The use of animals in scientific research is a hot-button issue that divides the medical community probably as much as it does the general public. We hate the idea but know that, in many circumstances, such research can save lives. Providing information to show that research animals are handled humanely is critical to gain support and answer the critics of animal experimentation.

The University of Missouri offers a good example of how not to handle the issue. It tried to charge excessively high public records fees, apparently to discourage inquiries by a California-based animal-rights group. The group sued, then discovered that six beagles had been used for experimentation, then reportedly killed, in a university research project.

The lawsuit didn't get much notice until last week, when the Beagle Freedom Project used social media to expose the use of the beagles for treatments for corneal ulcers. The group contends the beagles in the study were purposely blinded for the project and euthanized after the experiment failed.

The university says researchers did nothing wrong and that the project followed rules established by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and was approved by the campus's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

If the university had provided records the group asked for in the first place, regarding 179 dogs and cats on Mizzou's campus, the activists might not have scrutinized published research looking for a study they could exploit. Their lawsuit alleges the university charged more than $82,000 for public documents the animal-rights group requested. The organization says it uses such records to identify candidates for post-research adoption.

Activists subsequently uncovered the study about the eye research project, published in the 2016 Journal of Veterinary Ophthalmology, which showed that four researchers originally intended to use 24 dogs but determined it was "impractical given concerns of animal resources for this pilot study." The sample size was whittled to six dogs.

The university said the dogs were anesthetized during the procedure in which the cornea in each dog's left eye was damaged intentionally by a researcher. The university said the dogs were not in pain during the procedure and were given painkillers as needed afterward. The university also said the dogs received daily socialization and were well cared for.

By making public information too expensive and difficult to access, the university gave the impression it had something to hide. The published information was enough for the group to initiate a social media campaign, which got more than 1.5 million page views and was shared with 40,000 people on an email list where donations were sought to cover lawsuit expenses.

If universities and researchers have nothing to hide about their ethical treatment of animals, the only way to prove it is by sharing information openly.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH