The Case for Communication
By Jayne Mackta

Countering the Animal Activists' Media War Againast Research

Why should busy lab animal professionals become embroiled in the increasingly bitter debate about animal use? The Executive Director of NJABR makes the case for communicating about animal research and provides strategies for countering the animal activists' media war against animal research.

This article appeared in Lab Animal, February 2000

The letter arrived in a plain white envelope that was hand-addressed and obviously written by a child. At first glance, it seemed similar to thousands of requests for information received by organizations that promote the benefits of biomedical research like the New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research. This letter, however, was different. In two simple sentences, the writer conveyed the animal rights movement's success in shaping the terms of the use of animals in research.

"I am writing a report on animal abuse. Please send me materials about what you do."

We can deal with such a letter in several ways. We can attempt to put the request into context. We can puzzle over the writer's motivation. We can dismiss the implied accusation that animal research is the same as animal abuse as childish confusion based on a pervasive lack of understanding of bioscience. We can write it off as a nuisance. We can file it, rip it up, or add it to the growing pile of letters from school children, who may or may not be writing as part of an organized school-based activity. Or, we can pay attention to the letter's message - that the research community has done a poor job of communicating about what it does.

The Message

Animal activists have filled the void. Taking advantage of the silence, they have wooed and won millions of people, who, knowingly or unknowingly, have become important players in a serious game of words.

Consequently, several generations have absorbed the carefully crafted, socially charged messages that often resonate with the young, compassionate, and idealistic. The images animal activists show to the public are horror stories. The messengers are everywhere - they are parents, teachers, politicians, movie stars, musicians, friends, and sometimes even us. Who doesn't want a kinder, gentler world? Who doesn't want to eliminate pain and suffering? Who among us does not abhor exploitation of the weak and helpless?

Yet, when asked, most people don't immediately equate animal research with such commendable goals as saving lives, improving health, or even protecting endangered species. Despite all the arguments to the contrary, much of the public believes that the process is inherently cruel and the people involved in such an immoral enterprise, by extension, are unfeeling, abusive, and basically bad. Continuing the metaphor of gamesmanship (which in no way diminishes the critical importance of the topic), the research community is at a real disadvantage. We play by different rules, and we have different goals. For us, the primary objective is the elimination of diseases that affect people and animals. For animal activists, it is the total elimination of animal use for human or animal benefit. Every vegan is a potential superstar, who brings a coherent philosophical commitment into play. No venue is out-of-bounds - the schoolroom, the dinner table, magazines, talk shows, rock concerts, or cyberspace are all available arenas.

Researchers In a Bind

Animal activists have simplicity on their side. Any surface can serve to promote their position, be it a billboard, tee shirt, bumper sticker, coffee cup, or label. The messages are often graphic and succinct: "cruelty-free" and, in a red circle with a line through it "stop animal testing."

Activists are playing an increasingly aggressive game. They attack and attack and attack. The success of each skirmish, whether an attack against furriers, McDonald's, Procter & Gamble, or primate research centers, is an advance. Every time a scientist comes out of the lab to defend animal use, the distraction benefits the opposition because it slows down medical progress.

Ironically, researchers who have the courage to get into the game may find themselves caught in a bind because communicating about animal research is not always valued by institutions engaged in the race for a cure. Subsequently, the animal research community is constantly on the defensive, but never has a full team. All too frequently, those communicating about research are isolated from the rest of the animal research community, lacking sufficient corporate sponsorship and loyal fans.

Given the critical importance of communicating more effectively, it is essential that the entire research community take time out to examine the use of language as an effective strategy for winning public support. Every time we use the term animal "rights," for example, we acknowledge the tremendous gains made by the movement in advancing its ultimate agenda, and validate an interpretation of the concept of "rights" that essentially equates human and nonhuman animals.

Activist efforts to change the status of animals from property to personhood under the law demonstrate a sophisticated understanding that language leads the law. Organizations like In Defense of Animals have made progress on this front by challenging the notion of pets. Likening pets to slaves, true animal lovers now have "companions." And by seeking to change the language used in city ordinances to describe an animal's human companion from pet owner to "guardian," the San Francisco (CA) Commission of Animal Control and Welfare is responding to pressures that carry the weight of growing public sympathies. According to The Animal Policy Report published by the Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, "Both opponents and proponents of the new language recognize that this is not simply political correctness, but a small step in a larger, very serious effort to ultimately change the status of animals. A seemingly simple semantic difference may be the first step towards a moral, and ultimately legal, change in the status of nonhuman animals." [Reference: Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, Center for Animals and Public Policy. The Animal Policy Report; 13(4):3, 1999.]

In a much more subtle semantic play, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has sponsored a bill to protect nonhuman animals traveling by air, which, if passed, will go a long way towards breaking down distinctions among species. Promoted by the Humane Society of the US and The Fund for Animals, the Lautenberg Amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Bill declares that, "it is inappropriate for animals transported by air to be treated as baggage." The implications of this statement are that if animals flying on airplanes are not baggage (i.e., property), then they must be passengers (i.e., people).

The Lesson for Researchers

If there is a lesson to be learned about communicating the importance of animal research, it must be taken from the successful marketing of animal rights. Animal activists of every persuasion have coopted the terms "caring" and "compassionate." They have pitted the big, cold, greedy scientific establishment against the innocent, helpless bunny, kitty, or pup. They have reduced the issue to a simple, highly visceral mantra: "Animal Research is cruel." Over and over they chant, "See the evil scientists make the cute, little animals suffer."

As a community, we must engage more seriously in what has escalated into a war of words. We must examine our messages and invest time, money, and moral support in our messengers. Perhaps most important, we must change the terms of the debate by refusing to be vilified and made the Goliath in a battle we should not be fighting. It is not "Us" against "Bunnies." It's "Us" against "Diseases that kill or disable." Clearly, we need to regroup and concentrate on enlisting public support for our war against disease and our fight to eliminate pain and suffering.

Given the amount of ground we have lost, can we reclaim the moral high road? Can we restore public confidence in the process and the people? If so, how?

Begin in the Labs

The place to begin is in our laboratories. Each and everyone who plays any part in animal research must assume responsibility for assuring that we maintain the highest possible animal care standards in all of our institutions. We must strive to do the right thing in the right way for the right reason. Our credibility, as well as our success, depends upon it.

Once we have each achieved a personal comfort level with regard to the care and treatment of the animals we are privileged to use, we can begin telling the success stories of biomedical research whenever we can, to whomever will listen. To be successful, we must approach our storytelling with confidence, and engage in an honest dialog, unlike the public relations game that the animal activists play, often using one-liners and sound-bites.

Storytelling is a wonderful way to transmit information. It is, according to Richard Saul Wurman, author of Information Anxiety, a highly effective communications tool for making facts come alive. Stories, he counsels, "permit information to be imprinted into memory. They encourage the application of information and that is what gives it meaning." [reference: Wurman, R.S. Information Anxiety. Bantam Books, New York, 1990, p. 236.]

The use of stories to educate is not new. Storytelling precedes recorded history and has survived the advances in communications technology from the pen to the microchip. Parables, allegories, and personal testimonies all serve to capture the attention of the audience and stimulate connections. And when people feel connected, they begin to have an investment, a stake in the story itself.

The history of biomedical research is rich with memorable stories that can be told to audiences of any number and almost any age. They are an adaptable medium, as suitable for a classroom presentation as for a web page. People love a good yarn with a happy ending, and animal research offers countless stories that contain the essential elements: drama, tragedy, mystery, serendipity, and heroes and heroines who are curious, courageous, persistent, and not afraid to fail. Jonas Salk, for example, is said to have spent 98 percent of his time documenting the things that didn't work until he found the thing that did.

The stories we choose to tell should convey the excitement of the search and tap into that most primal of human desires: to be healthy. Let hope be the constant theme that animates all our stories and serves to give them meaning. Central to every single story, however, must be a positive yet simple statement celebrating the role of animals in the process.

The Power of Story

The power of story has been proven time and again. Look at the effective media campaigns currently being waged by both the plastics and pharmaceutical manufacturers to improve their public image. Both use potent human vignettes that touch people, with simple messages that speak directly to basic human concerns. They are positive, in essence saying, "Look! What we are doing is good for you and those you care about." They don't ask the audience to make unpalatable choices between their pet and their baby. They don't attack competitors, thus projecting an image of unity and commitment to the general good. The images are positive like a happy child wearing a bicycle helmet or a cuddly grandma who has survived cancer. The subtext is clear: the companies and the people who produce these products are benevolent. They care. They are compassionate, and we all benefit.

Allow the public to see the real, human faces and voices of animal research. To each lab animal professional, remember why you work in research - because you love animals, and your job is to ensure that, for the animals' sake, the highest possible standards are used, and your work is directed toward doing good, not harm. And then incorporate your reasons into how you talk with both other animal care professionals and the public.

Some may believe that animal research is facing a communications crisis, but remember that the game is not over until it's over. Let's grab the ball and run with it. Let's use every opportunity to score points with the public. We may have to do some team-building; morale is pretty low. But once we agree on a strategy and put it into play, there will be no stopping us. And soon, the fan mail will start to pour in. This "thank you" letter from a 7th grade student says it all:

Dear Animal Researcher: I admire your dedication. Your ability to help people is really amazing. I hope one day to be someone like you. You have saved many lives. Thank you.

Jayne Mackta is the Executive Director of NJABR