Animals In Medicine And Science

Animal experiments -- how do people form their opinions?

We are often told that public opinion is steadily shifting against research that uses animals, and that opinion is polarised, irrational, and ill informed. Few studies have explored opinions and knowledge in any depth, but recent work commissioned from MORI by the Medical Research Council paints a more hopeful picture of the complex pattern of reasoning, knowledge, and values that lie behind measurements of opinion.

One of the problems with trying to assess public attitudes to all but the simplest of issues is that opinions and beliefs are often complex, conditional and in flux. The quantitative surveys commonly used to measure public opinion have the advantage of allowing access to attitudes that are genuinely representative of a population. Yet their results are also closely related to the use of language in the questionnaire, and the assumptions they may create. This may be especially true of surveys on the use of animals in medical research, where most people have no direct knowledge, and may not form a firm opinion until the moment they are asked.

To avoid these problems MORI adopted a two-stage approach. In the first instance we commissioned a series of 4 qualitative discussion groups organised by region, class, lifestyle features and age with a mix of both men and women. The group discussion format was used to provide rich data about people's own frameworks of understanding and about the language that people use in discussing these issues. This allowed us to explore how people make sense of the issue and the different meanings they attached to animal experiments. The results of the group discussions, as well as being of interest in their own right, were then fed into the design of a quantitative survey administered to a representative sample of the British public. Thus the themes and language used in the quantitative survey were arrived at by a prior consultation with the public.

In the discussion groups, people with no specialist knowledge readily engaged in sophisticated discussions about whether or when animal experiments were acceptable. People took into account not only the assumed level of suffering and the level of need for research or new products, but also the degree of trust they had in scientists, regulators, the media, and campaign groups, and concerns that medical research might be driven by personal ambitions, greed, or inertia, rather than need.

In the discussion groups, people appeared ambivalent about the use of animals in medical research but almost all accepted that it could be right, in principle, to use animals. Support was strongest for research into life threatening disease.

Some regretfully considered their use inevitable and a 'necessary evil' with no practical alternative. In the quantitative survey, seventy two percent thought animal experiments would always be a part of research: most also felt there should be strenuous efforts to develop alternatives. Even among those who saw themselves as vegetarians or 'animal lovers' most accepted the importance of the medical use of animals particularly when considering their own family or friends -- 'much as I love animals... I do love animals, I've got many animals, my child would come before an animal' or: "I don't want to eat them but I don't want my child and my family members or my friends to die of diseases, and if that means testing on animals... I think it's horrible, and I don't particularly like that part of me that thinks that but I just can't see a way out of it ."

People were less certain about the use of animals in the development of treatments for non-life threatening conditions, preventive medicine, or basic research.

The quantitative survey confirmed these observations. Table 1 shows the results from one set of questions. Thirty-two per cent either support animal experiments for any purpose if there is really no alternative, or are not bothered about animal use at all. And up to eighty-four percent accept experiments if the right conditions apply, such as that suffering is minimised, or the research is medical research, or addresses life-threatening disease. For many of these, a precondition was that the experiments were for medical research and that there was no alternative available.

At the same time, forty-four per cent either said they did not support animal experiments (39% strongly agree or tend to agree) or would favour a ban (26%). Yet two-thirds of those who "did not support" animal experiments would accept them in some conditions, representing twenty-nine percent of the public overall.

Public opinion must not be dismissed as irrational because of contradictions like these. Our methods showed that people were often well aware of inconsistencies between their attitudes towards animal experiments and their use of animals or products derived from animals.

"One of these things that I think's really difficult .....is this idea that they have -- developing -- breeding pigs specifically for that they can do liver transplants. ......My first thought about it is that's horrendous, that's awful, it's so unnecessary. But then I think I'll have a bacon sandwich, and what is the difference?"

A high proportion -- sixty-four percent -- described themselves as wanting to know more before reaching a firm opinion, though those who generally opposed experimentation tended to be least inclined to want to know more. The level of interest and the demand for information appeared high at first sight. Around a quarter of people had discussed the issue with a friend, close relative, or colleague in the past 3 months, and sixty-seven percent said they were at least reasonably interested in the issue. But only fourteen percent were "very interested", which is unusually low, and may suggest that many people are not inclined to take their initial interest further.

Contrary to MRC's expectations, the survey found that younger adults (aged 15-24 and 25-34) were no more likely to oppose animal studies than older adults.

In all the group discussions people were asked where they might have seen information and stories about animal experiments and what they thought of this information. Many could recall stories in the media and having seen campaign materials produced by groups opposed to the use of animals in research. However people also did not accept such materials at face value. Media stories were readily deconstructed as playing on peoples emotions by picking on 'chimpanzees and dogs and puppies with sad eyes... to get the attention of people who disagree with it' because in the end 'it sells papers'. Thirty-four percent believed the media opposed animal experiments, thirty-five percent that it was neutral, and fifteen percent that it supported animal experiments.

Campaigning materials were also perceived to be biased towards using the worst possible images and some even believed that images might have been staged to maximise impact -- 'What's to say they haven't pinned the animal down themselves and taken a photograph to get people to support them?'. Yet despite this mistrust, media campaigns have a powerful influence on the way people think about the issue. Many of those in the group sessions used images from old media stories and campaigning material in their discussions, referring to 'smoking beagles', rabbits with shampoo in their eyes and chimpanzees being treated cruelly, while occasionally recognising that these images might no longer be relevant. When asked which three or four species were most commonly used in animal experimentation, rats and mice were mentioned most often (by 93% of survey respondents) but followed closely by monkeys (79%) and rabbits (64%), reflecting their use in campaigns.

Two themes emerged from group discussions on information. Many people recognised that they normally only saw information opposing animal studies, and were unsure where to turn for explanations of why animals are used, or for balanced, impartial information. Some said they understood why industry could not publicise its work , mentioning the danger of attacks, the difficulty of getting good publicity, and competition. But nevertheless, most linked animal experimentation with secrecy and unaccountability, and when people were asked what might make them trust the system of regulation, honesty and openness were mentioned most often (33% of responses), and having better information (21%).

Groups were asked to identify, drawing on their own knowledge only, the regulations or controls that they felt should be in place in the UK, and there was a close match between what people wanted, and the UK's 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Groups identified the need to balance suffering against the goals of the research, the need for standards of husbandry and housing, considering alternatives, and independent and unannounced inspections. Some went further to discuss the need for rules on when experiments should stop, and whether it was necessary to kill animals at the end of experiments. At the same time, there was only limited awareness of the UK regulatory system, little knowledge of what it might be like, and very little trust in it. Ninety-one percent described themselves as 'not knowing a lot about regulation' and while forty-one percent felt Britain probably had tough rules, only twenty-nine percent expected they would be well enforced. People assumed it would be easy to bypass the regulations, and speculated about secret experiments and laboratories. Sixty-five percent said they did not trust the regulatory system, and only eleven per cent disagreed.

This survey provides some reassurance to UK scientists. Most people approach the issue in a sophisticated, rational way, and want to form opinions based on the facts. Even if many doubt whether they would approve of all that goes on in practice, the vast majority accept in principle that animal experiments are sometimes necessary. There is also, clearly a great deal of work to be done. Most of those who are inclined to support the use of animals in research have not firmly made up their mind, and most people notice the absence of balanced, reliable information on animal experimentation. The survey confirms that the UK already has in place a regulatory system that would probably be widely supported if people knew about it -- though further work would be needed to confirm that people supported the details of the system, as well as its main principles. Disappointingly, the much vaunted stringency of UK regulations seems to have no direct effect on public opinion, though it may have indirect effects through influencing opinion leaders.

Finally, the complexity revealed in this study highlights the danger of using superficial opinion surveys in complex policy areas. Measurements are of little use unless we understand what they mean.

Key points

• People who don't feel well informed can still engage in rational, sophisticated discussion of the principles that should guide animal studies.
• Most people are inclined to accept the need for animal studies in principle.
• Most people in Great Britain have not developed fixed opinions, and want to know more about animal studies in practice.
• Many people distrust media and campaign representations of animal experiments, but are influenced by them nonetheless.
• The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act largely reflects what people would want to see in good regulations.
• People know little about how animal use is regulated, and assume UK regulations are ineffective.

Authors

• Declan Mulkeen, Medical Research Council Head Office, 20 Park Crescent, London W1N 4AL
• Dr Simon Carter, Department of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT

Download the full report Animals in Medicine and Science [pdf format -- 176K]

Technical details

MORI conducted four focus groups in June 1999 and then interviewed a representative quota sample of 1,014 adults aged 15+ in Great Britain from 1-26 September 1999. All interviews were conducted in-home, face-to-face. Data have been weighted to the known profile of the British population.