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

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 358-374

  Schuppli, Catherine A ^a   Molento, Carla F M ^b   Weary, Daniel M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PARANÁ   (Brazil)

Author keywords

animal experimentation; animal welfare; genetic modification; mixed methods; public attitudes

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; ANIMAL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ATTITUDE; HUMAN; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PIG; POLLUTION; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE;

AGRICULTURE; ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION; ANIMALS; ATTITUDE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION; HUMANS; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PUBLIC OPINION; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 84926391261     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662513490466     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ahmad R,Bailey J,Bornik G,Danielson P,Dowlatabadi H,Levy E,Longstaff H.A web-based instrument to model social norms: NERD design and result.The Integrated Assessment Journal: Bridging Sciences & Policy. 2006;6 (2): 9-36
2. Animal Procedures Committee Report on Biotechnology. London, UK: The Stationery Office; 2001:
3. Canadian Council on Animal Care (2009) Trends in animal use. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Animal Care. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/en_/publications/audf/trends
4. Christoph IB,Bruhn M,Roosen J.Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany.Appetite. 2008;51 (1): 58-68
5. Cook M,Mineka S.Selective associations in the observational conditioning of fear in Rhesus monkeys.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. 1990;16:372-389
6. de Vries R.Ethical concepts regarding the genetic engineering of laboratory animals: A confrontation with moral beliefs from the practice of biomedical research.Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy. 2006;9 (2): 211-225
7. Devos Y,Maeseele P,Reheul D,Speybroeck L,Waele D.Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (re)quest for sense and sensibility.Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2007;21 (1): 29-61
8. Science and Technology. Special Eurobarometer 340, Wave 73.1. Brussels: European Commission; 2010:
9. Sixth Report on the Statistics on the Number of Animals Used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union. Brussels: European Commission; 2010:
10. Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. Federman DDHanna KERodriguez LL, ed. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2003:
11. Finucane ML,Holup JL.Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: An overview of the literature.Social Science and Medicine. 2005;60:1603-1612
12. Finucane ML,Alhakami A,Slovic P,Johnson SM.The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2000;13:1-17
13. Fraser D,Weary DM,Pajor EA,Milligan BN.A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns.Animal Welfare. 1997;6 (3): 187-205
14. Frewer LJ,Scholderer J,Bredahl L.Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust.Risk Analysis. 2003;23 (6): 1117-1133
15. Gallup (2010) Gallup’s annual values and beliefs survey. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx
16. Gaskell G,Allum N,Bauer M,Durant J,Allansdottir A,Bonfadelli H., et al.Biotechnology and the European public.Nature Biotechnology. 2000;18:935-938
17. Gaskell G,Allansdottir A,Allum N,Corchero C,Fischler C,Hampel J., et alEuropeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends. Directorate General Press and Communication, Public Opinion Analysis Unit; 2006:
18. Golovan SP,Meidinger RG,Ajakaiye A,Cottrill M,Wiederkehr MZ,Barney DJ, et al.Pigs expressing salivary phytase produce low-phosphorous manure.Nature Biotechnology. 2001;19:741-745
19. Herzog H.Gender differences in human-animal interactions: A review.Anthrozoös. 2007;20:7-21
20. Herzog H,Golden L.Moral emotions and social activism: The case of animal rights.Journal of Social Issues. 2009;65 (3): 485-498
21. Holmberg T,Ideland M.Transgenic silences: The rhetoric of comparisons and transgenic mice as “ordinary treasures”.BioSocieties. 2009;4 (2–3): 165-181
22. Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2010. London, UK: The Stationery Office; 2011:
23. Knight A.Does application matter? An examination of public perception of agricultural biotechnology applications.AgBioForum. 2006;9 (2): 121-128
24. Knight S,Barnett L.Justifying attitudes toward animal use: A qualitative study of people’s views and beliefs.Anthrozoos. 2008;21 (1): 31-42
25. Knight S,Vrij A,Bard K,Brandon D.Science versus human welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use.Journal of Social Issues. 2009;65 (3): 463-483
26. Lerner JS,Gonzalez RM,Small DA,Fischhoff B.Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment.Psychological Science. 2003;14:144-150
27. Levidow L,Carr S.GM crops on trial: Technological development as a real-world experiment.Futures. 2007;39:408-431
28. MORI (Market and Opinion Research International) (2010) Views on Animal Experimentation. London, UK: MRC. Available at: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1343_sri-views-on-animal-experimentation-2010.pdf
29. The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. London, UK: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2005:260-286.
30. Ormandy EH,Schuppli CA,Weary DM.Worldwide trends in the use of animals in research: The contribution of genetically modified animal models.Alternatives to Laboratory Animals. 2009;37 (1): 63-68
31. Ormandy EH,Schuppli CA,Weary DM.Public attitudes towards animal research: Effect of invasiveness, genetic modification and regulation.Anthrozoös. 2013a;26 (2): 165-184
32. Ormandy EH,Schuppli CA,Weary DM.Modeling skin cancer in zebrafish and mice: factors affecting public acceptance.Alternatives to Laboratory Animals. 2013b;40:321-333
33. Panksepp JAffective Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998:
34. Peters E,Slovic P.The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power.Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1996;26:1427-1453
35. Pivetti M.Natural and unnatural: Activists’ representations of animal biotechnology.New Genetics and Society. 2007;26 (2): 137-157
36. Rozin P.One-trial acquired likes and dislikes in humans: Disgust as a US, food predominance, and negative learning predominance.Learning and Motivation. 1986;17:180-189
37. SchmidtS (2012) Genetically engineered pigs killed after funding ends. Postmedia News, June22. Canada.com. Available at: http://www.canada.com/technology/science/Genetically+engineered+pigs+killed+after+funding+ends/6819844/story.html
38. Schuppli CA,Weary DM.Attitudes towards the use of genetically modified animals in research.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;19 (6): 686-697
39. Seligman MEP.Phobias and preparedness.Behavior Therapy. 1971;2:307-320
40. Sjöberg L.Perceived risk and tampering with nature.Journal of Risk Research. 2000;3 (4): 353-367
41. Sjöberg L.Genetically modified food in the eyes of the public and experts.Risk Management. 2008;10 (3): 168-193
42. Slovic P.Perception of risk.Science. 1987;236:280-285
43. Slovic P,Västfjäll D.Affect, moral intuition, and risk.Psychological Inquiry. 2010;21 (4): 387-398
44. Stehr N,Ericson RGoverning Modern Societies. Ericson RStehr N, ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2000:3-25.
45. Sturgis P,Allum NA Literature Review of Research Conducted on Public Interest, Knowledge and Attitudes to Biomedical Science. London, UK: Wellcome Trust; 2006:
46. Townsend E.Affective influence on risk perceptions and attitudes towards GM food.Journal of Risk Research. 2006;9 (2): 125-139
47. Vogel G.Long-fought compromise reached on European animal rules.Science. 2010;329 (5999): 1588-1589
48. Wells DJ,Playle LC,Enser WEJ,Flecknell PA,Gardiner MA,Holland J, et al.Assessing the welfare of genetically altered mice.Laboratory Animals. 2006;40:111-114