Some animal researchers don't even tell their own families about their work for fear of attack by extremists. But at last, some are beginning to speak out

Susan (not her real name) is not just ex-directory. The name she is known by at work cannot be found on the electoral roll, and she has done her best to delete it from mailing lists of all kinds. As an animal researcher, you can't be too careful, she says.

Most of her family do not know exactly how she has spent the past 17 years in the lab. "I wish I could be more open about it. I wish I had the courage to be," she says. "I would love to tell people the fascinating things I have found out through my research. But some people will never understand my work, however much I might justify it as ultimately helping humans." Now that Susan is a mother of two, she is even more careful to ensure animal rights activists do not get their hands on her contact details.

Jackie (also not her real name) will not read any scientific paper on animal research on the tube, or talk about her rodent experiments outside her home. "You don't know who might be sitting at the next table. I don't want to put those I am close to in a potentially dangerous position," she says. "I have been doing animal-based pharmacology research for 30 years, and have always been advised to be cautious about whom I talk to."

Nervous colleagues

Then there is Julian (again, not his real name), whose colleagues are nervous about sixth-formers on work experience in his university lab. "They want to know as much about the school the teenagers come from as possible. They say they are worried that their personal details, and information about our experiments with mice, will be passed on to potentially dangerous sources."

Life as an animal researcher can be lonely and punctuated with paranoia.

The Research Defence Society (RDS) is a non-governmental organisation representing UK medical researchers in the public debate about the use of animals in medical research and testing. It advises those concerned about attacks by animal rights activists on how they can make sure their phone numbers are ex-directory, and suggests that they check their credit report has not been looked at by suspicious organisations. The society also tells scientists how they can remove their names from the electoral roll and marketing lists.

In 2004, an animal rights website listed the home addresses and phone numbers of Oxford University staff, to protest against an animal-testing laboratory the university is building. A year later, animal rights activists claimed responsibility for an arson attack aimed at intimidating those behind the plans for the lab.

John Stein, an Oxford physiology professor whose research has involved recording the brain activity of monkeys, has received death threats and threatening letters from activists.

Letter bombs

When Colin Blakemore, chief executive officer of the Medical Research Council, was an Oxford University professor, he had missiles thrown through the windows of his home and was sent letter bombs. One, containing explosives wrapped with needles, was opened by one of his children.

Professor Sir Nicholas Wright, the warden of Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, who has been at the forefront of medical research for more than 30 years, has also received death threats. His car and home have had to be protected.

Cambridge University scientists had their cars vandalised and received abusive emails from animal rights activists five years ago over plans that were later shelved to build a primate laboratory.

Just three years ago, according to the RDS, only a handful of animal researchers were willing to talk openly about their work. But the tide is changing and today, at least 100 are ready to speak and be named.

A previously unpublished RDS survey reveals that just two out of 60 individuals who spoke about their work in national newspapers in 2004 and 2005 attracted threats or abuse. Both worked at an institution well known to activists. Four others received cranky emails, or a mention on a website.

Dr Simon Festing, the executive director of the RDS, says this shows that "contrary to researchers' common perceptions, it is clear that the vast majority of people have nothing to fear from speaking out".

An amendment to the Serious Organised Crime Act, which came into force in July 2005, meant animal rights activists could face up to seven years in jail for attacks such as burning down labs or supporting terrorism. The Department for Trade and Industry and the Home Office have said that "animal research has helped save hundreds of millions of lives and is carried out only when absolutely necessary and under stringent controls".

Such government backing has seeped through to researchers, as has the shift towards a more positive view of animal research from the population at large. And Festing says the pharmaceutical industry, the government, research funders and charities are pumping billions of pounds into building laboratories where research on animals will take place.

Last year, 16-year-old Laurie Pycroft, frustrated with the way that those opposed to vivisection were dominating the public debate on animal research, founded Pro-Test. His high-profile campaign supports the construction of the animal research laboratory at Oxford, which has been beset by problems, including intimidating letters to shareholders and delays due to threats of violence. His group has been endorsed by hundreds of Oxford residents, students and scientists.

Dr Sarah Bailey, a pharmacology lecturer at the University of Bath, says animal researchers began to be much more open about their work after the coverage given to Pro-Test. "It was one of the reasons why, last summer, I felt able to speak out about my research," she says.

Bailey's finding - that a popular treatment for severe acne produced depressive behaviour in mice - was widely reported. "I thought the climate was right to be open about what I do. I was nervous, though. A lot of colleagues said, are you sure you are doing the right thing?

"But I thought if a group of teenagers could stand up and say animal research is the right thing to do, then shouldn't we as medical researchers be able to, too? Our work is publicly funded, after all. We need to justify it. The more people speak out, the more we can portray the reality of animal research, which is that we can only answer questions about certain diseases by using animals in our research."

Active engagement

A spokeswoman for Oxford University says: "We certainly understand that for many individuals the impulse to speak publicly can often be overwhelmed by concerns. However, the number of people at Oxford actively engaging with the media and the public has risen quite dramatically over the past few years. More people are seeking out opportunities to talk about their research and its benefits, and about animal welfare issues, in documentaries, radio programmes, debates, newspapers and online forums. And people are creating opportunities, as well as responding to offers to participate in debate."

Bailey, however, admits that she is considering going ex-directory and still skirts around the topic of what she does with strangers. "I have been known to tell white lies when asked whether I do animal research. You develop strategies to deflect those who ask what you do. Certainly my PhD students are wary of speaking out."

The RDS publishes advice to animal researchers this week on how to communicate their work to the public without attracting the attention of animal rights activists. Festing, its author, is critical of universities' tactics up until now.

Bad publicity

He writes: "Committed anti-vivisectionists will never be persuaded of the need for animal research. These campaigning groups have been able to generate significant opposition to animal research and bad publicity for universities.

"In response, most research institutions have taken a largely reactive approach to the issue of animal experimentation, with little or no preparation or planning. However, better communication and greater transparency are the best ways to engender trust and public support. Experience has shown that when universities communicate openly, they attract the greatest interest from those who are most supportive, such as medical students, animal technicians and lecturers in biomedical subjects."

But, Wright says, universities cannot be expected to do a great deal to protect their researchers. "They have a limited budget. They do their best already. People are just vulnerable," he says.

Last week, police said the recent letter-bomb attacks may have had an animal rights connection. But Festing believes animal rights extremism has plummeted now that the law has changed. "I predict that animal researchers will soon come out into the open on a massive scale," he says.

It is something Jackie is thinking about. "If you don't put the counter-arguments, it looks as though you have something to hide," she says. "I can see that it is very important to discuss with young people how drugs are discovered, and how we can improve human and animal welfare, because we form our ideas fairly early on in life. I'm chewing over whether I'll speak up or not."