Legislators tend to ignore protests about animal
experimentation from their constituents, because they are
overly influenced by scientific, medical, and veterinary
groups.IntheUnitedStates,thesegroupsmaintainregistered
politicallobbiesinWashington,andtheylobbyhardagainst
proposalstorestrictexperimentation.Sincelegislatorsdonot
havethetimetoacquireexpertiseinthesefields,theyrelyon
whatthe“experts”tellthem.Butthisisamoralquestion,not
ascientificone,andthe“experts”usuallyhaveaninterestin
the continuationof experimentation or elseare so imbued
withtheethicoffurtheringknowledgethattheycannotdetach
themselvesfromthisstanceandmakeacriticalexamination
of what theircolleagues do.Moreover, professional public
relations organizations have now emerged, such as the
National Association for Biomedical Research, whosesole
purposeistoimprovetheimageofanimalresearchwiththe
public and with legislators. The association has published
books, produced videotapes, and conducted workshops on
howresearchersshoulddefendexperimentation.Alongwitha
number ofsimilar organizations,it has prospered as more
people have become concerned about the experimentation
issue. Wehavealready seen, in thecaseof anotherlobby
group,theAssociationoftheBritishPharmaceuticalIndustry,
howsuch groups canmislead thepublic. Legislators must
learnthatwhendiscussinganimalexperimentationtheyhave
totreattheseorganizations,andalsothemedical,veterinary,
psychological,andbiologicalassociations,astheywouldtreat
General Motors and Ford when discussing air pollution.
Nor is the task of reform made any easier by the large
companiesinvolvedintheprofitablebusinessesofbreeding
ortrappinganimalsandsellingthem,ormanufacturingand
marketingthecagesforthemtolivein,thefoodusedtofeed