Calls for cloning ban sell science short

Regulating the genetic revolution

The rapid pace of scientific breakthroughs that are flowing from genetic research seem to be matched only by the intensifying perception that some form of social control is required. As exemplified by the call to 'regulatory action' that was elicited by the prospect of human cloning, increased formal government oversight of human genetic research appears to be inevitable. Although there are certainly many valid social and ethical concerns worthy of a regulatory response, legislating genetic policy will not be easy.

I don't want to see the pictures: science writing and the visibility of animal experiments

The use of animals in research and development is one of the areas of science (human reproductive research and technology is perhaps another) where the fact that current practices are sanctioned in legislation does not prevent them from being controversial. This article examines the visibility of this issue in terms of the way science writers and scientific research papers report research that involves animals. Three journals with a scientific readership ( Nature, Science, and New Scientist) and two journals with a mixed scientist/nonscientist readership ( The Economist and The Times Higher Education Supplement) were examined. I have looked at the frequency of reports, the amount of experimental detail given, and the use of language, illustrations, and humor. Common features of these reports are the paucity of detail about the procedures carried out on the animals, their welfare and living conditions, and the numbers of animals used. However, there are significant differences between the journals with a “scientist” readership and those with a “mixed” readership in their readiness to debate the moral issue involved in human uses of animals. From these data the conclusion can be drawn that public debate might be improved by increasing the visibility of the animals themselves in reports of research involving their use.