Painful dilemmas: A study of the way the public’s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits
The conflict between animal costs and human benefits has dominated public as well as academic debates about animal research. However, surveys of public perceptions of animal research rarely focus on this part of attitude formation. This paper traces the prevalence of different attitudes to animal re...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) England), 2014-05, Vol.23 (4), p.428-444 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 444 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 428 |
| container_title | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) |
| container_volume | 23 |
| creator | Lund, Thomas Bøker Mørkbak, Morten Raun Lassen, Jesper Sandøe, Peter |
| description | The conflict between animal costs and human benefits has dominated public as well as academic debates about animal research. However, surveys of public perceptions of animal research rarely focus on this part of attitude formation. This paper traces the prevalence of different attitudes to animal research in the public when people are asked to take benefit and cost considerations into account concurrently. Results from the examination of two representative samples of the Danish public identify three reproducible attitude stances. Approximately 30–35% of people questioned approved of animal research quite strongly, and 15–20% opposed animal research. The remaining 50% were reserved in their views. Further studies will ideally use the measure developed here to make possible relatively fine-grained comparisons and understandings of differences between populations and changes in attitudes over time. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0963662512451402 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1524342593</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0963662512451402</sage_id><sourcerecordid>3316671281</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-b481874046b48b4a94fce1fd9d666350a364eacfa5ecf9d4e00ee530c68fe9763</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc9O3DAQxq2qqCy0956QpV56CYxjx4l7Q6sClZDgAOfIccZsUP4sGUdobxVv0dfrk-CwW4SQehpL8_u-mfHH2FcBx0Lk-QkYLbVOM5GqTChIP7CFkFokWoP5yBZzO5n7--yA6B4ApEr1J7afyiLNomzBnq5t0_up5XXTYtdZ-sFPOYWp3vDB87BC_mg3L3U9VW3j_v7-Q9wSIVGHfZgh2zedbfmIhHZ0K17Z1vYOibuBAvEw7Iiou4vDKPDV1NmeV9ijbwJ9Zns-dvHLrh6y27OfN8uL5PLq_Nfy9DJxCvKQVKoQRa5A6fiqlDXKOxS-NrXWWmZgpVZonbcZOm9qhQCImQSnC48m1_KQfd_6rsfhYUIKZdeQwzZui8NEpchSFf8nMzKi396h98M09nG7mTKQFgJMpGBLuXEgGtGX6zEeOm5KAeWcT_k-nyg52hlPVYf1q-BfIBFItgDZO3wz9X-GzyCrmUc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1529028109</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Painful dilemmas: A study of the way the public’s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Lund, Thomas Bøker ; Mørkbak, Morten Raun ; Lassen, Jesper ; Sandøe, Peter</creator><creatorcontrib>Lund, Thomas Bøker ; Mørkbak, Morten Raun ; Lassen, Jesper ; Sandøe, Peter</creatorcontrib><description>The conflict between animal costs and human benefits has dominated public as well as academic debates about animal research. However, surveys of public perceptions of animal research rarely focus on this part of attitude formation. This paper traces the prevalence of different attitudes to animal research in the public when people are asked to take benefit and cost considerations into account concurrently. Results from the examination of two representative samples of the Danish public identify three reproducible attitude stances. Approximately 30–35% of people questioned approved of animal research quite strongly, and 15–20% opposed animal research. The remaining 50% were reserved in their views. Further studies will ideally use the measure developed here to make possible relatively fine-grained comparisons and understandings of differences between populations and changes in attitudes over time.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0963-6625</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1361-6609</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0963662512451402</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23825251</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Aged ; Animal Experimentation ; Animals ; Attitude to Health ; Biomedical Research - ethics ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Denmark ; History of medicine and histology ; Humans ; Laboratory animals ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Perceptions ; Public Opinion ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2014-05, Vol.23 (4), p.428-444</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2012</rights><rights>Copyright Sage Publications Ltd. May 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-b481874046b48b4a94fce1fd9d666350a364eacfa5ecf9d4e00ee530c68fe9763</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-b481874046b48b4a94fce1fd9d666350a364eacfa5ecf9d4e00ee530c68fe9763</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963662512451402$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963662512451402$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27843,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23825251$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lund, Thomas Bøker</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mørkbak, Morten Raun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lassen, Jesper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandøe, Peter</creatorcontrib><title>Painful dilemmas: A study of the way the public’s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits</title><title>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</title><addtitle>Public Underst Sci</addtitle><description>The conflict between animal costs and human benefits has dominated public as well as academic debates about animal research. However, surveys of public perceptions of animal research rarely focus on this part of attitude formation. This paper traces the prevalence of different attitudes to animal research in the public when people are asked to take benefit and cost considerations into account concurrently. Results from the examination of two representative samples of the Danish public identify three reproducible attitude stances. Approximately 30–35% of people questioned approved of animal research quite strongly, and 15–20% opposed animal research. The remaining 50% were reserved in their views. Further studies will ideally use the measure developed here to make possible relatively fine-grained comparisons and understandings of differences between populations and changes in attitudes over time.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Animal Experimentation</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Attitude to Health</subject><subject>Biomedical Research - ethics</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Denmark</subject><subject>History of medicine and histology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laboratory animals</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Public Opinion</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0963-6625</issn><issn>1361-6609</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc9O3DAQxq2qqCy0956QpV56CYxjx4l7Q6sClZDgAOfIccZsUP4sGUdobxVv0dfrk-CwW4SQehpL8_u-mfHH2FcBx0Lk-QkYLbVOM5GqTChIP7CFkFokWoP5yBZzO5n7--yA6B4ApEr1J7afyiLNomzBnq5t0_up5XXTYtdZ-sFPOYWp3vDB87BC_mg3L3U9VW3j_v7-Q9wSIVGHfZgh2zedbfmIhHZ0K17Z1vYOibuBAvEw7Iiou4vDKPDV1NmeV9ijbwJ9Zns-dvHLrh6y27OfN8uL5PLq_Nfy9DJxCvKQVKoQRa5A6fiqlDXKOxS-NrXWWmZgpVZonbcZOm9qhQCImQSnC48m1_KQfd_6rsfhYUIKZdeQwzZui8NEpchSFf8nMzKi396h98M09nG7mTKQFgJMpGBLuXEgGtGX6zEeOm5KAeWcT_k-nyg52hlPVYf1q-BfIBFItgDZO3wz9X-GzyCrmUc</recordid><startdate>20140501</startdate><enddate>20140501</enddate><creator>Lund, Thomas Bøker</creator><creator>Mørkbak, Morten Raun</creator><creator>Lassen, Jesper</creator><creator>Sandøe, Peter</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140501</creationdate><title>Painful dilemmas: A study of the way the public’s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits</title><author>Lund, Thomas Bøker ; Mørkbak, Morten Raun ; Lassen, Jesper ; Sandøe, Peter</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-b481874046b48b4a94fce1fd9d666350a364eacfa5ecf9d4e00ee530c68fe9763</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Animal Experimentation</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Attitude to Health</topic><topic>Biomedical Research - ethics</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Denmark</topic><topic>History of medicine and histology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laboratory animals</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Public Opinion</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lund, Thomas Bøker</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mørkbak, Morten Raun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lassen, Jesper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandøe, Peter</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lund, Thomas Bøker</au><au>Mørkbak, Morten Raun</au><au>Lassen, Jesper</au><au>Sandøe, Peter</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Painful dilemmas: A study of the way the public’s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits</atitle><jtitle>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Public Underst Sci</addtitle><date>2014-05-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>428</spage><epage>444</epage><pages>428-444</pages><issn>0963-6625</issn><eissn>1361-6609</eissn><abstract>The conflict between animal costs and human benefits has dominated public as well as academic debates about animal research. However, surveys of public perceptions of animal research rarely focus on this part of attitude formation. This paper traces the prevalence of different attitudes to animal research in the public when people are asked to take benefit and cost considerations into account concurrently. Results from the examination of two representative samples of the Danish public identify three reproducible attitude stances. Approximately 30–35% of people questioned approved of animal research quite strongly, and 15–20% opposed animal research. The remaining 50% were reserved in their views. Further studies will ideally use the measure developed here to make possible relatively fine-grained comparisons and understandings of differences between populations and changes in attitudes over time.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>23825251</pmid><doi>10.1177/0963662512451402</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0963-6625 |
| ispartof | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2014-05, Vol.23 (4), p.428-444 |
| issn | 0963-6625 1361-6609 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1524342593 |
| source | MEDLINE; PAIS Index; SAGE Complete |
| subjects | Aged Animal Experimentation Animals Attitude to Health Biomedical Research - ethics Cost-Benefit Analysis Denmark History of medicine and histology Humans Laboratory animals Male Middle Aged Perceptions Public Opinion Young Adult |
| title | Painful dilemmas: A study of the way the public’s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T02%3A27%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Painful%20dilemmas:%20A%20study%20of%20the%20way%20the%20public%E2%80%99s%20assessment%20of%20animal%20research%20balances%20costs%20to%20animals%20against%20human%20benefits&rft.jtitle=Public%20understanding%20of%20science%20(Bristol,%20England)&rft.au=Lund,%20Thomas%20B%C3%B8ker&rft.date=2014-05-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=428&rft.epage=444&rft.pages=428-444&rft.issn=0963-6625&rft.eissn=1361-6609&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0963662512451402&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3316671281%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1529028109&rft_id=info:pmid/23825251&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0963662512451402&rfr_iscdi=true |