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

Opinion: A Seven-step Approach to Communication about Animal Research

Organizations that receive public money to conduct research using animals should be able to explain the importance of and need for that work. More generally, anyone who believes that properly conducted and regulated animal research either does or does not make the world a better place wants the public to understand why they hold their belief. In a world with divided support for animal research, honest communication about these issues is essential to develop sound public policy. Specifically, communication about animal research (or any type of research) needs to address the scientific, ethical, and regulatory considerations that underlie public policy decisions. This opinion article describes a 7-step communication strategy designed to address these issues. The 7 elements of this approach are 1) motivation, 2) the right mix of information, 3) a team approach, 4) respect for your audience, 5) determination and courage, 6) humility and honesty, and 7) persistence.

Challenging Future Generations: A Qualitative Study of Students' Attitudes toward the Transition to Animal-Free Innovations in Education and Research

In 2016, the Dutch government declared its commitment to phasing out animal experiments by 2025. Although a high number of animal experiments are still performed and the 2025 target will not be met, the commitment remains. Efforts are being made to identify levers that might foster the transition to animal-free science. Education has been found to play a key role in the future of animal-free science and young generations are increasingly seen as key stakeholders. However, their attitudes toward the transition to animal-free innovations have not been investigated. The present article focuses on the values and beliefs held by students, who in 2022, participated in the course 'Replacing Animal Testing' (RAT) Challenge, organized by a consortium of Dutch universities. Contextually, students' motivations to follow the course were investigated. The research was based on a qualitative study, including semi-structured interviews and a literature review. Our analysis of the findings revealed that students feel aligned with the social, ethical, and scientific reasons that support the transition to animal-free innovations. Moreover, the participants identified a series of regulatory, educational, cultural, and political obstacles to the transition that align with those identified in recent literature. From the discussion of these findings, we extrapolated six fundamental challenges that need to be addressed to foster the transition to animal-free science in an acceptable and responsible way.

Influence of animal pain and distress on judgments of animal research justifiability among university undergraduate students and faculty

Acceptance of animal research by the public depends on several characteristics of the specific experimental study. In particular, acceptance decreases as potential animal pain or distress increases. Our objective in this study was to quantify the magnitude of pain/distress that university undergraduate students and faculty would find to be justifiable in animal research, and to see how that justifiability varied according to the purpose of the research, or the species to which the animal belonged. We also evaluate how demographic characteristics of respondents may be associated with their opinions about justifiability. To accomplish this goal, we developed and administered a survey to students and faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our survey employed Likert-style questions that asked them to designate the level of animal pain or distress that they felt was justifiable for each of the following six purposes—animal disease, human disease, basic research, human medicine, chemical testing, or cosmetic testing. These questions were asked about five different species of animals including monkeys, dogs/cats, pig/sheep, rats/mice, or small fish. We used the data to establish a purpose-specific pain/distress scale, a species-specific pain/distress scale, and a composite pain/distress scale that, for each respondent, averaged the extent of justifiable pain/distress across all purposes and species. For purpose, students were more likely to choose higher levels of pain for animal disease research, followed by human disease, basic research, human medicine, chemical testing, and cosmetic testing. Faculty were more likely to choose the same level of pain for the first four purposes, followed by lower levels of pain for chemical and cosmetic testing. For species, students were more likely to choose higher levels of pain for small fish and rats/mice (tied), pigs/sheep and monkeys (tied), than for dogs/cats. For faculty, order from least to most justifiable pain/distress was small fish, rats/mice, pigs/sheep, then dogs/cats and monkeys (the latter two tied). Interestingly, exploratory factor analysis of the pain/distress scales indicated that when it comes to justifying higher levels of pain and distress, respondents identified two distinct categories of purposes, chemical and cosmetic testing, for which respondents were less likely to justify higher levels of pain or distress as compared to other purposes; and two distinct categories of species, small fish and rats/mice, for which respondents were more likely to justify higher levels of pain/distress than other species. We found that the spread of acceptance of animal research was much smaller when survey questions included pain/distress compared to when only purpose or species were part of the question. Demographically, women, vegetarians/vegans, and respondents with no experience in animal research justified less animal pain/distress than their counterparts. Not surprisingly, a lower level of support for animal research in general was correlated with lower justifiability of pain/distress. Based on these findings, we discuss the role of animal pain/distress in regulatory considerations underlying decisions about whether to approve specific animal uses, and suggest ways to strengthen the ethical review and public acceptance of animal research.

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.

Should Animal Welfare be Included in Educational Programs? Attitudes of Secondary and University Students from Eight EU Countries

Animal Welfare (AW) educational programs aim to promote positive attitudes of future generations toward animal production systems. This study investigated whether secondary and university students in the majors that are not related to AW teaching believe that this concept should be included also in their educational programs. The determinant factors affecting students' attitudes toward such a decision were analyzed. This research has focused on eight European countries (Spain, the United Kingdom, Poland, Greece, Lithuania, Romania, Italy, and Sweden) targeting 3,881 respondents composed of 1,952 secondary and 1,929 university students. The results showed that female university students with a high level of subjective and objective knowledge on AW and who required more restrictive AW regulations, gave support to include the concept in their educational programs. However, Students who support medical experiments that use animals to improve human health were less likely to accept AW education. Furthermore, students in Italy compared to those in Sweden were prone to support AW educational programs. Results highlight the importance of teaching the AW concept as a comprehensive teaching tool at universities and schools' programs as it may constitute a starting point for a more sustainable society toward improving animal living conditions, mainly in the Mediterranean countries in secondary schools.

Knowledge and Perception on Animal Welfare in Chilean Undergraduate Students with Emphasis on Dairy Cattle

Simple Summary

Consumer perceptions on animal welfare have been assessed, providing results that are necessary for the development of policies and legislation regarding animal welfare standards. In Latin America, societal concerns and specifically consumers’ concerns about animal welfare are increasing but so far, the interest of university students on this subject has received little attention. The objectives of this study were to determine differences on knowledge and perception on animal welfare (with emphasis on dairy cattle) from undergraduate students from two universities with different missions and visions and between students from different faculties. Undergraduate students from the two main Chilean universities were surveyed. Overall, this study showed that University only affected the source of animal welfare information used by undergraduate students and some perceptions on dairy cows’ welfare. On the other hand, Faculty did affect most of the variables on awareness, knowledge and perception towards animal welfare. Thus, the knowledge background provided by the faculty of students has a greater influence on their knowledge and perceptions about animal welfare than their university.

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to determine differences in knowledge and perception of animal welfare (with emphasis on dairy cattle) among undergraduate students from two universities with different missions and visions and between students from different faculties. One thousand surveys were obtained from Universidad de Chile (UChile; n = 500) and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (PUC; n = 500) students. The students from both universities were from the following faculties: Agronomy, Architecture, Biology, Economic Sciences, Psychology, Law, Philosophy, Basic Education, Civil Engineering and Medicine. The majority (77%) of students from both universities were aware of animal welfare. Most (56%) students understand animal welfare as the ‘mental and physical state of animals’. Regardless of their faculty, around 97% of the total respondents perceived animal welfare as important for production systems. Regarding specific knowledge about cows’ welfare related to milk management and behavior, students from Economic Sciences, Psychology, Law, Philosophy, Basic Education, and Civil Engineering had less (p < 0.001) self-reported knowledge about cows’ basic behavior and specific management practices such as milking and were more negative in their perceptions of dairy production. Overall, results showed that the students’ faculty explained most of the differences among undergraduate students in relation to their perceptions and knowledge about animal welfare. Our data is important, as undergraduate students will make purchasing and power decisions as well as having potential influence on future policies that could modify the animal production industry.

Open Transparent Communication about Animals in Laboratories: Dialog for Multiple Voices and Multiple Audiences

In this article, I offer insights and proposals to the current movement for increased openness and transparency about animal use in laboratories. Increased transparency cannot be total transparency-as no story or picture can ever be complete. When research advocates share their stories, they must decide which words and pictures to edit out. I ask here: Who of the listening "public" gets a chance to revisit this editing, and find the information that is important to them? To the extent that (what I call) the "new openness" attempts to speak to a "lay public" and exclude animal activists, I suggest that refinement-focused animal protectionists deserve enhanced avenues of openness and inclusion-which some research advocates might fear giving to more extreme activists and which a less invested "lay public" may not want or need. I conclude with some specific examples and suggestions to not just invite inquiry from animal advocates, but to bring them in as witnesses and participants, to learn from and incorporate their concerns, priorities, expertise, and suggestions. This can bring a diversity of ideas and values that could improve the quality of science, the credibility of animal researchers, and the welfare of the animals in laboratories.

Attitudes toward animals, and how species and purpose affect animal research justifiability, among undergraduate students and faculty

As members of a university community that sponsors animal research, we developed a survey to improve our knowledge about factors underlying the perceived justifiability of animal research among faculty and undergraduate students. To accomplish this objective, we gathered quantitative data about their general views on animal use by humans, their specific views about the use of different species to address different categories of scientific questions, and their confidence in the translatability of animal research to humans. Students and faculty did not differ in their reported levels of concern for the human use of animals, but women reported significantly higher levels of concern than men. Among students, experience with animal research was positively correlated with less concern with animal use, and having practiced vegetarianism or veganism was associated with more concern. Gender, experience with animal research, and dietary preferences were similarly correlated with the extent of justifiability of animal use across all research purposes and species. Faculty responses resembled those for students, with the exception that justifiability varied significantly based on academic discipline: biological sciences faculty were least concerned about human use of animals and most supportive of animal research regardless of purpose or species. For both students and faculty, justifiability varied depending on research purpose or animal species. Research purposes, ranked in order of justifiability from high to low, was animal disease, human disease, basic research, human medicine, animal production, chemical testing, and cosmetics. Justifiability by purpose was slightly lower for students than for faculty. Species justifiability for students, from high to low, was small fish, rats or mice, pigs or sheep, monkeys, and dogs or cats. Faculty order was the same except that monkeys and dogs or cats were reversed in order. Finally, confidence in the translatability of animal research to our understanding of human biology and medicine was not different between students and faculty or between genders, but among faculty it was highest in biological sciences followed by physical sciences, social sciences, and then arts and humanities. Those with experience in animal research displayed the most confidence, and vegetarians/vegans displayed the least. These findings demonstrate that, although the range of views in any subcategory is large, views about animal research justifiability can vary significantly among respondent subpopulations in predictable ways. In particular, research purpose and choice of animal species are important variables for many people. This supports the claim that ensuring purpose and species are robustly integrated into research proposal reviews and approvals should be considered to be a best practice. We suggest that strengthening this integration beyond what is described in current regulations would better meet the justifiability criteria expressed by members of our campus community.