On 23 Mar 00, at 10:29, [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Scientists, Science Communicators, PUS specialists, and PR professionals
> might consider the idea of building bridges, not only between the public
> and science but between scientists themselves.

Of course. The divide between scientists and the public is 
artificial. Scientists are members of the public too, and may 
have poor knowledge of areas of science outside their own 
specialism.
> 
> We look forward to the day when the science of 'Animal Experimentation'
> (AE) is one such subject where both the proponents and opponents are
> allowed a hearing. 

Quite. At the moment, many of those who might otherwise 
get involved in the public debate about animal research are 
intimidated into silence by the activities of the anti-vivisection 
extremists. I have to say that this nervousness extends to 
institutions as well as individuals.

> Obstacles such as government secrecy prevents
> freedom of speech for the proponents of AE who would otherwise be allowed
> to offer some validation of the industry.  

This is not true. While the government itself might be rather 
quiet on the subject, this does not prevent scientists from 
explaining the need for animal experimentation - it's the 
animal rights extremists who attempt to stifle debate.

In turn this prevents other
> scientists who oppose AE any inclusion in a debate because there is none.

I know of very few *scientists* who oppose animal 
experimentation. There have been several surveys of 
biomedical scientists and clinicians, all of which show 90-
100% agreement that animal experimentation is necessary 
for the advancement of medicine. I suggest that may be the 
reason why there is no debate amongst *scientists* about 
why animal experimentation is necessary. Of course there 
will always be healthy scientific debate about good 
experimental design, best practice etc - is that the sort of 
debate you mean?

> If scientists themselves are not allowed freedom of debate and exchange of
> knowledge in such an important and controversial area then how will the
> science in medical research be communicated, how will it advance and how
> will the public ever be allowed to reach a genuinely informed opinion of
> the subject.

But, as I indicate above, it's not *scientifically* controversial. 
Of course debate between those broadly in favour and those 
broadly against animal experimentation will continue (it's 
being going on for well over 100 years) and the public will 
make up their own minds - that will presumably be a 
"genuinely informed opinion."

> Susan Green
> Education For Medical Advancement
> Understanding 'Animal Experimentation' in Medical Research

Can you tell us more about your organisation, please? I'm not 
familiar with it.


Barbara Davies, STEMPRA Newsletter Editor
Work: RDS - Understanding Animal Research in Medicine
58 Great Marlborough Street, London W1V 1DD
Tel  020 7287 2818  Fax  020 7287 2627   
E-mail  [log in to unmask]  http://www.rds-online.org.uk
Home: Tel/fax 07000 750159 
      
Visit the STEMPRA web site at http://www2.ifr.bbsrc.ac.uk/stempra/


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%