ILAR Journal Online, Volume 31(2) 1989: Perspectives on Animal Use

Online Issues

<< All Back-issues

<< This Issue's Table of Contents

ILAR Journal V31(2) 1989
Perspectives on Animal Use

Attitudes Toward Animal Research
Gordon G. Gallup, Jr., and Jason W. Beckstead

Dr. Gallup is professor and Mr. Beckstead is a doctoral student in the Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Albany. This article is reprinted, by permission, from American Psychologist (43:474-476). Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association.

Although animal rights organizations have become more visible and vocal, the question remains as to how widespread such attitudes have become in the population at large. To assess the impression created by animal rights activists that there is growing opposition in this country to the use of animals for research (e.g., Levin, 1977; Rollin, 1986; Vellucci & Grunewald, 1986), we conducted a survey during the spring of 1987 at the State University of New York at Albany. Two-hundred and sixty-three students filled out a written questionnaire. Students in different courses were told that their participation was voluntary and, with the permission of the instructor, were asked to respond to the questionnaire prior to scheduled lectures. Ninety-four respondents were males, and 169 were females. Fifty-two percent were majoring in the social sciences, 15% in business, 8% in the humanities, 13% were natural science majors, and 12% were as yet undecided. The sample contained 22% freshmen, 27% sophomores, 28% juniors, and 23% seniors.

The survey consisted of 14 statements about animal research. Students were asked to indicate whether they "strongly agreed," "agreed," "neither agreed nor disagreed," "disagreed," or "strongly disagreed" with each statement. The statements and results are summarized in Table 1. For example, in response to the statement, "'I am very concerned about pain and suffering in animals," 31.56% strongly agreed and 44.49% agreed, whereas 11 students disagreed and only 2 strongly disagreed. Thus, over 76% or close to 8 out of every 10 students expressed a concern about pain and suffering in animals.

This concern for pain and suffering, however, does not appear to overshadow their appreciation of the benefits derived from animal research. For instance, collapsing across the strong and more moderate response categories, we found that 85.17% disagreed with the statement, "I would rather see humans die or suffer from disease than to see animals used in research." Similarly, 66.92% agreed with the assertion that "new surgical procedures and experimental drugs should be tested on animals before they are used on people," and 72.62% of the students agreed that "many important biomedical breakthroughs are a consequence of animal research."

As to whether "Most psychological research done on animals is unnecessary and invalid," only 14.45% agreed, whereas 61.59% agreed that "since many important questions cannot be answered by doing experiments on people we are left with no alternative but to do animal research." Contrary to the position taken by many animal rights activists, a mere 7.60% of the sample agreed with the statement, "Animal research cannot be justified and should be stopped."

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), contrasting the responses of males to females on all 14 items, revealed a significant difference, V(14, 248) = 0.17, p ( .001. Subsequent univariate analyses of variance showed that males and females differed significantly on Statements 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 13, Fs(l, 261) = 13.177, 8.348, 21.208, 12.804, 12.207, and 6.784, p ( .05, respectively. Overall, females appeared more concerned for pain and suffering in animals than did males. For instance, 82% of the females agreed with the statement, "1 am very concerned about pain and suffering in animals," whereas this was true for only 65.9% of the males. Over twice as many females as males (26% vs. 12.8%) agreed that "animals should be granted the same rights as people." As compared with the males, females were also less likely to believe that "most laboratory animals are better housed, fed, cared for, and protected from pain and suffering than many humans" (14.3% vs. 19.1%), and they were less likely to agree that "new surgical procedures and experimental drugs should be tested on animals before they are used on people" (59.2% vs. 80.9%). In response to the statement, "I have seriously considered becoming a vegetarian in an effort to save animal lives," over two and one half times as many females as males agreed (14.8% vs. 5.4%, respectively). Finally, in terms of respondents who agreed with the statement, "I would rather see humans die or suffer from disease than to see animals used in research,"females outnumbered males by a factor of six to one (6.5% vs. 1.1%).

A MANOVA contrasting the responses of students with different majors revealed significant differences across disciplines, V(56, 922) = 0.3436, p ,< .002. Students differed significantly on Statements 6, 9, 12, and 14 as revealed by subsequent univariate ANOVAs, Fs(4, 258) = 5.27i, 4.318, 3.247, and 3.766, p < .05, respectively. Post hoc analysis of group means using the Games and Howell method was used to compare the various majors on the above statements (Games, Keselman, & Rogan, 1981). Monte Carlo studies have shown this procedure to be robust when faced with unequal sample sizes and heterogeneity of sample variances (Jaccard, Becker, & Wood, 1984). Humanities majors were more likely to agree with the statement, "I have seriously considered becoming a vegetarian in an effort to save animal lives," than were social science majors or business majors (p < .05), who did not differ from one another. Ninety-six percent of the natural science majors agreed with the statement, "Many important biomedical breakthroughs are a consequence of animal research"; they differed significantly from the social science majors, business majors, and the humanities majors, among whom only 71.0%, 69.2%, and 61.9% respectively, agreed (p .05). In response to the statement, "We need more regulations governing the use of animals in research," over 85% of the humanities students agreed, but only 36.4% of the social science students did so (p < .05). Humanities majors were also more likely than social science majors to agree that "animal research cannot be justified and should be stopped" (p < .05). Twenty-four percent, or nearly one out of every four humanities students, felt that animal research should be stopped, whereas the combined total across all the remaining disciplines was a mere 6.2%.

Thus, it would appear overall, based on this sample, that although opposition to animal research may vary as a function of gender and major, it has yet to reach substantial proportions among most college students. On the other hand, one of the most revealing results of this study were the responses to the statement, "We need more regulations governing the use of animals in research." Fifty-seven percent of the respondents agreed, and only 8% disagreed with this statement. The message to those of us who work with animals is clear. Most college students are concerned about pain and suffering in animals, but at the same time the majority appreciate and support the need for using animals in research. In addition to emphasizing the benefits and advantages of animal research (e.g., Feeney, 1987; Gallup & Suarez, 1985), it would seem prudent for us in discussions with students and others to detail the existence of many federal, state, local, and professional codes and regulations that have been enacted to ensure the humane care and treatment of animals used in research.

References

Feeney, D. M. (1987). Human rights and animal welfare. American Psychologist, 42, 593-599.

Gallup, G. G., Jr., & Suarez, S. D. (1985). Alternatives to the use of animals in psychological research. American Psychologist, 40, 1104-1111.

Games, P. A., Keselman, H. J., & Rogan, J. C. (1981). Simultaneous pairwise multiple comparison procedures for means when sample sizes are unequal. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 594-598.

Jaccard, J., Becker, M. A., & Wood, G. (1984). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 589-596.

Levin, M. E. (1977). Animal rights evaluated. The Humanist, 37, 12-15.

Rollin, B. E. (1986). Reply to Lansdell. American Psychologist, 41, 843.

Vellucci, C., & Grunewald, C. (1986, July/August). Civil disobedience for lab animals. The Animal's Agenda, pp. 20-22.

TABLE 1 Survey of Attitudes Toward Animal Research

	No. Responding
Item	SA	A	N	D	SD
1. Research on animals has little or no bearing on problems confronting people.	9	19	16	151	68
2. An intrinsic interest in the animal for its own sake is ample justification for doing animal research.	17	75	96	43	32
3. l am very concerned about pain and suffering in animals.	83	117	50	11	2
4. I would rather see humans die or suffer from disease than to see animals used in research.	5	7	27	84	140
5. Since many important questions can not be answered by doing experiments on people, we are left with no alternative but to do animal research.	41	121	59	31	11
6. I have seriously considered becoming a vegetarian in an effort to save animal lives.	14	16	37	83	113
7. New surgical procedures and experimental drugs should be tested on animals before they are used on people.	64	112	58	22	7
8. There are plenty of viable alternatives to the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research.	13	45	135	56	14
9. Many important biomedical breakthroughs are a consequence of animal research.	60	131	61	8	3
10. Animals should be granted the same rights as humans.	15	40	79	92	37
11. Most psychological research done on animals is unnecessary and invalid.	9	29	94	103	28
12. We need more regulations governing the use of animals in research.	60	91	90	17	5
13. Most laboratory animals are better housed, fed, cared for, and protected from pain and suffering than many humans.	11	31	141	56	24
14. Animal research cannot be justified and should be stopped.	6	14	50	128	65

NOTE: SA - strongly agree; A - agree: N - neither agree nor disagree; D disagree, and SD - strongly disagree.

Commentary
Jerrold Tannenbaum

Mr. Tannenbaum is clinical assistant professor of environmental studies at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, Boston.

In November 1988, animal rights activists placed a referendum on the Massachusetts ballot that would have severely restricted animal agriculture in the state. The measure was defeated by a 70 to 30 percent margin. Although farmers and veterinarians thought that the referendum had lost, it did not take the animal rights movement long to argue otherwise. Proponents of the referendum proclaimed joyously that they had received, after all, 30 percent of the vote--evidence, they claimed, that there was substantial public support for their position (Sommer, 1989).

The reaction of the activists to the Massachusetts vote reflects an important fact about surveys and polls: one's response to the results sometimes can depend not so much upon the results as upon one's overriding concerns and point of view. The activists could view themselves as a tiny band of crusaders beset by well-organized and well-funded enemies. They could thus be encouraged by the fact that they lost "only" 70 percent of the vote.

Dr. Gallup and Mr. Beckstead are supporters of animal research. They begin their paper focused on the claim of activists that there is growing opposition to animal research. They clearly find such a claim disturbing. They are understandably buoyed by the fact that they do not discover substantial opposition to animal research among their respondents.

I myself am less interested in being assured that a certain percentage of persons does not oppose animal research than in people being well informed about the subject. My job as an educator of veterinary students is to try to assist future practitioners and biomedical researchers to know what they are talking about in matters of ethics. I find much of what Dr. Gallup and Mr. Beckstead learned shocking and depressing.

Some of the responses, as I read them, show utter lack of thought. For example, the survey found that 134 of the 263 students--or 50.95 percent--did not disagree with the proposition that "animals should be granted the same rights as humans" (Statement 10). Only 37 respondents (a scant 14 percent) disagreed strongly with this statement. However, the statement is so preposterous (it implies, for example, that animals should be granted the right to vote) that it is disavowed even by animal activists. Their position is not that animals and humans should have the same rights, but that they should be granted some of the same rights (such as the right not to be eaten or used in research). How could so many of the respondents fail to disagree strongly with such a silly statement? If so many failed to make such a response, how are we to feel comforted by their other opinions?

Some of the responses show that the students admit they know little about animal research. Thus, 141 of the 263 (or almost 54 percent) had no opinion regarding whether "most laboratory animals are better housed, fed, cared for, and protected from pain and suffering than many humans" (Statement 13). Presumably, these students know that there are many homeless and destitute people who suffer miserably. That more than half did not know whether most (i.e., the majority) of laboratory animals are subjected to analogous conditions shows that most of the students know almost nothing about how laboratory animals are kept and treated. If the majority do not know that regulatory authorities would close down any facility that treated its animals as badly as we permit many of our homeless to live, how can we take seriously what they say about other aspects of animal research? Why should we pay any attention whatever to their overwhelming vote for "more regulations" (Statement 12)'? (I have found that most of my veterinary students, whose special area of concern is animals, enter veterinary school with no knowledge of the regulatory structure governing animal research.) Why should we think that these students are even remotely qualified to pass judgment on the issue of whether the majority of any kind of animal research, much less most psychology research done on animals, is "unnecessary and invalid" (Statement 11)?

Some of the responses seem inconsistent. One hundred-sixty-two students agreed that "we are left with no alternative but to do animal research" (Statement 5), but only 70 disagreed with the statement that there are "plenty of viable alternatives to the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research" (Statement 8). A positive response to the former response would appear to require a negative response to the latter. How could 176 students think that "new surgical procedures and experimental drugs should be tested on animals before they are used on people" (Statement 7) and only 70 disagree at the same time that there are "plenty of viable nonanimal alternatives ... in biomedical and behavioral research" (Statement 8)? How could only 70 disagree with this latter statement, and 191 agree that "many important biomedical breakthroughs are a consequence of animal research" (Statement 9)?

Some of the questions are, admittedly, ambiguous, but interpreted in certain ways, the responses to them give one cause to worry not just about some of the students' appreciation of the facts but also about their moral values. The statement that one is "very concerned about pain and suffering in animals" can be taken to mean either that (1) one believes there is in fact a significant amount of animal pain and suffering and is concerned about it, or (2) one is very concerned about animal pain and suffering whenever it occurs. If one interprets the statement in the latter way, as Dr. Gallup and Mr. Beckstead appear to, 13 of the respondents would not be upset by animal suffering if they came across or learned of it, and 63 (or 23.95 percent) either would not care or do not know whether they would care. This is, I submit, a shocking result and not, as the authors assure us, evidence of a generalized "concern for pain and suffering." In a civilized society, insensitivity to the pain and suffering of any sentient creature is a serious ethical flaw and should not be tolerated. Nor should one feel happy that 12 respondents agreed (5 of them strongly) that they would "rather see humans die or suffer from disease than to see animals used in research" (Statement 4), and that 39 either agreed with this statement or neither agreed nor disagreed. (This statement presumably implies a preference for human suffering and death--suffering and death!---over any animal research, whether or not such research is done on lower species and whether or not such research causes the animals any pain or results in their death.

Surveys can be an important part of the discipline of ethics. For unless we understand what people think about moral issues, we cannot begin to know what ought to trouble us and what ethical issues need to be addressed by society, our schools, and individuals themselves (Tannenbaum, 1989). But understanding what a group of people think is not enough. If their responses exhibit significant inconsistencies, ignorance, or moral insensitivity, their responses cannot be comforting--even if their collective "vote" appears on the surface to support rational positions. The authors' useful work shows, I think, that we desperately need to integrate serious education regarding the science and ethics of animal research into the college curriculum. Otherwise, public "support" for animal research may prove in the end to be no more solid and reliable than the latest whim or fancy.

References

Sommer, M. 1989. Farm animal abuse goes to the ballot. Animals' Agenda 9(2):26-27.

Tannenbaum, J. 1989. Pp. 34-37 in Veterinary Ethics. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.