Literature DB >> 23825251

Painful dilemmas: A study of the way the public's assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits.

Thomas Bøker Lund1, Morten Raun Mørkbak, Jesper Lassen, Peter Sandøe.   

Abstract

The conflict between animal costs and human benefits has dominated public as well as academic debates about animal research. However, surveys of public perceptions of animal research rarely focus on this part of attitude formation. This paper traces the prevalence of different attitudes to animal research in the public when people are asked to take benefit and cost considerations into account concurrently. Results from the examination of two representative samples of the Danish public identify three reproducible attitude stances. Approximately 30-35% of people questioned approved of animal research quite strongly, and 15-20% opposed animal research. The remaining 50% were reserved in their views. Further studies will ideally use the measure developed here to make possible relatively fine-grained comparisons and understandings of differences between populations and changes in attitudes over time.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ambivalence; animal research; attitudes; cost–benefit; public; quantitative study; value conflict

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23825251     DOI: 10.1177/0963662512451402

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Underst Sci        ISSN: 0963-6625


  9 in total

Review 1.  Current concepts of Harm-Benefit Analysis of Animal Experiments - Report from the AALAS-FELASA Working Group on Harm-Benefit Analysis - Part 1.

Authors:  Aurora Brønstad; Christian E Newcomer; Thierry Decelle; Jeffrey I Everitt; Javier Guillen; Kathy Laber
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.471

2.  A Critical Look at Biomedical Journals' Policies on Animal Research by Use of a Novel Tool: The EXEMPLAR Scale.

Authors:  Ana Raquel Martins; Nuno Henrique Franco
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 2.752

3.  Researchers' attitudes to the 3Rs-An upturned hierarchy?

Authors:  Nuno Henrique Franco; Peter Sandøe; I Anna S Olsson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The Dog Model in the Spotlight: Legacy of a Trustful Cooperation.

Authors:  Inès Barthélémy; Christophe Hitte; Laurent Tiret
Journal:  J Neuromuscul Dis       Date:  2019

5.  "It's Not Good for the Animals, but I Think It Should Be Done"-Using Focus Group Interviews to Explore Adolescent Views on Animal Experimentation.

Authors:  Sonja M Enzinger; Christian Dürnberger
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 3.231

Review 6.  Recommendations for Addressing Harm-Benefit Analysis and Implementation in Ethical Evaluation - Report from the AALAS-FELASA Working Group on Harm-Benefit Analysis - Part 2.

Authors:  Kathy Laber; Christian E Newcomer; Thierry Decelle; Jeffrey I Everitt; Javier Guillen; Aurora Brønstad
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.471

7.  Some animals are more equal than others: Validation of a new scale to measure how attitudes to animals depend on species and human purpose of use.

Authors:  Alexander Bradley; Neil Mennie; Peter A Bibby; Helen J Cassaday
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden.

Authors:  Svea Jörgensen; Johan Lindsjö; Elin M Weber; Helena Röcklinsberg
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 2.752

9.  Methodological standards, quality of reporting and regulatory compliance in animal research on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joana G Fernandes; Nuno H Franco; Andrew J Grierson; Jan Hultgren; Andrew J W Furley; I Anna S Olsson
Journal:  BMJ Open Sci       Date:  2019-08-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.