Faunalytics
September 2015
This sort of regular public opinion poll is useful for advocates so that we can gauge the general perception of animal testing and properly create strategies and campaigns to bring the public with us in our advocacy efforts. This study also reveals that there is a gap between what the public supports and what they know -- though many feel that vivisection is a secretive business, they still generally support it, but if they knew more, they may change their minds.
Image from
Attitudes to anial research in 2014
Abstract:
The dynamic between public opinion and animal research is complicated.
There have been many studies over the years that have attempted to take a
snapshot of the perception of animal research at different times in various
countries. Others have focused on assessing why the public seems to value
certain kinds of research when they abhor another. Through these studies,
trends can be spotted over time, and one such recent review found that the
public may support animal research, but only on a case by case basis,
depending on what kind of animals are used and to what ends.
In the U.K., animal research is regulated and monitored by the government.
As such, public opinion polls are often commissioned to "take the
temperature" of the public's perception of animal research. These polls are
conducted in order to shape future strategy and policy. The findings for
2014 reveal that there are a number of interesting dynamics at play when it
comes to opinions of animal research in Britain.
Firstly, the poll highlights that there is still a majority of public
support for animal research, but that it is also conditional. There is
"widespread agreement" (76%) that more effort should be made to find
alternatives to using animals, and only 37% of people think that the use of
animals is acceptable for all types of research. 69% of respondents support
research as long as "there is no unnecessary suffering to the animals and
there is no alternative." About 23% of the public believes that "the UK
Government should ban the use of animals for any form of research," while in
contrast, 19% said that "the use of animals in scientific research does not
bother them."
One of the questions in this survey asked respondents to assign adjectives
to the organizations in the U.K. that use animals for research. Given a list
of both positive and negative adjectives, the "most commonly held public
perception" of these organizations was that they are "secretive," cited by
44% of people. By contrast, only 31% of people think that these
organizations carry out work that is essential for human health, and just
22% said they were well-regulated. Also carrying a negative connotation, 13%
of people think vivisection organizations are "dishonest about the results
of their work."
For advocates within the U.K., the findings of this study reveal some
strategic implications for anti-vivisection work. Information and education
could play an important role in shaping public opinion in the U.K. Many
respondents admit to being poorly informed. Others are shown to have
incorrect views based on the results, for example, 31% of respondents think
that testing on animals for cosmetics is still allowed in the U.K., yet it
has been banned for several years. Likewise, there is no overall source that
the public turns to for information about animal research, with 36% of
people stating that they get their information from universities, 34% saying
they find out from people they know who have knowledge of the subject, and
31% relying on animal protection organizations.
This sort of regular public opinion poll is useful for advocates so that we
can gauge the general perception of animal testing and properly create
strategies and campaigns to bring the public with us in our advocacy
efforts. This study also reveals that there is a gap between what the public
supports and what they know -- though many feel that vivisection is a
secretive business, they still generally support it, but if they knew more,
they may change their minds. Generally, people seem to lean on the
vivisection industry to tell them that animal research is justified. The
public seems to support testing on animals when they are told that it's for
medical reasons and that there are no alternatives, but if advocates are
able to show different possibilities, it could sway public opinion.
Go here to read the entire article,
Attitudes to anial research in 2014.
Return to Alternatives to Animal Testing, Experimentation and Dissection