The species of laboratory animal used is known to influence people's willingness to support animal-based research. An online experiment was used to test people's willingness to accept the use of zebrafish or mice, two of the most commonly used species, in research involving either induced mutation (specifically, ethyl-N-nitrosourea [ENU] mutagenesis) or genetic modification, with and without regulatory oversight. Participants who were willing to support research on zebrafish (31.9%) were also willing to support the same research on mice. The participants expressed low levels of support for research involving ENU mutagenesis of zebrafish in both unregulated (30.7%) and regulated (38.5%) research programmes. A reason for the rejection of ENU mutagenesis was the perception that the procedure is painful. Some participants expressed a preference for the use of genetically-modified (GM) animal models over ENU mutagenesis, based on the belief that the former involves less pain and improves both the accuracy and efficiency of the animal models. Better informing the public about scientific practice, and scientists about public attitudes, may help reduce the disconnect between scientific practice and societal values.
HagelinJ., CarlssonH.E., & HauJ. (2003). An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: Some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Understanding of Science12, 67–81.
5.
SwamiV., FurnhamA., & ChristopherA. (2008). Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology49, 269–276.
DriscollJ.W. (1992). Attitudes towards animal use. Anthrozoös5, 32–39.
8.
DriscollJ.W. (1995). Attitudes towards animals: Species ratings. Society & Animals3, 139–150.
9.
KnightS., CherrymanJ., & NunkoosingK. (2004). Attitudes towards animal use and animal mind. Anthrozoös17, 43–62.
10.
SchuppliC.A. (2011). Decisions about the use of animals in research: Ethical reflection by Animal Ethics Committee members. Anthrozoös24, 409–425.
11.
HenryB., & PulcinoR. (2009). Individual difference and study-specific characteristics influencing attitudes about the use of animals in medical research. Society & Animals17, 305–324.
12.
OrmandyE.H., SchuppliC.A., & WearyD.M. (2009). Worldwide trends in the use of animals in research: The contribution of genetically modified animal models. ATLA37, 63–68.
13.
SerpellJ.A. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare13, S145–S151.
14.
EddyT.J., GallupG.G., & PovinelliD.J. (1993). Attribution of cognitive states to animals: Anthropomorphism in comparative perspective. Journal of Social Issues49, 87–101.
15.
GunnthorsdottirA. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös14, 204–214.
LawrenceE.A. (1989). Neoteny in American perceptions of animals. In Perceptions of Animals in American Culture (ed. HoageR.J.), pp. 57–76. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press.
18.
CCAC (2005). Guidelines on: The Care and Use of Fish in Research, Teaching and Testing, 87 pp. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council on Animal Care. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Fish.pdf (Accessed 16.11.12).
19.
DeTollaL.J., SrinivasS., WhitakerB.R., AndrewsC., HeckerB., KaneA.S., & ReimschuesselR. (1995). Guidelines for the care and use of fish in research. ILAR Journal37, 159–173.
20.
FabacherD.L., & LittleE.E. (2000). Introduction. In The Laboratory Fish (ed. OstranderG.K.), pp. 1–9. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.
21.
ChandrooK.P., DuncanI.J.H., & MocciaR.D. (2004). Can fish suffer?: Perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress. Applied Animal Behaviour Science86, 225–250.
22.
MacnaghtenP. (2004). Animals in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology38, 533–551.
23.
GaskellG., AllumN., & StaresS. (2003). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0, 19 pp. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate Press and Communication, Public Opinion Analysis Unit. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_177_en.pdf (Accessed 16.11.12).
24.
SchuppliC.A., & WearyD.M. (2010). Attitudes towards the use of genetically modified animals in research. Public Understanding of Science19, 686–697.
25.
OrmandyE.H., SchuppliC.A., & WearyD.M. (2012). Public attitudes towards the use of animals in research: Effects of invasiveness, genetic modification and regulation. Anthrozoös. [In press.]
26.
MacnaghtenP. (2001). Animal Futures: Public Attitudes and Sensibilities Toward Animals and Biotechnology in Contemporary Britain, 49 pp. Lancaster, UK: Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Lancaster University.
27.
EORG (2001). Eurobarometer 55.2. Europeans, Science and Technology, 62 pp. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate-General for Press and Communication, Public Opinion Sector. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2001/pr0612en-report.pdf (Accessed 16.11.12).
28.
BirkeL., ArlukeA., & MichaelM. (2007). The Sacrifice: How Scientific Experiments Transform Animals and People, 240 pp. West Lafayette, IN, USA: Purdue University Press.
29.
de BruijnE., CuppenE., & FeitsmaH. (2010). Highly efficient ENU mutagenesis in zebrafish. Methods in Molecular Biology546, 3–12.
FujiiK., KurataH., OdashimaS., & HatsudaY. (1976). Tumor induction by a single subcutaneous injection of sterimatocystin in newborn mice. Cancer Research36, 1615–1618.
32.
AmatrudaJ.F., ShepardJ.L., SternH.M., & ZonL.I. (2002). Zebrafish as a cancer model system. Cancer Cell1, 229–231.
33.
MizgireuvI., & RevskoyY. (2006). Transplantable tumor lines generated in clonal zebrafish. Cancer Research66, 3120–3125.
34.
TashakkoriA., & TeddlieC. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research, 784 pp. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
35.
MilesM.B., & HubermanA.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd edn), 352 pp. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
36.
CoffeyA., & AtkinsonP. (1996). Concepts and coding. In Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies, pp. 226–253. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications Inc.
37.
KnightS., VrijA., BardK., & BrandonD. (2009). Science versus human welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use. Journal of Social Issues65, 463–483.
38.
RussellW.M.S., & BurchR.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238 pp. London, UK: Methuen.
39.
StafleuF.R., TramperR., VorstenboschJ., & JolesJ.A. (1999). The ethical acceptability of animal experiments: A proposal for a system to support decision-making. Laboratory Animals33, 295–303.
40.
IdelandM. (2009). Different view on ethics: How animal ethics is situated in committee culture. Journal of Medical Ethics35, 258–261.
41.
GaskellG., AllumN., BauerM., DurantJ., Allans-dottirA., BonfadelliH., BoyD., de CheveignéS., FjaestadB., GuttelingJ.M., HampelJ., JelsøeE., Correia JesuinoJ., KohringM., KronbergerN., MiddenC., NielsenT.H., PrzestalskiA., RusanenT., SakellarisG., TorgersenH., TwardowskiT., & WagnerW. (2000). Biotechnology and the European Public. Nature Biotechnology18, 935–938.
42.
LassenJ., GjerrisM., & SandøeP. (2006). After Dolly: Ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology65, 992–1004.
43.
BroidaJ., TingleyL., KimballR., & MieleJ. (1993). Personality differences between pro- and anti-vivisectionists. Society & Animals1, 129–144.
44.
American Dietetic Association (2009). Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians of Canada: Vegetarian diets. ADA Reports103, 748–765.
QinW., & BrownJ.L. (2007). Public reactions to information about genetically engineered foods: Effects of information formats and male/female differences. Public Understanding of Science16, 471–488.
48.
KnightS., NunkoosingK., VrigA., & CherrymanJ. (2003). Using grounded theory to examine people's attitudes towards how animals are used. Society & Animals11, 179–198.
49.
PiferL., ShimizuK., & PiferR. (1994). Public attitudes toward public research: Some international comparisons. Society & Animals2, 95–113.
50.
GallupG.G., & BecksteadJ.W. (1988). Attitudes towards animal research. American Psychologist43, 474–476.
51.
MatthewsS., & HerzogH.A. (1997). Personality and attitudes towards the treatment of animals. Society & Animals5, 169–175.
52.
KendallH.A., LobaoL.M., & SharpJ.S. (2006). Public concern with animal well-being: Place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology71, 399–428.
53.
AldhousP., CoghlanA., & CopelyJ. (1999). Let the people speak. New Scientist2187, 26.
54.
Kane, Parsons & Associates, Inc. (1989). Survey of American Adults: Report of Findings (unpublished report). New York, NY, USA: Kane, Parsons and Associates, Inc.
55.
RichmondG., EngelmannM., & KrupkaL.R. (1990). The animal research controversy. American Biology Teacher52, 467–471.
