Interesting feature on the animal experimentation debate in last week’s science journal Nature. Amongst other things, they did an anonymous international online poll of nearly 1700 biomedical researchers. About half of them used animals in their research.
When asked to rate how necessary animal research was for progressing biomedical science on a scale of 1 (not at all necessary) to 4 (essential), three quarters of all respondents, including those who did not work with animals themselves, said it was essential. About a fifth rated it as 3, and only a tiny minority (about 1%) thought it unnecessary. So much for antivivisection claims that lots of scientists oppose animal research.
Nature commented that:
‘many scientists who work on animals have complex takes on the issue. But they are not often willing, or encouraged, to express these feelings. Some of this is directly due to fear of animal-rights extremists; some is an indirect effect of the polarized atmosphere that surrounds the issue. In some labs, at least, scientists feel pressured to keep quiet about the grey areas of debate, lest they undermine the official mantra.’
RDS is not quite sure where this pressure comes from, or what the ‘official mantra’ is, but we assume it is a dig at pressure groups such as ourselves! So it is good to know that, with absolutely no input (or pressure!) from RDS, 99% of the researchers polled rated animal research as essential or at least necessary. Many also commented that scientists needed to engage more with the public and discuss animal research more openly. Less than half of those involved in animal research, however, said they did so. If more did so, a larger majority of the public might also move to the view that animal research is essential or necessary.
Nature introduced the feature by characterising the debate as polarised: ‘the voice of the middle ground has been lost’. However, when the vast majority of biomedical scientists appreciate the necessity of animal research, and the antivivisection and animal rights groups only call for outright bans (see also Mark Henderson’s excellent piece in The Times on Saturday) it is difficult to see where the middle ground lies.
<Wrap up...>
