Effective Communication with the General Public About Scientific Research That Requires the Care and Use of Animals: Proceedings of a Workshop (2024)
Chapter: Challenges and Opportunities in Communicating About Research Activities Involving Animals
Challenges and Opportunities in Communicating About Research Activities Involving Animals
Understanding the processes and outcomes of scientific research is in the public interest. Communicating about scientific discovery can help to improve public understanding and inform decision making, yet researchers, institutions, journalists, government bodies, and members of the public all encounter challenges in facilitating effective communication. To explore opportunities to address these challenges and communicate effectively about a variety of pertinent issues, speakers drew on their own experiences along with scientific developments, case studies, and scholarly literature on topics such as ethics and science communication to share insights and suggestions for action to advance meaningful public dialogue.
EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSING INADEQUATELY COMMUNICATED TOPICS
Allyson Bennett, University of Wisconsin–Madison, discussed ways in which the public engages with scientific information and opportunities for scientists to better meet the public’s needs through effective communication. In considering how to improve science communication, she said that it is important to start with the goal in mind. Effective communication can help to inform decision making by facilitating an informed dialogue through which people can navigate ethical dilemmas with knowledge of the likely consequences of choices and decisions. Ultimately, the decisions made through these processes influence how a society tackles current and future challenges in areas such as global health.
To facilitate informed dialogue, Bennett said, it is critical to understand that the public makes decisions based on personal values, interests, ethics, and perceived outcomes—not facts alone. Information is necessary but not sufficient to build understanding; as a result, merely providing information about research with animals, which is already widely available, will likely not improve understanding or decision making (Bennett and Panicker, 2022). Rather, she posited that what scientists can uniquely contribute is insight into the likely consequences of different developments or choices, “connecting the dots” between research and what is important to the public. She suggested that scientists could better fill this role by sharing accurate, timely information that not only resonates emotionally with the public and connects with their interests but also communicates the potential consequences for science, medicine, and policy.
Context is important to facilitating a deeper public understanding of science. Bennett noted that although the public is perhaps most attuned to what appears on the surface to be a series of fast-paced medical breakthroughs, the reality is that scientific breakthroughs emerge from dynamic and unpredictable processes that often unfold over decades. For example, scientists developed COVID-19 vaccines extremely quickly, but their ability to do so was built on research, including research with animals, that began in the 1970s (Krammer, 2020; Varholick, 2021). Other advances—the discovery of insulin, the polio vaccine, and treatments for AIDS/HIV, for example, have transformed what were once global health scourges into manageable conditions in many cases, dramatically changing the course of human and animal health (Bennett et al., 2022; Goodall, 2010; NIAID, 2024; Ringach, 2011). These achievements, which all involved work with animals at some point in their decades-long histories of research, have yielded benefits that extend beyond national borders and investments, improving health in countries that do not or cannot fund research with animals.
Negative messages about research with animals often portray basic research as useless or failing when no clear, ready-to-deploy medicine or intervention is available at the end of a study. What this framing fails to capture, Bennett said, is that many scientific breakthroughs come from lines of investigation that stop and start multiple times over many years, combining and building as new techniques and findings emerge
across disciplines. She suggested that scientists could help to convey this context by emphasizing the important role of research with animals in the pipeline from basic science to drug discoveries to curing diseases, as well as the reality that the eventual benefits of a particular line of research or study finding will often not be known for many years (Bennett, 2013). Another, more concrete way to increase the visibility of the role and impact of research with animals, she suggested, could be to update medication labels to clearly indicate whether animals were involved (Speaking of Research, 2012). Bennett noted an ethical responsibility to implement such labeling for transparency, so that people can make choices about what drugs or vaccines to use based on their values and beliefs.
It is also illuminating to consider how views and laws regarding the rights of humans in research, such as autonomy, consent, privacy, and confidentiality, compare with those for research with animals. Bennett noted that our society recognizes in its laws and regulatory principles that nonhuman animals are to be recipients of moral consideration—that is, their welfare and well-being matter, and structures such as IACUCs are charged with upholding that consideration—but does not afford them all of the same rights as humans. The histories of considerations for human and nonhuman research subjects are deeply intertwined, and Bennett posited that a greater awareness of the values and structures that govern scientific practices and oversight, and how these have evolved and continue to evolve, could help people to better understand the ethical principles, perceived benefits, and perceived risks or harms related to research involving animals and take those into account as they make decisions about it.
COMMUNICATING ABOUT ETHICS
Adam Shriver, Drake University, highlighted the role of values in communicating about the ethics of research with animals. He started with an informal poll of participants, asking whether the acceptability of research with animals depends on what is to be gained from the research. More participants indicated that whether it is right or wrong is independent of the consequences of it than felt that it may be ethically permissible if the benefits outweigh the harms. Research with animals raises difficult ethical questions, and Shriver stressed that it is important to recognize that difficulty and communicate about it. One reason it is challenging to communicate about ethics is that, in part, it requires applying basic philosophical approaches, which have been in place over centuries, for questions that do not have a straight path to a universally accepted answer. Fundamentally, questions about research ethics are questions about values, with conclusions often based on differing values and not necessarily differing facts. Although scientists may strive to make decisions that are objective and not based in emotion, the practice of science is not value free, Shriver said, and it is important for scientists and nonscientists to examine those values to inform ethical decisions. If two people disagree about values, that cannot be solved by explaining the facts or educating and does not necessarily mean that one person’s judgment is clouded by emotion. In facing the messy, uncertain, and often difficult ethical questions related to research with animals, he said that it is important for scientists to acknowledge, examine, communicate, and continually revisit these questions with awareness of the values that inform them. “If you think that you’re engaging in a value-free practice of science, what you are actually doing is engaging in science where the values are unexamined,” said Shriver, “We need to be aware of the different sets of values that people have and be willing to engage with those different values.”
To understand differences in values, it can be useful to draw upon moral theory, the study of what people base decisions on about right versus wrong and good versus bad. One such basis is consequentialism, which suggests that if the overall consequences are good, then the action is right. Many people view research with animals in this way. If they believe instead that taking a life in any circumstance is wrong, they will conclude that any research that involves euthanasia is wrong, a nonconsequentialist approach. For research with humans, modern bioethics takes a decidedly nonconsequentialist view, he said, holding that some practices, such as conducting studies without informed consent, are not acceptable no matter what the potential outcomes are. Shriver noted that it is likely rare for any individual to take a purely consequentialist or nonconsequentialist approach, with many people combining them, such as concluding that some activities are absolutely unacceptable regardless of the potential benefits but others may be acceptable if the potential benefits are great enough.
Values held by society influence what scientists study, what research gets funded, and what regulations legislators pass. These affect what is taken into consideration when applying consequentialism to research with animals. For example, the character and intentions of those interacting with the animals may be important, weight may be assigned differently to the lives and experiences of different species, and potential future aggregate benefits relative to known current individual harms may need to be calculated (Schukraft, 2020). Shriver also noted that people have different approaches to the importance of certainty in their perceptions of the world. Some confidently believe in one correct way to proceed and intend to win arguments. Others are more questioning; they acknowledge different views, hope to understand others’ values, and are more interested in seeking the ultimate truth than winning the argument. Effective communication with people with these different styles can require patience and empathy. Shriver suggested that scientists can embrace the messiness of ethical questions around research with animals, approach challenging questions thoughtfully, and demonstrate that it is worth taking these questions seriously.
COMMUNICATING ABOUT NAMS
Lisa Hara Levin, Coridea, discussed opportunities to improve public understanding and dialogue around animal models by advancing research and communication about “NAMs,” an acronym that has been defined as “nonanimal models,” “new alternative methodologies,” “new approach methods,” and various other terms that describe novel methods that, once proven effective, granted regulatory approval, and implemented, could reduce or replace the need for animals in research. In this workshop, the acronym included all of these definitions.
Just like the animal models they may eventually replace, NAMs have limitations in reproducibility, disease modeling, and translation of results to humans. Levin said that an intentional, multistakeholder approach is needed to map out where NAMs can best fit into the research landscape and guide next steps. Interested parties include scientists who work with NAMs or animal models, government regulators and funding agencies, venture capitalists and philanthropists, animal protection and research advocates, institutional oversight committees and administrators, medical and animal ethicists, and patient advocacy groups.
To allow different perspectives and voices to be heard as the field evolves, Levin underscored the urgent need for collaborative conversations of core beliefs, present actions, and best uses of NAMs: “We need to do that now, and we need to do it well,” she said. She added that such conversations can improve the public’s understanding of the role both NAMs and animal models play in drug development and safety testing and enable scientists to develop an evidence base for integrating partial or full replacement of research with animals. In addition, Levin added that multistakeholder, collaborative roundtable discussions would be useful for examining other issues related to research with animals, as shifts in public opinion can lead to changes in the regulatory landscape more broadly (Animal Welfare Act1; Russell and Burch, 1959). She said that one reason these conversations are not happening is that those with more nuanced perspectives are afraid to speak up in the face of the intensity that those with more polarized views have often brought to communication about these issues.
To move from reducing and refining animal models to fully replacing them likely involves rigorous comparisons demonstrating the reliability of the specific NAMs and elucidating their advantages and disadvantages. Emphasizing the importance of providing the structures and supports to allow this work to proceed, Levin said that scientists have a responsibility to demonstrate that NAMs are being developed with all due speed, while also showing that animals used for comparison studies are properly attended to by people who care about their welfare. To enhance communication, build trust, and facilitate greater public understanding of NAMs, she also suggested that scientists can provide simplified explanations of NAMs and how they are being developed, their limitations and advantages, and a clear timeline of the transition once they have been proven reliable enough for wider implementation (Levin and Muglia, 2022). NAMs
___________________
1 Information on the act is available in the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library, see https://www.nal.usda.gov/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare-act (accessed March 13, 2024).
of human origin, such as organoids or chimeras, will also require additional involvement from institutional review boards, ethicists, and patient advocacy groups.
One way for scientists to engage in these conversations, including with people who are concerned about animal welfare, is to proactively invite the public to engage with their work, such as at the annual Biomedical Research Awareness Day (Americans for Medical Progress, n.d.), an event that encourages openness between scientists and the public. In striving to facilitate open communication, Levin suggested, scientists could focus on cultivating patience, anticipate likely questions, and be prepared to speak about why they use certain research methods and how they ensure their methods are medically sound and humane.
COMMUNICATING ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Logan France, Americans for Medical Progress, discussed how scientists can use social media platforms, such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and LinkedIn, to communicate with the public about research with animals. Recognizing the commonalities and differences of these platforms—for example, how they employ algorithms, hashtags, and tagging; features for business versus personal accounts; and approaches to editing and sharing—can help scientists effectively develop and share relevant, engaging content to counter misconceptions and offer their perspectives.
One simple method to start on social media is to repost content shared by other organizations, such as research laboratories, Americans for Medical Progress, and the American Veterinary Medical Association. Scientists can also use these posts as inspiration for their own content. France said that, in general, whether supporting a colleague’s research or highlighting their own, it is helpful to focus on the animals, connect to the research goals, and create content that is visually engaging. Multiple resources can help scientists craft images, schedule posts, and track impacts for social content.
Scientists can also use social media to engage in dialogue, such as by asking a direct question or inviting followers to share personal stories. For example, if followers mention a specific disease or medical condition, a scientist could highlight the contribution of research with animals to developing treatments or cures.
To increase the reach and impact of messages about research with animals, France said it is important to recognize differences in the platforms’ audiences, understand their different limitations, and post positive content that is easy to access. It is also important to fully read an article or closely review a resource before sharing it, to avoid inadvertently sharing misleading or unproductive content. France suggested that scientists can be successful by posting more positive than negative content, using images that present research positively, and keeping posts short.
Recognizing that not all social media interactions are going to be positive, France suggested that scientists or institutions that have been targeted by activists can still productively use social media to highlight positive research with animals’ stories and do not necessarily benefit from silencing themselves for fear of inevitable negative comments. She said that the best way to respond to negative reactions may vary depending on whether it seems as if productive dialogue is possible; if not, it may be reasonable to block or hide reactions from particular accounts.
