Rigour (honesty and integrity), Respect (for life, the law and the public good) and Responsibility (in communication, listening and informing) are the new three Rs – an ethical code for scientists. For biomedical scientists, we now have six Rs – we are already guided by Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of animals in research.

Sir David King is chief science adviser to the government; his office developed the code and wants to see it widely adopted. He describes the new three Rs as ‘a simple summary of the values that each of us espouses as practising scientists; it should also demonstrate to the public that scientists take ethical issues seriously.’ Yes, nice idea, but what is it really for? It looks like a sticking plaster solution which says ‘I’m a scientist, I’m a really good person, trust me’.

As Sir David himself indicates, the vast majority of scientists already adhere to such principles without the need for a formal code of ethics. So the real driver of this initiative seems to be a perception of ‘the public’ as anti-science. If this is true, it will take more than a government-inspired code of ethics to engender greater support for science and scientists.

Maybe the code is not intended to promote public interest and debate. Sir David said in Guardian Education yesterday that it should simply be ‘embedded in schools and universities as soon as possible.’ He concludes ‘The public has great aspirations for scientists. We have a responsibility to them [the public or the scientists?], and we must not let them down. I therefore urge all scientists to adopt and help promote the code.’

If only the code could be embedded in antivivisection groups - rigour, respect and responsibility seem to be foreign concepts to them.