- Email: [email protected]
Talk to the people
166
Forum
TRENDS in Neurosciences Vol.25 No.3 March 2002
Science & Society
Talk to the people Mark Matfield Recent opinion surveys suggest that the majority of the public is willing to accept the use of animals in research if high standards of welfare and effective regulation are in place. The public appears unaware that such standards have existed for some time. The scientific community should now re-focus its communication efforts to include the ethics and animal welfare aspects of this issue.
The public and political debate about animal experimentation has waxed and waned since 1876, when the first antivivisection society was formed in London. Over the past 20 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. 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]. These studies concluded that the vast majority of the UK 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. http://tins.trends.com
Surveys suggest that most members of the public accept the use of animals in medical research. Has the scientific community misunderstood public attitudes on this subject?
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 UK Home Office web page http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/animact/ aspag5.htm). 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 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
Almost all the scientific community’s work aimed at informing the public about animal experimentation has focused on the roles of such experimentation in fundamental biomedical research, and on the 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 also tends 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 leave our audience with the impression that the experiments really are cruel. Addressing concerns about animal welfare
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 scientist 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, great care is taken to ensure that the
0166-2236/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0166-2236(00)02035-X
Forum
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 matters. 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. 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
TRENDS in Neurosciences Vol.25 No.3 March 2002
167
might be, it is misplaced. Very few researchers have become the focus of animal rights campaigns. Fewer still have ever been attacked. Leaving aside a very few 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 UK 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 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 http://www.bret.org.uk/speak.htm) and on dealing with the media (for details, see the Research Defence Society webpage http://www.rds-online.org.uk/aboutrds/ mediarel.html). 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. References 1 Davies, B. (2000) In-depth survey of public attitudes shows surprising degree of acceptance. RDS News April, 8–11 2 Hawkes, N. (2000) Of mice and men: researchers in revolt. The Times 13 June, 2–3
Mark Matfield Research Defence Society, 58 Great Marlborough Street, London, UK W1F 7JY. e-mail: [email protected]
Book Review
The scientific contributions of Richard Thompson Model Systems and the Neurobiology of Associative Learning edited by Joseph E. Steinmetz, Mark A. Gluck and Paul R. Solomon. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ USA, 2001. £75.95 (440 pages) ISBN 0 805 83870 8
I found two different books in Model Systems and the Neurobiology of Associative Learning, both equally important and equally intriguing. The book announced in the title describes different models systems; that is, simple systems that might help to explain complex neural and behavioral phenomena. The second book celebrates the scientific career of Richard F. Thompson, the eminent scientist who made major contributions to our understanding of the neurophysiological bases of learning. http://tins.trends.com
The title collection, which is a remarkable group of chapters written by Thompson’s past collaborators, has been edited by three of his former students: Joe Steinmetz, Mark Gluck and Paul Solomon. In these chapters, Mike Patterson reviews research about classical conditioning of spinal cord reflexes; Tim Teyler summarizes a variety of forms of associative synaptic plasticity, including long-term potentiation; Gregory Clark provides an overview of his research on the associative mechanisms in Aplysia californica; Stephen Berry (with Matthew Seager, Yukiko Asaka and Amy Griffin) describes hippocampal and septal participation in rabbit appetitive and aversive conditioning; Paul Solomon addresses the use of classical conditioning in clinical neuroscience; Mike Gabriel (with Andrew Talk) portrays research on the neural substrates of discriminative instrumental learning; and Norman Weinberger relates work on receptive-field plasticity and memory in the auditory cortex. All these distinguished scientists interacted with Thompson during his
tenure at the University of California at Irvine (CA, USA). The following chapters were written by well-known researchers who worked with Thompson at Stanford University (CA, USA). Joe Steinmetz presents data demonstrating the key role of the cerebellum in eye-blink conditioning; David Lavond (with Sanae Kanzawa) explains how psychological paradigms are used to explore the neural basis of learning; Diana Woodruff-Pak (with Susan Lemieux) compares human and rabbit data on cerebellar participation in associative learning; and Mark Gluck (with Todd Allen and Catherine Myers) describes empirical and modeling work on the modulation of conditioning by the medial septum through its action on the hippocampus. The final contributions to the book were made by eminent investigators associated with Thompson after his move to the University of Southern California, Los Angeles (CA, USA). Michael Foy provides a summary of his work on estrogen and synaptic plasticity in the
0166-2236/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Forum
TRENDS in Neurosciences Vol.25 No.3 March 2002
Science & Society
Talk to the people Mark Matfield Recent opinion surveys suggest that the majority of the public is willing to accept the use of animals in research if high standards of welfare and effective regulation are in place. The public appears unaware that such standards have existed for some time. The scientific community should now re-focus its communication efforts to include the ethics and animal welfare aspects of this issue.
The public and political debate about animal experimentation has waxed and waned since 1876, when the first antivivisection society was formed in London. Over the past 20 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. 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]. These studies concluded that the vast majority of the UK 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. http://tins.trends.com
Surveys suggest that most members of the public accept the use of animals in medical research. Has the scientific community misunderstood public attitudes on this subject?
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 UK Home Office web page http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/animact/ aspag5.htm). 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 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
Almost all the scientific community’s work aimed at informing the public about animal experimentation has focused on the roles of such experimentation in fundamental biomedical research, and on the 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 also tends 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 leave our audience with the impression that the experiments really are cruel. Addressing concerns about animal welfare
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 scientist 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, great care is taken to ensure that the
0166-2236/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0166-2236(00)02035-X
Forum
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 matters. 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. 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
TRENDS in Neurosciences Vol.25 No.3 March 2002
167
might be, it is misplaced. Very few researchers have become the focus of animal rights campaigns. Fewer still have ever been attacked. Leaving aside a very few 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 UK 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 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 http://www.bret.org.uk/speak.htm) and on dealing with the media (for details, see the Research Defence Society webpage http://www.rds-online.org.uk/aboutrds/ mediarel.html). 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. References 1 Davies, B. (2000) In-depth survey of public attitudes shows surprising degree of acceptance. RDS News April, 8–11 2 Hawkes, N. (2000) Of mice and men: researchers in revolt. The Times 13 June, 2–3
Mark Matfield Research Defence Society, 58 Great Marlborough Street, London, UK W1F 7JY. e-mail: [email protected]
Book Review
The scientific contributions of Richard Thompson Model Systems and the Neurobiology of Associative Learning edited by Joseph E. Steinmetz, Mark A. Gluck and Paul R. Solomon. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ USA, 2001. £75.95 (440 pages) ISBN 0 805 83870 8
I found two different books in Model Systems and the Neurobiology of Associative Learning, both equally important and equally intriguing. The book announced in the title describes different models systems; that is, simple systems that might help to explain complex neural and behavioral phenomena. The second book celebrates the scientific career of Richard F. Thompson, the eminent scientist who made major contributions to our understanding of the neurophysiological bases of learning. http://tins.trends.com
The title collection, which is a remarkable group of chapters written by Thompson’s past collaborators, has been edited by three of his former students: Joe Steinmetz, Mark Gluck and Paul Solomon. In these chapters, Mike Patterson reviews research about classical conditioning of spinal cord reflexes; Tim Teyler summarizes a variety of forms of associative synaptic plasticity, including long-term potentiation; Gregory Clark provides an overview of his research on the associative mechanisms in Aplysia californica; Stephen Berry (with Matthew Seager, Yukiko Asaka and Amy Griffin) describes hippocampal and septal participation in rabbit appetitive and aversive conditioning; Paul Solomon addresses the use of classical conditioning in clinical neuroscience; Mike Gabriel (with Andrew Talk) portrays research on the neural substrates of discriminative instrumental learning; and Norman Weinberger relates work on receptive-field plasticity and memory in the auditory cortex. All these distinguished scientists interacted with Thompson during his
tenure at the University of California at Irvine (CA, USA). The following chapters were written by well-known researchers who worked with Thompson at Stanford University (CA, USA). Joe Steinmetz presents data demonstrating the key role of the cerebellum in eye-blink conditioning; David Lavond (with Sanae Kanzawa) explains how psychological paradigms are used to explore the neural basis of learning; Diana Woodruff-Pak (with Susan Lemieux) compares human and rabbit data on cerebellar participation in associative learning; and Mark Gluck (with Todd Allen and Catherine Myers) describes empirical and modeling work on the modulation of conditioning by the medial septum through its action on the hippocampus. The final contributions to the book were made by eminent investigators associated with Thompson after his move to the University of Southern California, Los Angeles (CA, USA). Michael Foy provides a summary of his work on estrogen and synaptic plasticity in the
0166-2236/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.