LONDON

One of the founders of the Boyd Group, a forum representing the centre-ground in the animals-in-research debate in the United Kingdom, has called for the organization to talk to ardent anti-vivisectionists, possibly opening a line of communication to the extremist Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The suggestion will be discussed at a group meeting next week.

The call was made by Colin Blakemore, professor of physiology at the University of Oxford. Blakemore is president-elect of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, whose annual science festival at the University of Leeds will host the Boyd Group's first public meeting on 9 September.

Reaction from other members of the group to Blakemore's idea has been mixed. Les Ward, director of the moderate animal rights organization Advocates for Animals, and a co-founder of the Boyd Group, says he does not oppose talking to the ALF. But Ward says he doubts whether dialogue will result in progress given that the ALF is unlikely to renounce violence as a means of stopping animal experiments.

But Mark Matfield of the Research Defence Society, which represents organizations involved in medical research, says he is completely opposed to any contact with the ALF. “I don't think you can have dialogue with an organization that wants to blow you up,” he says.

Blakemore, who along with his family has been a target of ALF violence for many years, says he is prepared to “talk to almost anyone” to achieve progress in the debate. “I am perfectly prepared to see the ALF at the table if their attitude is constructive and there is a chance of progress.”

Blakemore says the Boyd Group needs to “move forward” and tackle “more contentious” issues. The group so far has agreed to reduce the numbers of animals used in research within the organizations it represents.

The group has in the past sought the support of mainstream anti-vivisectionist organizations, such as Animal Aid, and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. But, despite keen interest during preparatory discussions, both organizations have said they are not prepared to join unless a total ban on the use of animals is on the agenda.

Blakemore says these organizations could use the group as an opportunity to convince their critics of the strength of their case. But Bob Coombe, scientific director of the Fund for Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments and a member of the Boyd Group, says wider membership, although important, might also inhibit progress. “One might argue that we could become a talking shop if every single organization is represented,” he says.