scholarly journals Critiquing imaginaries of ‘the public’ in UK dialogue around animal research: Insights from the Mass Observation Project

2022 ◽  
Vol 91 ◽  
pp. 280-287
Author(s):  
Renelle McGlacken ◽  
Pru Hobson-West
Keyword(s):  
F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 282
Author(s):  
Konstantin Bergmeister ◽  
Bruno Podesser

Animal research is debated highly controversial, as evident by the “Stop Vivi-section” initiative in 2015. Despite widespread protest to the initiative by researchers, no data is available on the European medical research community’s opinion towards animal research. In this single-center study, we investigated this question in a survey of students and staff members at the Medical University of Vienna. A total of 906 participants responded to the survey, of which 82.8% rated the relevance of animal research high and 62% would not accept a treatment without prior animals testing. Overall, animal research was considered important, but its communication to the public considered requiring improvement.


2003 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 35-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Burgess

Annual Meeting for Heads of Academic Departments Royal College of Pathologists, London, 1 May 2003


1994 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 314-320
Author(s):  
Michael J. Derelanko

Toxicologists are being called upon to educate the public about the value of toxicity testing and the important role animals play in this regard. This article discusses the importance of toxicologists educating students in the middle school about the science of toxicology and suggests various ways to convey basic concepts of toxicity, dose response, and animal research to students in these grades. The methods described in this article have been developed and used successfully by the author in making presentations to middle school students.


ILAR Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy MacArthur Clark ◽  
Paula Clifford ◽  
Wendy Jarrett ◽  
Cynthia Pekow
Keyword(s):  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0254279
Author(s):  
Michael W. Brunt ◽  
Daniel M. Weary

Institutions that conduct animal research are often obliged to release some information under various legal or regulatory frameworks. However, within an institution, perspectives on sharing information with the broader public are not well documented. Inside animal facilities, managers exist at the interface between the people who conduct animal research and those charged with providing care for those animals. Their perception of transparency may influence their interpretation of the institutional culture of transparency and may also influence others who use these facilities. The objective of our study was to describe perceptions of transparency among animal research facility managers (all working within the same ethical oversight program), and how these perceptions influenced their experiences. Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were used to describe perceptions and experiences of 12 facility managers relating to animal research transparency. Four themes emerged from the participant interviews: 1) communication strategies, 2) impact on participant, 3) expectations of transparency, and 4) institutional policies. Similarities and differences regarding perceptions of transparency existed among participants, with notable differences between participants working at university versus hospital campuses. These results illustrate differences in perceptions of transparency within one institutional animal care and use program. We conclude that institutions, regulators and the public should not assume a uniform interpretation of a culture of transparency among managers, and that sustained communication efforts are required to support managers and to allow them to develop shared perspectives.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002367722199315
Author(s):  
Gail Davies ◽  
Richard Gorman ◽  
Renelle McGlacken ◽  
Sara Peres

The application of genome editing to animal research connects to a wide variety of policy concerns and public conversations. We suggest focusing narrowly on public opinion of genome editing is to overlook the range of positions from which people are brought into relationships with animal research through these technologies. In this paper, we explore three key roles that publics are playing in the development of genome editing techniques applied to animals in biomedical research. First, publics are positioned by surveys and focus groups as stakeholders with opinions that matter to the development of research technologies. Learning lessons from controversies over genetically modified food in Europe, these methods are used to identify problems in science–society relations that need to be managed. Second, people are recruited into research projects through participating in biobanks and providing data, where their contributions are encouraged by appeals to the public good and maintained by public confidence. Thirdly, patients are increasingly taking positions within research governance, as lay reviewers on funding panels, where their expertise helps align research priorities and practices with public expectations of research. These plural publics do not easily aggregate into a simple or singular public opinion on genome editing. We conclude by suggesting more attention is needed to the multiple roles that different publics expect – and are expected – to play in the future development of genomic technologies.


2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-34
Author(s):  
Simon Festing

Despite the menace of the animal rights extremists, the scientific community are becoming more confident at explaining the need for animal research. A co-ordinated approach to communications, together with cautious moves towards greater openness, should allow us to keep the public on our side.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0260114
Author(s):  
Michael W. Brunt ◽  
Daniel M. Weary

One response to calls for increased openness in animal research is to make protocols publicly accessible, but it is unclear what type of input the public would provide if given this opportunity. In this study we invited public responses to five different research projects, using non-technical summaries intended for lay audiences. Our aim was to assess the potential for this type of public consultation in protocol review, and a secondary aim was to better understand what types of animal research people are willing to accept and why. US participants (n = 1521) were asked (via an online survey) “Do you support the use of these (insert species) for this research”, and responded using a seven-point scale (1 = “No”, 4 = “Neutral”, and 7 = “Yes”). Participants were asked to explain the reasons for their choice; open-ended text responses were subjected to thematic analysis. Most participants (89.7%) provided clear comments, showing the potential of an online forum to elicit feedback. Four themes were prevalent in participant reasoning regarding their support for the proposed research: 1) impact on animals, 2) impact on humans, 3) scientific merit, and 4) availability of alternatives. Participant support for the proposed research varied but on average was close to neutral (mean ± SD: 4.5 ± 2.19) suggesting some ambivalence to this animal use. The protocol describing Parkinson’s research (on monkeys) was least supported (3.9 ± 2.17) and the transplant research (on pigs) was most supported (4.9 ± 2.02). These results indicate that public participants are sensitive to specifics of a protocol. We conclude that an online forum can provide meaningful public input on proposed animal research, offering research institutions the opportunity for improved transparency and the chance to reduce the risk that they engage in studies that are out of step with community values.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document