MAKING ANIMAL RESEARCH ACCOUNTABLE

[Guest guest]

*

 

* *http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/403/

*<http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/403/>

*Monday 19 June 2006*

** ** ** *Mark Conlon * ** *Animal research: it's time to open this can

of worms

Universities should go public about their experiments on animals, and win

society over. * **

 

* **Printer-friendly

version*<http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/403/>

* * *Email-a-friend *<http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/friend/403/>

* **Respond* <http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/respond/403/>

 

*The author is writing under a pseudonym. *

 

*I am a postgraduate student at a British university, and some time ago I

was summoned to the office of my head of department. It was explained to me

that a letter I had written to a national publication on the subject of

animal experimentation contravened the rules on communicating with the

press. In my hurry to have my say on one of the issues of the day, I had

rather carelessly neglected to remove the automatic signature which attaches

to the foot of all my outgoing emails. The printed letter thus identified

the department and the university to which I belonged and this, I was told,

could have given the impression that the opinions I was expressing were also

attributable to the university. *

 

*It was a schoolboy error, which should perhaps be forgiven as I am the

research institution's equivalent of a schoolboy. Meekly, I apologised and

offered to make any amends that were necessary. Cheekily, I asked if my

chastiser had a spare copy of the newspaper in question so that I could

treasure the evidence of my first publication in a national. Hastily, I

retreated to the safety of my office with my tail between my legs. *

 

*Perhaps it should end there, as the university's response is perfectly

understandable. Obviously there is a need for an institution to retain its

own voice, and the potential for there being hundreds or even thousands of

wannabe spokespeople, all with widely differing opinions, isn't likely to be

conducive to clarity. My department head was just doing his job in this

regard, as was his liaison in the press office. *

 

*However, I have come to the conclusion that on the contentious issue of

animal research, the matter of concern was not simply whether the university

is misrepresented – it is whether it is represented at all. It was made

clear to me that the university didn't want any Tom, Dick or Harry

manufacturing university statements on controversial matters. More

interestingly, it seemed implicit in my warning that the university would

rather steer clear of this particular can of worms altogether, and not bring

the subject of animal research at the university to the forefront of the

public mind. *

 

*Past experience has taught universities and laboratories that activists can

be a very serious thorn in the side of research. Small groups have broken

into and entered laboratories, damaged equipment, released experimental

animals, and, in more extreme cases, caused mental and physical harm to

researchers and subcontractors. In many cases this has necessitated

investment in employing security personnel and in securing premises. In the

case of Cambridge University, harassment by a group called SPEAC (Stop

Primate Experimentation At Cambridge) contributed to the decision to stop

building one laboratory in 2003. *

 

*It is good business sense for research institutions to keep as quiet as

they possibly can about what goes on behind closed doors. If you can avoid

the attention of the public, you can also avoid the attention of those whose

activities could potentially bring down a programme of research. As a

result, it's tempting to view the silence as simply another security

measure. But such a strategy is likely to have a negative impact on our

culture more broadly. *

 

*Public ignorance of what takes place in laboratories means that the truth

about animal research can be replaced in the popular consciousness by myth

and legend. Imaginations run wild, and when footage of contemptible

mistreatment of animals taken by an undercover activist is made public, many

see that as representative of how animals are treated in laboratories across

the country. This leads to more negative feeling and mistrust of the

scientific community, and so the circle tightens. In addition, secrecy only

increases the chances of employees contravening the law on how to treat

animals, whereas if accountability took place through more visible channels

then the chances of mistreatment would virtually disappear. *

 

*In reality, animal welfare laws in the UK are particularly strict, and

evidence of mistreatment has not surfaced for many years. But the vacuum of

information from the research institutions does the public image of animal

testing no service in the long run; rather, it allows the

anti-vivisectionists effectively to determine how animal experimentation is

represented. They set up camp in our shopping precincts and show the same

old tired pictures of mistreated dogs and chimpanzees, taken long ago and

sometimes far away. They get their petition signatures because the other

side of the argument is not put forward. The extremists feel validated. *

 

*The research community needs to be encouraged (via top-down intervention if

necessary) to take its research activity out into the open. This would

necessitate extra expenditure on security, but the number of self-righteous

extremists intent on stopping research would decline following a more

accurate and sympathetic public perception of animal experimentation. More

investment would need to be made on justifying and communicating research

plans, procedures and outcomes to the general public, but in doing so the

scientific community would only be fulfilling part of its societal function.

Some experimental procedures would appear shocking to the public, and there

might even be calls for their abandonment; but transparency would enable

researchers to engage with the public and make it explicit why such

procedures are necessary. And if they aren't, then perhaps abandonment is

the only democratic course of action. Science serves society. It must be

seen to do so, and it must be seen how this is accomplished. This is a

difficult hurdle for the scientific community, but it cannot be avoided. *

 

*The tide has begun to turn. In their official capacities, the universities

of Oxford and Cambridge, the Medical Research Council and now the government

have all come out in support of animal research. But they must be joined by

other institutions, who need to act together to end the culture of secrecy

which serves neither science nor society, or the relationship between them.

This particular can of worms should be opened.*