We are now one month on from the start of the Science Action Network, which aims to enable scientists to respond to misinformation from animal rights groups (AKA #ARnonsense).
So how do we measure the effect of such a campaign? We tried to show some of the success we had in the first 18 days in an earlier post. Since then we have continued to swing polls and garner additional comments on #ARnonsense across the internet. But why do we bother? See Exhibit A.
Prior to use mentioning this thread on twitter via the #ARnonsense hashtag these were the only comments on a post about how animal rights activists were preventing the transport of animals for medical purposes. It gives a pretty grim impression on the public view of animal research.
After we tweeted this out using the #ARnonsense hashtag the comment thread changed direction.
Common sense prevails and those reading can now understand why animals are being transported for research.
#ARnonsense – if you haven’t done your share this week, here’s a couple in need of reply:
A petition against animal testing has a FaceBook enabled comment section at the bottom – it would be nice if we could convince a few people not to sign the petition.
Please tweet the following British MPs: @hammersmithandy, @LindsayHoyle_MP and @LilianGreenwood who have fallen for the misinformation of the animal rights group the BUAV – remind them that the BUAV is not an animal welfare group and would see an end to all lifesaving medical research using animals (including veterinary).
One thought on “The #ARnonsense Effect”
nice to see the impact that well constructed answer can have. Too bad that misuse of social media and misinformation still cna have such pull. Research is needed: my mother just had life saving colon cancer surgery…I am glad the surgeon had learn to do surgery first on anaimal and knew what to remove before his first incision on a human.
Comments are closed.