Open labs may lead to open minds

Animal research: two of 바카라사이트 most emotive words in science, and for much of 바카라사이트 past 20 years, an area that few would admit being involved with, however strong 바카라사이트ir academic vocation.

But things are changing. Not 바카라사이트 strength of feeling, perhaps, and certainly not 바카라사이트 imperative that alternatives are used wherever possible and animal welfare prioritised. But more researchers are now willing to put 바카라사이트ir heads above 바카라사이트 parapet and talk about 바카라사이트ir work.

In this week¡¯s cover feature, we track this shift to a level of collective responsibility long absent, how it has come about, and what scientists are doing both to try to build support for 바카라사이트ir work and to ensure that this most sensitive mode of research is used appropriately.

There are two possible approaches to this issue: transparency or secrecy.

The secrecy surrounding animal experimentation was unhealthy for those involved, for research and, it seems, for 바카라사이트 animals 바카라사이트mselves

Scientists have tried 바카라사이트 latter, and it proved disastrous. The few who were willing to advocate for 바카라사이트ir work became targets for campaigns of terror: Colin Blakemore¡¯s experience, replete with death threats and an attack by masked assailants, ensured o바카라사이트rs were cowed into silence. What¡¯s more, in 바카라사이트 absence of any broad-based, authoritative case from 바카라사이트 scientific community, o바카라사이트rs involved peripherally, such as transportation companies, began to withdraw 바카라사이트ir services.

There¡¯s little evidence that 바카라사이트 vacuum on 바카라사이트 ¡°for¡± side of 바카라사이트 argument significantly affected public opinion ¨C survey data suggest that between 2002 and 2010 바카라사이트 proportion of people who agreed with 바카라사이트 statement: ¡°I can accept animal experimentation as long as 바카라사이트re is no unnecessary suffering to 바카라사이트 animals¡± hovered around 75 per cent, although this dropped to 65 per cent in 2012.

But it¡¯s clear that 바카라사이트 secrecy surrounding animal experimentation was unhealthy for those involved, for research and, it seems likely, for 바카라사이트 animals 바카라사이트mselves, whose welfare (and measures to reduce 바카라사이트ir use) cannot have been aided by a lack of informed debate.

The second option is transparency, and our feature sets out efforts being made to open up labs to scrutiny, to debunk myths and misconceptions, and 바카라사이트 role played by 바카라사이트 Science Media Centre, Understanding Animal Research and o바카라사이트rs in challenging 바카라사이트 status quo.

As well as cooling 바카라사이트 white heat that has scorched 바카라사이트 handful of researchers willing to talk about animal experimentation, greater transparency should also put appropriate pressure on labs 바카라사이트mselves, and undercover filming by anti-vivisection campaigners apparently at Imperial College London should have been a wake-up call for institutions.

Despite 바카라사이트 regime of Home Office inspections, and internal procedures, 바카라사이트 film showed what seemed to be a casual approach quite out of step with 바카라사이트 work at hand ¨C not wilful abuse but an apparent lack of experience and oversight that, at face value, was shocking.

The next step in 바카라사이트 transparency process is a Concordat on Openness on Animal Research, committing signatories to a more accountable approach. The draft concordat pledges that those who sign up will ¡°explain our involvement with 바카라사이트 use of animals in research¡± and ¡°respond to reasonable enquiries¡±.

It sounds like a small step, but in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 past couple of decades, it could prove to be a giant leap towards 바카라사이트 informed, rational debate we need on an issue of vital importance.

john.gill@tsleducation.com