Tony Blair's recent decision to join the some 20,000 signatories of the People's Petition, an online endorsement of animal testing, has sparked widespread criticism from anti-vivisectionists. Yet beneath the clamour of condemnation, indications suggest public opinion is turning against the animal rights movement. A recent YouGov Poll, commissioned by The Daily Telegraph found 70% in favour of animal testing for medical purposes. Perhaps more significantly, 77% believe radical elements of the animal rights movement can be correctly labelled as 'terrorists'. So, have the much-publicised extremist tactics incurred a public backlash, and is the animal rights campaign losing its momentum?

Animal testing is a lucrative business in Britain. Home Office figures for 2004 show 2,854,944 procedures were carried out on 2,788,692 animals, an increase of 63,000 on 2003. Universities were responsible for 42.1% of this testing, whilst 33.3% of experiments were conducted by commercial health organisations.

This growing industry has provided fertile ground for the emergence of the world's largest animal rights movement. The British campaign is heavily divided over strategy: the use of violence or intimidation has proved a particularly divisive fault line. Established in 1898, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection promotes education, undercover investigations and political lobbying as effective tactics. According to the organisation's website, "The BUAV is unequivocally opposed to violence of any kind…..we believe such methods undermine the messages, damage the reputation of, and ultimately impede the progress of the animal rights movement."

Yet despite such repudiations of violence, media and public attention has increasingly focussed on fanatical elements of the animal rights campaign. The use of extreme tactics is an established tradition within the British movement. The Band of Mercy, the precursor to the Animal Liberation Front targeted the pharmaceutical industry in the early 1970s. Indeed, in 1973, the group attempted to destroy an unfinished vivisection laboratory in Milton Keynes, and in 1975, founding members Cliff Goodman and Ronnie Lee received three year jail terms for damaging laboratories and equipment.

In recent years, this predilection for extremism appears to have intensified. Indeed Patti Strand of the National Animal Alliance, a U.S. lobby group, has stated, "We view the United Kingdom as the Afghanistan of the growth of animal rights extremism". The campaign against the Darley Oaks Guinea Pig Farm in Staffordshire provides an instructive case in point. Run by John and Christopher Hall, the farm bred Guinea Pigs for vivisection and animal testing. The operation became the subject of a prolonged campaign of intimidation by animal rights activists and in January 2006, the Halls ceased breeding animals for experiments.

Threats made against the pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline provide further evidence of an apparent embrace of radical tactics. In May 2006, the Campaign Against Huntingdon Life Sciences issued letters to GSK shareholders demanding the sale of all company stakes. Such demands were bolstered by threats to post personal information pertaining to GSK investors in the internet.

Whilst these cases seem to denote a shift towards extremism, their real significance can be measured in terms of public opinion. In October 2004, the disinterment of the corpse of Gladys Hammond, a member of the Hall family sparked public revulsion. The Daily Telegraph YouGov Poll reflects this repugnance. 97% of respondents condemned grave-robbing as a means of protest, and 40% criticised the 12 year jail terms imposed on three of the Darley Oaks extremists as too short.

This nascent backlash against animal rights extremism is mirrored in the reaction to the GSK intimidation. GSK was able to obtain an emergency high court injunction to prevent investor details from entering the public domain, whilst the YouGov poll found 86% of those surveyed were opposed to such tactics. Tony Blair's warning that activists will "face the full force of the law", delivered during an address to the Confederation of British Industry appears to have encapsulated the mood of the majority.

Oxford University's planned £18million biomedical research facility is the most bitterly contested battleground in the current animal rights struggle. Spearheaded by SPEAK, a British animal rights group, the campaign against the Oxford laboratory offers further indication of mounting public hostility. SPEAK solely endorses legal protest yet the Oxford campaign has been marked by violence and intimidation. In July 2004, the University's principle contractor, Walter Lilly, a subsidiary of the Montpellier Group withdrew from the construction contract after its shareholders became the subject of threats. Furthermore, in July 2005, the Hertford College boathouse was destroyed in an arson attack, reputedly perpetrated by the Animal Liberation Front.

As the struggle continues, recent developments suggest the tide of public opinion is turning against the animal rights contingent. In January 2006, a student group called Pro-Test was established by 16 year old Laurie Pycroft in defence of the planned research facility. According to Tom Holder, Pro-Test spokesman, "everyone believed strongly that animal testing was not just necessary but vital. It had to be defended". The creation of Pro-Test as a counterbalance to SPEAK is widely regarded as an additional manifestation of the backlash against extremist behaviour. "Various animal rights campaigns had delayed work in Oxford for 14months and it was time to make sure the laboratory gets built", Holder said.

Legal developments have added further credence to the sense that the Oxford campaign represents a shift in public response. In November 2004, the University obtained an injunction which created a 50 yard exclusion zone around the construction site. The ruling also prohibited demonstrations which exceed 50 participants and are staged without police endorsement. In May 2006, a further high court pronouncement extended the exclusion zone and banned the use of megaphones. Such rulings have been interpreted as a severe blow to the animal rights cause. "Lately people are starting to see that what the protestors are doing is not justifiable. The whole basis of their action is falling apart", Holder said.

Yet despite such claims, other activists reject the notion of long term damage to the animal rights cause. "There are millions of people who want to see an end to animal research but of course it is going to be the illegal and sensationalist tactics which grab the headlines", Sean Gifford, BUAV Campaign Manager said. The BUAV recognises the challenge posed by fanatical elements, indeed Gifford acknowledged that "it is dangerous that all animal rights activists will be tarred with the same broad paint brush". However, the organisation remains optimistic that the extremism practiced by a minority will not trigger a substantial shift in public opinion. "The public continue to find animal experimentation both wasteful and incredibly cruel…..these deeply held views aren't going to be altered by the actions of a few", Gifford asserted.