In this paper I make an argument for the wider propagation of animal use data. At present, animal use data is collected by animal researchers and passed on to regulatory authorities who then publish the data in voluminous annual report style documents. The problem with this process as a means of public communication is that these documents are only likely to be viewed by partisans in the animal research debate. The vast majority of citizens who have a public interest in the issue remain ignorant of how their taxes and donations may impact upon animals.

My suggestion for reform makes strategic use of the relationship between researchers and the communications practitioners who report on or promote animal based biomedical research. I argue that when researchers speak to journalists or public relations practitioners about the results of their research protocols, they have an obligation to disclose details about their use of animals, specifically, the numbers of animals they used and the physiological challenges the animals may have endured. For their part, communications practitioners are likewise required to include details of animal use in any subsequent narrative they prepare for publication.

The wider propagation of animal use data is consistent with the spirit of prevailing institutional self-regulatory animal welfare norms and the recent call by bioethicists for medical journal submission guidelines to be reformed along similar lines. An obligation to disclose also finds support in Millian free speech ideals, journalistic norms mandating balanced reporting, and dialogic ethical principles in the public relations field. I defend the requirement to disclose against major objections, such as that it will expose researchers to extremist violence and lead to a downturn in public support for vital medical research.