Factors affecting people's acceptance of the use of zebrafish and mice in research

Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

Volumn 40, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 321-333

  Ormandy, Elisabeth H ^a   Schuppli, Catherine A ^a   Weary, Daniel M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

ENU mutagenesis; Genetic modification; Laboratory animals; Public attitudes

Indexed keywords

ETHYLNITROSOUREA;

ACCURACY; ADULT; ANIMAL USE; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DNA MODIFICATION; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; EXPERIMENTAL MOUSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INDUCED MUTATION; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MUTAGENESIS; NORMAL HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; TRANSGENIC ANIMAL; ZEBRA FISH;

EID: 84873556609     PISSN: 02611929     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/026119291204000605     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Ipsos MORI (2010). Views on Animal Experi - mentation, 55pp. London, UK: Department for Business Innovation & Skills. Available at: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/ 1343-sri-views-on-animal- experimentation- 2010.pdf (Accessed 13.11.12).
2. Saad, L. (2010). Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans [Gallup Politics, 26.05.10]. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral- Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx (Accessed 13.11.12).
3. Directorate-General for Communication (2010). Eurobarometer Science and Technology Report, 158pp. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public-opinion/ archives/ebs/ebs-340-en.pdf (Accessed 13.11.12).
4. Hagelin, J., Carlsson, H.E. & Hau, J. (2003). An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: Some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Understanding of Science 12, 67-81. (Pubitemid 37049760)
5. Swami, V., Furnham, A. & Christopher, A. (2008). Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 49, 269-276.
6. Crettaz von Roten, F. (2012). Public perceptions of animal experimentation across Europe. Public Understanding of Science. Available at: http://www.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/02/01/0963662511 428045 [Online only.]
7. Driscoll, J.W. (1992). Attitudes towards animal use. Anthrozoös 5, 32-39.
8. Driscoll, J.W. (1995). Attitudes towards animals: Species ratings. Society & Animals 3, 139-150.
9. Knight, S., Cherryman, J. & Nunkoosing, K. (2004). Attitudes towards animal use and animal mind. Anthrozoös 17, 43-62. (Pubitemid 39159765)
10. Schuppli, C.A. (2011). Decisions about the use of animals in research: Ethical reflection by Animal Ethics Committee members. Anthrozoös 24, 409-425.
11. Henry, B. & Pulcino, R. (2009). Individual difference and study-specific characteristics influencing attitudes about the use of animals in medical research. Society & Animals 17, 305-324.
12. Ormandy, E.H., Schuppli, C.A. & Weary, D.M. (2009). Worldwide trends in the use of animals in research: The contribution of genetically modified animal models. ATLA 37, 63-68.
13. Serpell, J.A. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare 13, S145-S151. (Pubitemid 38351507)
14. Eddy, T.J., Gallup, G.G. & Povinelli, D.J. (1993). Attribution of cognitive states to animals: Anthropomorphism in comparative perspective. Journal of Social Issues 49, 87-101.
15. Gunnthorsdottir, A. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös 14, 204-214. (Pubitemid 33685316)
16. Herzog, H.A. & Burghardt, G.M. (1988). Attitudes toward animals: Origins and diversity. Anthrozoös 1, 214-222.
17. Lawrence, E.A. (1989). Neoteny in American perceptions of animals. In Perceptions of Animals in American Culture (ed. R.J. Hoage), pp. 57-76. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press.
18. CCAC (2005). Guidelines on: The Care and Use of Fish in Research, Teaching and Testing, 87pp. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council on Animal Care. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/ Standards/Guidelines/Fish.pdf (Accessed 16.11.12).
19. DeTolla, L.J., Srinivas, S., Whitaker, B.R., Andrews, C., Hecker, B., Kane, A.S. & Reimschuessel, R. (1995). Guidelines for the care and use of fish in research. ILAR Journal 37, 159-173.
20. Fabacher, D.L. & Little, E.E. (2000). Introduction. In The Laboratory Fish (ed. G.K. Ostrander), pp. 1-9. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.
21. Chandroo, K.P., Duncan, I.J.H. & Moccia, R.D. (2004). Can fish suffer?: Perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86, 225-250. (Pubitemid 38611031)
22. Macnaghten, P. (2004). Animals in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and 'nature'. Sociology 38, 533-551.
23. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. & Stares, S. (2003). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0, 19pp. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate Press and Communication, Public Opinion Analysis Unit. Avail - able at: http://ec.europa.eu/public-opinion/archives/ ebs/ebs-177-en.pdf (Accessed 16.11.12).
24. Schuppli, C.A. & Weary, D.M. (2010). Attitudes towards the use of genetically modified animals in research. Public Understanding of Science 19, 686-697.
25. Ormandy, E.H., Schuppli, C.A. & Weary, D.M. (2012). Public attitudes towards the use of animals in research: Effects of invasiveness, genetic modification and regulation. Anthrozoös. [In press.]
26. Macnaghten, P. (2001). Animal Futures: Public Att - itudes and Sensibilities Toward Animals and Biotech nology in Contemporary Britain, 49pp. Lan - caster, UK: Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Lancaster University.
27. EORG (2001). Eurobarometer 55.2. Europeans, Science and Technology, 62pp. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate-General for Press and Communication, Public Opinion Sector. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2001/pr0612en- report.pdf (Accessed 16.11.12).
28. Birke, L., Arluke, A. & Michael, M. (2007). The Sacri - fice: How Scientific Experiments Transform Animals and People, 240pp. West Lafayette, IN, USA: Purdue University Press.
29. de Bruijn, E., Cuppen, E. & Feitsma, H. (2010). Highly efficient ENU mutagenesis in zebrafish. Methods in Molecular Biology 546, 3-12.
30. de Angelis, M.H., Flaswinkel, H., Fuchs, H., Rath - kolb, B., Soewarto, D., Maschall, S., Heefner, S., Pargent, W., Wuensch, K., Jung, M., Reis, A., Richter, T., Alessandrini, F., Jakob, T., Fuchs, E., Kolb, H., Kremmer, E., Schaeble, K., Rollinski, B., Roscher, A., Peters, C., Meltinger, T., Strom, T., Steckler, T., Holsboer, F., Klopstock, T., Gekeler, F., Schindewolf, C., Jung, T., Avraham, K., Behrendt, H., Ring, J., Zimmer, A., Schughart, K., Pfeffer, K., Wolf, E. & Balling, R. (2000). Genome-wide, large-scale production of mutant mice by ENU mutagenesis. Nature Genetics 25, 444-447. (Pubitemid 32983440)
31. Fujii, K., Kurata, H., Odashima, S. & Hatsuda, Y. (1976). Tumor induction by a single subcutaneous injection of sterimatocystin in newborn mice. Cancer Research 36, 1615-1618.
32. Amatruda, J.F., Shepard, J.L., Stern, H.M. & Zon, L.I. (2002). Zebrafish as a cancer model system. Cancer Cell 1, 229-231. (Pubitemid 41039146)
33. Mizgireuv, I. & Revskoy, Y. (2006). Transplantable tumor lines generated in clonal zebrafish. Cancer Research 66, 3120-3125.
34. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research, 784pp. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
35. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd edn), 352pp. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publica - tions, Inc.
36. Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Concepts and coding. In Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Comp - lementary Research Strategies, pp. 226-253. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications Inc.
37. Knight, S., Vrij, A., Bard, K. & Brandon, D. (2009). Science versus human welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use. Journal of Social Issues 65, 463-483.
38. Russell, W.M.S. & Burch, R.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238pp. London, UK: Methuen.
39. Stafleu, F.R., Tramper, R., Vorstenbosch, J. & Joles, J.A. (1999). The ethical acceptability of animal experiments: A proposal for a system to support decisionmaking. Laboratory Animals 33, 295-303. (Pubitemid 29364170)
40. Ideland, M. (2009). Different view on ethics: How animal ethics is situated in committee culture. Journal of Medical Ethics 35, 258-261.
41. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allans - dottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., Boy, D., de Cheveigné, S., Fjaestad, B., Gutteling, J.M., Hampel, J., Jelsøe, E., Correia Jesuino, J., Kohring, M., Kronberger, N., Midden, C., Nielsen, T.H., Przestalski, A., Rusanen, T., Sakellaris, G., Torgersen, H., Twardowski, T. & Wagner, W. (2000). Biotechnology and the European Public. Nature Biotechnology 18, 935-938. (Pubitemid 32977370)
42. Lassen, J., Gjerris, M. & Sandøe, P. (2006). After Dolly: Ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology 65, 992-1004. (Pubitemid 43254667)
43. Broida, J., Tingley, L., Kimball, R. & Miele, J. (1993). Personality differences between pro- and anti-vivisectionists. Society & Animals 1, 129-144.
44. American Dietetic Association (2009). Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians of Canada: Vegetarian diets. ADA Reports 103, 748-765.
45. Harris Interactive (2008). Vegetarianism in Amer - ica. [Vegetarian Times, undated]. Available at: http://www.vegetariantimes.com/features/archive- of-editorial/667 (Accessed 20.11.12).
46. GfK Social Research (2009). Public Attitudes to Food Issues, 91pp. London, UK: Food Standards Agency. Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/ multimedia/pdfs/publicattitudestofood.pdf (Accessed 12.11.12).
47. Qin, W. & Brown, J.L. (2007). Public reactions to information about genetically engineered foods: Effects of information formats and male/female differences. Public Understanding of Science 16, 471-488.
48. Knight, S., Nunkoosing, K., Vrig, A. & Cherryman, J. (2003). Using grounded theory to examine people's attitudes towards how animals are used. Society & Animals 11, 179-198.
49. Pifer, L., Shimizu, K. & Pifer, R. (1994). Public attitudes toward public research: Some international comparisons. Society & Animals 2, 95-113.
50. Gallup, G.G. & Beckstead, J.W. (1988). Attitudes towards animal research. American Psychologist 43, 474-476.
51. Matthews, S. & Herzog, H.A. (1997). Personality and attitudes towards the treatment of animals. Society & Animals 5, 169-175.
52. Kendall, H.A., Lobao, L.M. & Sharp, J.S. (2006). Public concern with animal well-being: Place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology 71, 399-428. (Pubitemid 44445630)
53. Aldhous, P., Coghlan, A. & Copely, J. (1999). Let the people speak. New Scientist 2187, 26.
54. Kane, Parsons & Associates, Inc. (1989). Survey of American Adults: Report of Findings (unpublished report). New York, NY, USA: Kane, Parsons and Associates, Inc.
55. Richmond, G., Engelmann, M. & Krupka, L.R. (1990). The animal research controversy. American Biology Teacher 52, 467-471.