Letter Calling for Openness in Animal Research

[Michael Oberdorfer]

Speaking of Research is circulating an Open Letter calling for greater openness in animal research.

You can add your name by going here.

[Amanda Labuza]

To what extent are they looking for openness? The number of animals we use? A basic explanation of the types of experiments we do? Public access to IACUC reports? I’m not sure I understand what “openness” entails. While I am totally in favor of being honest with the public, I can also see how certain studies could very easily be misinterpreted, misreported. I can see a pain study where mice are given in capsain to induce inflammation and pain and then pain is measured resulting in a headline like “Scientists torture mice to see if they’re in pain after being given poison” which wildly misrepresents what is happening.

[Jaadeja]

I agree with you labuza. Not being located in the USA I cannot sign the letter. I support that there be a greater openness for all animals including those in zoos and those being used for tourism. Animals are very precious and we as humans need to protect them.They certainly protect us.

[Michael Oberdorfer]

I agree with both of you. My impression is that the “openness” referred to is not necessarily the details, like the ones you cite, but a more general openness about the need for animals in research, like research areas you are working in. The public needs to know when one explores important questions in biomedical research an investigator selects the most appropriate model to address the question being asked. It may be an animal, human, computational, whatever. In the case of animal research, it seems to me the message is that it is highly regulated and reviewed with respect to the proposed procedures, numbers, welfare and even more important: is the question worthy of the use of the animals even if all other criteria, including welfare, are met. That way one can defend the use of animals in research when the question arises. I believe that is the level of openness that one can advocate when the question arises.

[Amanda Labuza]

In that case, I’m totally in favor of openness. I always believe we should be better at explaining to the public what we do, including why we work with animals. I always imagine if people understood the difference between using a drug in a petri dish and in an animal model, they would never want us to jump from a petri dish to human trials.

That being said, I don’t find this letter that helpful. It doesn’t really have much action to it. I’d love to see something that explains how they would like us to be more open. Any ideas?