Attitudes towards the use of genetically modified animals in research

Exploring attitudes toward xenotransplantation: A scoping review of healthcare workers, healthcare students, and kidney patients

BACKGROUND

Recent advances mean that formal clinical trials of solid organ xenotransplantation are increasingly likely to begin and patients requiring a kidney transplant could be the first participants. Healthcare workers and healthcare students constitute the current and future workforce that will influence public opinion of xenotransplantation. The attitudes of these populations are important to consider before recruitment for formal clinical trials begins.

METHODS

This scoping review was reported according to the PRISMA extensions for scoping reviews checklist and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. The Scopus, PubMed, and ScienceDirect databases were searched to identify articles that studied the attitudes of healthcare workers, healthcare students, or kidney patients toward xenotransplantation.

RESULTS

The search generated 816 articles, of which 27 met the eligibility criteria. The studies were conducted in 14 different countries on five different continents. Participants from the 27 studies totaled 29,836-this was constituted of 6,223 (21%) healthcare workers, 21,067 (71%) healthcare students, and 2,546 (8%) kidney patients. All three groups had an overall positive attitude toward xenotransplantation. However, in studies where participants were asked to consider xenotransplantation when the risks and results were not equal to allotransplantation-the overall attitude switched from positive to negative. The results also found that Spanish-speaking populations expressed more favorable views toward xenotransplantation compared to English-speaking populations.

CONCLUSION

The results of this review suggest that while attitudes of the three groups toward xenotransplantation are-on the face of it-positive, this positivity deteriorates when the risks and outcomes are framed in more clinically realistic terms. Only formal clinical trials can determine how the risks and outcomes of xenotransplantation compare to allotransplantation.

What do people think about genetic engineering? A systematic review of questionnaire surveys before and after the introduction of CRISPR

The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 in 2012 started revolutionizing the field of genetics by broadening the access to a method for precise modification of the human genome. It also brought renewed attention to the ethical issues of genetic modification and the societal acceptance of technology for this purpose. So far, many surveys assessing public attitudes toward genetic modification have been conducted worldwide. Here, we present the results of a systematic review of primary publications of surveys addressing public attitudes toward genetic modification as well as the awareness and knowledge about the technology required for genetic modification. A total of 53 primary publications (1987-2020) focusing on applications in humans and non-human animals were identified, covering countries in four continents. Of the 53 studies, 30 studies from until and including 2012 (pre-CRISPR) address gene therapy in humans and genetic modification of animals for food production and biomedical research. The remaining 23 studies from after 2013 (CRISPR) address gene editing in humans and animals. Across countries, respondents see gene therapy for disease treatment or prevention in humans as desirable and highly acceptable, whereas enhancement is generally met with opposition. When the study distinguishes between somatic and germline applications, somatic gene editing is generally accepted, whereas germline applications are met with ambivalence. The purpose of the application is also important for assessing attitudes toward genetically modified animals: modification in food production is much less accepted than for biomedical application in pre-CRISPR studies. A relationship between knowledge/awareness and attitude toward genetic modification is often present. A critical appraisal of methodology quality in the primary publications with regards to sampling and questionnaire design, development, and administration shows that there is considerable scope for improvement in the reporting of methodological detail. Lack of information is more common in earlier studies, which probably reflects the changing practice in the field.

Xenotransplantation: A historical-ethical account of viewpoints

Formal clinical trials of pig-to-human organ transplant-known asxenotransplantation-may begin this decade, with the first trials likely to consist of either adult renal transplants or pediatric cardiac transplant patients. Xenotransplantation as a systematic scientific study only reaches back to the latter half of the 20th century, with episodic xenotransplantation events occurring prior to that. As the science of xenotransplantation has progressed in the 20th and 21st centuries, the public's knowledge of the potential therapy has also increased. With this, there have been shifting ethical stances toward xenotransplantation in key areas, such as religious and public viewpoints towards xenotransplantation, animal rights, and public health concerns. This review provides a historical-ethical account of xenotransplantation and details if or how viewpoints have shifted over time.

A State-of-the-Art Review on the Alternatives to Animal Testing for the Safety Assessment of Cosmetics

Almost a decade after the stipulated deadline in the 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive, which bans the marketing of animal-tested cosmetics in the EU from 2013, animal experimentation for cosmetic-related purposes remains a topic of animated debate. Cosmetic industry continues to be scrutinised for the practice, despite its leading role in funding and adopting innovation in this field. This paper aims to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field on alternative testing methods, also known as New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), with the focus on assessing the safety of cosmetic ingredients and products. It starts with innovation drivers and global regulatory responses, followed by an extensive, endpoint-specific overview of accepted/prospective NAMs. The overview covers main developments in acute toxicity, skin corrosion/irritation, serious eye damage/irritation, skin sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity/endocrine disruption, mutagenicity/genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, photo-induced toxicity, and toxicokinetics. Specific attention was paid to the emerging in silico methodology. This paper also provides a brief overview of the studies on public perception of animal testing in cosmetics. It concludes with a view that educating consumers and inviting them to take part in advocacy could be an effective tool to achieve policy changes, regulatory acceptance, and investment in innovation.

Animal experiments in biomedical research: Knowledge, self-evaluation and attitudes of biology and medical students

Animal experiments in biomedical research are debated in public, within the scientific community and among students. Despite increased efforts to reduce, refine and replace animal experiments, they remain integral components of the job of a biomedical scientist. In Germany, persons must have a university degree and adequate education and training to perform and direct animal experiments. Therefore, training courses such as FELASA (Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations) courses are provided. However, in our experience, students become aware of this very late in their studies when decisions about their future careers have already been made. We initiated this study to have a better understanding of when and how animal experiments should be discussed during university education. We evaluated the knowledge, self-evaluation and attitudes of biology and medical students of different semesters regarding animal experiments at the RWTH Aachen University, Germany. An online survey was conducted to assess demographic information, knowledge about animal experiments, self-evaluation and attitudes towards animal experiments. Students of both fields showed limited knowledge of animal experiments. Biology students showed significantly better knowledge and self-evaluated their knowledge higher than medical students. The field of the study correlated with their knowledge and self-evaluation but did not predict participants' attitudes towards animal experiments. In conclusion, the current study showed that there is still room for improvement to raise awareness about laboratory animal science in the biomedical research field.

The social aspects of genome editing: publics as stakeholders, populations and participants in animal research

The application of genome editing to animal research connects to a wide variety of policy concerns and public conversations. We suggest focusing narrowly on public opinion of genome editing is to overlook the range of positions from which people are brought into relationships with animal research through these technologies. In this paper, we explore three key roles that publics are playing in the development of genome editing techniques applied to animals in biomedical research. First, publics are positioned by surveys and focus groups as stakeholders with opinions that matter to the development of research technologies. Learning lessons from controversies over genetically modified food in Europe, these methods are used to identify problems in science-society relations that need to be managed. Second, people are recruited into research projects through participating in biobanks and providing data, where their contributions are encouraged by appeals to the public good and maintained by public confidence. Thirdly, patients are increasingly taking positions within research governance, as lay reviewers on funding panels, where their expertise helps align research priorities and practices with public expectations of research. These plural publics do not easily aggregate into a simple or singular public opinion on genome editing. We conclude by suggesting more attention is needed to the multiple roles that different publics expect - and are expected - to play in the future development of genomic technologies.

Importance of Welfare and Ethics Competence Regarding Animals Kept for Scientific Purposes to Veterinary Students in Australia and New Zealand

Veterinarians are in a strong position of social influence on animal-related issues. Hence, veterinary schools have an opportunity to raise animal health and welfare standards by improving veterinary students’ animal welfare and ethics (AWE) education, including that related to animals used for scientific purposes. A survey of 818 students in the early, mid, and senior stages of their courses at all eight veterinary schools across Australia and New Zealand was undertaken on their first day of practice (or Day One Competences) to explore how veterinary students viewed the importance of their competence in the management of welfare and ethical decision-making relating to animals kept for scientific purposes. From highest to lowest, the rankings they assigned were: Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) Procedures or Requirements; 3Rs (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction); Humane Endpoints; Euthanasia; “What Is a Research Animal?”; and Conscientious Objections. Female students rated Conscientious Objections, Humane Endpoints, and Euthanasia significantly higher than male students did across the three stages of study. The score patterns for these three variates showed a trend for the male students to be more likely to score these topics as extremely important as they advanced through the course, but female students’ scores tended to decline slightly or stay relatively stable. No gender differences emerged for the three variates: 3Rs (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction); AEC Procedures or Requirements; and “What Is a Research Animal?”. This study demonstrates that understandings of the regulatory and normative frameworks are considered most important in animal welfare and ethics competence in veterinary students. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to investigate what importance veterinary students place on their competence regarding animals kept for scientific purposes.

Stakeholder views on the creation and use of genetically-engineered animals in research

This interview-based study examined the diversity of views relating to the creation and use of genetically-engineered (GE) animals in biomedical science. Twenty Canadian participants (eight researchers, five research technicians and seven members of the public) took part in the interviews, in which four main themes were discussed: a) how participants felt about the genetic engineering of animals as a practice; b) governance of the creation and use of GE animals in research, and whether current guidelines are sufficient; c) the Three Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) and how they are applied during the creation and use of GE animals in research; and d) whether public opinion should play a greater role in the creation and use of GE animals. Most of the participants felt that the creation and use of GE animals for biomedical research purposes (as opposed to food purposes) is acceptable, provided that tangible human health benefits are gained. However, obstacles to Three Rs implementation were identified, and the participants agreed that more effort should be placed on engaging the public on the use of GE animals in research.

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.

Zoo visitors' understanding of terms denoting research activity

Zoos have increasingly sought to justify their existence by reference to a scientific role particularly in the domains of animal welfare and conservation. Given recent initiatives by the UK government to foster public engagement with science, it is timely to investigate public attitudes towards primary research activity by zoos. This study reports the views of 83 visitors to Edinburgh Zoo. Within certain items in a structured interview noun terms denoting research activity were manipulated ("research" versus "studies") as was their qualification (adjective "scientific" present or absent before the noun term). "Research" was associated with a restricted and negative perception of investigatory activity. This effect was intensified when the noun term was preceded by "scientific". It is concluded that there is a continuing need to challenge public perceptions, particularly of the phrase "scientific research"; that in the meantime zoos should perhaps exercise caution when using it in relation to their activities.

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.

Public perceptions of animal experimentation across Europe

The goal of this article is to map out public perceptions of animal experimentation in 28 European countries. Postulating cross-cultural differences, this study mixes country-level variables (from the Eurostat database) and individual-level variables (from Eurobarometer Science and Technology 2010). It is shown that experimentation on animals such as mice is generally accepted in European countries, but perceptions are divided on dogs and monkeys. Between 2005 and 2010, we observe globally a change of approval on dogs and monkeys, with a significant decrease in nine countries. Multilevel analysis results show differences at country level (related to a post-industrialism model) and at individual level (related to gender, age, education, proximity and perceptions of science and the environment). These results may have consequences for public perceptions of science and we call for more cross-cultural research on press coverage of animal research and on the level of public engagement of scientists doing animal research.

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

The species of laboratory animal used is known to influence people's willingness to support animal-based research. An online experiment was used to test people's willingness to accept the use of zebrafish or mice, two of the most commonly used species, in research involving either induced mutation (specifically, ethyl-N-nitrosourea [ENU] mutagenesis) or genetic modification, with and without regulatory oversight. Participants who were willing to support research on zebrafish (31.9%) were also willing to support the same research on mice. The participants expressed low levels of support for research involving ENU mutagenesis of zebrafish in both unregulated (30.7%) and regulated (38.5%) research programmes. A reason for the rejection of ENU mutagenesis was the perception that the procedure is painful. Some participants expressed a preference for the use of genetically-modified (GM) animal models over ENU mutagenesis, based on the belief that the former involves less pain and improves both the accuracy and efficiency of the animal models. Better informing the public about scientific practice, and scientists about public attitudes, may help reduce the disconnect between scientific practice and societal values.