Almost everything we know about biology we’ve learned from observing animals as biological systems. We keep them in cages, study their behavior, and, in many cases, analyze their tissues after they die. But animal research is a fraught topic within the scientific community and in the public sphere. Those who support animal research to solve problems affecting both human and animal health hold a variety of complicated, often strong beliefs. Supporters may diverge on how much and what kinds of animal research should be allowed—meaning what amount of oversight, regulation, and restriction should be involved, as well as what animals, experiments, and procedures are appropriate for certain questions. Many people who do support animal research to some extent may still have moral qualms.
On the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, some people and organizations are fundamentally opposed to animal research for any reason, under any circumstance. These organizations have historically led to direct harm, as well as serious threats of harm, against the people who do research on animals. “Scientists that work with animals have targets on their backs,” says Science editor David Grimm, who often covers animal research.
These very real threats have created an environment in which many animal researchers are reluctant to publicly share details about their work. This not only makes it difficult for journalists to cover stories that involve animal research but also ensures that extreme viewpoints are overrepresented in the media and in public discourse. Altogether, the situation deprives the public of opportunities to understand the nuances of biomedical research and contextualize science that affects their lives.
Reporting on this thorny subject requires journalistic rigor and compassion, sensitivity toward sources, and emphasis on the larger goals behind the research. But the extra effort will pay off in making your stories on animal research more nuanced and compelling.
Acknowledging a Complicated History
Nearly all biomedical advances are products of animal research. Without animal testing, including in nonhuman primates, we wouldn’t have deep brain stimulation treatments for Parkinson’s disease or vaccines against COVID-19. But research that aims to advance human health sometimes involves harming or killing animals.
In the U.S., the federal government began regulating animal welfare in the 1960s—millennia after animal testing was first documented. In 1966, Congress passed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, the first federal law regulating animal research by setting requirements for veterinary care and living conditions for certain lab animals. The law names dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits, but excludes rats, mice, and birds, which comprise 95 percent of nonhuman research animals that are counted in such statistics (which often exclude some widely used invertebrates such as fruit flies).* The Public Health Service (PHS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC), as well as institution-specific self-regulatory bodies, cover animal-use protocols and research-animal breeding and testing.
Despite strict regulations governing the handling of animals used in research, some organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), White Coat Waste, and the Animal Justice Project, continue to oppose animal research as a whole.
Anti-animal-research campaigns have taken many forms. While some organizations focus their efforts on outreach, government advocacy, and direct care for animals, others traffic in misinformation and sometimes even vandalism, harassment, or violence. Many of these groups often dominate the public narrative despite frequently promoting false and unproven claims. PETA has equated animal research with issues like human trafficking and rape, and some groups, such as White Coat Waste, claim that government-funded animal research is a waste of taxpayer money. In one of several similar attacks in the late 2000s, animal rights extremists targeted animal researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, protesting outside their homes, sending death threats, and firebombing the car of neurobiologist David Jentsch, whose research on drug addiction at UCLA involved vervet monkeys. (Acts of violence in the name of animal rights are relatively uncommon, and other groups advocate for animal rights in more measured ways. For example, the Humane Society of the United States, the largest animal rights organization in the U.S., directs most of its efforts into political action and direct care for animals.)
In part because of the unethical approaches some activist groups have taken, researchers and institutions engaged in animal research tend to be wary of talking publicly about their work. “There are people who don’t want to speak at all about their science,” says Michele Basso, director of the Washington National Primate Research Center in Seattle. “They hide it, frankly, because they’re scared.”
This creates a catch-22: Many animal researchers are afraid to speak openly about their research, in part because they don’t think the public will understand; but no one will understand until they speak openly. “It’s understandable that the public feels like institutions are hiding something,” says Amanda Dettmer, senior editor at Speaking of Research, an animal-research advocacy organization. But, she says, “it’s also understandable that research institutions are once bitten, twice shy.”
Research-advocacy organizations like Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) and Understanding Animal Research encourage scientists to be proactively transparent about their work and push back against misinformation. Jim Newman, communications director at AMP, explains, “If you do this hard work to educate the public, then, even in difficult times, it’s easier for them to understand what you do and why.” After being attacked, UCLA’s Jentsch became a vocal pro-research advocate, realizing that “being open was the antidote to the harassment I was receiving.”
The public information officers (PIOs) I spoke with also emphasize to researchers that being up-front and presenting information about animal research in a neutral, accurate way is in everyone’s interest. It’s important for researchers to be frank and transparent about delicate matters such as euthanasia, they say, because the truth is almost always less sensational than the messaging from anti-animal-research groups.
YouTubeChannel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvkycyGjQDsLEBaCoeQe6Kg
No comments:
Post a Comment