Mounting Opposition to Vivisection

Goodman, Justin; Borch, Casey; Cherry, Elizabeth

doi:10.1177/1536504212446466

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, most (76%) agreed that “there needs to be more research into alternatives to animal experimentation” [ 30 ]. In the United States in 2011 the Gallup’s Values and Beliefs survey found that when asked whether medical testing on animals is morally acceptable or morally wrong, 43% (including 54% of those age 18-29 yr) responded ‘morally wrong’ [ 31 ]. Two recent surveys did ask for some elaboration on reasons for supporting AR.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers

Joffe

Bara

Anton

et al. 2014

Philos Ethics Humanit Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing.DesignAfter development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant.ResultsResponse rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered ‘benefits arguments’ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened ‘benefits arguments’. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘characteristics of non-human-animals arguments’, including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘human exceptionalism’ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special ‘kind’, can enter into social contracts, or face a ‘lifeboat situation’. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of ‘kind’ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind ‘sentient animal’ or ‘subject-of-a-life’]. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar.ConclusionsMost respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers

Joffe

Bara

Anton

et al. 2014

Philos Ethics Humanit Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the Gallup Organization cross-sectional survey of approximately 1,000 Americans, opposition to animal testing increased from 33 to 43 percent between 2001 and 2011. 16 There are also growing concerns about the possibility of validly translating animal research fi ndings to the human conditions they are intended to model. There are acknowledged inadequacies in the predictive value and evidential weight of animal experimentation, 17 and systematic reviews and meta-analyses have demonstrated that fi ndings in animals are not necessarily reliable indicators of the promise and safety of human clinical research.…”

Section: Reasons For the Urgent Need For A Beecher-style Examination mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ethical Challenges of Animal Research

Ferdowsian¹,

Gluck²

2015

Camb Q Healthc Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1966, Henry K. Beecher published an article entitled "Ethics and Clinical Research" in the New England Journal of Medicine, which cited examples of ethically problematic human research. His influential paper drew attention to common moral problems such as inadequate attention to informed consent, risks, and efforts to provide ethical justification. Beecher's paper provoked significant advancements in human research policies and practices. In this paper, we use an approach modeled after Beecher's 1966 paper to show that moral problems with animal research are similar to the problems Beecher described for human research. We describe cases that illustrate ethical deficiencies in the conduct of animal research, including inattention to the issue of consent or assent, incomplete surveys of the harms caused by specific protocols, inequitable burdens on research subjects in the absence of benefits to them, and insufficient efforts to provide ethical justification. We provide a set of recommendations to begin to address these deficits.

show abstract

“…In addition, to some extent, animal protection organizations have promoted the public's opposition to the use of animals in the experiments from 8% in 1948 to 50% in 2015. Also, the phenomenon of opposition to animal experiments is widespread in Europe and India and has garnered wide attention (Goodman et al, 2012;Roten, 2009;Singh, 2012). According to an American public opinion survey, people who believe that animal testing has an impact on scientific breakthroughs still hope that animals used in these ways can be treated humanely (Frasch, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Life Background on Chinese College Students' Cognition about Animal Welfare

Yin

Quan

et al. 2018

Neuroquantology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, with animal welfare in China gaining more clout, people are paying more attention to animal welfare. In order to know the level of cognition about animal welfare in Chinese college students and whether their life backgrounds affect the cognition, a nationwide random survey was conducted to evaluate and analyze the status of animal welfare cognition through means of WeChat questionnaires. The results show that college students have a certain degree of awareness of animal welfare, but there were significant differences among students with different life backgrounds. There were different valuations for laboratory animals, companion animals, farm animals, wild animals, and animals used for entertainment. Overall, the college students from or studying in China's developed regions had a more accurate cognition about animal welfare than those from developing regions or underdeveloped regions. The valuation of college students from urban areas was higher than that from rural areas, and the valuation of college students who had experience keeping a pet was higher than that of those who had never had a pet. Interaction was only shown between the growth environment and the growth regions on opinions towards stray dogs. More students from urban areas support killing stray dogs, but a significant difference was only shown in developed regions (P<0.05). In conclusion, socioeconomic background affects Chinese college students' cognition about animal welfare.

show abstract

Mounting Opposition to Vivisection

Abstract: Justin R. Goodman, Casey A. Borch, and Elizabeth Cherry discuss public attitudes toward animal testing and its growing opposition.

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers

The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers

The Ethical Challenges of Animal Research

Effects of Life Background on Chinese College Students' Cognition about Animal Welfare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About