The Wellcome Trust has produced a booklet Engaging science: thoughts, deeds, analysis and action that will be of interest to anyone interested in science communications, or, as we should call it these days, ‘science in society’, ‘engagement’ or ‘dialogue’. The 13 essays include one by the RDS Chair, Professor Nancy Rothwell, called Public engagement on the use of animals in biomedical research.

Nancy says that ‘just a few facts can instantly dispel myths’ - the much maligned ‘deficit model’ of science communications does have a place. She also argues - and this may surprise some - ‘that any scientist who is not passionate and concerned about animal welfare should never undertake research on animals’.

I think this paragraph provides particularly good advice for would-be communicators:

Scientists need to identify clearly their role in discussions on animal research. Given the intensity of the debate, it is easy to step onto the defensive and assume that the scientific community’s job is to persuade ‘the public’ of the value of using animals. There is a danger of assuming such a role. Science will benefit much more if its protagonists explore the need and value, and confront the concerns and sensitivities about the use of animals. It is particularly important to acknowledge publicly that animals used in research can and do suffer sometimes, and the moral issues that this raises.

Nancy concludes:

Animal research remains one of the most difficult areas of public engagement, and one that many scientists are still reluctant to embrace. However, it also provides a fascinating case study where public opinion has shifted, where any adverse effects on the scientists who speak out are extremely rare, and where openness is gradually increasing. As such, it is an example of the remarkable influence of the benefits of public engagement in one of the most difficult areas of biomedical research.