by
|
by |
|
| This article will also appear in Trends in Neurosciences. | |
Abstract
The public and political debate about animal experimentation has waxed and waned since 1876, when the first anti-vivisection society was formed in London. Over the past twenty years, the issue has attracted more public attention than ever before. Some observers have equated this increased attention with increased public opposition to the use of animals although, in reality, public attitudes are more complex. Although questions about animal experimentation have been included in numerous opinion surveys, it was not until recently that public attitudes and opinions on this subject were studied in depth. MORI (Market and Opinion Research International) conducted an extensive study on the issue for New Scientist in 1999, and this was subsequently extended by a larger study conducted for the Medical Research Council [1].
| U.K. studies conclude that most people accept the need for animals in research - with important qualifications. |
These studies concluded that the vast majority of the U.K. population accepted the need to use animals in medical research, but that most people had some important qualifications. In fact, 84% of those surveyed fell into a group described as "conditional acceptors"; this group would accept the use of animals in research and testing if certain conditions were met. These conditions were that the experimentation was for a serious medical research purpose, that the animals used were rodents or similar species, and that there was little or no suffering involved. The public seemed to be completely unaware of the fact that these conditions - serious scientific purpose, minimum suffering and "lowest" type of species - are exactly those that have been applied to animal research for the past two decades. Indeed, when asked to describe how they thought animal experimentation should be regulated, members of the public produced a fairly good description of the main aspects of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (which can be viewed at the U.K. Home Office Web page).
In short, the public accepts the need to use animals in research in principle, but does not believe that research is conducted to high ethical and animal welfare standards. It is a reasonable assumption that they would be much more willing to accept the use of animals in research if they did believe this. If correct, this assumption has some very important implications for our efforts to increase public acceptance of animal research.
Focus on Necessity and Welfare
| Concerns about cruelty and unnecessary suffering remain. |
Almost all the work aimed at informing the public about animal experimentation has focused on the roles of such experimentation in fundamental biomedical research, and on the eventual development of new methods to treat and prevent diseases. The argument has been about whether or not it is necessary to use animals, with ethical issues and animal welfare rarely being debated. The media tend to focus on the question of the necessity of animal experimentation, and representatives of the scientific community are usually happy to debate this point because the evidence strongly supports their position. Scientists appear much less comfortable debating the ethical or animal welfare issues, which are less black-and-white. Thus, although we appear to be winning one part of the public debate about animal experimentation, we are, by default, losing a part that is perhaps more important. Many of the claims made by animal rights groups allege that animal experimentation is cruel and causes unnecessary suffering. If we respond to such claims by arguing that the research is necessary, the fact that we do not refute the claims of cruelty leaves our audience with the impression that the experiments really are cruel.
Addressing Concerns about Animal Welfare
| Efforts to safeguard animal welfare must be clearly communicated. |
If the public accepts the need to use animals in medical research, the time has come for the scientific community to start addressing another aspect of the debate - the animal welfare argument. This is not going to be easy. Unlike the debate about the necessity of using animals in research, where the facts are clearly on our side, making it possible to give an unequivocal answer, our position on animal suffering is less clear. We cannot deny that animals do suffer in some experiments. Some scientific representatives, when faced with allegations of animal suffering, have stated that there is no suffering involved. Although these scientists probably felt more comfortable retreating to a clear, black-and-white position, such statements damage the credibility of the scientific community. It is far better to acknowledge that animals do suffer in some experiments, and then explain what we are trying to do about it.
When we do use animals in research, extensive measures are taken to ensure that the minimum number of animals are involved, that non-animal methods are used wherever possible and, perhaps most importantly, that the welfare of the animals is safeguarded. The public needs to know more about these measures.
Increasing the Level of Communication
There is little doubt that the scientific community needs to make greater efforts to communicate with the public about the use of animals in research. The animal rights movement continues to campaign against animal experimentation and to misinform the public. Unless we make the effort to communicate on this subject, that misinformation will be accepted as the truth.
| Some scientists do not speak out on animal experimentation for fear of being targeted by extremists. |
The majority of the scientific community has always been hesitant about speaking to a public audience (and even more nervous about speaking to the media) about the use of animals in research. In part, this reflects a general lack of experience in communicating with these audiences. However, the most prevalent reason for their hesitation is fear of being targeted by animal rights extremists. Understandable as this fear might be, it is misplaced. Very few researchers have become the focus of animal rights campaigns. Fewer still have ever been attacked. Leaving aside the one or two leading spokespeople who have, over the years, become the bête noir of the animal rights movement, it is difficult to think of any researchers who have spoken publicly about animal research and subsequently been targeted.
In June 2000, 110 leading U.K. scientists signed an open letter to the Minister for Science calling on him to reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy that was hindering animal research [2]. Some of the media interpreted this, wrongly, as a plea for scientists to be allowed to do more animal experimentation or relax the animal welfare standards. The names of all the signatories, and photographs of some of them were published by the press. However, not one of the signatories has been targeted by animal rights groups as a result.
| Many scientific organizations offer courses on how to communicate with the public. |
Many scientific organizations are now offering their members advice or even training courses on how to communicate with the public. There are courses about giving talks in schools (for details, see the Biomedical Research Education Trust Web page) and on dealing with the media (for details, see the Research Defence Society Web page). Scientific associations, funding agencies and research institutions are all encouraging their members and/or staff to play a greater role in the public dialogue about animal research. At the end of the day, most research is funded by public money, either via the government or charities, and we are conducting research that will, in the long term, produce public benefit. We should not be hesitant about discussing how and why that research is conducted.
Susan Wolsborn is Web designer of HMS Beagle.
Trends in Animal Research - offers an overview of research, a debate, and reader feedback on the issue. From the February 1997 issue of Scientific American.
Animal Health, Well-Being, and Rights - list of links including animal research-related sites. From the WWW Virtual Library.
Alternatives to Animal Testing - a list of references with abstracts that introduce alternatives to animal research. From the National Library of Medicine at the NIH.
American Association for Laboratory Animal Science - includes membership information, resources for conducting responsible animal research, and an extensive list of related sites.
Animal Welfare Information Center - offers a database, news, publications, and resources. From the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Agricultural Library.
Use of Animals in Research and Education - contains links to recent news and information. From the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.
American Physiological Society and the Humane Use of Animals in Research - offers information on policy, government regulations, and extensive internet resources.
NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare - provides information, news, policies and laws, and resources on the issue.
Foundation for Biomedical Research - promotes public understanding of the humane use of animals in research.
Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing - promotes the use of alternatives to animal testing through refining tests to lessen animal pain and distress, reducing the number of animals needed for a test, and replacing animals with non-animal methods.
Lab Animal Issues - offers articles on the treatment, care, and regulation of lab animals. From National Association for Biomedical Research.
RDS: Understanding Animal Research in Medicine - provides information about medical advances resulting from animal research.
Related HMS Beagle article: