Increasing the Transparency of Animal Experimentation: An Australian Perspective

It has been argued that citizen stakeholders would be well served by greater transparency. The Transparency Register of the European Union (eu) (2016), for example, states that “Transparency is […] a key part of encouraging European citizens to participate more actively in the democratic life of the eu”. But why is transparency in non-human animal (hereinafter referred to as animal) research desirable, or indeed vital? Hadley (2012) argues that the public finance much animal research but do not know what impact their taxes and donations have on animals. Furthermore, he suggests that, since “people enjoy the benefits of animal research when they consume pharmaceuticals or undergo surgical procedures that prolong or improve the quality of their lives, it seems reasonable to inform them of the costs to animals for which their consumer choices are to some extent causally responsible” (Hadley, 2012, p. 105). Good governance is another reason for transparency in animal research. Thus, McLeod and Hobson-West suggest that one of the key themes “in the science governance literature is the linking of transparency and public trust (or mistrust)” (2015, p. 792). Varga et al. concur that “more transparency will increase public confidence in the appropriate conduct and regulation of animal research and therefore help to maintain public acceptance” (2010, p. 500)