Science versus Human Welfare? Understanding Attitudes toward Animal Use

Abstract

Scientists have been portrayed as having an uncaring attitude toward the use of animals and being inclined to reject the possibility of animal mind, yet there is little empirical research to support these claims. We examined why disparate attitudes toward animal use are held. Scientists, animal welfarists, and laypersons (N = 372) were compared on questionnaire responses that measured attitudes toward four types of animal use, and factors that might underlie these views (including belief in animal mind). As expected, scientists and animal welfarists held polarized views on all measures, whereas laypersons fell between the two. Animal welfarists were consistently opposed to all types of animal use, whereas scientists expressed support for the use of animals for medical research, but not for dissection, personal decoration, and entertainment. Animal welfarists showed high levels of belief in animal mind for 13 animal types, and scientists believed some of the 13 animals to have at least a moderate capacity for cognition and most to have at least a moderate capacity for sentience. Hence, the negative image of the science community that is often portrayed was not supported by our data. Findings were discussed in relation to external (group membership) and internal (belief systems) factors, and it is concluded that some people hold fixed attitudes toward animal use, whereas others are more influenced by context.

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

“…In addition, the identities of slaughterhouse workers appear to be constructed partly by a range of associations and dissociations with the views and roles of others. Earlier research has also claimed that people's attitudes and actions are strongly affected by the roles that people have in society (S. Knight et al 2009), yet I believe that it would be wrong to claim that these slaughterhouse workers, as well as other participants in these studies, had values that differed radically from the values held by many others, including by those who support qualified moral veganism; much of the evidence reveals some common ground.…”

Determinants of Individual Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare-Friendly Food Products

“…The second is mainly characterized as an emotional and affective response and includes personal empathy with animals. The former comprises political and ideological concerns including the comparative importance of humans vis-à-vis animals (Knight et al 2009). What is common in any notion of animal welfare is that it always encompasses ethical concerns and moral considerations since it includes the belief of what is right or wrong in animal treatment and care (Tannenbaum 1991;Rollin 1995;Abbate 2014).…”

Patients’ attitudes towards animal testing: “To conduct research on animals is, I suppose, a necessary evil”

“…Patients participate in clinical drug trials after the obligatory preclinical testing on animals and they are the intended beneficiaries of research; indeed, the patient's potential relief of suffering and pain is among the strongest arguments justifying medical research inflicting harm on non-consenting animals (DeGrazia, 1996;Ideland, 2009;Wayne and Glass, 2010). Despite the vast literature on attitudes towards animal testing (see, for example, Hagelin et al, 2003;Crettaz von Roten, 2008;Swami et al, 2008;Crettaz von Roten, 2009;Knight et al, 2009;Hobson-West, 2010), patients' views on this topic are only rarely explored, or explored in related areas of bioethics (Sattar et al, 2004;Dixon-Woods et al, 2008;Hull et al, 2008;Peddie et al, 2009;Newson, 2010).…”