Despite the best efforts of antivivisection groups - and they claim some success in the European Parliament - the public debate on difficult issues such as primate research and cloning seems much more grown up than it was a decade ago.
We know from opinion research that, of all research animals, the public are most concerned about primates. But we also know that they can weigh it all up in quite sophisticated ways and make judgments based on potential welfare costs and biomedical benefits of the research.
The recent news that scientists at Oregon University had cloned macaques was greeted by the UK national media in a largely positive fashion (see for instance BBC News). No particular concerns were expressed about the use of primates, and the twin spectres of Frankenstein monsters and human reproductive cloning, which dogged coverage of Dolly the sheep 10 years ago, were hardly to be seen.
A leader in The Independent, the UK national newspaper that is probably the most opposed to primate research, did not comment on the use of non-human primates, but did express concerns about human reproductive cloning, which it said was ‘certainly a worrying prospect.’ It continued
‘that is not a reason to fear or deprecate research of the sort that is taking place in Oregon. Nor is it an excuse for panic. Rather, it reinforces the need to build legal safeguards in our societies against the unethical application of these fascinating new scientific techniques.’
The Oregonian newspaper praised the cloning research, calling it ...
‘a first, perhaps a crucial, step, that could lead to new human stem cell therapies’... while panning animal rights activists who had planted a mole in the Oregon National Primate Research Center, and then posted claims on the Internet of ‘violations of animal protection laws’.
Similarly, when the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection tried to get publicity for its recent stake-out of a Spanish primate supply centre, all it got was a Guardian Comment is Free blog entry penned by its own chief executive, Michelle Thew. Apart from the fact that this was full of the usual exaggerations, many of the (only 41) comments published subsequently roundly condemned her for labelling the centre ‘Guantánamo for animals’.
And I particularly liked this one:
‘So there is construction work going on around the site. So what? Is that supposed to look bad? I’ve stayed at hotels with construction work going on around them, and I’ve worked in hospitals with construction work inside. The BUAV is notorious for giving a distorted picture of animal research. That’s how it raises its money. Amazing that anyone can think an animal rights organisation would be a credible source of information.’
I assume the blog name ‘Comment is Free’ comes from the CP Scott 1921 quote ‘Comment is free, but the facts are sacred’. A pity it has been home recently to so many antivivisection untruths.
