 Felly, mae'n gwybod yw'n gweithio, Mark yn ymweld y Cymru, mae'rionsiwn cyfnodau gyfosiwn i'r gweithio, ac rydw i'n cyfosiwn cyfosiwn cyfosio. Rydw i'n gweithio, mae'n cyfosiwn cyfosio ar gyfer y trofyn, ac mae'n cyfosio yma yma yw ym 6 billion pwn o'r gwybr o'r gwybr o'r ddronfos. Felly mae'n cyfosio ar y gweithio wedi'n gweithio cyfosio ond. Mark rysud i'r wych yn 209 o gyllid y cyfnodol ac yn ychydig i'r cyfnodol yng Nghymru o 2011. Mae'n rhaid i'r cyd-dweud o'r cyfnodol. Rwy'n rhaid i'r cyfnodol o'r cyfnodol a'r cyfnodol o'r cyfnodol, sy'n rhoi'r prinsifol o'r cyfnodol sy'n rhoi'n gweld. Yn ymddangas i'r cyfnodol, rwy'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'r cyfnodol i'r cyfnodol, ac oedd yn ychydig i gyd-dweud o'r cyfnodol i'r cyfnodol. Rwy'n rhaid i ychydig i gyd-dweud. Rwy'n rhaid i gyllid. Rwy'n grwybannaeth ar gyfer'i adsol o'r cyllid a ffordd o'r cerddewis i'r ymdillawch. Yn ymdilladau diwg ddysgu gyda'r prinsifol, онf, gan gyfnodol. Rwy'n rhaid i'r cyfnodol o'r cyfnodol, mae'r creni ei meir i'r cyfnodol i'n rhaid i gynnig. Rydych chi'nhowy i'r rhwng iawn dioddau beth dyma'r Gaifwyr i'w부�ffyig iawn. Rydyn ni'n gallu'n Gweithio'r Lleserjargau. Rydyn ni'n ddechrau i'n mynd am ffordd i weithmell ar ein blynedd y Rheisianiad Cafodd Sifol-Gaith a'r 170 o 1875 arweithreir o'r meddwl. Mae gweithio'r rhaid i'ch bwysig yng Nethau, oedd lle i'r hyn o wneud o'r gweithdechol, nhw'n ddweud o'r rhiforddiol a'r cyd-dweud oherwydd mae'n gweithio allan yn dweud yn nhw. Ond o'r rhai gwlad, ei wneud yn rhan o'r cyd-dweud, yn y lle leddau atig oedd mae'n cael ei roi'r cyd-dweud y cwmysgwyr cyffredigau. All hynny wedi bod nid yw'n cael ei roi'r cyd-dweud ac mae'n rhan o'r cyd-dweud y cyd-dweud o'r cyffredigau cyffredigau. If I can find the button to move the slides. But Victorian World Commission reports are nothing, if not deeply specialist. They are neither distinguished by their typography or by their illustrations. So they are of relatively little financial value. So this particular lot was padded with a string of other equatees etheric Royal Commission reports. felly'r cwysig sy'n cael ei chyn REMY yn cael ei dyfodol ito'r bobl yn ysgrif 다eth gydag, ond unrhyw wrth gael â ddyliau cyflo yn gweithgiwyd, y rhai cyfnod i'r Cymru yn ysgrifol. Mae'r cwysig yn ddeliadu bach pwyllteic o'rnynt yn y cwylio cyfnod colleniad hefyd o'r cwysig o'r cyfnod i'r cyfnod i'r cyfnod. gweld gwda nhw'n gwybod eich cyfnod y 18049 o'r rai o'r pethau i rhan o'r awnau i roi cyrficio'r rai eich cyrficio'n cyfrallwyd. Mae'r rhai o'r rai o'r cyfrifaddau gwledig o'r lefnod ar y cyfrifadau gwybod mewn hwn. Mae'r rhaid i chi'n rhaid i'r rhaid i'r ddweud, ac mae'r ddweud o'r fforddau sydd yna'r ddweud yn ddod, yn ddod o'r ddweud, yn ddod o'r ddweud, yn ddod o'r ddweud, yn ddod o'r ddweud. A oedd y rhaid i'r rhaid i'r ddweud yng Nghymru sydd wedi'i ddweud o'r ddweud, Ond yw'r 1850s hynny mae'r cyngorau gyda'r rhysgwyr ffysiologi ac yn ystod o'r ddysgufeidliadau ystudio gyda Choryform a Nheitha. Felly mae'n archif ei ddweud i'r cyfrifol dros y cyfrifol ac yn y cyfrifol sy'n cyfrifol eich cyfrifol ar yr aelod yng nghymru. Mae'n rhesyf yn y ddweud o ffysiologi ar y llyfr o unrhyw brysgrwyffi yng nghymru, ond mae'n ffysiologi ar y llyfr o unrhyw brysgrwyffi ynghylch. Felly, ar y cyfnodd y Brifysgol Llywodraeth i'n Edynbro, yn 1871, yw James Padgett, ysgolwch Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, ac ymddorodd y Paget Stephen, sy'n gwneud hynny. First, no experiment can be performed under the influence of anaesthetic. Or to be done without it. And secondly, no painful experiment is justifiable for the mere purpose of illustrating a law or fact already demonstrated. So the Rwng Comission, which was initiated on 22, June 1875, Eich myriadu o'r pwyllgor er mwynhau i'r trofyn sy'n cymryd yn bwysigol y cyfryd y bwysigol yn bwysigol, a'r amdannod a'u cyfreidio i'ch gwirionedd ymddugau, mae eich myfyddu i ddim yn meddwl mewn o'u mythbail yn bod yr ysgrif briad arall. Rwy'r ddiolchau rhai chefrach rhai hon yn ffyrdd y byddwch yn ddiddo i Thomas Henry Huxley, a oedd yn unrhyw i ddim yn rhaniadau o'r ddelchau. It's interesting. The initiation of the commission was 22 June 1875 and the report itself was issued on the 8th of January 1876, so they got on with their work. The report commendably was in fact only 15 pages in length. For those of us that worry about evidence-based reports, it was backed up with 6,551 paragraphs of evidence. And it makes absolutely fascinating reading. The list of witnesses is extraordinary. So Sir James Padgett was joined by some of the founding parents of physiology, including William Sharpie and Jay Betten Sanderson. Other luminaries who gave evidence included Joseph Lister, Charles Darwin, Sir William Gull, and a cannibal of the great and the good of 19th century science and medicine. And a few quotes from the report itself will suffice to indicate its general tenor. So it has been proposed to enact that the object in view shall be some immediate application of some expected discovery to some prophylactic or therapeutic end, and that any experiment made for the mere advancement of science shall be rendered unlawful. But this proposal cannot be sustained by reflection upon the actual course of human affairs. Knowledge goes before the application of knowledge, and the application of the discovery is seldom foreseen when the discovery is made. Who, says Helmholtz, when Galvani touched the legs of frogs with different methods and noticed their contraction, could have dreamt that all Europe would be traversed with wires flashing intelligence from Madrid to St Petersburg with the speed of lightning. And of course that was right then, and it is true now, and it's a nice enunciation of the justification and the importance of conducting basic research led by curiosity to answering important scientific questions. So then, as now, in the commission report and the evidence examples were given of discoveries important to the advancement of human health. So these included the discovery of the circulation of blood, so Harvey commemorated here by the Harvey operation. And the discovery of the lactil and the lymphatic system of vessels. And so Charles Bell's discovery of the compound function span nerves, the sensory and the motor functions. And at the time, as Jen's pageant identified the challenge of discovering an antidote to snake poisons, citing the many thousands of your Majesty's Indian subjects who perish annually from snake bites. And indeed less than 20 years later Cesar Fezalix and Gabriel Bertrand, together with Albert Calmed, presented the French Society of Biology on the 10th of February 1894. Their independent work on the development of an anti-venom against vipervenom and Indian cobravenom respectively. And it was only a few years later that the detail of Brazil, head of the Butantan Institute in Sao Paulo, developed the first anti-serial to South American poisonous snakes. So amongst the witnesses to the Royal Commission was Charles Darwin. And to quote him briefly. The first thing I would say is that I am fully convinced that physiology can progress only by the aid of experiments on living animals. I cannot think of any one step which has been made in physiology without that aid. And Darwin was then asked, now with regard to trying a painful experiment without anaesthetics, when the same experiment could be made with anaesthetics, or in short inflicting any pain that was not absolutely necessary upon an animal, what would be your view on that subject? And his reply, it deserves detestation and abhorrence. But the evidence that probably had the greatest impact of all was that of a doctor Emmanuel Klein, who was a physiologist working as an assistant professor in the Brown Institute. And the Brown Institute incidentally is located roughly where the secret intelligence service has its headquarters just south of the Lambeth Bridge. And he appeared completely insensitive to the suffering of animals. And Huxley wrote to Darwin on October 30th after Klein provided his evidence. The commission is playing the duces with me. I felt it my duty to act as counsel for science and was well satisfied with the way things are going. But on Thursday, when I was absent, ex, but it was Dr Klein, was examined. And if what I hear is a correct account of the evidence he gave, I may as well throw up my brief. I'm told he openly professed the most entire indifference to animal suffering and he only gave anaesthetics to keep the animals quiet. I declare to you, I did not believe the man lived who was such an unmitigated cynical brute as to profess and act upon such principles. And I willingly agree to any law that would send him to the trembling. The impression his evidence made on Cardwell and Foster to the other commissioners is profound. And I'm powerless even if I desire which I have not to combat it. And in fact it's extremely interesting to read the evidence that Klein gave and the correspondence he subsequently had with the commissioners when he realised that his account was going to be published for the meeting. But, and that's a lesson to anyone who appears before select committees. But the Royal Commission report duly and I think inevitably concluded that legislation was necessary. And to quote again, what we would humbly recommend to your Majesty would be the enactment of the law by which experiments upon living animals, whether for original research or for demonstration, should be placed under the control of the Secretary of State, who should have powers to grant licences to persons and when satisfied with the propriety of doing so to withdraw them. No other person should be permitted to perform experiments. The holders of licences should be bound by conditions. Breach of those conditions should entail the liability to forfeiture of the licence. The object of the conditions should be to ensure that suffering should never be inflicted in any case in which it could be avoided and should be reduced to a minimum where it could not be all together avoided. The first statement in a way of the three hours. The government not surprisingly listened and the result was a bill placing animal experimentation in Great Britain akin to the study of human anatomy under the supervision of the law. And this was enacted as the cruelty to animals act on August the 15th 1876. Of course everyone here will realise this was by no means the end of the history. There was another Royal Commission between 1906 and 1912. That took much longer and in the end largely confirmed the status quo. And finally of course in 1986 the 1876 act was replaced by the Animals Scientific Procedures Act. And this, the big change here was it authorised animal experimenters by means of a personal licence but an additional project licence that defined the capitalism of purpose. And that of course is where we are today. So it's an enormous privilege to be asked to give the 80th pageant lecture this evening. And Stephen Pageant in whose memory this series of lectures was instituted in 1927 was a, and this is of course his administration of Stephen Pageant, was a tarless advocate for the value of properly conducted animal research and indeed wrote a book setting out examples of where research on animals in advance human knowledge had helped. And his work to found the Research and Defence Society of 1908 during that second Royal Commission on Vivisection was a turning point in the national debate around animal research. And of course the Research and Defence Society was formed to make known the facts as to experiments on animals in this country, the immense importance to the welfare of mankind of such experiments and the great saving of human life and health directly attributable to them. And I think Stephen Pageant would find today's discourse as familiar as we find the arguments of the 1870s. But this is not a lecture on history although you may think it is. The introduction is intended to show that all of the concerns that continue to rear their head about research using animals have a very long history. And these concerns sit at the interface between the conductors of the science, the application of science and the human values held by individuals and societies in different parts of the world. So what are the core arguments around animal research? In truth they are still the same as those articulated clearly in the 1870s. They are fundamentally utilitarian arguments about one sort of value, the value of scientific research in discovering the secrets of human and animal biology in health and disease. And this work brings with it the potential to prevent disease through vaccination for example or to treat it as with the use of insulin in diabetes. And that value is balanced against another sort of value, which is our relationship with other species and the extent to which we are prepared to cause harm to other species to bring benefits to ourselves. And I fear that all too often discussions about science are conflated with arguments about values. So we end up with arguments that are framed as follows. The proponents argue for the necessity of animal research if which progress in our understanding of health and disease and to discover new preventive and therapeutic approaches. Opponents of animal research argue that the research is scientifically valued, that the results are not transferable from one species to another and that experiments cause unacceptable suffering. But this is actually not a real argument. It's an argument that's been conducted across purposes. The reality is that there are some people who believe that it is simply wrong to experiment on animals, whatever the potential benefit. Equally there are some in the scientific community who don't recognise that in the face of all the benefits that they perceive from such research. That it is reasonable that some people oppose the use of animals in research from the perspective of their personal values. And of course in fact it's much more complicated than this because many who don't like the idea of animal research express gradations of concern about research on other species. And these concerns are based on judgments of perceived hierarchies. So one hierarchy is partly based on perceptions of the capacity of different species to experience pain or suffering. Or the other set of arguments which is related is on the basis of their evolutionary relationship to humans. So there tends to be less concern about invertebrates, but of course the exception of cephalopods. And then successively more concern moving from fish to mice to rats to raggats, with cats, dogs and non-human primates the objects of the most concern. And of course that reflects the different relationships we have with other species where cats and dogs are the best friends of many human beings. And human primates are seen to be archaurs' relatives. But this complexity means that animal research is a topic where the institutions of science meet the institutions of democracy fairly and squarely. And frankly it's in areas where the arguments will continue and the opposing cases will need to be made and remade. This is not the discussion that will ever have an end as such. We live in a plural democratic society where different citizens hold different views based on differing moral preset. And ultimately it is for democratic governments and the other governments to decide on the acceptability and conditions under which research on animals is undertaken and how this should be regulated. And this is an area in which the UK is a global leader. So my life and science started with experiments on the genetics of the fruit fly in school laboratories in the 1960s. A dissection of frogs and extremely smelly formaldehyde hickrwnt dogfishes, which provided ample confirmation to me if it was ever needed that I was neither going to be an anatomist nor a surgeon. It was medical school that provided my first insights really into research on mammalian species, studying immune responses to mice to chemically induced tumours as part of my part 2 pathology course in Cambridge. And participation as a medical elective student at the Karolinska Institute in research on a strain of mice called C3HHEJ. Now this strain of mice shows no response to exposure to lipopolysaccharide, which is a component of many bacterial cell walls that's a cause of the damaging inflammatory response suffered by animals infected with certain bacteria. And so my task as an elective medical student in a couple of months was to work out the explanation for this failure of responsiveness of the C3HHEJ mouse to lipopolysaccharide. I worked very hard. I isolated lymphocytes from these in controlled mice and checked whether they would respond to stimuli other than lipopolysaccharide, which they did. But I didn't get anywhere near to uncovering the explanation for how they failed to respond to LPS. Nor I have to confess, did I understand at the time, the importance of these particular mice and why it mattered to discover the explanation for lipopolysaccharide and responsiveness. So you can imagine my fascination when Dr Bruce Boykler was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2011 for discovering that these mice were genetically deficient in a protein called Tolaic receptor 4. And this is an important part of the innate immune system that confers inherited resistance to bacterial and other infections and is a member of a group of proteins that have been conserved over a very long period of evolution with very similar Tolaic receptors present in those fruit flies that I studied in school. Although there the genetics was to just understand the Mendelian principles or laws around ICAMA and various mutations without the dominant or recessive effect. But the deeper point is that this and related discoveries has opened up a whole new field of research into our immune responses in both health and disease and is a good example of how apparently rather basic research enquiries, in this case firstly in flies and then in rodents, have important utility in understanding the mechanisms of ill health. Going back to that quote from the original World Commission report about the importance of basic research and the experiments of the animals providing the deep understanding that enables later application of knowledge. So once the arguments about animal research have been conserved through the generations there is one important respect and it's already come up this evening in which the landscape of animal research has changed significantly during the last 30 years or so. For a long time the laws that ensure that animals used in research are treated as humanely as possible have been enforced. However the laws protecting scientists from illegal harassment by extremists were not. And that asymmetry has disappeared in recent years. Scientists can practice their legal experimental work confident the government will support them against extremism. So since the days of a brave few who were prepared to talk openly about their research on animals, more and more scientists are willing to make the case in public for the research that they undertake. Animal labs and their host institutions are increasingly open and the sky has not fallen in. And it's worth reflecting on how remarkable that change has been. Huge progress has been made in opening up animal research to public scrutiny, particularly in the academic community and of course these awards this evening reflect that and the worthy array of winners. However the argument hasn't been won in all parts of the animal research community and I think we must continue to make the case to our peers for intelligent transparency. Too often the answer is still to hope that no one asks questions of us rather than to open the doors and show there's nothing to fear. But importantly of course this openness cannot and should not be left to the academic community alone. Industry needs animal research as well and whilst some industries very open that's not the case in all cases as their interest voices would therefore be a persuasive part of making the public case for why animal research remains necessary. And of course in 2012 following discussions at the Wellcome Trust between the Science, Media Centre and the Wellcome Trust there was a further series of discussions and Jeff Watts played an important role which led to over 40 organisations working in the biosciences in the UK signing a declaration on openness on animal research. And that of course included a commitment to developing a concordat which set out how they would be more open about the ways in which animals are used in scientific, medical and veterinary research in the UK. In 2014 the concordat was launched and you saw the array of signatures today. And I think that the individuals who have been willing to stand up and to make the case for animal research throughout the years can claim a great deal of the credit for the state that we now find ourselves in. So it's only right that we celebrate their achievements this evening and it's a very good opportunity to thank the successor organisation to the Research and Defence Society understanding animal research for the work that you do. And Fiona Fox and your colleagues at the Science, Media Centre also thanks for your work on encouraging openness. The concordat has I believe been helpful and I would encourage every institution involved in animal research to sign up. But I would say that amidst the ffervor for encouraging openness and much more communication I believe there is occasionally some danger of every action. We want volunteers for communication about animal research not conference. Not everyone is able and willing to communicate effectively and the model channels for abuse are many foals and a thick skin is needed by those who communicate science in some of the more controversial areas of science. Indeed enthusiasts for science communication often fail to recognise that it isn't a singular thing. A science communication comes in many forms. It's much easier to communicate science discoveries such as the Higgs boson or to enthuse people about space science than it is to communicate the role of science in areas where there are conflicting human values. That's not to say that it's easy to explain Higgs boson but here the challenge is not to the general public, it's actually other particle physicists who are all too ready to shoot down some hapless colleague who doesn't fully communicate the arcana correctly. And it reminds me of when I went on the today program a few years ago to talk about the potential importance of a new genetically modified potato that was resistant to the potato part. And I explained that blight was caused by fungus that could devastate potato crops. On that occasion it wasn't anti-GMO activists who objected to my interview on this occasion. It was a letter from a gardening pundit who accused me of extreme ignorance in calling potato blight a fungus. Because it is in fact an uo my seat, which Wikipedia will tell you is a distinct phylogenetic lineage of fungus like eukaryotic microorganisms. They didn't actually teach me that at medical school and indeed I don't think it was even known when I was at medical school but I'm not sure that the point of the interview would have been enhanced by this particular element of taxonomic rigour. The reality is that scientists who participate in public discussions on embryo research, on animal research, on GMOs, on pesticides, on climate science and the like will have an utterly different experience from those that talk about science in areas that are not valued lately. And indeed scientists sometimes fail to recognise that how science is used is a topic for all of society and as scientists our views do not trump the views of others. But coming back to the uo my seat for a second, please don't think that I'm making a case for any kind of post truth approach to science communication. I'm absolutely not. One of the big challenges for science is to become even more rigorous in the way that we conduct research and communicate its results and indeed I think one of the problems in the way in which science is communicated is the over emphasis on the reporting of the latest paper on X or Y rather than on what the body of the scientific evidence shows. And frankly this causes endless problems to those of us that are involved in providing science advice to government. By and large we're not that interested simply in what the latest paper shows, especially when it's apparently equal and opposite to the paper that was published last week. What we care about is the totality of evidence. What do we know overall? What do we not know and where are the uncertainties? And so where animal research remains necessary we must clearly and confidently explain why. But we should hold ourselves the same standard of evidence and communication as we'd expect in our science itself. We mustn't be seduced by our own PR and here I have a challenge to this audience. To what extent have we as a community ever subjected our claims about how vital animal research has been to human health to the same level of scrutiny we've applied to those claiming to have discovered a new cure. And I think if not we must. And I think that a Cochran standard review of the contribution of animal research to advances in health and well-being over the last 20 years or so would be a valuable contribution. And I think that's a challenge to you as an audience tonight. I would really like to see a first rate meta-analysis done to a very rigorous standard in the same way that you would expect a Cochran review on a treatment of vital medicine to be applied to the whole area of animal research. So developing and maintaining a supportive environment for research I think is both more difficult and more necessary in animal research than it is in less controversial branches of science. People talk a lot about trust so animal research must command public trust. But as Baroness O'Neill is always saying the corollary of trust is trustworthiness. And we earn trust by being trustworthy. We cannot be complacent in our maintenance of what we have earned. Therefore the animal research community needs to behave in a fashion that is irrefutably trustworthy. And so setting this context a robust regulatory environment is not a burden to be borne by those who do animal research. It is an integral part of the case that we make to society in the UK. Members of the public can be confident that we are trustworthy precisely because we are so carefully regulated and because we obey those regulations. And it follows that we as a research community must share responsibility for how we are regulated. And I know my colleagues in the Home Office would welcome your dialogue with the scientific community. However it would be a mistake for us to interpret that as an invitation to dictate to the Home Office what we want or for special training. And the chief inspector in the Home Office, Dr Caldwell, in the 1940s pointed out once to some unfortunate colleagues no one ever tells the Home Office what to do. Rather I think we should approach discussions with the Home Office in the spirit of partnership. Likely suggesting improvements which would better ensure animal welfare and promote the best science. And this brings me to an issue which should be close to the heart of any scientist. We can never be complacent in the pursuit of rigor. A scientist we must constantly ask ourselves does this study meet the highest standards of work? And we must be ruthless in challenging where we see this is not the case in the work we do ourselves and in the wider research community. And as I'm sure everyone here will agree there can't be a choice between high standards on the one hand and a high volume of research on the other. It's the standards that trump everything. So if we're to make the most of the funding that's available the correct approach is to prioritise the best, the most reliable work. And this is particularly true if animals are involved. It is frankly unethical and wrong to conduct poorly powered studies statistically. So experiments should always be designed to provide the best chance of generating robust and reliable results. That doesn't of course take away the need for repetition of experiments to confirm or to refute important findings. But ultimately we will use the fewest animals in experiments overall if we optimise the experimental designs to give the greatest chance of reliable findings. And so with that in mind the ongoing work to standardise approaches around the world is entirely welcome. And we should be proud in the UK for having some of the highest standards for animal testing in the world. And of course where other countries systems meet those standards we can use their results in our regulatory processes. This is both efficient and good for animal welfare. And this is a responsibility for everyone in the scientific endeavour. So it's a responsibility for the funders of research. It's a responsibility for the researchers themselves. And it's a responsibility of those that peer review their papers and publish the findings. To insist on the higher standards of work and in doing so drive welfare internationally. And once they don't anticipate a point in my lifetime when animal research will be entirely unnecessary we must continue to ask ourselves is there a better way. Worldwide the supply chain for animals of animals research is fragile. And global public opinion as anyone who reads the newspaper on any day of the week at the moment is quite hard to focus. And it may happen against testing at some point. What farmer company would continue the expense and reputation risks of animal tests if they didn't have to? What government wouldn't welcome the avoidance of political controversy? What scientists would want to keep using an imperfect animal model if a more accurate alternative existed? And so the UK should continue to lead the process of finding alternatives. And that means that the work of the NC3Rs, the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animal Research is extremely important. And of course the truth is that the extraordinary tools of modern biomedical research often ways to unravel physiology at the level of the cell, the organ and the organism in ways that were inconceivable even a few years ago. And so in his philosophical poem, an essay on man, Alexander Pope wrote in 1733, Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, the proper study of mankind is man. And that's a rather splendid illustration that comes from the well-contrast images site of Pope's work. So our tools now let us study man and woman in the most extraordinary detail and with minimal invasion. But not all of our tools can or indeed should be applied in humans. For example, the power of optogenetics to study neural circuitry or gene editing to create an array of genetic variation offers opportunities to ask important questions about, for example, the function and the malfunction of the nervous system in animals in ways that simply cannot be achieved in humans. And these results are very important for our understanding of humans. We are in an extraordinary time for science, engineering, technology and social science. So the government office for science periodically produces reports on technology innovation futures. And our most recent report concludes that what is happening at the moment is a convergence between technologies. For example, biology meets material science, engineering and big data. So the opportunities and the importance of animal research remain to salient now as it is ever been said. But we should never forget that the pursuit of science does require any public license. Not least because it is the taxpayer that funds much of our basic research. And the return to the taxpayer comes in many forms. Of course, advances in knowledge matter in their own right. But ultimately they're not sufficient on their own. The public expects gains in health and well-being and gains the economy from the many billions of pounds that are invested in research. Science, engineering, technology and the social sciences are at the heart of advances in industry and the economy. And the UK, as everyone here knows, is a world leader in the biosciences. And in that context animal research is an essential and integral part of the jigsaw of the UK knowledge economy. So I will end where I began. The lesson of history is that some things don't change. So we must be resolute in continuing to make the case for animal research. 108 years after the research defence society was formed, their founding purpose to make knowing the facts about animal research needs but one update. We've learnt as a community that knowing the facts is not enough. People must be engaged, involved in and ultimately persuaded by the utility of our work. And in 2016 of all years no-one needs reminding of the dangers of assuming the wider public shares the views of experts. But furthermore the claim of expertise does need careful examination. A true expert should behave with impeccable and dispassionate rigour, properly acknowledging uncertainty where this exists. And I'm not sure that all self-declared or indeed anointed experts always live up to these standards. One can't hope to convince everyone. However on animal research it's necessary in a democracy to bring on board the widest possible coalition of the public. The age-old arguments about the pros and cons of animal research have not been resolved and maybe never will be. They sit at the heart about the debate about our relationship of humans with other species. And they tell us something important about one of the unique attributes of humans. The tiger doesn't debate whether it's right to bring down and strangle the gazelle with a bite to its neck. Eat or be eaten, nature red in tooth and claw. But we humans have what appears to be the unique cognitive ability to consider our relationship with other species. It's the essence of humanity that we care for each other in extraordinary ways and care for other species and our environment. They're almost certainly not enough given the environmental challenges that come with the global population of over 2 billion people. And Alexander Pope reminds us of the paradox at the core of humans even in an era of enlightenment. Chaos of thought and passion all confused. It was human that noted that the passions often trump reason. Scientists who are human and not, I would suggest, immune from passion must continue to promote reason. And so I think there are a few things I suggest that this mission to promote reason requires of the animal research community. Firstly, keep talking to government about where the regulations could work better to ensure high standards of research and animal welfare. But challenge where you see examples of these standards not being upheld to the community. Secondly, let us maintain the UK's position as a world leader in the most rigorous animal research, but also in the search for alternatives. And thirdly, welcome scrutiny for the confidence it provides. Keep talking about what research is undertaken. Keep opening the doors. And let us submit our own arguments with the value of animal research to the same scrutiny we would apply to all of our scientific work. We cannot fear openness. We must embrace it. Thank you for your attention. Eroquant, erudite. Alexander is challenging, which is great. You asked questions of the audience. I hope they're going to ask some of you, and he's very highly asked, said he will answer some of them. I don't mind questions or comments or thoughts on what he's told us. One there, go for it. There's a mic coming, but you could shout that if you'd like. And do tell me who you are. I'm Donald Bruce. I'm an ethicist by training. I'm a former nuclear regulator at the long long time ago. I currently am a new member of the animals and science committee at the lay member of one of the animals. The long experience of my own in ethics. I'm delighted to hear your comments about the rigor of each of your client things. Working in the nuclear industry a few years ago, we were told that nuclear was wonderful because it replaced the dirty coal. Then we were told that wind power was wonderful because it replaced the horrible wind power. And then somebody who objected to a wind initiative in Peoples said this active environment of terrorism, and the consistent threat through them is that you blow up the problems of what you don't like and you exaggerate the benefits and the lack of rigor. Now I've never seen that consistently achieved. So what's going to have to change in order to achieve that? It hasn't happened very much in my experience. OK, well thank you for the question. Sometime offline we should maybe talk about nuclear regulation, but that's not the matter. But it's a good opportunity because you illustrate the issue that comes up again and again, which is where science, engineering and technology comes into conflict with values. And so energy is another area where there are very powerful values, as you know yourself. Radiation is value-laden. It's a sort of invisible set of humans, as it were, that brings death and destruction in its way. And so, you know, the serious point is that, and there's various in different countries and different parts of the world, people have strong value feelings, personal value feelings against nuclear. And so again, we tend to conflate the argument which is whether nuclear is safe or unsafe. And of course all the evidence is that nuclear power isn't extremely safe for a form of energy production, I mean much safe in the cold world. But that's not really the discussion. It's framed as a scientific argument when really there are two discussions. There's the human values discussion about whether this stuff called radiation and then there's the science on the other hand. And of course that applies to almost every domain of energy. So the other one, which is very active at the moment, is discussion about fracking. So hydraulic fraction of shale, where the science and engineering questions are threefold. Firstly, is it going to cause seismicity and other tremors? Secondly, are we going to get contamination at the water table? And thirdly, will there be a fugitive release of methane gas causing a release of greenhouse gases? Those are the science and engineering issues, and there are umpteen reports saying that when it is properly created, this is an acceptable thing to do. But there's the separate discussion about some people not liking fossil fuels at all, other people not liking the companies that produce fossil fuels, and other people not liking the industrial infrastructure that goes with the Franklin process. But we conflate the arguments. So the argument is turned into a good science or a bad science opposed to recognising that both sides have legitimate positions and ultimately it's for democratic societies to collectively decide how to resolve these issues. And that's the point about animal research. We live in a plural society, people are entitled to different views and ultimately it's for parliament to resolve those differences. But my plea is to avoid having a discussion at cross purposes and to be absolutely clear in the terms of the discussion. Do you have a teacher of a member called more fast than Frankenstein? I've worked closely with Joyce and we produced an annual report on innovation, managing the risk rather than simply avoiding it. I feel like it's part of the science and engineering centre. Thanks for that, Mark. I enjoyed every second of it. Volunteers are not conscripts. I couldn't help thinking that might be slightly under me because I'm rather partial to conscripting. I couldn't possibly comment. I'm not going to give you cars back to the rigor partly because some of the arguments used against are not based on evidence and that rigor. I'm just quite that really frustrating when I'm talking to scientists who repeatedly say to me that we will be targeted. It's all right for you if you're there, there will be a bomb onto my car. At an institutional level, we're still hearing very, we talk about the history, very out of the arguments about the threat from the activists and no attempt to find out from the police or the anti-terrorism, who they are, what the real level of threat is. So I feel like we should be, okay, not conscripts, no one has to do it, and I totally agree with your distinction between particle physics and arguments based on values. But I do think we shouldn't let people, there are lots of pharmaceutical companies and institutions. You're aware, I email you when I see an institution still not doing this and leaving it to the people in this room who have won all these awards. And I think we do have to challenge them. There are institutions we should challenge, but I do think we have to recognise that this type of science communication is not that easy. It's much, much easier to talk about exposed on media even if you talk complete rubbish, people will believe you. The second you engage in a topic like genetically modified organisms or animal research, it is a much tougher experience. And so a lot of training is needed. And I maintain that you need volunteers. And not everyone is, as you know, good at communication. And so, as I said, you can't force people to do it. You have to persuade them that it's something they want to do and recognise that not everyone is as good at it as others. And I think recognise that the experience does feel different depending on what you're communicating. And also the position from which you're communicating. So, I make no comment other than saying that the experience of communicating science when you're the director of the work contrast is a different experience from communicating science when you're the chief scientific adviser to HM government. Can I just add another question? There's a benefit to that. I absolutely agree with you. You shouldn't try to force individuals for any reason. And individuals have a good at communicating in a better sense. But I think there could be a case of a hateful pressure on organisations. Yes. No, I agree with the organisation. Organisations are seen to be secretive. Yes. Then you assume bad things are happening even they're not. I think that's exactly right. I accept the organisation. But of course that can be done through the website that you see. So you don't necessarily have people standing up to give them speeches or opinions on the radio. You can be transparent in many ways. And so I agree with that. Karen, on that. I don't know if it's any other journalist in the room, but as a journalist, I concur with what you're saying that some people are just not good communicators and other people are naturals. One of the challenges I addressed when I was the other side of the fence and trying to persuade people to talk for the organisations I work for was the criticism and lack of support from their peers. Yes. I've seen time and time again people do a really quite good job as a radio interviewer, as good a job as anyone would do, and then suffer sometimes frankly abuse because they didn't quite say in the way with the reader perhaps or whatever some scientists would see. So I think there's a space between what scientists see as good communication and actually what the public hear. And humanity is what most people who are scientists need to understand that science is driven and done by people with great humanity and great patience and great concentration. And that's part of the message is to talk about who they are and why they're doing things and not just what they're doing. No, I couldn't be more. That's why I told the UMS story. Because it is the point that actually there is a minority people who do communicate science and do it on the media and do it well who are abused by their colleagues at least as much as they are by anyone else. And that is completely unacceptable. I might get that one. Here we are. Yes. Hang on. Make sure you're arguing on the right basis so there's more argument to you on what some people hold and there's an argument about science. But from where I say it would be really helpful to have a clear defence of the validity of animal models because that's what we continually get challenged with. And actually we get to say this is why we do it and this is how we can show that this is valid and can be transferred to humans etc. Actually it would be a very powerful tool. Well, I couldn't agree more and that was my challenge to do a very good metro analysis because I just don't think that exists. And so people are always coming out with a rather small number of examples. I think there are probably many more examples. Where is the metro analysis of what animal search has contributed over the last 25 years? I mean, someone could tell me if it exists but I'm not sure. If it exists I wouldn't find it. It doesn't exist. Who do you think is the right kind of personal group of people to try and draw that together? I'm not sure it's necessarily the people's room. Ultimately, what it comes out around the fundamental issue is that there is a cultural issue in science about this focus on this single original paper at the expense of metro analysis. I mean, the first thing you're supposed to do when you write a PhD and of course it's worth the last thing is write a literature review. And it's usually when you write a literature review at the end that you discover something that it would be quite useful to remember. But it is actually part of the review of writing a PhD. What people do intensely is write these reviews and they write the same review in slightly different forms about 20 times. It would be much better if people actually focus much more on that sort of rather rigorous metro analysis. And so I think that, I'm sure there are people in the audience who are qualified to do it but there is a methodology for doing metro analyses. It was medicine. It was my medicine that really invented it because it was so important to know that it relies on the accretion of knowledge and it's bringing it all together. And I don't think that there's nearly enough of that and it's something you really appreciate when you're in the business advising government. So in two sort of straightforward areas, which is both anti-baccalaureate system, nearly anti-bastic science, my life and Ian Boyd, who's my colleague at DEFRA has been made much easier by the work that Charles Godfrey and Andrew McLean have led in Oxford producing really good, rigorous metro analyses of the science evidence in both of these areas. That's what we need. Any more questions? Wendy, yes. Thank you so much for doing the lecture today. It's been absolutely fascinating. As you'll have seen, we've got probably the majority now of organisations in the UK that have signed and called out. There are clearly some organisations that carry out animal research that haven't been called out yet. And I wonder if you were trying to persuade them that it was a good thing to sign up, what sort of messages would you give them? I've just been talking for about 45 minutes giving messages. I think it's the narrative that... I think that is the narrative. But in some senses you've achieved fantastic things that have been called out. Of course, Fiona and I had some conversations about the creation of it right at the very beginning. I don't think actually the answer now is just to get more and more signatures on the concord. I think actually the challenge is to keep communicating. You've got an awful lot of communication there. Just make the most of it. Get people out there talking about it. And I would say you're doing very well. But I don't... I just think it's a mistake to believe that this is a task of work and at some point it will be done. It will never be done. In another, you know, the 180th pageant lecture will probably be the same lecture, essentially. Because the arguments won't change. It is a perfectly legitimate position to not want to do animal research. There is nothing wrong with it as a position. In a plural society we just have to resolve the fact that there are the different arguments that there is a powerful utilitarian argument. But not everyone is utilitarian. There is no right answer. I think on that interesting note unless there's any more questions up there it's just up to me again to thank Mark for a fantastic lecture and for you to do... But just before you do, I'd like to thank Tom Wells from my office who's sitting there for all the work he's done and also the chief inspector from the home of the city here as well. OK? Thank you very much.