In the early 2000s, science was facing a “crisis of trust” in the UK, following the outbreak of ‘mad cow disease’ and rapid advances in genetically modified crops, biotechnology and computing.
Animal research became a focus of community frustration, with Nature reporting “attacks on facilities, assaults on lab staff and a distinct lack of public support”.
Science communicator Bella Lear was working with Understanding Animal Research at the time, a UK organisation established to explain why animals are used in science.
Lear says the veil of secrecy surrounding animal research was fuelling public suspicion and distrust.
“[Institutions] weren’t talking to the press, weren’t publicly admitting that they used animals in research, weren’t really talking to anybody,” she says.
Out of the crisis came a radical rethink, and an ‘openness’ framework now adopted in 10 countries, most recently New Zealand and Australia.
In May 2014, following lengthy negotiations, the ‘UK Concordat on Openness on Animal Research’ was launched with an initial 72 signatories across the life sciences sector. That number has since grown to more than 125.
Signatories voluntarily commit to being “clear about when, how and why” they use animals in research, to engage with media and the public, and to report annually.
This year marks the 10th anniversary of that dramatic volte-face.
Ten years, 10 countries. The apparent global success of ‘openness’ in the controversial area of animal research begs many questions and is not without its critics. What makes the case so compelling? Has public opinion shifted? And what – if anything – does it mean for the animals involved?
A change of heart in the UK
In the UK, waning support for animal research was a crucial driver for change.
A tracking poll by Ipsos MORI (1999-2014) revealed declining public acceptance of using animals in medical research from 76% in 2010 to 66% in 2012, and then 64% in 2014.
“Some of that fall could be explained by other factors — distrust in government, distrust in science for all sorts of reasons tended to correlate with that kind of a shift. But it looked like more than that,” Lear says.
Lear, now CEO of Understanding Animal Research Oceania, argued for a change of approach. She became a key player in developing the Concordat.
“Scientists were not a completely separate beast to the rest of the community … there needed to be a journey that involved the public, governments and scientists creating a future together.”
Understanding Animal Research wasn’t alone in “evangelising” greater transparency as an antidote to science’s woes, Lear says. Fiona Fox at the Science Media Centre had been championing openness, along with other institutional leaders and communicators.
In 2012, a first step: 40 bioscience organisations announced plans to work towards greater transparency, by developing “principles of openness, practical steps and measurable objectives”.
Lear says English medical scientist Sir Mark Walport, then the chief executive of the Wellcome Trust, was influential in transforming what was initially going to be a lighter-touch approach into a more deliberative, consultative process.
Incoming CEO of Understanding Animal Research Wendy Jarrett brought together diverse stakeholders, often with viciously conflicting views — researchers, patients, the media, and veterinarians — into steering and working groups.
Greater transparency was one of the few things warring parties could agree on, albeit with different motivations: animal protection groups saw it as a counter to secrecy; researchers, to correct misinformation; and governments, to build trust in science and institutions.
For Lear personally, the Concordat was simply about ‘openness’, providing the public with insight into the science happening behind closed doors, and allowing them to make up their own minds.
It was — and remains — a voluntary approach, designed to be “inclusive rather than exclusive”, Lear says. Although she acknowledges the animal protection community would have preferred a more “audit heavy” approach based on regulation and enforcement.
Found favour around the globe
The UK’s Concordat emerged in response to a crisis. Yet the model has found favour in more pacific circumstances.
In 2021, New Zealand became the first country outside Europe to launch its own openness agreement, led by the local branch of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART).
“While there have been protests from animal activists, there’s never been any threats of violence in the New Zealand context,” says Dr Marc Rands, executive officer for the ANZCCART (NZ) board.
Conversations kicked off in New Zealand almost immediately after the Concordat was launched. In part because ANZCCART’s 2014 conference was held in Queenstown, New Zealand mere months later and included a presentation on the approach.
Once they started pursuing the idea in earnest, Rands says the process took about five years.
From a New Zealand perspective, the advantages were improving public understanding, collaboration and social licence.
“There’s a big gap in information that the general public has about the use of animals,” ANZCCART chair, Emeritus Professor Pat Cragg says.
Arnja Dale is the chief scientific officer at animal welfare charity The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. She’s the deputy chair of ANZCCART New Zealand and worked alongside Rands in developing the local accord.
Dale says breaking down barriers to understanding is positive, enabling people to “understand what actually happens, why and how the welfare of the animals is looked after, and how the system actually works.”
Although modelled on the Concordat, New Zealand’s agreement includes unique elements. One is a commitment to engaging with Māori, especially where research and teaching involve taonga — or, culturally significant — species. Their approach also includes teaching, in addition to research.
Since launch, the initial group of 21 signatories has grown to 30 and encompasses all of New Zealand’s universities.
Australia’s commitment
Last year Australia launched its own openness agreement, becoming the 10th and most recent country to adopt the model.
Australia’s agreement follows New Zealand by including teaching but doesn’t include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives.
Dr Malcolm France, a veterinarian with experience in animal research and welfare, is working with ANZCCART in developing the Australian agreement.
France says when he first encountered the concept he was initially apprehensive, fearing that drawing attention to animal research might lead to more extreme activist tactics.
“I’ve since very much moved on from that view,” he says. “I’m now really firmly of the view that the research community has to be more open.”
“Transparency is an expectation in every other aspect of public administration, why shouldn’t organizations be transparent about how they spend taxpayers’ and philanthropists’ money on the research that they do,” he says.
Australia’s model might be “almost identical” to the Concordat, yet required years in development — socialising the concept within the research community, building trust, and dispelling concerns about administration, activism, and reputational risk.
In August 2023, 32 institutions and organisations were the first to sign the Australian openness agreement, including the CSIRO, several universities, pharmaceutical companies and medical research institutes.
That number has now grown to more than 40.
Plenty of gaps remain, which France is working on. Only a third of Australian universities have signed up, and a selection of medical research institutes.
But he doesn’t believe in naming and shaming. “Without wanting to sound too corny, I think it has to come from the heart,” he says.
France says the agreement also provides an opportunity for the animal research sector to engage more with animal protection groups, to better understand their point of view.
Transparency means different things to different stakeholders
Rachel Smith is the CEO of the not-for-profit organisation Animal Free Science Advocacy, which supports greater transparency in animal research.
“Without transparency, it’s not possible to have informed discussions about the use of animals in research and teaching,” she says.
More data and information would enable greater scrutiny of the regulatory system and compliance by institutions, she says.
Animal Free Science Advocacy calls for measures like amending laws and policies to support information disclosure, requiring publication of reports from institutions and funding bodies and improving whistle-blower protections.
Will the Openness Agreement address these issues? Smith says “We don’t expect it to remove all the obstacles that we face, but it’s a starting point.”
She hopes institutions will take their commitment seriously and won’t use it as a propaganda exercise.
Smith’s organisation is also calling for a national system of reporting on animal use in Australia. Something similar to the European Union’s system ALURES, or the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal Care Public Search Tool.
They are not alone, others including the CSIRO also advocate for national data collection to track progress. For instance, UK national statistics show a consistent decline in the number of procedures involving living animals in the past decade.
New Zealand too is a step ahead with national reporting.
Tara Jackson is the executive director of the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society (or, NZAVS), an organisation that campaigns against experimenting on animals.
Jackson says there was already a unique consultative culture in the New Zealand government which contributed to the development of national statistics. She is sceptical about whether the openness agreement made any additional impact.
Has openness delivered?
While the goal of the Concordat-like frameworks is chiefly around communication and public understanding, some hope the animals at the centre might benefit.
Smith is unsure whether conditions will improve for animals as a result of the openness agreement, but she’s hopeful more research and data on adverse incidents, or animals harmed and killed, might encourage better standards, a reduction in the numbers, or funding for rehoming programs.
France says whether ‘openness’ amounts to sharing photos or information on a website, or opening up facility tours, he expects institutions might be inclined to make sure animal welfare standards are as high as possible.
Has the openness agreement achieved its aims to improve understanding and public opinion of animal research?
Some researchers have questioned the level of ‘selective openness’, and whether signatories are as equally committed to sharing negative or controversial aspects of animal research, as they are positive developments.
It’s early days in Australia and New Zealand. But 10 years on in the UK public polling gives some hints.
While it’s likely COVID-19 has influenced attitudes in more recent years, the most recent Ipsos MORI tracking poll from 2018 suggests public acceptance remained relatively stable. Results show 65% agreed: “I can accept the use of animals in scientific research as long as it’s for medical research purposes and there is no alternative”.
Even so, support for an outright ban has grown, with more than a quarter (27%) supporting a ban on all forms of animal research.
Meanwhile ‘secrecy’ remained the primary characteristic the public attributes to animal research organisations (41% in 2018).
For Lear, the measure of success remains the enormous amount of information about animal research that’s now in the public domain, which was previously “kept under lock and key”.
“It’s amazing to me how far we’ve come. For ages, people had filing cabinets full of all this stuff that they would never put online in case somebody found it. It’s incredible to me now that they’re not worried about that.”
READ MORE:
Meet the Egyptian spiny mouse: this menstruating rodent may help us understand human pregnancy
