The militant nature of anti-vivisection protesters appears to have diminished in recent years. Flash points still occur, but, at least in the UK, we no longer see regular headlines about damage to laboratories or death threats against researchers. Google’s news trend software shows a marked drop in stories containing the words animal rights activists and associated phrases since Tony Blair gave his backing to vivisection in 2006. But the campaign to outlaw medical and scientific research on animals continues.

Today comes news that five UK universities, King’s and UCL among them, must disclose greater information about the animals used in their research activities. This seems fair enough on the face of it. After all, much of that research is publicly funded, and keeping schtum about a practice that certain people find repulsive potentially fans the flames of their ire. But, say the universities, putting more information in the public domain endangers researchers from targeted campaigns.

The order comes after a successful freedom-of-information request by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. The five universities must now disclose the number and species of all animals used in experimentation. The lobby group clearly has a reason for making the request. It’s easy to imagine activists using the data to prepare and publicise a list of ranked targets for demonstration (an ironic fact-based approach to a sentimental pursuit).

So how do people who work with animals feel about this? Would you be concerned if it were revealed that your institution has more bonobos than any other?