This interview-based study examined the diversity of views relating to the creation and use of genetically-engineered (GE) animals in biomedical science. Twenty Canadian participants (eight researchers, five research technicians and seven members of the public) took part in the interviews, in which four main themes were discussed: a) how participants felt about the genetic engineering of animals as a practice; b) governance of the creation and use of GE animals in research, and whether current guidelines are sufficient; c) the Three Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) and how they are applied during the creation and use of GE animals in research; and d) whether public opinion should play a greater role in the creation and use of GE animals. Most of the participants felt that the creation and use of GE animals for biomedical research purposes (as opposed to food purposes) is acceptable, provided that tangible human health benefits are gained. However, obstacles to Three Rs implementation were identified, and the participants agreed that more effort should be placed on engaging the public on the use of GE animals in research.
OrmandyE.H., & SchuppliC.A. (2014). Public attitudes towards animal research: A review. Animals4, 391–408.
2.
SchuppliC.A., & WearyD.M. (2010). Attitudes towards the use of genetically modified animals in research. Public Understanding of Science19, 686–697.
3.
MacnaghtenP. (2001). Animal Futures: Public Attitudes and Sensibilities Toward Animals and Biotechnology in Contemporary Britain. A Report by the Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy for the Agricultural and Environ mental Biotechnology Commission, 49 pp. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University.
4.
MacnaghtenP. (2004). Animals in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology38, 533–551.
5.
Costa-FontM., GilJ.M., & TraillW.B. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy33, 99–111.
6.
EinsiedelE.F. (2002). Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science11, 315–331.
7.
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.
8.
TongcoM.D.C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research & Applications5, 147–158.
9.
OrmandyE.H., SchuppliC.A., & WearyD.M. (2013). Public attitudes towards the use of animals in research: Effects of invasiveness, genetic modification and regulation. Anthrozoös26, 165–184.
10.
CoffeyA., & AtkinsonP. (2006). Concepts and coding. In Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies (ed. CoffeyA., & AtkinsonP.), pp. 26–53. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
11.
BurnardP., GillP., StewartK., TreasureE., & ChadwickB. (2008). Analysing and presenting qualitative data. British Dental Journal204, 429–432.
12.
KnightS., NunkoosingK., VrigA., & CherrymanJ. (2003). Using grounded theory to examine people's attitudes toward how animals are used. Society & Animals11, 179–198.
13.
GaskellG., BauerM., & DurantJ. (1998). Public perceptions of biotechnology in 1996: Eurobarometer 46.1. In Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook (ed. DurantJ., BauerM., & GaskellG.), pp. 189–214. London, UK: Cromwell Press.
14.
GaskellG., AllumN., BauerM., DurantJ., AllansdottirA., BonadelliH., BoyD., de CheveignéS., FjaestadB., GuttelingJ.M., HampelJ., JelsøeE., Correia JesuinoJ., KohringM., KronbergerN., MiddenC., NeilsenT.H., PtzestalskiA., RusanenT., SakellarisG., TorgersenH., TwardowskiT., & WagnerW. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology18, 935–938.
15.
LassenJ., GjerisM., & SandøeP. (2006). After Dolly: Ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology65, 992–1004.
16.
Royal Society of Canada (2001). Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada, 242 pp. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Royal Society of Canada.
17.
GaskellG., AllumN., WagnerW., KronbergerN., TorgersenH., HampelJ., & BardesJ. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis24, 185–194.
18.
BhogalN., & CombesR. (2006). The relevance of genetically altered mouse models of human disease. ATLA34, 429–454.
19.
LiaoB.Y., & ZhangJ. (2008). Null mutations in human and mouse orthologs frequently result in different phenotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA105, 6987–6992.
20.
DavisM.M. (2008). A prescription for human immunology. Immunity29, 835–838.
21.
NorgrenR.B.J. (2004). Creation of non-human primate neurogenetic disease models by gene targeting and nuclear transfer. Reproduction Biology & Endocrinology2, 40.
22.
BenatarM. (2007). Lost in translation: Treatment trials in the SOD1 mouse and in human ALS. Neurobiology of Disease26, 1–13.
23.
OsborneN., JacksonI., CoxD., PeatfieldT., FrayM., HurstJ., LeggettM., MathersK., NicolC., RobinsonV., & RosewellI. (2009). Sharing and Archiving of Genetically Altered Mice: Opportunities for Reduction and Refinement, 14 pp. Horsham, UK: RSPCA.
24.
RobinsonV., MortonD.B., AndersonD., CarverJ.F.A., FrancisR.J., HubrechtR., JenkinsE., MathersK.E., RaymondR., RosewellI., WallaceJ., & WellsD.J. (2003). Refinement and reduction in the production of genetically modified mice. Sixth report of the BVAFF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement. Laboratory Animals37, Suppl., S1–S51.
OrmandyE.H., DaleJ., & GriffinG. (2013). The use of genetically-engineered animals in science: Perspectives of Canadian animal care committee members. ATLA41, 173–180.
27.
FishkinJ.S. (2009). Democratic aspirations. In When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (ed. FishkinJ.S.), pp. 1–31. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
28.
SeckoD.M., PretoN., NiemeyerS., & BurgessM.M. (2009). Informed consent in biobank research: A deliberative approach to the debate. Social Science & Medicine68, 781–789.
