In a legal argument, an analogy may be used when there is no PRECEDENT (prior CASE LAW close in facts and legal principles) in point. Reasoning by analogy involves referring to a case that concerns unrelated subject matter but is governed by the same general principles and applying those principles to the case at hand. ANARCHISM The theory espousing a societal state in which there is no structured government or law or in which there is resistance to all current forms of government. Anarchists promote the absence of rules, which le ads to the absence of any identifiable social structure beyond that of personal autonomy. When anarchy becomes defined by one anarchist, other anarchists may feel bound to change it. Anarchism thus means different things to different believers. Anarchists do not hold common views on subjects such as desirable levels of community cooperation and the role of large industry in society. Another matter of continuing debate is whether anarch y is an end unto itself or simply the best means to a better government. To all anarchists, though, anarchy is the best refuge f rom political dogma and authority. Moreover, many anarchists agree that anarchism begins with the notion that people are inherently good, or even perfect, and that external authority—laws, governments, institu- tions, and so forth—limits human potential. External authority, they suggest, brings a corruption of the innocent human spirit and a ceiling on achievement. Commentators on anarchism differentiate between “classical” theories of anarchy and more modern movements. Classical anarchists focused more heavily on the opposition to state control and capitalist society. Their strongest opposition was directed at government and the church. Many of the early anarchists were essentially socialists, and anarchist theories played a significant part in the socialist movements during the early twentieth century. Beginning in about the 1960s, anarchism shifted its focus to a more general opposition to public and private hierarchy and domination of the working class. Modern anarchists tend to focus upon such issues as those related to patriarchy, racism, nature, and technology, and the effects these concepts have on society. One camp of anarchist theorists advocates a theory of anarcho- syndicalism, and thosethat subscribe tothistheory promote a massive, leaderless movement of the working class intended to take control from those with public and private authority. Modern anarchists directed their opposition against such pro-capitalist and quasi-governmental entities as the World Trade Organization,the WORLD BANK , and the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND. Anarchists became the f ocus of national attention in the late 1990s and early 2000s when they staged massive protests against World Trade Organization meetings in such U.S. cities as Seattle, Washington, and Eugene, Oregon. Although anarchists claim these protests were peaceful until law enforcement officers disrupted them, o thers con- sider these anarchists to be violent a nd unruly revolutionaries. William Godwin (1756–1836) is widely regarded as the f irst to give anar chy a comprehen- sive intellectual foundation. Godwin, the son of a Calvinist minister, argued that the state and its laws were enslaving people instead of freeing them. According to Godwin, government was necessary only to prevent injustice and external invasion. With every person educated in sincerity, indepen- dence, self-restr aint, a nd seriousness, any more governmental activity would be unnecessary. Godwin opposed the rise of liberal democ- racy in the late 1700s. In the wake of the American and French Revolutions, he observed, “electioneering is a trade so despicably degrad- ing, so eternally incompatible with moral and mental dignity that I can scarcely believe a truly On July 9, 1917, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were sentenced to two-year prison terms for violating the Selective Service Act of 1917. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 288 ANARCHISM great mind capable of the dirty drudgery of suc h vice.” Godwin’s observations and proposals were largely ignored during his lifetime, but they informed anarchists several decades later, when the brutal working conditions and “wage slavery” of industrialism began to present new reasons for revolt. Two well-known anarchists, EMMA GOLDMAN (1869–1940) and Alexander Berkman (1870– 1936), gained recognition in the 1890s. Goldman, the daughter of Jewish merchants, immigrated to the United States from Russia in 1885 at the age of 16. In Rochester, New York, Goldman worked in a sweat shop—a large, unsafe factory that paid low wages and demanded long hours. The experience radicalized Goldman, and with her natural flair for public speaking, she soon became a spokeswoman for anarchism. Goldman worked extensively for the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD (IWW), an organization dedicated to anarcho-syndicalism, which seeks to use the INDUSTRIAL UNION as the basis for a reorganization of society. Goldman’s cross-country lecture tours, in which she addressedabroad range of social topics in German and English, earned her a reputation as a witty speaker and provocative thinker. A voracious reader and a magazine publisher, Goldman gave voice toideas onsexuality,freelove, BIRTH CONTROL, and family structures that shocked members ofher generation, including fellow anarchists. Like many devout anarchists, Goldman had trouble with the law. She was imprisoned for a year for allegedly inciting a RIOT during a NewYork City hunger demonstration in 1893. Goldman also served a two-week sentence for distributing illegal birth control information. She was jailed on suspicion of complicity in the ASSASSINATION of President WILLIAM MCKINLEY, in 1901. In 1917 she was arrested with Berkman for participating in antiwar protests, and both were charged with violating the Selective Service Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 76) by inducing young men to resist the draft. Goldman and Berkman were convicted, and, despite appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, both served prison terms. Upon release in 1919, they were deported to Russia. Berkman, Goldman’s ally, shared Goldman’s passion for breaking social barriers and inspiring creative thought. He also possessed a violent streak. In 1892 he was arrested for attempting to assassinate steel magnate HENRY CLAY Frick during a steel strike. After serving a 14-year prison sentence, Berkman devoted the rest of his life to freeing imprisoned political radicals and pro- moting workers’ rights. He remained a close companion of Goldman until his death in 1936. Goldman and Berkman cut dashing figures as romantic, intellectual anarchists, and they played no small part in a modest rise of anarchism in the early 1900s. Although anar- chism still gains followers in colleges and universities and among self-styled intellectuals, it has been mostly dormant as a social force since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Many anarchists have suffered the bemusing fate of being convicted for breaking laws in which they do not believe. However, the justice system does occasionally protect the anarchist. In Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380, 47 S. Ct. 655, 71 L. Ed. 1108 (1927 ), Harold B. Fiske was charged in Rice County, Kansas, with violating the Kansas Criminal Syndicalism Act (Laws Sp. Sess. 1920, c. 37). Fiske had been arrested for promoting the Workers’ Industrial Union (WIU), an organization devoted in part to establishing worker control of industry and the abolition of the wage system. Under the syndicalism statute in Kansas, any person advocating “the duty, necessity, propriety or expediency of crime, criminal syndicalism, or SABOTAGE is guilty of a felony” (1920 Kan. Sess. Laws ch. 37, § 3). Criminal syndicalism was defined as the advocation of crime, physical violence, or destruction of property “as a means of effecting industrial or political revolution, or for profit” (§ 1). Kansas authorities charged Fiske with crimina l syndicalism, citing only the PREAM- BLE to the constitution of the IWW, the parent organization of Fiske’s WIU. This preamble stated, in part, that “a struggle must go on until the workers of the World organize as a class, take possession of the earth, and the machinery of production and abolish the wage system” (Fiske). The U.S. Supreme Court found insufficient evidence against Fiske to WARRANT CONVICTION of criminal syndicalism. According to the Court, there was no suggestion that “getting possession of the machinery of production and abolishing the wage system, was to be accomplished by other than lawful means.” The Court confirmed that a state may enact legislation to protect its government from INSURRECTION, but it may not be arbitrary or unreasonable in policing its citizens who advocate changes in the social order. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ANARCHISM 289 FURTHER READINGS Brailsford, Henry N. 2007. Shelley, Godwin, and their Circle (1919). Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. Goldman, Emma. 1970. Living My Life. 2 vols. Reprint. New York: Dover. Joll, James. 1979 The Anarchists. 2d ed. Boston: Little, Brown. Nozick, Robert. 1977. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic. Sonn, Richard D. 1992. Anarchism. New York: Twayne. CROSS REFERENCES Chicago Eight; Freedom of Speech; Goldman, Emma; Industrial Workers of the World; Rousseau, Jean Jacques. ANCIENT LIGHTS A doctrine of English common law that gives a landowner an easement or right by prescription to the unobstructed passage of light and air from adjoining land if the landowner has had uninter- rupted use of the lights for twenty years. Once a person gains the right to ancient lights, the OWNER of the adjoining land cannot obscure them, such as by erecting a building. If the neighbor does so, he or she can be sued under a theory ofnuisance,and DAMAGES could beawarded. The doctrine of ancient lights has not been adopted in the United States because it would greatly hinder commercial and residential growth and the expansion of towns and cities. ANCIENT WRITING An original document affecting the transfer of real property, which can be admitted as evidence in a lawsuit because its ag ed condition and its location upon discovery sufficiently establish its authenticity. Under COMMON LAW, an ancient writing, sometimes called an ancient document, could be offered as evidenc e only if certain conditions were met. The document had to be at least thirty years old, the equivalent of a generation. It had to appear genuine and free from suspicion. For example, if the date of the document or the signatures of the parties to it appeared to have been altered, it was not considered genuine. When found, the docu- ment must have been in a likely location or in the possession of a person who would logically have had access to it, such as a deed found in the office of the county clerk or in the custody of the attorney for one of the parties to the writing. An ancient writing must also have related to the transfer of real property, for example, a will, a deed, or a mortgage. When all these requirements were met, an ancient writing was presumed to be genuine upon its presenta- tion for admission as evidence without any additional proof. In the early twenty-first century, various state rules of evidence and the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE have expanded the admissibility of ancient writings. An ancient writing can now be offered as evidence if its condition does not suggest doubt as to its authenticity, if it is found in a likely place, and if it is at least twenty years old at the time it is presented for admission into evidence. Some states still adhere to the requirement that a document be at least thirty years old before it comes within the ancient writing exception to the HEARSAY rule. A few states recognize ancient documents only if, in addition to these basic requirements, the person seeking the admission of the ancient writing has taken possession of the property in question. An ancient writing is admissible in a trial as an exception to the rule that prohibits hearsay from being used as evidence in a trial. In a case where no other evidence exists, the legitimacy of the writing must be considered if the case is to be determined on its merits. The probability that such a document is trustworthy is determined by its condition and location upon discovery. These factors permit a court and a jury to presume the authenticity of an ancient writing. ANCILLARY Subordinate; aiding. A legal proceeding that is not the primary dispute but which aids the judgment rendered in or the outcome of the main action. A descriptive term that denotes a legal claim, the existence of which is dependent upon or reason- ably linked to a main claim. For example, a PLAINTIFF wins a judgment for a specified sum of money against a DEFENDANT in a NEGLIGENCE action. The defendant refuses to pay the judgment. The plaintiff begins another proceeding for a WRIT of attachment so that the judgment will be satisfied by the sale of the defendant’s property seized under the writ. The attachment proceeding is ancillary, or subordi- nate, to the negligence suit. An ancillary proceed- ing is sometimes called an ancillary suit or bill. A claim for ALIMONY is an ancillary claim dependent upon the primary claim that there are sufficient legal grounds for a court to grant a DIVORCE. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 290 ANCIENT LIGHTS ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATION The settlement and distribution of a decedent’s property in the state where it is located and which is other than the state in which the decedent was domiciled. Ancillary administration occurs in a state to enable an executor or administrator to collect assets or to commence LITIGATION on behalf of the estate in that jurisdiction. ANIMAL RIGHTS Originally referring to the protection of animals from cruel and inhumane treatment, the concept of animal rights has expanded to keep pace with scientific research confirming that many species are sentient beings (capable of emotion and feeling, as distinguished from perception and thought). This awareness has led not only to a greater appreciation and protection of animals, but also to a correlative expansion of animal rights, even to the point of acknowledging, but not as of 2009 fully embracing, the concept of animals as fellow creatures with independent rights to an unfettered existence. Despite this growing awareness, the focus of animal rights laws remains in the early 2000s directed toward proscribing certai n forms of inhumane and merciless treatment in medical and scientific research and in the transportation, handling of, and slaughter of animals in the meat and poultry industries and for human consumption. By the end of the twentieth century, membership in animal advocacy organizations had reached more than 10 million people in the United States and opposition to the use of animals in laboratory experiments was rapidly growing. Some 76 medical schools claimed that demonstrations and break-ins by animal rights advocates had cost them more than $4.5 million, according to a report from the Association of American Medical Colleges. As the conflict between animal rights activists and medical and scientific researchers has grown, federal and state regulation of activities involving animal research has also expanded. At the federal level, the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.A. § 2131 et seq. [1994]) regulates the treatment of animals used in federally funded research. Under amendments added to the act in 1985, the secretary of agriculture was required to PROMULGATE stan- dards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors. Thes e standards were to include minimum require- ments for housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, shelter from extremes of weather and temperature, adequate veterinary care, and separation by species where necessary; for exercise of dogs, as determined by an attending veterinarian; and for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well- being of primates. In addition, the standards were to include requirements for animal care, treatment, and practices in experimental pro- cedures in research facilities. In 1991 the Secretary of Agriculture issued final regulations under the act (56 Fed. Reg. 6426; 9 C.F.R. § 3). Shortly thereafter, two animal rights organizations, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Society for Animal Protective Legislation, along with several indi- viduals, sued the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL- TURE (USDA), claiming that the final regulations were arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. A. § 551 et seq. [1994]). Under the APA, a court can compel agency action that is unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed and can set aside agency action that is arbitrary and capricious, an ABUSE OF DISCRETION, or otherwise in violation of the law. The plaintiffs challenged the USDA on several grounds, including the lack of minimum requirements regarding exercise for dogs and the psychological well-being of primates; the amount of delay permitted under the regula- tions in complying with new cage requirements; and the loophole in the regulations’ provision for Members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) protest seal hunting. The group has had a significant impact on the use of animals in medical and scientific research. JENNY/WIREIMAGE/ GETTY IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION ANIMAL RIGHTS 291 special cage designs, which permitted facilities to evade the existing minimum requirements for cage sizes. In February 1993 a federal district court found that the USDA treatment of laboratory animals waiting to be used in biomedical experiments violated federal statutes providing for the humane treatment of such animals. In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Secretary of Agriculture (813 F. Supp. 882 [1993]), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the regulations enacted by the secretary of agriculture and the USDA failed to comply with the mandate of Congress to ensure the well-being and humane treatment of animals. The defendants appealed the district court’s decision. In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Espy (29 F.3d 720 [1994]), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the animal rights organizations and other plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the USDA. (Standing is a legal requirement that the PLAINTIFF must have been injured or threatened with injury by the action complained of and focuses on the question of whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring the la wsuit.) Because the plaintiffs lacked standing, the court ordered that the case be dismissed. The act was again amended (7 U.S.C.A. § 2132(g)) by P.L. 107–171 to expand the definition of animal to include any warm-blooded animal, but expressly excluded birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus; horses not used for research purposes, and other farm animals. These exclusions have been the subject of controversy and LITIGATION. Although the statute required the National Research Council to submit to the House and Senate Agricultural committees a report summarizing the implications of includ- ing the above-excluded species in the definition, as of 2008, the CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE had not indicated that any existed. Whereas the Animal Welfare Act governs the general treatment of research animals, other federal statutes govern the testing procedures that may be used on animals in the course of scientific and commercial research and in product testing. The Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 2601 et seq. [1994]) authorizes the use of two procedures that have been particularly controversial: the Draize test and the lethal dose 50 (LD50) test. The Draize test measures the irritancy of a substance such as a cosmetic or pesticide by applying it to the eyes of live rabbits for 24 hours. The LD50 test is used to calculate the median lethal dose of a substance by feeding it to a defined population of animals until 50 percent of them die. Some product manufac- turers, such as Avon Products, Revlon, Faberge, Amway Corporation, Mary Kay Cosmetics, and Noxell Corporation, have discontinued some or all animal testing as a result of continued protests over the use of these tests. The FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported numerous incidents of VANDALISM annually at research facilities and attacks on researchers themselves. In response, the U.S. Congress and numerous state legislatures enacted protective legislation. In August 1992 Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (18 U.S.C.A . § 43 [1994]), which provides, in part, that anyone who “intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage exceeding $10,000 to that enterprise, or conspires to do so shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” If serious bodily injury or death to another person occurs in the course of the prohibited activity, the statute provides for IMPRISONMENT up to a life term. The act defines an animal enterprise as “(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture, research, or testing; (B) a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or (C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences.” By 1995 the following states had passed similar legislation: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon , South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Several states also regulate the use of animals kept in pounds for use in research. Maine prohibits the use of pound animals for any research (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 1025 [West 1994]). California requires that any pound or animal regulation department where animals are GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 292 ANIMAL RIGHTS turned over to a research facility post a sign stating “Animals Turned in to This Shelter May Be Used for Research Purposes,” in a clearly visible place (Cal. Civ. Code § 1834.7 [West 1994]). In Oklahoma, pounds are required to supply unclaimed animals to research institu- tions, unless the OWNER of an animal bringing it to the pound specifies it is not to be used in research (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 4, § 394 [West 1994]). At least three states regulate the sale of animals to research facilities. Minnesota law prohibits the transfer of a dog or cat by a person other than the owner to a research animal dealer, the possession of a dog or cat by a dealer without the owner’s permission, or the transfer of a dog or cat by a dealer to an institution without the owner’s permission (Minn. Stat. Ann. § 346.55 [West 1994]). California law provides that anyone who steals an animal for purposes of sale, medical research, or other commercial use, or who knowingly defrauds another person of any animal for purposes of medical research or slaughter, may be imprisoned for up to one year (Cal. Penal Code § 487g [West 1994]). New York law prohibits the selling or giving away of a dog to a research institution without the written permis- sion of its owner (N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 366-a [McKinney 1994]). On the federal level, the Animal Welfare Act was amended in 1990 to regulate the use of pound animals in research. A new section titled “Protection of Pets” provides that dogs and cats acquired by a pound, Humane Society, or similar entity or research facility must be held for not less than five days before being sold to dealers, so as to allow their recovery by their owners or their ADOPTION by other individuals (7 U.S.C.A. § 2158 [1994]). An important development in the progress of investigation into research projects using dealer-sourced animals was the publication, in May 2009, of the National Research Council’s report to Congress, Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research. The scath ing report asserted that, despite new enforcement guidelines and inten- sified in spections, the USDA could not assure that stolen or lost pets would not enter research laboratories via the Clas s B dealer system. (Class A dealers sell dogs and cats specifically bred for the purpose of research. Class B dealers possess an operating license from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that allows them to obtain dogs and cats from public animal shelters, auctions, private individuals, and other “random sources.”) The report further advised that undercover investigators had documented Class B dealers buying pets from unlicensed persons who had stolen animals from farms, backyards, and/or had represented themselves as prospective adoptive parents to animal shelters or “free to good home” advertisers. As of 2009, 11 Class B dea lers were registered with the USDA, two of whom were under investigation. The published report was in response to a request by Congress, through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), for an assessment of the need to use random source dogs and cats from Class B dealers in NIH-funded research. (The Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare [OLAW] is maintained under an NIH grant.) Both House and Senate had approved amendments banning Class B dealers in a previous congressional session, but these provi- sions had been stripped from the final version of the Farm Bill. An updated legislative version, incorporating the report’s findings, was expected to be reintroduced by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA) in the 111th Congress (2009–2010). The use of animals in scientific, medical, and commercial research is expected to remain controversial. In her book The Monkey Wars, Deborah Blum advocated that animal rights activists and researchers share their viewpoints together in education programs to achieve a realistic understanding of the issues. According to Blum, such an understanding could end the two sides’ long and bitter standoff. The largest and most active animal rights group is PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA), originally founded in 1980 in Norfolk, Virginia. Since its founding, PETA has claimed a certain level of success in curbing unethical treatment of animals. Its self-proclaimed successes include the closing of the largest horse slaughterhouse in the United States, the closing of a military laboratory where animals were shot, and the end of the use of cats and dogs in wound laboratories. PETA not only details its “victories” on its Web site, it also provides “action alerts” that identify instances that the group believes constitute animal cruelty. Although PETA has had a significant impact on the use of animals in medical and scientific GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ANIMAL RIGHTS 293 Welcome to the Monkey Lab: The Battle over Animal Research I n May 1981 Alex Pacheco, cofounder of an animal rights organization called PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA), went to work as a volunteer at the Institute for Behavioral Research, a private research center in Silver Spring, Maryland. Pacheco told the institute’s chief research scientist, Edward Taub, that he was fascinated by animal research. Taub’s research in- volved the surgical crippling of monkeys using a procedure called deafferentation, in which the spinal cord is opened and various nerves leading to arms and legs are sliced away, causing numbness. At the time Pacheco joined his lab, Taub had performed the procedure on 17 macaques, attempting to show that function could be restored to limbs by forcing new nerve growth. He had destroyed the nerves to only one arm on some of the monkeys, and then used straitjackets, binding up the good arms to force the animals to use their damaged arms, and had also applied electric shock to restrained monkeys if they did not move their numbed limbs. Taub planned to kill the monkeys after a year in order to determine whether this forced move- ment had stimulated nerve growth. After receiving permission from Taub to work at night, Pacheco set to work documenting the filthy, cramped condi- tions of the lab, and the stressed behavior of the monkeys, many of which were chewing their numbed limbs open. With his PETA cofounder, Ingrid Newkirk, stationed outside with a walkie-talkie, Pacheco took photographs and brought in sympathetic veterinarians and scientists to provide affidavits about the lab condi- tions. Several months later, he took his documentation to the local police depart- ment, which seized the lab’s monkeys and filed 17 charges of animal cruelty against Taub, under state law. The scientist was convicted on all the charges, but an appellate court decided that a federally- funded researcher was not required to comply with state laws. Eventually, Taub’s lab lost its federal funding and discon- tinued animal research. Many participants in the debate over animal rights view the 1981 SEIZURE of the Silver Spring monkeys as a turning point for the animal rights movement in the United States, heading it in a more combative and less compromising direction. Animal welfare has long been an issue in the United States. As early as the mid- 1600s the Puritans prohibited cruelty toward animals, and by the nineteenth century groups such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the American Anti-Vivisection Society had been organized. Animal experimentation has been controversial not only between the animal rights movement and the scientific and medical research communities but also between the activist groups themselves. Supporters of the use of animals in research are as adamant in their advocacy of the use of animals in research as animal rights activists are in their opposition to such use. Supporters of the use of animals in research point out that virtually every major advancement in medicine during the past century has been made possible by the use of animals in research. Researchers point out that, with the use of animals as subjects, scientists may be capable of curing or reducing the death and disability rates caused by such diseases as kidney and liver failure, birth defects, cancer, and AIDS. Former U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders said, “The use of animals in biomedical research and testing has been, and will continue to be, absolutely critical to the progress against AIDS and a wide range of other applications in both humans and animals.” The biomedical research industry has responded vigorously to criticisms of animal research. A 1988 study by the National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, acknowledged the controversy over ani- mal testing, stating that although animal research has saved human lives, it has caused suffering and death for the animals involved. Nevertheless, the study conclud- ed that such experimentation has contrib- uted significantly to the increase in human life expectancy since 1900 and that animals have been critical to research on most antibiotics and other drugs. Frankie Trull, executive director of the National Association for Biomedical Research, has argued that animal testing is necessary to sustain the human race. Supporters of animal research fre- quently direct attack towards animal rights activists, often labeling animal rights groups as “extremists.” Joseph Murray, who in 1990 won the Nobel Prize for medicine in recognition of his work on organ transplants, said, “None of this could have been done without animal experimentation. It’s a tragedy and a waste of resources that scientists have to combat the anti-vivisectionists,” referring to ani- mal rights groups. Animal research sup- porters often argue that the tactics employed by animal rights groups impede the progress being made in the medical community through the use of animals in research. The supporters of animal research and the animal rights activists have clashed in both the courts and in the legislatures. Concerned that animal rights activists would cause the dismantling of all animal research, the biomedical research community lobbied successfully for years against the passage of all legislation restricting such research. But in the early 1950s Christine Stevens founded the Animal Welfare Institute and the Society for Animal Protective Legislation, which successfully worked against passage of state laws that would require pounds to turn their dogs and cats over to research- ers. Stevens then began working for passage of federal legislation that would GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 294 ANIMAL RIGHTS also protect laboratory animals. In 1966, Congress enacted the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.A. § 2131 et seq. [1994]), which regulates the treatment of animals in federally funded research. Congress charged the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL- TURE (USDA) with overseeing the inspec- tion of laboratories for COMPLIANCE. In 1985, after Stevens documented continuing inhumane laboratory condi- tions, the Animal Welfare Act was amended to strengthen standards for the humane handling, treatment, and trans- portation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors. In 1991 the secretary of agriculture issued regulations implementing the amended act. During this period, the animal pro- tection movement continued to expand. By the early 1990s PETA had grown to more than 400,000 members and had an annual budget of nearly $10 million. More than 400 animal rights groups had been organized in the United States, claiming a total membership of 10 million. Although each of these groups can be said to support the humane treatment of animals, their philosophies vary dramatically. The most radical group is the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), an underground organization formed in 1982 with an estimated worldwide membership of several hundred as of the mid-1990s. ALF opposes the use of all animals in medical and scientific research, including psychological and surgical experimenta- tion on living animals; ALF also opposes using animals for testing new drugs and cosmetics, for instructional purposes in biology and medical school classes, and for food, clothing, sports, circuses, and pets. ALF claimed responsibility for more than 75 attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1995, including steal- ing animals from labs in Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.; burning and vandalizing the University of Arizona’s veterinary lab and a new $3 million veterinary diagnostic center for farm animals at the University of Cali- fornia, Davis; vandalizing offices of researchers and stealing their research animals in Michigan and Texas; and starting small fires in four of Chicago’s largest department stores to PROTEST the sale of furs. Although most of ALF’s targets have been scientific research labs, the group claimed responsibility for bombing the cars of two research scientists in England in June 1990. ALF has also conducted raids in more than a dozen other countries. By 1988, in response to raids by ALF and other groups, more than 20 states had enacted protective legislation prohi- biting interference with animal research and agricultural facilities. In August 1992, citing the inability of state and local law enforcement agencies to con- duct interstate or international investiga- tions, Congress passed comparable fed- eral legislation. The Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (18 U.S.C.A. § 43 [1994]) prohibits the disruption of “ani- mal enterprises” such as research facili- ties and zoos by intentionally stealing or damaging property including animals or records. Many scientists believe that ALF is a thinly disguised division of PETA. PETA denies any connection between the two groups but has expressed its admiration for ALF’s activities and often publicizes the group’s raids. Both ALF and PETA share a common goal of ending all animal research, a philosophy that repre- sents a fundamental split from other animal rights organizations such as Stevens’s Animal Welfare Institute and the Humane Society of the United States, which accept animal experimentation but work for the humane treatment of animals in that and other contexts. Supporters of animal research de- bunk many of the claims of animal rights activities as pure myths. For instance, animal rights activists often direct their attention towards the use of such animals as dogs, cats, and non-human primates in medical research, but scientists point out that the use of such animals accounts for less than 1 percent of the total number of animals used in research. The vast majority of animals used in research, according to these scientists, are rodents, including mice and rats bred specifically for the purpose of testing them. Similarly, these scientists refute animal rights advocates’ claims that alternatives to animal research exist in the form of computer models and tissue cultures but that the scientific commu- nity refuses to accept them. Scientists claim that even the most sophisticated technological model cannot replicate the genetic and physiological systems of humans as those found in live animals. According to the Foundation for Bio- medical Research, the limitations in the use of computer models and other alternatives may overcome the need for animals in research, but these alternative methods serve only as adjuncts to basic animal research. In a nationwide survey conducted in December 1993 by the Los Angeles Times, respondents were asked whether they agreed with the following statement by PETA’s Newkirk: “Animals are like us in all important things—they feel pain, act with altruism, they talk and suffer fear. They value their lives, even if we don’t understand those lives.” Of the 1,612 adults polled, 47 percent agreed with Newkirk’s statement and 51 percent disagreed. The survey also found that 54 percent opposed hunting for sport and 50 percent opposed the wearing of fur. Forty-six percent said the laws protecting animals from inhumane treat- ment were satisfactory, whereas 30 per- cent said the laws did not go far enough, and 17 percent said the laws went too far. Animal rights leaders expressed surprise that so many Americans agreed with some of the principle tenets of the animal protection movement. A new wrinkle in the Animal Rights movement has been the attempt to gain the recognition of legal rights for ani- mals. Animal rights advocates in both PETA and ALF had spoken for years about the need for animals to have legal rights under U.S. law. But this theory remained abstract until the end of the twentieth century. Then in 2000 Stephen Wise pub- lished an influential animal rights book. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals took a legalistic approach in arguing that at least two human-like species, chimpanzees and bonobos, and perhaps other species that were similarly developed, should be considered GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ANIMAL RIGHTS 295 research, as well as other uses, its tactics have created an equal level of controversy. For instance, according to PETA president Ingrid Newkirk, human beings should not drink milk produced by cows, eat turkey meat, or wear fur because of the practices involved in preparing these goods. PETA’s protests have ranged from vandalizing fur coats sold at a Mac y’s outlet in Boston to advocating the bombing of a New Jersey laboratory that uses animals for research. PETA claims that it does not support TERRORISM, but it did fund, for example, the legal defense of an arsonist that set fire to a Michigan research lab. PETA has been active in the court system, with various levels of success. In one case, PETA sought entry into a public art event held in 2000 in New York City called “CowParade.” One of PETA’s entries showed a co w divided into sections that resembled a butcher’s chart. On each of the sections was a statement or quotation “concerning the health and ethical problems associated with the killing of cows for food.” The committee responsible for the parade rejected the entry as too harsh and inappropriate for the parade. PETA brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, but the trial court granted SUMMARY JUDGMENT in favor of the parade organizers, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the summary judgment (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Giuliani, 18 Fed. App. 35 [2d Cir. 2001]). In 2004 and 2005 PETA engaged in an illegal undercover investigation of a Virginia research “persons”. The book was reviewed in such noted publications as the Yale Law Journal and the Harvard Law Review. Among those legal scholars discussing the book were RICHARD POSNER, eminent professor at the University of Chicago law school and judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Lawrence Tribe, professor of CONSTITU- TIONAL LAW at Harvard University. Tribe seemed especially taken with the book’s arguments. “Broadening the circle of rights-holders, or even broadening the definition of persons, I submit, is largely a matter of acculturation,” said Tribe in a speech in Boston in support of the book. “It is not a matter of breaking through something, like a conceptual sound barri- er. With the aid of statutes like those creating corporate persons, our legal system could surely recognize the person- hood of chimpanzees, bonobos, and maybe someday of computers that are capable not just of beating Gary Kasparov but feeling sorry for him when he loses.” In 2002 Wise published a book called Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights, in which he expanded his rights arguments to include other species. But the arguments remained very similar. “On what nonarbitrary ground,” he asks, “could a judge find [that a] little girl has a common-law right to bodily integrity that forbids her use in terminal biomedical research but that Koko [a gorilla with an IQ equal to that of a 4- or 5-year-old child] shouldn’t have that right, without violating basic notions of equality?” What influence this nascent movement for the legal rights of animals has on the general animal rights move- ment promised to be interesting to observe. Many legal commentators have been supportive or, at least, sympathetic toward the views of Wise and writers with similar opinions. Other legal scho- lars, on the other hand, have pointed out that granting broad rights to animals conflicts with some of the basic assump- tions of the U.S. legal system, as well as the legal system elsewhere. Even where laws provide heightened protection for animals against abuse, the animals are still treated as a special form of property. If the law were to extend recognition of animals as holders of certain legal rights, their status as something greater than property raises difficult questions. For instance, when would these rights con- flict with recognized HUMAN RIGHTS, and could the right of an animal in a certain case be greater than a right enjoyed by a human? Likewise, how can society merge the recognition of animal rights with the traditional, and in some cases, funda- mental uses of animals, including their functions as sources of food and as goods and services that may be bartered? Scholarship and debate by legal experts continues to grow regarding these questions. FURTHER READINGS Carbone, Larry. 2004. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Monamay, Vaughn. 2000. Animal Experimen- tation: A Guide to the Issues. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Cruelty. Welcome to the Monkey Lab: The Battle over Animal Research (Continued) GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 296 ANIMAL RIGHTS facility run by pharmaceutical giant Covance. It then published heart-wrenching videos of mon- keys allegedly suffering in Covance laboratories. Covance sued PETA in 2005, alleging breach of employment contract (regarding the undercover employee) and CONSPIRACY to harm the com- pany’s business. It also sought a GAG ORDER against the publication of the videos, photographs, and statements. A SETTLEMENT was reached in 2005, in which PETA agreed not to infiltrate Covance facilities and Covance tendered a monetary settlement amount (Covance Laboratories Inc. v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, No. CH-2005-2590, CIRCUIT COURT for the County of Fairfax, Virginia [2005]). FURTHER READINGS Bekoff, Marc. 2009. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. 2d ed. Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press. Blum, Deborah. 1995. The Monkey Wars. Don Mills, ON, Canada: Oxford Univ. Press. Congressional Record. 1990. 136 (July). Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2008. Brief Summa- ries of Federal Animal Protection Statutes. 94-731. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Humane Society of the United States. 2009. “Class B. Dealer System Unnecessary and Unenforceable, According to National Academies Report.” May 29. Text available online at h ttp://www .hsus.org/ /class_b_dealer_ system_ unnecessary_052909.html; website home page: http://www. hsus.org/ (accessed August 5, 2009) Kistler, John M. 2000. Animal Rights: A Subject Guide, Bibliography, and Internet Comparison. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. National Research Council. 2009. Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Sherry, Clifford J. 1994. Animal Rights:A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York: Avon. CROSS REFERENCES Agriculture Department; Criminal Action; Cruelty; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. ANIMUS [Latin, Mind, soul, or intention.] A tendency or an inclination toward a definite, sometimes unavoidable, goal; an aim, objective, or purpose. When animus is used in conjunction with other words of Latin origin, its most common meaning is “the intention of.” For example, animus revocandi is the intention of revoking; animus possidendi is the intent ion of possessing. Animo, meaning “with intent,” may be employed in a manner similar to animus. For example, animo felonico means with felonious intent. ANNEXATION The act of attaching, uniting, or joining together in a physical sense; consolidating. The term is generally used to signify the connection of a smaller or subordinate unit t o a larger or principal unit. For example, a smaller piece of land may be annexed to a larger one. Similarly, a sma ller document may be annexed to a larger one, such as a CODICIL to a will. Although physical joining is implied, actual contact is not always necessary. For example, an annexation occurs when a country acquires new TERRITORY even though the new territory is not immediately adjacent to the existing country. In the law of real property, annexation is used to describe the manner in which a chattel is joined to property. CROSS REFERENCE Fixture. ANNOTATION A note, summary, or commentary on some section of a book or a statute that is intended to explain or illustrate its meaning. An annotation serves as a brief summ ary of the law and the facts of a case and demonstrates how a particular law enacted by Congress or a state legislature is interpreted and applied. Annotations usually follow the text of the statute they interpret in annotated statutes. ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE The actual cost of borrowing money, expressed in the form of a yearly measure to allow consumers to compare the cost of borrowing money among several lenders. The Federal Truth-in-Lending Act (15 U.S. C.A. § 1601 et seq. [1968]) mandates the complete disclosure of this rate in addition to other credit terms. CROSS REFERENCE Truth in Lending Act. ANNUAL REPORT A document published by public corporations on a yearly basis to provide stockholders, the public, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ANNUAL REPORT 297 . of animals in medical and scientific GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ANIMAL RIGHTS 293 Welcome to the Monkey Lab: The Battle over Animal Research I n May 19 81 Alex Pacheco, cofounder of. social order. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ANARCHISM 289 FURTHER READINGS Brailsford, Henry N. 2007. Shelley, Godwin, and their Circle (19 19). Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. Goldman, Emma. 19 70 July 9, 19 17, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were sentenced to two-year prison terms for violating the Selective Service Act of 19 17. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA