Recently, we found ourselves discussing how to respond to the news story that a group of German scientists was planning a pro-animal testing lobbying and media campaign, to be launched on World Day for Laboratory Animals, a day intended to commemorate the animals used in laboratories around the world.

There were many in our team and beyond who felt that this was cynical, disingenuous, and utterly inappropriate, and should be called out. Others said it’s just a new face on an old game, and we don’t need to get involved. The conversation, however, made me reflect on the perceived position of different organisations and perspectives, in particular the juxtaposition that we sometimes see of “science” vs “values”. What follows are my rambling thoughts on the power of language and how hard it is to move past these oppositional dynamics.

Them and us

This false oppositional narrative plays out time and again in discussions about animal research. Because animal research is something that is largely unpopular with the public (even those who might consider it necessary), there are organisations whose business it is to provide advice to establishments on how to communicate their research more positively to the public. In many instances, this results in articles on “myth-busting” or “debunking” or other claims to factual knowledge and authority. There is careful positioning of these messages as information which is evidence-based, backed by scientists, and providing confidence in the status quo.

Disagreement with such rhetoric tends to conversely be painted as “emotional” or “ethically or morally” driven. Those who question information can be patronised and assumed not to understand the complexities of scientific discovery, or to be cherry-picking research to support a moral position.

The devil in the detail

However, obviously, nothing is as black and white as this “scientists” vs “animal advocates” face-off implies. Growing evidence for the predictive validity of human-based approaches has gone hand in hand with increased investment in these, and many scientists now use a combination of methods in their research, whether they have a goal of full replacement or not. But because moving away from or phasing out animal use is still an argument that runs counter to the prevailing wisdom that animal use is necessary, it continues to be labelled as “lobbying” or “campaigning”, and as such is implicitly or explicitly considered to be biased. As a result, the information is subconsciously devalued.

In contrast, information in support of animal research is considered to be value-free and without an agenda, despite the fact that organisations exist whose sole function it is to promote the value of animal research, and the fact that there are millions of pounds worth of equipment, and thousands of jobs invested in the sector. No-one with skin in the game can truly say they are unbiased. I would argue that their position is just more obscured by being considered “business as usual”. It is, however, no less of a position, and the information put out is just as much about lobbying for a particular outcome – in this case, greater public acceptance of the need for animal research and consequent ongoing funding.

The hidden truth

I wonder if by this point you are as bored and tired of the futility of this “us” vs “them” game as I am? It is almost impossible to talk about this without ending up using terms such as “sides”, “divide” or similar. But the irony, the elephant in the room, the emperor’s new clothes, is that WE ALL WANT THE SAME THING.

No-one, not a single person, who uses animals in research WANTS to cause suffering to an animal if there is another way of achieving their objective. We disagree on:

• The rate at which change is possible
• The methods of achieving it
• What different approaches will be able to achieve in the future
• The urgency with which the issue should be addressed
• Our moral values about animal and human suffering

…and many, many other things. But at the root of it, we all want to see a world in which animals are not used in science. Even those who don’t believe it to be possible would still want to see it if it were.

Positioning ourselves against each other prevents us from seeing this and stops us from moving forward. It is a distraction. There is more that unites us than divides, and we need to focus on action that takes us towards our goal, not on ‘otherising’ those with different perspectives.

For that reason, we didn’t end up officially commenting on the article. We’ve got better things to do.