In “Political Animals” by Susan Lederer, she alludes to the argument that the marketing strategies used by the antivivisectionists in the 1930s did have an impact on scientists, even though no legislature was enacted. During this time, antivivisectionists would carefully read scientific publications in order to cherry-pick quotes that were easy to misinterpret. They would then publish articles and statements in response to certain experiments, using the scientists' own words against them. Additionally, antivivisectionists tried appealing to the majority of society by using a campaign revolving around dogs, as dogs were considered “a man's best friend.” They created and published a lot of sob stories, mostly led by newspaper writer William Randolph Hearst. His newspaper routinely featured …show more content…
Despite the fact that no animal rights bills were passed during this time, the scientists still were forced to react to the movement's efforts, thus causing them to change their wording in publications. However, it is well known that many bills have passed since then and protests have continued throughout the 20th century. So, that raises my question: how do scientists communicate about animal research …show more content…
Barncard acknowledges “that animal research is often glossed over when [scientists] try to do media and public outreach because lots of people fear the criticism that may come from animal rights groups.” This was a similar concern to Rous’ and the scientists from the 1930s, as the wording in their publications was often examined very closely. This concludes that the actions of animal rights activists continue to put pressure on the way researchers