ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

For New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´, a series of features extending over eight weeks is
unusual for any topic. The present series on animal experimentation, which
this article concludes, is unprecedented. But coverage of the topic is not
new. Since 1970, New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ has devoted considerable space to the moral,
scientific and welfare arguments over animal experimentation and to the
activities of the various participants in the controversy. This coverage
provides us with a record of the developing debate, but it is a record
strongly shaped by the editorial policies and conventions of the magazine
itself.

New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ is a science news magazine run by a major commercial publisher,
not an academic journal. As such, its interests are in what is ‘newsworthy’
and will sell copies. Its format is structured around short news items,
eye-catching images and cartoons, and snappy headlines. The editorial influence
over content is strong. Only a minority of its contributions are completely
unsolicited and copy-editing is the norm.

Since its foundation, the magazine has tried to combine three main
roles in establishing its place in the scientific media. First, it has aimed
at being a house journal for the scientific and technological community,
providing news, research summaries, gossip and classified advertising. Secondly,
it has seen itself as a bridge between scientists and non-scientists, keeping
the business community informed about technical developments, increasing
public understanding of science, and encouraging young people to take up
science. Thirdly, it has been a self-appointed critic of some aspects of
science or, at least, has provided a platform for such critics. Its recurrent
theme has been that of science journalists everywhere, urging scientists
towards greater openness and better communication with the public. ‘The
public’s right to know’ is, after all, the journalist’s stock-in-trade.
And it is this third role that has most often generated criticism of
the magazine from within the scientific community.

These editorial aims and conventions lead one to expect New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´
to give relatively extensive attention to animal experimentation. It is
an important aspect of biomedical science that is controversial among scientists
and laypeople and is therefore newsworthy. Moreover, scientists’ alleged
reluctance to submit their work with animals to public scrutiny has been
a longstanding theme of the controversy – a charge raised explicitly in
the introductory editorial to this series (Comment, 4 April). And the concerns
of campaigners against animal experiments and of critical science journalism
overlap in this respect.

A search of the magazine from 1970 to 1991 confirmed these expectations.
The search identified 398 items, a mean of 1 item for every 2.8 issues.
All items which referred to, or which directly generated comment on the
scientific value or ethics of animal experimentation or laboratory animal
welfare were included. By way of simple comparison, this was more than twice
as many as Nature carried and over four times as many as the British Medical
Journal carried over the same period. Of the other weekly periodicals for
people working in biomedicine, only the Veterinary Record, with its specialist
interest in laboratory animal welfare, had more than 200 items.

The number of items per year has varied but there was a sharp increase
from 1975 (see Figure 1). Between 1970 and 1974, there were only 32 items
in New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´, 9 of which referred to a particular research project
involving a monkey. There were several events that made animal experimentation
newsworthy in 1975. The most dramatic was the furore surrounding a tabloid
newspaper’s story of ‘smoking’ beagles being used for testing tobacco substitutes
(8 items in New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´). This was quickly followed by the publication
of the first editions of two books which were to become manuals for the
reviving militant movement: Richard Ryder’s Victims of Science (3 items)
and, in the US, Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (British edition reviewed
in New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ in 1976).

In the following year Animal Welfare Year was launched by a coalition
of animal welfare societies. It marked the start of sustained lobbying
to ‘put animals into politics’ and to reform the law governing animal experiments
– achieved in 1986 with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. From 1975
until 1991, the number of articles has never dropped below 10 per year and
was more than 20 in 12 of the 16 years. There has been no discernible overall
trend since 1975, but had all items about human-animal relationships, animal
welfare or animal rights been counted, the trend would clearly have been
upward during the 1980s.

There has been a change, however, in the frequency of the different
types of items as indicated in Figure 2. Over the whole period, the most
common type, 34 per cent of the total, is the letter – the main form of
unsolicited submissions (although decisions about publication are in the
hands of editorial staff). From 1970 to 1980, 45 per cent of all items were
letters, but this fell to 27 per cent during the following 11 years. In
contrast, news items (26 per cent of the total) rose from 16 per cent to
31 per cent over the same period, to become the largest single category
during the 1980s. In the 1970s, many news items were ‘newsworthy’ because
they related to stories first raised in the correspondence column. But during
the 1980s, ‘the animal question’ in research clearly became newsworthy in
its own right – and also the subject of growing interest to publishers.
Between 1970 and 1980, 11 books on the topic were reviewed, compared with
29 between 1981 and 1991.

Overall and in most years, the most frequent theme is legislative control
and regulation, occurring in a third of all items (Figure 3). Almost as
frequent, 30 per cent of all items, are comments, claims and counterclaims
about animal suffering or researchers’ cruelty. In the run-up to the 1986
act, references to ‘alternative’ techniques and to the ‘three Rs’ of reduction,
refinement and replacement and to safety testing (mainly the LD50 test)
were relatively frequent, as the specific content of the legislation was
under discussion. But subsequently they have received less coverage. From
1980 onwards, ethical aspects of animal experimentation were more frequently
referred to. Animal rights arguments and the activities of campaigners
using such arguments received increasing coverage. But so have the ethical
implications of scientific and medical research in general.

For example, since the late 1980s, the moral, social and economic implications
of the genetic manipulation of animals and plants have received extensive
coverage in New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´. Often, the potential for animal suffering, for
social and environmental catastrophe, for commercial exploitation, and questions
about the moral justification and consequences of the new genetics are all
linked in arguments for greater public accountability of science.

The ‘animal question’ arouses strong feelings. This is reflected in
the pages of New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´. Authors explicitly took a stance for or against
some aspect of animal experimentation in 65 per cent of all items (see Figure
4). And in 81 per cent of these (54 per cent of the total) the stance was
more or less critical of some aspect of the practice, at least as currently
organised. Almost a quarter of all items were written by people who identified
themselves as members or officers of organisations committed to opposing
all or most animal experimentation. There were two other categories of critical
pieces: those by individuals without declared activist affiliations which
argued for major change without necessarily complete abolition (17 per cent),
and those which, while explicitly defending at least some experiments, called
for some reforms (13 per cent).

That two-thirds of all items took a stance is not surprising. The search
was designed to identify items which explicitly touched on the controversy.
Nor is it surprising that there are more contributions raising criticisms
or suggesting reforms rather than unqualified defences of animal experimentation.
In any political campaign, it is always the challengers who need to get
their concerns onto the agenda. The letters page of newspapers and journals
can be an important channel for this. In contrast, most reports of animal-based
research can be published without reference to ethical or welfare aspects
of the methods used and are not included in the count here. At the same
time, the status quo and the routine use of animal experimentation in scientific
research are not, in themselves ‘newsworthy’ in journalism. It is controversy
that sells copies and, on this issue, experimenters have rarely intentionally
set out to initiate controversy.

DEFENDING ANIMALS IN THE LABORATORY

The items strongly defending research with animals without qualification
were almost all rebuttals of specific allegations of cruelty, poor science
or unnecessary use of animals: 65 per cent were letters. There were hardly
any general articles defending animal experimentation or its current organisation
in general, or objecting to increased regulation. The two main examples,
by Richard Vine, a former Home Office Chief Inspector (16 September 1976),
and by Sam Shuster, a medical professor (12 January 1978), appeared as responses
to the intense political lobbying of the time. Both pieces generated subsequent
correspondence for and against their claims (10 and 12 items respectively).

The very small number of vigorous defences of animal experimentation
by scientists contrasts with the findings of an analysis of the American
scientific literature between 1965 and 1985 by Mary Philips and Joel Sechzer
in which such defences formed a quarter of all contributions. The difference
might be partly explained by methodological differences between the two
surveys. But it does suggest that rather different political strategies
have been adopted by British and American scientists in the face of increased
animal rights activity, unless New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ has consistently declined to
print such defences. But, as in the American literature, from the mid-1970s
onwards New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ has carried a steady flow of contributions from individual
British scientists who work with animals suggesting that rather more explicit
attention should be paid to the use and treatment of laboratory animals.
For example, the first call in the magazine for ethical committees to oversee
animal research was more than a decade ago, from a research biologist (9
July 1981).

In this sense, the contents of New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ do not indicate simply
a greater polarisation of the views of scientists and their opponents with
the development of the animal rights movement since the mid-1970s, as has
often been claimed. But there has been some polarisation. During the 1970s
and early 1980s, New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ carried many articles, some of them editorials,
about the new constructive relationship that was emerging between researchers
and some of the long-established antivivisection groups, such as the National
Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS). Antivivisectionists were seen as dropping
their more extreme and emotional campaigning in favour of ‘constructive’
discussion about reducing the use of animals, avoiding suffering and promoting
‘alternatives’. Such editorials look very strange when set against the current
campaign for ‘Violence Free Science’ being waged by the militant animal
rights activists who took over NAVS in the mid-1980s. These activities continue
to receive news coverage, but without editorial support. At the same time,
New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ has continued to give space to the activities and views of
the more pragmatic animal welfare campaigners in and outside laboratory
settings.

Since 1970 the number of items coded as ‘neutral’ has increased (see
Figure 4). This reflects the growth in news items during the 1980s. News
items were only coded as ‘taking sides’ if their authors explicitly stated
a position. One third did, almost always critical of some aspect of animal
experimentation as currently organised. Yet, in terms of the impact on readers,
news items are rarely neutral. Simply giving space to reports of, for example,
criticisms of animal-based toxicological tests or to researchers’ moves
to combat animal rights’ campaigns gives them a degree of legitimacy. All
protagonists in the debate may actively seek to shape the news through press
releases, press invitations and so on. Their efforts are mediated through
the efforts of journalists, editors and subeditors.

In the process, the message of descriptive text can be transformed
by the accompanying headlines – ‘Animal models spawn red herrings’ (This
Week, 20 January 1989) or ‘Antivivisectionists threaten research’ (This
Week, 27 October 1977) – or the cover line introducing this series, ‘Animal
experiments in the dock’ (4 April). Illustrations, cartoons and especially
photographs that convey a message on their own, are an important part of
New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´â€™s format, particularly in recent years as printing technology
has improved. Dramatic photographs, purporting to show harrowing experiments
or cage conditions, have long been a feature of antivivisectionist literature
and are widely available. Pictures directly emanating from experimenters
are, in comparison, far fewer in number and more likely to be too bland
for journalistic purposes. Not surprisingly, quite a few of the pictures
used over the years in New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ are from antivivisectionist sources,
along with pictures of animal rights protests. The journalistic need for
‘good’ pictures tends to produce a ‘bias’ in favour of opponents of animal
experimentation in New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ as in the mass media.

What then of the stance of New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ itself in the items emanating
from its own reporters? The magazine has been accused of bias or trivialisation
by scientists on this issue as on many others. Of the 23 free-standing editorials
relating to animal experiments, only two could be described as vigorous
but qualified defences of experimen-tation, or rather as condemnations of
the excesses of animal rights campaigners. Of the rest, 14 clearly called
for changes in current practice, mainly in the direction of the three Rs.
But all those in which the animal experimentation controversy was the main
topic had one common theme: the need for scientists to be more open and
to pursue constructive dialogue with their critics. New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ has promoted
what it has termed a ‘balanced view’, that is to say, accepting the value
(and, implicitly, the necessity) of animal experimentation in the pursuit
of scientific knowledge – a goal to which the magazine is clearly committed
– while also accepting the right of critics to be heard and the legitimacy
of at least some of the criticisms.

This ‘balance’ is reflected in the construction of editorials and news
items by the use of qualifying paragraphs and opposing quotations. A typical
example is a report of a meeting of biomedical scientists to promote the
defence of animal experiments (4 May 1991). The report itself is of the
points made by the scientists, but it is followed by two final paragraphs
on another issue – news about an animal rights group’s charges of incompetence
and improper practice at a major British research establishment. And, the
notion of balance is nicely captured in one illustration used four times
in the past decade: an inquisitive rat peeking out of a laboratory balance.

Such a ‘balanced view’ is not likely to be approved by those who hold
views at either pole in the animal experimentation controversy. It gives
rise to accusations of bias. But such ‘bias’ cannot be wholly explained
as the product of personal views of staff members. Rather, it is largely
the outcome of science journalism in a magazine with the three aims outlined
above.

Calls for openness to debate and reasonableness are an intrinsic aspect
of New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´â€™s role as mediator between public and scientist and as
critic of science. And this call is made to all parties. That humans on
either side of the controversy cannot be relied on to be reasonable is one
of the recurrent themes of the cartoons. As in newspapers generally, even
as emotive a topic as animal experiments is a subject for visual humour
in New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´. Overall, nearly a quarter of items had an illustrative
cartoon. Such cartoons have targeted, and sometimes offended, both experimentalists
and their opponents. Even the dispassionate observations of the ridiculous
human condition by the late Albert the Laboratory Rat came under fire from
one animal rights supporter (Letters 5 May 1988).

New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´â€™s coverage provides a fascinating picture of the changing
course of the controversy over the past two decades. But its coverage
is shaped by its own journalistic vision of what science and scientists
should be like, open to public scrutiny, accountable to its critics – exactly
the charges levied against biomedical research by opponents of animal experi-mentation,
and exactly the behaviour that the threats of violence from militants might
discourage.

Mary Ann Elston is a lecturer in sociology at Royal Holloway and Bedford
New College, University of London. This paper is a shortened version of
one presented at the conference on Science and the Human-animal relationship,
Amsterdam, March 1992. It is based on research carried out under the Science
Policy Study Group/Economic and Social Research Council programme ‘The Changing
Culture of Research’ and funded by the ESRC