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.

But first, it’s worth pointing out that our pair of Professors (or maybe the New Scientist sub-editors?) are guilty of their own oversimplification: “In any case, only one third of research on animals is for medical purposes. Is it acceptable to use an animal to test the safety of a new plant pesticide?”

To argue thus is to suggest that only one third of animal research may lead to medical benefit, and many will infer that the remaining two thirds is for the safety testing of non-medical substances such as pesticides.

Neither is true. There are many examples of basic research (approx 30% of all animal research) that have led ultimately to important advances in scientific understanding or even medical benefit. Another 30% of research animals are used in breeding to produce GM animals, most of which provide valuable models for diseases or aid our understanding of, for instance, embryonic development. Breaking the figures down further reveals that just 5% of laboratory animals are used in safety testing of chemicals like pesticides.

The other article Actors make the fur fly (Education Guardian) also warns against oversimplification, this time reporting on a new play by Judith Johnson called Every Breath that aims to challenge views about animal research in schools.

I haven’t seen the play yet (it’s due to tour London schools soon), but the review suggests that it manages to both engage and inform about the animal research issue, while carefully avoiding getting entangled in the thorny topic of animal rights extremism. It focuses on the ethical question “is it right to put the lives of our families and friends above those of animals?” I don’t know how long the play is, but the plan is that it can be preceded by preparatory lesson/s and followed by 40 minutes of classroom discussion.

A play with lesson plans for schools and feature articles in magazines are good places to discuss the ethics of the issue. But it’s nigh on impossible to have a nuanced or ethical discussion when a journalist is pressing for a 25-second soundbite – not least when the soundbite is for a story on radical activism or violent extremism, which currently dominate national news media coverage. We need to recognise that the debate can happen on many different levels, and we need to be aware on which level we are engaging at any one time.