Assessing undergraduate student and faculty views on animal research: What do they know, whom do they trust, and how much do they care?

Autoři: Eric P. Sandgren aff001;  Robert Streiffer aff002;  Jennifer Dykema aff003;  Nadia Assad aff003;  Jackson Moberg aff003
Působiště autorů: Pathobiololgical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America aff001;  Medical History and Bioethics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America aff002;  University of Wisconsin-Madison Survey Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223375


Research using animals is controversial. To develop sound public outreach and policy about this issue, we need information about both the underlying science and people’s attitudes and knowledge. To identify attitudes toward this subject at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, we developed and administered a survey to undergraduate students and faculty. The survey asked respondents about the importance of, their confidence in their knowledge about, and who they trusted to provide information on animal research. Findings indicated attitudes varied by academic discipline, especially among faculty. Faculty in the biological sciences, particularly those who had participated in an animal research project, reported the issue to be most important, and they reported greater confidence in their knowledge about pro and con arguments. Among students, being female, a vegetarian/vegan, or participating in animal research were associated with higher ratings of importance. Confidence in knowledge about regulation and its adequacy was very low across all groups except biological science faculty. Both students and faculty identified university courses and spokespersons to be the most trusted sources of information about animal research. UW-Madison has a long history of openness about animal research, which correlates with the high level of trust by students and faculty. Nevertheless, confidence in knowledge about animal research and its regulation remains limited, and both students and faculty indicated their desire to receive more information from courses and spokespersons. Based on these findings, we argue that providing robust university-wide outreach and course-based content about animal research should be considered an organizational best practice, in particular for colleges and universities.

Klíčová slova:

Animal welfare – Medicine and health sciences – Public policy – Regulations – Research assessment – Survey research – Undergraduates – Universities


1. Kleinman DL. Science, Technology, and Democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press; 2000.

2. Ormandy EH, Schuppli CA. Public Attitudes toward Animal Research: A Review. Animals. 2014;4: 391–408. doi: 10.3390/ani4030391 26480314

3. Pytlik Zillig LM, Tomkins AJ. Public Engagement for Informing Science and Technology Policy: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know, and How Will We Get There? Rev Policy Res. 2011;28: 197–217. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2011.00489.x

4. Fischhoff B. The sciences of science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110: 14033–14039. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213273110 23942125

5. Fischhoff B, Scheufele DA. The Science of Science Communication II. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111: 13583–13584. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1414635111 25225375

6. Scheufele D. Science communication as political communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317516111 25225389

7. Scheufele DA. Communicating science in social settings. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110: 14040–14047. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213275110 23940341

8. Wadman M. To woo public, Europe opens up on animal experiments, but U.S. less transparent. In: Science | AAAS [Internet]. 14 Jul 2017. Available:

9. Concordat on Openness on Animal Research in the UK. In: Concordat on Openness on Animal Research in the UK [Internet]. [cited 3 Oct 2018]. Available:

10. Hobson-West P. The role of “public opinion” in the UK animal research debate. J Med Ethics. 2010;36: 46–49. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.030817 20026693

11. Germain P-L, Chiapperino L, Testa G. The European politics of animal experimentation: From Victorian Britain to ‘Stop Vivisection.’ Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2017;64: 75–87. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.06.004 28689133

12. Basel Declaration | Basel Declaration [Internet]. Available:

13. Sandgren EP. The whole story on animal research. Lab Anim. 2014;43: 187. doi: 10.1038/laban.508 24844996

14. Fiske ST, Dupree C. Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111: 13593–13597. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317505111 25225372

15. Davies GF, Greenhough BJ, Hobson-West P, Kirk RGW, Applebee K, Bellingan LC, et al. Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare. Olsson IAS, editor. PLOS ONE. 2016;11: e0158791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158791 27428071

16. Couper M. Designing effective Web surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

17. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions. Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 9th edition. Revised 2016.

18. Herzog HA, Betchart NS, Pittman RB. Gender, Sex Role Orientation, and Attitudes toward Animals. Anthrozoös. 1991;4: 184–191. doi: 10.2752/089279391787057170

19. Plous S. Attitudes Toward the Use of Animals in Psychological Research and Education: Results From a National Survey of Psychology Majors. Psychol Sci. 1996;7: 352–358. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00388.x

20. Swami V, Furnham A, Christopher AN. Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scand J Psychol. 2008;49: 269–276. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00636.x 18419591

21. Herzog HA, Dorr LB. Electronically Available Surveys of Attitudes Toward Animals. Soc Anim. 2000; 8.

22. Gallup, Inc. Public Lukewarm on Animal Rights. In: [Internet]. [cited 13 Jul 2018]. Available:

23. Pew Research Center. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues. In: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press [Internet]. 9 Jul 2009 [cited 13 Jul 2018]. Available:

24. ebs_340_en.pdf [Internet]. Available:

25. 2015-07-01_science-and-politics_FINAL-1.pdf [Internet]. Available:

26. Gallup GG, Beckstead JW. Attitudes Toward Animal Research. ILAR J. 1989;31: 13–15. doi: 10.1093/ilar.31.2.13

27. sri-BIS_animal_research_2012_final_report_September_published_final.pdf [Internet]. Available:

28. Public Attitudes To Animal Research In 2016. In: Ipsos [Internet]. Available:

29. Attitudes to animal research in 2016 [Internet]. [cited 13 Jul 2018]. Available:

30. Lund TB, Lassen J, Sandøe P. Public Attitude Formation Regarding Animal Research. Anthrozoös. 2012;25: 475–490. doi: 10.2752/175303712X13479798785896

31. Herzog H, Grayson S, McCord D. Brief Measures of the Animal Attitude Scale. Anthrozoös. 2015;28: 145–152. doi: 10.2752/089279315X14129350721894

32. Navarro JF, Maldonado E, Pedraza C, Cavas M. Attitudes toward Animal Research among Psychology Students in Spain. Psychol Rep. 2001;89: 227–236. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2001.89.2.227 11783540

33. Pifer LK. Exploring the Gender Gap in Young Adults’ Attitudes about Animal Research. Soc Amp Anim. 1996;4: 37–52. doi: 10.1163/156853096X00034

34. Joffe AR, Bara M, Anton N, Nobis N. The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17: 17. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0100-x 27025215

35. Fosnacht K, Sarraf S, Howe E, Peck LK. How Important are High Response Rates for College Surveys? Rev High Educ. 2017;40: 245–265. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2017.0003

36. Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ. 2004;328: 514–517. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514 14988196

37. Hackam DG. Translating animal research into clinical benefit. BMJ. 2007;334: 163–164. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39104.362951.80 17255568

38. Baker M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 2016;533: 452–454. doi: 10.1038/533452a 27225100

39. Sandgren EP. Defining the Animal Care and Use Program. Lab Anim. 2005;34: 41–44. doi: 10.1038/laban1105-41 16261152

40. USDA APHIS | Animal Welfare Act [Internet]. [cited 6 Dec 2018]. Available:

41. ILAR NRC. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition [Internet]. The National Academies Press; 2011. doi: 10.1258/la.2010.010031

42. Hagelin J, Carlsson H-E, Hau J. An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Underst Sci. 2003;12: 67–81. doi: 10.1177/0963662503012001247

43. Gavin SL, Herzog HA. The Ethical Judgment of Animal Research. Ethics Behav. 1992;2: 263–286. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0204_4 11651614

44. Henry B, Pulcino R. Individual Difference and Study-Specific Characteristics Influencing Attitudes about the Use of Animals in Medical Research. Soc Amp Anim. 2009;17: 305–324. doi: 10.1163/106311109X12474622855101

45. Masterton M, Renberg T, Kälvemark Sporrong S. Patients’ Attitudes Towards Animal Testing: “To Conduct Research On Animals Is, I Suppose, A Necessary Evil.” BioSocieties. 2014;9. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2013.39

46. Rajecki DW, Rasmussen JL, Craft HD. Labels and the Treatment of Animals: Archival and Experimental Cases. Soc Amp Anim. 1993;1: 45–60. doi: 10.1163/156853093X00145

47. Pifer L, Shimizu K, Pifer R. Public Attitudes Toward Animal Research: Some International Comparisons. Soc Amp Anim. 1994;2: 95–113. doi: 10.1163/156853094X00126

48. Dietz T. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110: 14081–14087. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212740110 23940350

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10