World Day for Laboratory Animals 24 April 2008

Institutional intimidation, and the suppression of scientific inquiry

The formidable forces that have conspired to present the animal research debate to an unsuspecting public as ‘scientists versus terrorists’ have very nearly succeeded in their mission. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of protest against animal experiments is lawful and peaceful. However, animal researchers know full well that as long as the debate is seen in the public eye as a purely ethical one, they can rest assured that their work and their livelihood will continue to enjoy unwavering government support and public funding.

Potentially the biggest challenge to animal research is ironically, not from without, but from within their own establishment. If it ‘takes a thief to catch a thief’, then it takes a scientist to catch out another scientist. This thesis is supported by testimonies from researchers who have been the victims of bullying or other tactics of intimidation by their peers or by their institutions (see examples below). Further evidence has unwittingly been provided by the Research Defence Society (RDS), an industry funded lobby group whose raison d’etre is to actively defend and promote animal research.

In its most recent publication (News, spring 2008) the results of their recent survey are revealed, in which an obviously irate respondent asked the RDS to ‘stop pretending that all research is absolutely vital and productive’. Realising they had overstepped the mark, the RDS quickly instituted damage control in the next line of the article by stating that, ‘We agree that a more sophisticated debate about both the advantages and limitations of animal models is overdue’.

This then raises the immediate question, ‘how should such a debate be encouraged?’ Once again, the RDS kindly provide the answer, by proclaiming their ‘commitment to open, honest and transparent dialogue’ and accepting that ‘receiving robust, critical feedback and engaging in discussion is essential to scientific endeavour, and to progressing the ethical debate about animal research’.

How does all of this prose and commendable intention translate into realpolitik?

Consider the following actual case histories and judge for yourselves. Some are the result of misdirected, but telling emails, whilst others are overtly sinister.

1. Simon Festing, a non-practising medical doctor and executive director of the RDS, called on the chief editor of a journal to retract a pair of articles he (Festing) felt were motivated by antivivisection philosophy, not science, stating, "We would like to state our deep concern that your journal is becoming a vehicle for extreme antivivisection propaganda”. The two papers in question were both published in 2005 and authored by Jarrod Bailey PhD. Both papers contained over 200 references between them. Festing’s concern was that the