A researcher once called me to his lab, spitting mad at PETA. His inbox was filled with nasty-grams, spurred on by a PETA campaign against his research, which involved killing small animals. He wanted me to help him publish an op-ed in which he methodically laid out the reasons for using animals in research that has led to relief of human suffering: that he had no other means of obtaining the information he needed, that his research had been reviewed by a panel to ensure humane treatment, that numerous scientific studies backed him up. He included literature citations in his four-page missive.
I had to tell him that this is not an issue settled by facts and logic. Yes, facts are important, but in the end people will make up their minds based on how they feel.
How do you impact emotions? Story, of course.
That is why I believe the Foundation for Biomedical Research is on the right track with a new advertising campaign. In the TV spots, you hear about animal research from the people whose lives depend on it: Jen, a scientist and breast cancer survivor, and Gail, whose husband’s life was extended by 13 years so he could raise his children before succumbing to colon cancer.
Weekly, PETA issues e-mails that are centered on a story. They urge action — usually a form e-mail to a list of scientists and bureaucrats, and sometimes a plea for financial contribution to their cause. In recent years, surveys have shown dwindling public support for using animals in research. I think the PETA stories have had an impact.
So does the Foundation for Biomedical Research. Their new ad campaign is fighting story with story, putting the argument for animal research in emotional terms. I think a moral issue properly resides in the realm of emotion, feeling and subjective judgment. But if you also need or want facts, you’ll find them at the Foundation for Biomedical Research site.
Bioscience vs. PETA: The told story
A researcher once called me to his lab, spitting mad at PETA. His inbox was filled with nasty-grams, spurred on by a PETA campaign against his research, which involved killing small animals. He wanted me to help him publish an op-ed in which he methodically laid out the reasons for using animals in research that has led to relief of human suffering: that he had no other means of obtaining the information he needed, that his research had been reviewed by a panel to ensure humane treatment, that numerous scientific studies backed him up. He included literature citations in his four-page missive.
I had to tell him that this is not an issue settled by facts and logic. Yes, facts are important, but in the end people will make up their minds based on how they feel.
How do you impact emotions? Story, of course.
That is why I believe the Foundation for Biomedical Research is on the right track with a new advertising campaign. In the TV spots, you hear about animal research from the people whose lives depend on it: Jen, a scientist and breast cancer survivor, and Gail, whose husband’s life was extended by 13 years so he could raise his children before succumbing to colon cancer.
Weekly, PETA issues e-mails that are centered on a story. They urge action — usually a form e-mail to a list of scientists and bureaucrats, and sometimes a plea for financial contribution to their cause. In recent years, surveys have shown dwindling public support for using animals in research. I think the PETA stories have had an impact.
So does the Foundation for Biomedical Research. Their new ad campaign is fighting story with story, putting the argument for animal research in emotional terms. I think a moral issue properly resides in the realm of emotion, feeling and subjective judgment. But if you also need or want facts, you’ll find them at the Foundation for Biomedical Research site.