Animal research has always been a polarizing topic; while it greatly advances science and medicine, it also causes the deaths of thousands of animals each year. PETA, the Animal Liberation Front, and other animal rights groups are outspoken about their side of the issue, but we hear less from the scientists who are actually conducting the research. An informal poll by Nature last week describes scientists' feelings about animal research and their reactions to animal rights activism.

Nature polled almost 1,000 biomedical scientists around the world, over 70 percent of whom conduct experiments on animals. Not surprisingly, a vast majority of the respondents—over 90 percent—felt that animal research is essential to scientific advancement. However, about a third also reported that they had "ethical concerns about the role of animals in their current work." In particular, researchers are concerned about minimizing pain in their subjects, using the smallest number of animals possible, and "respecting" their subjects. Fifty-four researchers said that they had actually changed the direction of their research as a result of misgivings about their research practices.

About 30 percent of US scientists surveyed knew someone who had been negatively affected by animal rights activism; this percentage was slightly higher in the UK and slightly lower in the rest of the world. Activism ranges from complaints and protests to outright threats and physical attacks. In 2009, a UCLA researcher’s car was firebombed; a year later, another researcher was sent a package of razorblades allegedly contaminated with HIV. While the majority of incidents are not this extreme, high-profile incidents dominate the news.

Fifteen percent of US researchers had changed their research direction or practices as a result of activism. One researcher wrote that, following violent protests, he was "much less willing to conduct any studies on non-human primates, despite their absolute critical relevance for neuro-protection research." While a greater percentage of UK scientists had known someone who had been negatively affected by activism, fewer had made any changes in their research as a result.

Recently, several research institutions have stopped studies as a result of activist attention, drawing frustration from scientists and mixed reactions from the public. Sixty-five percent of the US respondents (and nearly 80 percent of the UK respondents) believe that activists "present a real threat to essential biomedical research."

In an attempt to better inform the public about the importance of animal research, institutions are encouraging scientists to communicate more about their work. In this survey, 55 percent of the respondents said that their institutions encourage discussion with the public, compared to only 29 percent in 2006. Today, just 7 percent of researchers are actively discouraged from communicating with the public, down from 11 percent in 2006.

However, scientists aren’t always well-prepared to communicate effectively. Less than one-quarter of the researchers said that their institutions offer support or training in discussing their work with the public. This may be because nobody seems to know how to engage the public on an issue that is so complicated. Nearly three-quarters of the scientists polled find it difficult to discuss animal research because of the nuance and controversy involved. While researchers and institutions may want to better educate the public, there is little hope for change until both sides can engage in an honest and civil discourse.

Nature, 2011. DOI: 10.1038/470452a (About DOIs).