The UK government has announced it is planning to consult with the research community on how to provide more information to the public explaining scientific work, at the same time as maintaining appropriate confidentiality. The announcement came in a government response to the Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, published January 20.

The government agreed with the Select Committee Report, published July 2002, that there is a continuing need for animal experiments, both in applied research and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge. The Report had also suggested there was a need for greater openness about the use of animals in scientific procedures and that section 24 (the "confidentiality clause") of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 — requiring Home Office and government officials not to reveal details about their work to a third party — should be repealed.

In its response, the government commented: "We believe that more good quality information should be made available to the public explaining the scientific work that is done using animals and the reasons for it. Subject to safeguards for personal and confidential information, we are, therefore, proposing to publish summaries of project licences as part of the Home Office publication scheme."

The government acknowledged the concern in the scientific community about the implications of repealing section 24 — because of the risk to the security of researchers and research establishments from animal rights extremists — so proposed further consultation before reaching a final decision on its future.

The Home Office Minister Bob Ainsworth, said: "The Government believes that the publication of information about the projects granted licences for research using animals would be an important step forward. Of course, this must be carefully balanced with the need to safeguard personal and confidential information and we will consult closely with the scientific community on the practical arrangements." He continued: "Given the protection afforded by the Freedom of Information Act, Section 24 of the 1986 Act may now be redundant. However, the Government acknowledges the significant concern within the scientific community about repealing this legislation as the Select Committee recommended."

Research bodies welcomed the proposals. Mark Matfield, Director of the Research Defence Society, commented: "We support the proposal to publish information about all new project licences. This will make animal research in the UK more open and transparent than anywhere else in the world. This can only be a good thing and should go a long way to show the public that we only use animals for important medical research and development, and that these animals are used ethically and humanely."

Barbara Davies, from the Research Defence Society said: "the research community needs to discuss with the government how to achieve greater openness without compromizing the personal security and commercial confidentiality of the researcher."

She also welcomed the government agreement that the licensing procedure for animal experimentation should be streamlined, "the system has been overly bureaucratic and has involved long delays which has contributed to making UK research uncompetitive. One way forward is to improve the forms used to apply for licenses to make their completion quicker."

Simon Festing a spokesperson for the Association of Medical Research charity considered that the communication of science to the public needs to improve, in addition to openness. "Openness is a basic principle in which information — including technical details — is made available to the public, even if they never actually look at it. What lies behind openness is trust and not hiding behind closed doors." He continued, "Communication is quite different. It is helping people to understand more about research and why it is being done. Some research organizations are getting much better at this, but it is something that the scientific government organizations and universities may have lagged behind other research bodies and charities in pro-actively communicating with the public about their research work."

It would be inappropriate to make entire license applications public, because this might be meaningless to many people, considered Vicky Robinson, head of the MRC Centre for Best Practice for Animals in Research. "Information should be provided as a lay summary — including why animals are being used, what species is being used and why it has been chosen, the number of animals required and the benefit of using animals for the research proposed. There should also be information on how the research will minimize the impact on the animals used," said Robinson.

Groups opposed to the use of animals in research were critical of the proposals, suggesting that they would fail to address their concerns about animals being used in research.