Catherine A. Schuppli

Public Attitudes toward Animal Research: A Review

Simple Summary Public engagement on issues related to animal research, including exploration of public attitudes, provides a means of achieving socially acceptable scientific practice and oversight through an understanding of societal values and concerns. Numerous studies have been conducted to explore public attitudes toward animal use, and more specifically the use of animals in research. This paper reviews relevant literature using three categories of influential factors: personal and cultural characteristics, animal characteristics, and research characteristics. Abstract The exploration of public attitudes toward animal research is important given recent developments in animal research (e.g., increasing creation and use of genetically modified animals, and plans for progress in areas such as personalized medicine), and the shifting relationship between science and society (i.e., a move toward the democratization of science). As such, public engagement on issues related to animal research, including exploration of public attitudes, provides a means of achieving socially acceptable scientific practice and oversight through an understanding of societal values and concerns. Numerous studies have been conducted to explore public attitudes toward animal use, and more specifically the use of animals in research. This paper reviews relevant literature using three categories of influential factors: personal and cultural characteristics, animal characteristics, and research characteristics. A critique is given of survey style methods used to collect data on public attitudes, and recommendations are given on how best to address current gaps in public attitudes literature.

Access to pasture for dairy cows: Responses from an online engagement

An online engagement exercise documented the views of Canadian and U.S. participants affiliated and unaffiliated with the dairy industry on the issue of pasture access for dairy cows. A total of 414 people participated in 10 independent web forums. Providing access to more natural living conditions, including pasture, was viewed as important for the large majority of participants, including those affiliated with the dairy industry. This finding is at odds with current practice on the majority of farms in North America that provide little or no access to pasture. Participant comments showed that the perceived value of pasture access for dairy cattle went beyond the benefits of eating grass; participants cited as benefits exposure to fresh air, ability to move freely, ability to live in social groups, improved health, and healthier milk products. To accommodate the challenges of allowing pasture access on farms, some participants argued in favor of hybrid systems that provide a mixture of indoor confinement housing and grazing. Understanding the beliefs and concerns of participants affiliated and unaffiliated with the dairy industry allows for the identification of contentious topics as well as areas of agreement; this is important in efforts to better harmonize industry practices with societal expectations.

Tail docking dairy cattle: Responses from an online engagement

Tail docking remains a common practice on dairy farms in the United States. This paper describes the results of an online engagement designed to create discussion on tail docking, to document the reasons participants put forward for and against the practice, and to compare these reasons with the literature available on this topic. A total of 178 people responded; 30% were producers, 23% were veterinarians, 25% had no experience with the dairy industry, and 22% included a mixture of teachers, students, and industry professionals. Approximately 79% of participants were opposed to docking. Responses varied with participant demographics (e.g., females were more likely than males to oppose docking), but in every demographic subgroup (e.g., by sex, age, country of origin, and dairy production experience), the majority of respondents were opposed to tail docking. Common reasons for opposition to docking included the lack of scientific evidence that docking improves cleanliness or udder health, that docking is painful for cows, that docking is unnatural, and that tails are important for controlling flies. Some respondents in favor of docking cited cow cleanliness as an issue, despite the scientific evidence showing no positive effect of docking on cow cleanliness or udder health. Additional reasons included protecting producer safety. These results illustrate the range of reasons that are cited for supporting and opposing tail docking. This approach can be used to better target outreach efforts (e.g., improving farmer education on the lack of positive effects of docking on cleanliness and udder health while addressing concerns about producer safety). More generally, this type of online discussion provides a safe and productive format for discussions about contentious issues in the dairy industry and provides a mechanism for producers, industry professionals, and the public to share perspectives on these topics.

Decisions about the Use of Animals in Research: Ethical Reflection by Animal Ethics Committee Members

ABSTRACT Institutional Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) are the principal means of ensuring the ethical use of animals in science in many countries, yet we understand very little about how they make decisions and how effective they are in implementing policy and achieving their stated aims. To answer these questions, an ethnographic study involving participant observation and in-depth interviews with 28 members of four university AECs in western Canada was carried out. The major focus of protocol review by committee members was reducing harm to animals, with less focus on the ethical justification of research despite this being stressed in policy as a goal of AECs. In part, this may be due to confusion over the relation between AEC review and scientific peer review by granting agencies, with some members believing that ethical justification is decided by scientific peer review. Members were also unclear on the distinction between the different elements that go into decisions about ethical justification. Use of harm-benefit assessment, although prescribed by policy, did not cover the various other decision-making approaches that members described using (moral intuition, empathy with animals etc.). Thus, policy may invalidate how some (especially non-scientist) members naturally make decisions. AEC effectiveness could be improved by clarifying the elements of harm-benefit assessments and the relation between AEC and scientific peer review, keeping in mind that peer review does not offer the same assurances (notably community input) that the AEC brings. Effectiveness could be improved by expanding policy to acknowledge the various approaches used in decision-making.

Attitudes towards the use of genetically modified animals in research.

Here we provide the first experimental evidence that public concerns about the use of animals in research are accentuated when genetically modified (GM) animals are used. Using an online survey, we probed participant views on two uses of pigs as research animals (to reduce agricultural pollution or to improve organ transplant success in humans) with and without GM. We surveyed 327 animal technicians, researchers, advocates, university students and others. In both scenarios and across demographics, support dropped off when the research required the use of GM pigs or GM corn. For example, 66% of participants supported using pigs to reduce phosphorus pollution, but this declined to 49% when the pigs were fed GM corn and to 20% when the research required the creation of a new GM line of pigs. Those involved in animal research were more consistently supportive compared to those who were not or those who were vegetarians.

Scientists’ Perspectives on the Ethical Issues of Stem Cell Research

This paper describes findings from an ethics education project funded by the Canadian Stem Cell Network (SCN). The project is part of a larger research initiative entitled “The Stem Cell Research Environment: Drawing the Evidence and Experience Together”. The ethics education study began with a series of focus groups with SCN researchers and trainees as part of a “needs assessment” effort. The purpose of these discussions was to identify the main ethical issues associated with stem cell (SC) research from the perspective of the stem cell community. This paper will focus on five prominent themes that emerged from the focus group data including: (1) the source of stem cells; (2) the power of stem cells; (3) working within a charged research environment; (4) the regulatory context; and (5) ethics training for scientists. Additional discussions are planned with others involved in Canadian stem cell research (e.g., research ethics board members, policy makers) to supplement initial findings. These assessment results combined with existing bioethics literature will ultimately inform a web-based ethics education module for the SCN. We believe that our efforts are important for those analyzing the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) in this area because our in depth understanding of stem cell researcher perspectives will enable us to develop more relevant and effective education material, which in turn should help SC researchers address the important ethical challenges in their area.

Public Attitudes toward the Use of Animals in Research: Effects of Invasiveness, Genetic Modification and Regulation

ABSTRACT This study describes an online public engagement experiment aimed at investigating how acceptance of animal-based research is affected by: (a) the presence of regulations that govern the use of nonhuman animals in laboratories, (b) the invasiveness of procedures, and (c) the use of genetically modified (GM) animals. To meet these aims, participants were asked if they were willing to accept the use of pigs in different scenarios involving agricultural research. Two-thirds of the 681 participants were female and the majority (58%) were young (19–29 years old) with college or university level education (62%). Participants came from 26 different countries, with the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom being the top three countries represented. Participants who self-identified as being vegetarians, familiar with animal welfare, animal advocates, environmental advocates, and familiar with animal research were significantly more likely to be opposed to animal-based research. Older participants were significantly less likely to oppose animal-based research. Support significantly decreased when animal-based research involved an invasive procedure or GM animals. Support for invasive research significantly increased when regulation was in place, but regulation had less effect on acceptance of GM animal use. Comments provided by participants illustrated different decision-making strategies regarding different types of animal-based research. Given the increasing use of GM animals in research, more effort is required to understand peoples concerns regarding this type of animal use and to determine how these concerns should be reflected in policy.

Understanding attitudes towards the use of animals in research using an online public engagement tool.

Using an online public engagement experiment, we probed the views of 617 participants on the use of pigs as research animals (to reduce agricultural pollution or to improve organ transplant success in humans) with and without genetic modification and using different numbers of pigs. In both scenarios and across demographics, level of opposition increased when the research required the use of GM corn or GM pigs. Animal numbers had little effect. A total of 1037 comments were analyzed to understand decisions. Participants were most concerned about the impact of the research on animal welfare. Genetic modification was viewed as an intervention in nature and there was worry about unpredictable consequences. Both opponents and supporters sought assurances that concerns were addressed. Governing bodies for animal research should make efforts to document and mitigate consequences of GM and other procedures, and increase efforts to maintain a dialogue with the public around acceptability of these procedures.

Brazilian attitudes towards the use of animals in research

Little research has examined the views of Latin Americans on the use of animals in research. This study examined the degree to which Brazilians support the use of animals in research and the reasons they put forth to explain their position. Participants were randomly assigned to research scenarios describing the use of animals for biomedical or environmental benefits, and varying in the number of pigs required. Each scenario began by proposing the use of conventional pigs and then advanced to the development and use of genetically modified animals (GMA). A total of 151 quantitative and 307 qualitative answers were analysed. Scenario and number of animals had little effect on support, but opposition increased from 25% to 58% when pigs were used to develop a GM strain for the environmental scenario. Support to use of animals was often conditional upon adequate protection of the animals’ welfare. Participants were less willing to support research on environmental scenario when this involved the creation of GMA, in part because they feared the risk associated with this technology.