The inability of the Labour Government to do more than talk tough against the terror tactics of animal "liberationists" threatens those involved in entire fields of research. Just as bad it has also sent the message that this kind of fascism can succeed.

First Huntingdon Life Sciences and now a Staffordshire guinea pig farm have been hung out to dry by a Government which has refused to support them adequately, despite countless promises to defend the right of businesses to do their vital work.

The business establishment is also guilty. Great City banks which are quite happy to fund the export of weapons lost their nerve when it came to supporting Huntingdon against animal liberationists who swapped their firebombs and baseball bats for shareholder activism.

At a time when the Government demands support in the battle against Islamic terrorism, it is failing to protect the economy or individuals (dead or alive) from extreme anti-vivisectionist.

The removal by hooded animal liberation extremists of a grandmother's body from her grave highlights their depravity and destructive ingenuity. But it is only the most graphic of a history of attacks on individuals and property which strike at the heart of a free society and economy.

These people are economic and social terrorists.

Huntingdon Life Sciences and the Darley Oaks guinea pig farm were operating legally under a range of Government animal welfare safeguards. Both are also important parts of one of the few growth industries Britain still leads in – medical science and biotechnology.

"Many of us would not be able to lead healthy lives were it not for the pharmaceutical companies being able to test their drugs on animals," the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, said in 2000 when he proposed allegedly tough new laws on animal rights protests.

Yet measures brought in then to protect legal businesses and their staff have proved ineffective. People still face harassment and injury and companies have their reputations tarnished for producing drugs or other products tested on animals, or for funding or supply equipment to those who carry out animal testing.

Attacking animal research is an attack on one of the few bright spots in the industrial economy. Our heavy manufacturing industry has largely been reduced to producing world-class weapons and making cars for foreign corporations, leaving drugs and biotechnology as one of the few areas where well-known British companies such as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) lead the world in an industry of the future.

If British scientists cannot carry out legal and essential research on animals how long can it be before GSK and others follow Huntingdon and other smaller players out to other countries where the animal liberationists are dealt with more effectively?

The Animal Liberation Front is not the RSPCA. These are not people who eschew veal or disdain foie gras or wear plastic shoes. These are people who value the life of a genetically modified mouse, specifically bred for research, above that of the humans whose livelihoods and lives they threaten.

In 2000, as the campaign against Huntingdon moved from cowardly attacks on staff at work, in their cars and at home and into the boardrooms of the City of London, Mr Straw promised action against the anti-vivisection thugs. Yet those same protesters believe, with some foundation, that they have won.

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac) is a group of activists that has dedicated itself to closing the company, tracking its clients and those who fund it. It claims honourable motives and has helped expose what it says are cases of mistreatment of animals by Huntingdon. Its website also warns more extreme activists about court rulings that restrict protest outside specific companies.

Shac claims parallels in its campaign to the breakdown of apartheid and slavery – a connection some may find weird and repellent in equating black people with beagles – but it is also evident that there is no middle road for these people.

"We strongly believe that you are either with us or against us," the Shac website says. "You either want life or death for the animals inside Huntingdon. The same people who are against us now would have criticised the campaigns against Apartheid, Poll Tax and many other just causes.

"Those who freed slaves over 100 years ago and the suffragettes who fought for women’s right to vote didn’t ask for their rights and freedoms by saying ‘Please sir…’ Instead they fought hard with many personal sacrifices and they won."

Standing up against these single-issue zealots is a tricky business as the 500 scientists who agreed today’s declaration from the Research Defence Society know only too well. There’s not much room for civilised debate if 'you are either with us or against us'.

It is time for the Government to face up to old Labour friendships with the animal rights movements, remember its responsibility to govern for all, and defend the medical and business case for humane animal testing.

Peter Bale is the Online Editorial Director of Times Online and has previously written on the Huntingdon Life Sciences case