Two articles in the last few days got me thinking about how we can’t regard the media as one homogeneous entity. And that one person’s fact is another person’s oversimplification.

First, New Scientist has a comment article by philosopher Jonathan Wolff and ethicist Kenneth Boyd that warns against polarisation of the debate about animal research. I have a certain sympathy with this view: the daily news media tend to characterise all antivivisection and animal rights activists as extremists, and on the other hand encourage scientists to hype the benefits of animal research.

As the article puts it “at first glance, the debate on animal research seems to offer only two options: you’re either for it or against it”. It doesn’t have to be quite so black-an-white. At RDS we would never say – without qualification – we are “for” animal research, but we always try to explain why it is necessary. Can we have a debate that recognises all the shades of grey? We can, but the way the national news media work is not often conducive to doing that.

There’s a good independent account of Saturday’s demos on Kieren McCarthy’s Sunday blog entry.

Kieren has commented in an intelligent way on this debate for sometime and makes valid, useful points on both sides.

His unbiased account of the demonstrations tallies with that given by the media.

[About Pro-Test] The level of speech was high. People were intelligent, passionate and coherent… [SPEAK] also expressed [themselves] passionately. But, objectively, it has to be said a high proportion of the Speak protestors were verbally aggressive and abusive where Pro-Test marchers simply weren’t.
… The march also highlighted the other differences. Pro-Test’s march was all about information and positive benefits; Speak’s was all about anger and secrets. I recorded at various points during the day and the tone and words of protestors on both sides were immediately apparent. Anger one side; reason the other. I’ll do a podcast at some point soon.
Kieren McCarthy, Oxford’s day of protests - animal rights and human wrongs
26th Feb 2006

I’ll be interested to hear the podcast – that will be incontrovertible evidence of the respective demeanours of the demos and should quash SPEAK’s claims that

RDS is, how about you?

Before you shudder with delight or disgust (depending on your predilections) let’s discuss exactly what it is you may be ‘in bed’ with her about – our oft-mentioned topic of animal research.

In anticipation of Pro-Test’s first demo, taking place tomorrow afternoon, there has been a flurry of media coverage.  Mick Hume outlines the debate clearly in today’s edition of The Times:

"Whose side are you on?” is a famous slogan of the old Left-Right divide, which you don’t often hear in our age of soulless managerial politics when, as the Monty Python song predicted, accountancy really does seem to make the world go around. But there are different divisions that matter today, drawing new lines in the political and cultural sands. One such divide is embodied by two protests around animal research due to take place in Oxford tomorrow.

… Neither of these is likely to be a mass demo. But the clash does symbolise something bigger, and to declare which side you are on is to make a statement about the sort of world in which you want to live.

The Times, 24 February 2006

I recommend reading the rest of this fantastic article, which in a few well-written paras outlines the key points of how these ‘worlds’ differ.  But just in case you don’t have time, Mick’s parting shot is a gem:

there is an old military version of the question “whose side are you on?”, where a sentinel asks a stranger “Qui vive?” — derived from a French phrase for “whom do you wish to live?” or “long live who? ” So, Qui vive? — man, or mouse?

Myself, much as I love cute mice, I’m going with man.

Today’s Guardian has also covered the imminent Pro-Test protest, with not only a great front page article in the main paper commending two Oxford professors for speaking out, but also a good piece in the Education section.

But, Guardian, we’d like to make two points. RDS doesn’t ‘dismiss’ microdosing – it seems as though it’s going to be a fantastic tool, but it’s not designed to predict toxicity and so can’t replace animals there. It could cut down their use in other types of research which is always welcome news. And, in relation to the front page article, “Scientists to speak out for animal tests” is rather old news, as RDS has been doing this with varying degrees of success for 98 years.

The leading science journal Nature may be starting to realise that it needs to keep a closer eye (forgive the pun when you read the links) on how it reports on animal experimentation. Two letters in the 12th January edition take its reporting to task. The first criticises an article by one of its feature writers as ‘unduly dismissive of experiments on living animals’, and a second ‘is disappointed at the negative tone of your recent News stories “UK animal labs still under siege”...’. This letter continues:

[There] are strong indications that the animal-rights extremist campaign has reached its high-water mark and that the tide is now turning against it. The victory against extremism is there for the taking, but the scientific community must learn to reach up and grab it. That means refusing to be intimidated, standing up for our science and, perhaps most important, staying positive.

This is how the British are characterised. It is extrapolated by animal protection groups to a great concern about the use of animals in research . I would agree that there is good support for animal welfare amongst the public, but there is a strong pragmatic streak that balances this with the wish to gain benefits from medical research. 

Witness the Daily Mail’s rather predictable attempt to whip up some controversy over Gordon Ramsay killing his Christmas turkeys on TV.

Look especially at the comments, which can be summarised as: ‘get real, people’

Credit where credit’s due, as well to the RSPCA for its realistic and fair comment.

And my point? Campaigners for animal protection have a vested interest in claiming there is stronger objection to animal research than there really is. A large majority tends to show a pragmatic consensus. That majority do understand the need to balance benefits with animal use.

The current tested on guinea pigs adverts by the online bank Egg are funny – not a belly laugh, but they really make me smile.  See Adland ad-rag.com. I think they show that ordinary people, and the advertisers, can accept that “testing on guinea pigs” is a routine activity and not something to get agitated about. Yes, they anthropomorphise animals and raise a cheap laugh at their expense, but then so do a lot of cartoons.

A spokesperson for Egg said:

"Egg has a tradition of creating ‘edgy’ adverts and our guinea pigs campaign is no different. 

“The central idea behind the campaign is that Egg has launched a revolutionary new product that has not existed before. The guinea pigs are used to try to get across the new and experimental side of Egg Money. 

“The adverts are clearly tongue-in-cheek, with guinea pigs simply representing a metaphor of human behaviour and attitudes with reference to money.  The adverts are not intended as a statement on animal testing. 

“The images of the guinea pigs are clearly mocked-up and at no point were any animals were harmed in the making of the adverts.  In fact the adverts were filmed using actors wearing specially constructed guinea-pig body suits with custom made clothes. They were trained and choreographed by an expert in animal movement, to give them the correct body articulation associated with guinea-pigs. The heads of real guinea pigs were filmed later, to match with the movements of the actors; these were then combined in post-production with the bodies.

“We are sorry if the adverts offend anyone this is not our intention."

It’s interesting that Egg feel the need to defend the ads, even though there have not been any complaints. Given the antivivisectionists’ frequent sense-of-humour failures – for instance they protested strongly about the satirical cartoon series I Am Not An Animal – a whole slew of complaints would have come as no surprise. What is rather surprising is that “RSPCA were fully involved in all the filming”.

Penn & Teller, in their own inimitable style, have dished the dirt on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in a short video. Nothing is off-limits: they joke about the unhealthy appearance of vegans (skeletal and pasty), and are astonished that PeTA kills dogs and cats (apparently they killed two thirds of the 2,100 dogs and cats they “rescued” in 2002, see also petakillsanimals). Not least, they expose one of PeTA’s leaders as an insulin dependent diabetic who seeks to prevent others benefiting from future medical advances, by trying to abolish animal research.

PeTA would outlaw fishing, circuses, dog shows, horse riding, zoos, pets and guide dogs for the blind: their goal is “total animal liberation” says Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA’s leader. Penn and Teller say “life isn’t Disney bull***t where lions, pigs and meerkats hang out together and sing songs”. This is the milder stuff from the leather-wearing, chicken-chomping duo. They are blunt, crude, funny but still make some serious points about the hypocrisy of those that champion animal rights.

See whether it makes you laugh, cry or shout. The whole 15 minutes is here. Pity it’s an “adult” site.