The debate over animal research: what signs of change?

The purpose of the paper is to bring some responses to the following questions: 1.How does it come that animal experimentation, non controversial until the mid-seventies, became at that time a major social conflict? The conflict about animal research is compared with three major recurrent social conflicts in the 20th century such as they have been described by U. Beck: conflicts about wealth distribution, conflicts about minorities discrimination and environmental (risk distribution) conflicts. The aim is to identify some commonalities and specificities between these conflicts to get to a better understanding of the debate over animal research and on the generalisability of lessons learnt from the other conflicts. 2.How does it come that the destructive conflict build upon the ethical issue of animal research is still so controversial, despite progress in experimental methodology, regulation and legislation, on the model of the 3Rs in accordance with the expectations and aspirations of a majority of the public (surveys)? Conflict resolution theory and the arguments supported by the parties – controversial facts, mutual distrust and opposing values - explain the destructive course taken by the conflict, its ireversibilisation. 3.What could be done in terms of communication policy of academic researchers to promote more cooperative interests between the parties in conflict? The information/communication policy implemented by advocates of experimental research using animals is questioned. What are the costs and benefits of the statu quo option – a reactive, minimal, rational message – or a proactive and interactive communication? The pros of a statu quo option are the bias for statu quo, the costs of communication (time, competence …) and a critical interpretation of the survey results about social acceptance of animal research. The cons of the statu quo option are the interaction effect between internet, social accessibility, the success of virtual social networks and the effectiveness of rumors in absence of an institutional communication. The risk factor is the uncertainty about resistance to persuasive communication or psychological commitment enhancing techniques. The costs of a proactive communication stem from the uncertainty of its effectiveness since the impact of the message might differ depending on personal circumstances of the receiver as well as on the context of the reception. The benefits are more transparency of the action of different parties to influence in one or another way the regulation system and the opportunity to set animal research on the political agenda of issues to be discussed in a participative way. 4.Are they signs of change in the focus of animal rights activists? Some fifteen years ago, there were first signs in the U.S. that animal activists might refocus on the sufferings of animals used for food. The relationship between a vegan or vegetarian way of life and animal research opposition is systematically questioned (surveys). Still, the results are not clear-cut. In practice, the observation of marches organized lately in Belgium by animal rights activists suggest that both issues are part of their public discourse. Still, this interconnection might be the result of a strategic alignment of animal rights activists who rephrase the conflict by expanding its scope (interessement process). It might also be an indicator of an increasing hybridizing of the animal research debate with the environmental discourse on sustainability. The answers are based on the relevant scientific literature – political sociology, social psychology ..- , the analysis of written written documents - press, books, etc.- or any other – recordings, etc…, internet websites, forums, informal interviews of key persons and participant observation of animal rights activists activities (marches).