legislator by going to: http://action.farmsanctuary.org/legislators

   When calling your State Assembly member, you can tell the person answering the phone:

   "Hi, I am a constituent of Assembly member [last name], and I'm calling to ask [him or her] to oppose concurrence of AB 2296. The latest version of the bill contains language which threatens to undermine animal welfare efforts and chill lawful, legitimate political speech.

   The bill suggests that the right to academic freedom includes a constitutional right to do animal research. There is no constitutionally protected right to engage in animal research, lawful or otherwise, and AB 2296's suggestion that such a right exists is misleading, and could be misinterpreted as affirming 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.

   Please address these issues and oppose AB 2296. Thank you for your time."

2. Then please follow up with an email. You can send an email right from here.

   Email text: "Dear Assembly member [last name],

   I am writing to ask you to oppose AB 2296. The latest version of the bill contains language which threatens to undermine animal welfare efforts and chill lawful, legitimate political speech.

   The bill suggests that the right to academic freedom includes a constitutional right to do animal research. There is no constitutionally protected right to engage in animal research, lawful or otherwise, and AB 2296's suggestion that such a right exists is misleading, and could be misinterpreted as affirming 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.

   Please address these issues and oppose AB 2296. Thank you for your time.

   Sincerely,
   [Your Name and Address]"

   Please personalize this email to send a more powerful message!

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, the bill incorrectly suggests that this right includes a constitutional right to do animal research.

• The bill 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 this bill 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.)

• While AB 2296 has been substantially amended, it still contains overbroad language that would chill lawful, legitimate political speech.