In Roselli’s research, rams are euthanized humanely, and their brain tissue is analyzed to uncover any biological basis for the differences in mating behavior. Yet even though millions of sheep suffer and are slaughtered each year in industrial farming, PETA chose to target Roselli’s research. Why? The fact that he researches sex—and the inherent appeal of cute, fuzzy sheep—form the makings of an attention-getting protest campaign. PETA asked its membership to write this letter to the university president: “I find it appalling that experimenters are cutting open and killing gay sheep in an attempt to ‘cure’ homosexual tendencies in animals. These experiments also carry the insidious implication that homosexuality in humans needs to be ‘cured.’” Of course, Roselli’s research does not promote a “cure” for homosexuality. But advocacy campaigns need advocates, and PETA brought its in with scare tactics, inventing the idea that Roselli harbored a secret plot to alter sheep—or even human—sexual orientation. The result: an onslaught of hostile e-mails, including personal attacks on Roselli and multiple death threats, according to his university.
Distorting and then attacking research for political gain is nothing new. Years ago, Senator William Proxmire combed the budget for potentially silly-sounding expenditures. National Science Foundation grants frequently fit the bill, and many of them were ridiculed with Proxmire’s Golden Fleece award. I remember this vividly because I worked on one of the programs he mocked, an examination of the behavior and genetics of wild Himalayan rhesus monkeys. The senator’s scorn was misplaced. Since the rhesus monkey was the most common laboratory monkey at the time and very little was known about its natural behavior, my project was directly relevant to a host of other ongoing research into animal behavior and social dynamics. Moreover, our team drew upon a stockpile of internationally worthless Pakistani currency held at the time by the U.S. government—in other words, no taxpayer money was involved. None of that mattered, because Proxmire’s goal was not to improve science but to attract popular support for Senator Proxmire.
Whether PETA activists are the victims or the perpetrators of emotional and misleading polemics is ultimately beside the point. As an animal lover, I wonder: Where are the animals in this? The extinction of a species could be considered the ultimate cruelty, but neither PETA nor the Center for Consumer Freedom has much to say about the well-being or viability of animals in nature. This is a shame, because stress and suffering in individual wild animals due to the encroachment of humans is contributing to the demise of whole populations. If either of these two organizations was sincerely interested in the full range of alleviating harm to animals, they would find a place in their agendas for this real issue rather than focusing on campaigns of bullying and half-truths.
