Open transparent communication about animals in laboratories: Dialog for multiple voices and multiple audiences

12Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In this article, I offer insights and proposals to the current movement for increased openness and transparency about animal use in laboratories. Increased transparency cannot be total transparency—as no story or picture can ever be complete. When research advocates share their stories, they must decide which words and pictures to edit out. I ask here: Who of the listening “public” gets a chance to revisit this editing, and find the information that is important to them? To the extent that (what I call) the “new openness” attempts to speak to a “lay public” and exclude animal activists, I suggest that refinement-focused animal protectionists deserve enhanced avenues of openness and inclusion—which some research advocates might fear giving to more extreme activists and which a less invested “lay public” may not want or need. I conclude with some specific examples and suggestions to not just invite inquiry from animal advocates, but to bring them in as witnesses and participants, to learn from and incorporate their concerns, priorities, expertise, and suggestions. This can bring a diversity of ideas and values that could improve the quality of science, the credibility of animal researchers, and the welfare of the animals in laboratories.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Carbone, L. (2021, February 1). Open transparent communication about animals in laboratories: Dialog for multiple voices and multiple audiences. Animals. MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020368

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free