Normalising-the-Unthinkable-Report

7.13. Thus, one primary obstacle facing researchers who might otherwise be disinclined to use animals inresearch is the fact that funding and regulatory bodies expect to see certain traditionally used methodologies,rather than ‘new’ or emerging methodologies, or methodologies that funders have not yet seen operationalised.To receive funding, researchers might believe that they must experiment on animal ‘models’, for if they do not,then they risk not being funded, which can have professional and personal consequences. As such, a legitimisingauthority must signify acceptance of and approval for non-animal methods, so that researchers can reasonablyexpect to have their projects funded when their proposed methodology does not involve animals. Regulatorybodies perpetuate the cycle of animal experimentation by mandating that animals be used to test all new drugproduct candidates and by their tendency to hold a higher bar for accepting non-animal methods than animalexperiments.The partiality of the media7.14. Fourth, there is the partiality of the media in reporting and covering issues relating to animals. Animal issuesare often ignored, trivialised, or misrepresented. Despite the fact that there is increasing public concern about theuse of animals in experiments (e.g., European Commission, 2010; Wilke and Saad, 2013), most media reportingand commentary favours the established view that using animals for human purposes is justifiable. Publicunderstanding about animal experimentation is usually gained through media reports about breakthroughsin diagnosis and treatments of a range of feared human diseases. The reports are largely positive or uncritical(Molloy, 2011). A recent study has demonstrated that media reports tend to be overhyped and that this positivespin often originates from the researchers and their institutions (Sumner et al., 2014). In contrast, media reportingabout animal advocates is often negative and critical. Steve Baker observes what he calls a ‘growing hysteria’ inthe media about the dangers of ‘animal rights activism’ (Baker, 1993, p. 196). Although the more recent ecologicalagenda has resulted in elements of the news media wishing to portray a concern for the environment (associatedwith a compassion for animals and worries about abuse and, most usually, species extinction), still the newsmedia seek to convey the message that concern for animals is an extreme position to take (Baker, 1993, p. 206).Thus, the established nature of animal experimentation remains largely unquestioned.7.15. Allied to this is the problem of secrecy. Much of the work that is undertaken in such research is done insecret. This lack of transparency has been of public concern. The Home Office in the UK has announced aconsultation on transparency designed to keep the public informed about animal experimentation (Home Office,2014b). But the critical point remains that without adequate knowledge, the extent and nature of the use ofanimals in laboratories remain largely hidden (see Creamer, 2013, pp. 186–187).The distorting power of language7.16. Fifth, it is worth noting the power of language and the way in which it informs and consolidates our view ofthe use of animals in research. To put it most simply, language use constructs our understanding of the world,giving particular meanings and creating representations of reality (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002). These depictionsof reality may be described as discourses, and embedded in them are ideological understandings of the world.Fairclough describes discourse as a ‘practice of not just representing the world, but of signifying the world,constituting and constructing the world in meaning’ (Fairclough, 1992, p. 64), while Gee explains the importance ofideologies where ‘theories ground beliefs and beliefs lead to actions …’ (Gee, 1996, p. 21).7.17. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa indicated the power of ideologies to subvert andnullify the moral compass of individuals: ‘Ideologies in these sorts of combinations provide the means andgrounds for people to act violently and yet, ironically, believe they are acting in terms of worthy, noble and morallyrighteous principles’ (Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 1998, p. 297).7.18. However, discourses about the world, and the ideologies of these discourses, may not be apparent totheir users. Dominant discourses can simply over time become ‘truth’ – obvious, uncontested common sense(Fairclough, 2001). As Bourdieu notes, this produces the ‘recognition of legitimacy through the misrecognition ofarbitrariness’ (cited in Fairclough, 2001, p. 76).7.19. All of this is to say that language plays a critical role in framing the practice of, and the debate around,animal experimentation. Not only does science, and in particular, experimentation, have its own form of language44 Normalising the Unthinkable: The Ethics of Using Animals in Research