Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Society’s compassion towards nonhuman animals used in experimentation has grown exponentially. This paper adopts critical discourse analysis to examine how the animal experimentation industry negotiates this societal moral response. To this end, the discourse of the largest animal experimentation interest group in Spain has been studied. Our findings show that the industry, as represented by this interest group, does not negotiate compassion with authenticity but rather creates an illusion of it through opportunistic lexical choices and suppressions, including contradictions and incongruities. We conclude by defining such a discourse as illusory authenticity, a discourse with which the industry conveniently frames itself as altruistic and concerned about animal suffering while at the same time discouraging the public’s cultivation of compassion towards nonhuman animal suffering. This is done by means of perpetuating a logic that frames nonhuman animals as inferior beings whose existence is at the service of humanity.

Keywords

Animal experimentation animal research animal testing critical discourse analysis interest groups public relations speciesism strategic communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

Gruen

(2014) Ecofeminism: Feminist Intersections With Other Animals and the Earth. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Akhtar

(2012) Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better is Critical to Human Welfare. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Almiron

(2017) Favoring the elites. Think tanks and discourse coalitions. International Journal of Communication 11: 4350–4369.

Almiron

Khaazal

(2016) Lobbying against compassion: Speciesist discourse in the vivisection industrial complex. American Behavioral Scientist 60(3): 256–275.

Animal Ethics. (2022). Animal experimentation. Available at: https://www.animal-ethics.org/animal-experimentation-introduction/ (accessed 17 December 2022).

Archibald

Coleman

Foster

(2011) Open letter to UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Health Secretary Andrew Lansley on safety of medicines. The Lancet 377(9781): 1915.

Bailey

(2014) Monkey-based research on human disease: The implications of genetic differences. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: ATLA 42(5): 287–317.

Bailey

Balls

(2019) Recent efforts to elucidate the scientific validity of animal-based drug tests by the pharmaceutical industry, pro-testing lobby groups, and animal welfare organisations. BMC Medical Ethics 20(1): 16.

Bailey

Thew

Balls

(2013) An analysis of the use of dogs in predicting human toxicology and drug safety. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: ATLA 41(5): 335–350.

10.

Bailey

Thew

Balls

(2014) An analysis of the use of animal models in predicting human toxicology and drug safety. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: ATLA 42(3): 181–199.

11.

Bailey

Thew

Balls

(2015) Predicting human drug toxicity and safety via animal tests: Can any one species predict drug toxicity in any other, and do monkeys help? Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: ATLA 43(6): 393–403.

12.

Baker

Martinson

(2001) The TARES test: Five principles for ethical persuasion. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16(2–3): 148–175.

13.

Cole

Stewart

(2016) Our Children and Other Animals: The Cultural Construction of Human-Animal Relations in Childhood. London: Routledge.

14.

Cronin

Kramer

(2018) Challenging the iconography of oppression in marketing: Confronting speciesism through art and visual culture. Journal of Animal Ethics 8(1): 80–92.

15.

Cruelty Free Europe (2020) Poll: 72% of EU citizens want a phase-out plan for animal tests. Available at: https://crueltyfreeinternational.org/latest-news-and-updates/poll-72-eu-citizens-want-phase-out-plan-animal-tests (accessed 17 December 2022).

16.

Dunayer

(2001) Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. Derwood, Maryland: Ryce Publishing.

17.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (2015) Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare – report, European commission. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2875/884639 (accessed 7 September 2023).

18.

Faunalytics (2019) Advocates, allies, adversaries: 12 years of faunalytics’ animal tracker. Available at: https://faunalytics.org/advocates-allies-adversaries-12-years-of-faunalytics-animal-tracker/ (accessed 7 September 2023).

19.

Fisher

(Ed) (2023) The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York: Routledge.

20.

Freeman

Merskin

(2016) Respectful representation: An animal issues style guide for all media practitioners. In Almiron

Cole

Freeman

(eds) Critical Animal and Media Studies: Communication for Nonhuman Animal Advocacy. New York: Routledge, pp. 205–220.

21.

Galeno

(1999) On Anatomical Procedures. De Anatomicis Administrationibus Provenance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22.

Herrmann

Jayne

(2019) Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change. Leiden: Brill.

23.

Holmberg

Ideland

(2012) Secrets and lies: ‘Selective openness’ in the apparatus of animal experimentation. Public Understanding of Science 21(3): 354–368.

24.

Jougla

(2023) Animal ‘de’ laboratorio. Madrid: Ochodoscuatro.

25.

Knight

(2011) The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

26.

Laman

Kooistra

Clausen

(2007) Reproducibility issues: Avoiding pitfalls in animal inflammation models. Methods in Molecular Biology 1559: 1–17.

27.

Leyton

(2013) Los animales en la bioética. Tensión en las fronteras del antropocentrismo. Barcelona: Herder.

28.

Leyton

(2024) For an ethics of care: The ethics of persuasion in the animal experimentation industry. In Almiron

(ed.) Public Relations and Animal Suffering. The Ethics of Persuasion in the Animal-Industrial Complex. London: Routldege, pp. 94–105.

29.

Linzey

(2018) The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

30.

Merkes

(2012) Animal research provides a flawed model, so why not stop? The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/animal-research-provides-a-flawed-model-so-why-not-stop-7890 (accessed 17 December 2022).

31.

Mullard

(2016) Parsing clinical success rates. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 15(7): 447.

32.

Munck

(2003) Neoliberalism, necessitarianism and alternatives in Latin America: There is no alternative (TINA)? Third World Quarterly 24(3): 495–511.

33.

Noske

(1989) Human and Other Animals. London: Pluto Press.

34.

Nussbaum

(1996) Compassion: The basic social emotion. Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation 13(1): 27–58.

35.

Nussbaum

(2008) Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Parkinson

(2020). Animals, Anthropomorphism and Mediated Encounters. London: Routledge.

37.

Persson

(2021) Morality from Compassion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

38.

Pew Research Center (2018) Most Americans accept genetic engineering of animals that benefits human health, but many oppose other uses. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/08/16/most-americans-accept-genetic-engineering-of-animals-that-benefits-human-health-but-many-oppose-other-uses/ (accessed 27 December 2023).

39.

Plehwe

(2014) Think tank networks and the knowledge–interest nexus: The case of climate change. Critical Policy Studies 8(1): 101–115.

40.

Pound

(2023) Rat Trap. The Capture of Medicine by Animal Research – and How to Break Free. Leicestershire: Troubadour Publishing.

41.

SECAL (2023) Quiénes somos. Available at: https://secal.es/quienes-somos (accessed 25 January 2023).

42.

Slusher

(2016) They All Had Eyes: Confessions of a Vivisectionist. Danvers: Vegan Publishers.

43.

Stop Vivisection (2012) European citizen’s initiative stop vivisection. Available at: http://stopvivisection.eu/es (accessed 8 September 2023).

44.

Taylor

(2014) EU member state government contribution to alternative methods. Altex 31(2): 215–218.

45.

The Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness (2012) Cambridge: Francis crick memorial conference. Available at: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf (accessed 8 September 2023).

46.

Twine

(2012) Revealing the ‘animal-industrial complex’ – a concept & method for critical animal studies? Journal for Critical Animal Studies 10(1): 12–39.

47.

Valls Llobet

(2020) Mujeres Invisibles para la Medicina. Madrid: Capitán Swing.

48.

Van Norman

(2019) Limitations of animal studies for predicting toxicity in clinical trials. JACC: Basic to Translational Science 4: 845–854.

49.

Wadman

(2023) FDA no longer needs to require animal tests before human drug trials. Science 379(6628): 127–128.

50.

Wall

Shani

(2008) Are animal models as good as we think? Theriogenology 69(1): 2–9.

Illusory authenticity: Negotiating compassion in animal experimentation discourse

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References