The FBI’s lead suspect in the Chiron attack—Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 30-year-old native of Berkeley, California—faces charges of “maliciously damaging and destroying property by means of explosives.” Photographs obtained by federal agents depict San Diego as a clean-cut, white male with an impish smile. A fugitive since October 2003, the former computer network specialist has eluded capture despite widespread distribution of a “Wanted by the FBI” poster offering a $250,000 reward for information leading to his arrest. He has even been featured on the popular television series America’s Most Wanted, with details of his deeds and photos of identifying body scars: colorful tattoos of “burning and collapsing buildings” and a slogan etched onto the center of his chest that says, “It only takes a spark.”

And the benefits have been many. Animal experiments have led to vital medical breakthroughs ranging from drugs to treat heart disease and HIV, to new surgical techniques that improve survival rates for organ donors and cancer patients. At the same time, mindful of the concerns about animal welfare, biotech, drug, and chemical companies, along with university researchers, have stated a firm commitment to the “3R principle”—refinement, reduction, and ultimate replacement of laboratory animals in product safety testing. Industry leaders point out that the use of non-human primates, dogs, and cats has dropped dramatically and that there has been an increasing reliance on mice, fruit flies, and zebra fish.

Federal law, meanwhile, requires the use of animal tests to establish the safety and efficacy of consumer products. Close to a dozen government agencies—including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Agriculture—require animal test results before granting the approval of drugs, chemicals, and consumer products. And both animal testing and laboratory practices are tightly controlled by scientific policies, federal safety regulations, and numerous federal laws such as the Animal Welfare Act.

Despite improvements and advances in the care of lab animals, the violence against researchers has continued to escalate. No one in the U.S. has been seriously hurt or killed, but better safety measures and employee education is needed, says FBR’s Trull, because “awareness does not always translate into taking precautions or making preparations until a threat or attack touches the researcher directly.”

Until recently, the industry has been chastised for its sluggish response—some say denial—of the severity and extent of violent activists. But many trade groups and university leaders have taken up the cause. The Biotechnology Industry Organization, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, and other trade groups have all, in the last three to four years, stepped up efforts to educate members and publicly condemn the most violent attacks.

The attacks on London’s home, for example, drew condemnation from both the NIH and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Noting its support for the right of all citizens to protest and dissent, the AAAS Board of Directors called the repeated attacks on UCLA researchers “deplorable.” “If intimidation drives scientists from their valuable efforts and discourages young scientists from pursuing fields of inquiry that require the use of animals, medical progress will be seriously impeded,” the organization said in a statement.