Animal experiments yes, but as few as possible

Animal experiments yes,
but as few as possible
Essentials in brief
Study on Acceptance of Animal Experiments
Study commissioned by Interpharma
Project team
Lukas Golder Political Scientist
Martina Imfeld Political Scientist
Thomas Milic PhD Political Scientist
Stephan Tschöpe Political Scientist
Meike Müller Sociologist und Media Scientist
Cloé Jans Political Scientist
Johanna Schwab Secretariat and Administration
Bern, 17 September 2014
Copyright by gfs.bern
Publication 2 October 2014
Essentials in brief
Acceptance of animal experiments
The acceptance rate for animal experiments has remained almost unchanged since the
last survey in November 2009. About one-third of all respondents (34%, -2) approve of
animal experiments for research purposes, but a majority of 53 percent is against. However, the hard core of firm opponents of animal experiments is numerically smaller than
the previously declared 53 percent. When asked whether animal experiments should be
banned even when universities and pharmaceutical companies have no other way of
driving forward their research, 34 percent still maintain their opposition to animal experiments. A majority of 58 percent, however, is not in principle against animal experiments in such cases, but accepts them, albeit only as a “necessary evil”. Moreover, this
majority has significantly increased as a proportion of the total of all respondents since
2009.
Grafik 1
The attitude to animal experiments is only partially influenced by the existing Swiss law
on animal welfare, because most respondents (55%) consider the law to be “rather
strict”. A relative majority of respondents (43%) is also of the opinion that controls are
effective in the performance of animal experiments.
The broad satisfaction with Switzerland‘s regulations in the field of animal welfare is
also reflected in the fact that hardly a single respondent wants to see animal experiments
moved abroad, where the regulations may be less strict. If faced with the choice between allowing animal experiments in Switzerland subject to strict regulations and moving them abroad, 91 percent would opt for the Swiss solution. As mentioned, this does
not mean they are in favor of animal experiments, but that they evidently put the greatest trust in Swiss legislation to guarantee strict regulations for the protection of animals.
This also has something to do above all with the entry into force of the new animal
welfare act.
2
Grafik 2
Animal experiments arouse mainly negative associations among people. This has not
fundamentally changed since 2009. The suffering of laboratory animals, cruelty to animals and other damning or negative feelings are issues that come to the fore when voters hear talk of animal experiments. In many cases, images of animal experiments are
conjured when they are asked about animal experiments. A substantial number mentioned monkeys or rats as a spontaneous and ostensibly neutral association. References
to rats remain constant, while primates are mentioned less often. Products are also mentioned, cosmetics and medicines being by far the most frequently cited. Finally, however, some respondents did refer to advances in medicine being only possible thanks to
animal experiments. Others in turn described animal experiments as a necessary evil
that, in the absence of any alternatives, had to be put up with for the benefit of humanity.
Barely a third (30%) had heard anything about efforts to reduce animal experiments in
Switzerland or to replace them with alternative methods. In addition, three-quarters of
all respondents (76%) believe they already know enough about animal experiments;
more information is actually not wanted. In other words, minds appear to have been
made up.
3
Attitude to reasons given for justifying animal
experiments
The quite fundamentalist view that animal experiments always constitute cruelty to
animals and cannot be justified by anything continues to be shared by 71 percent of
Swiss voters. However, this is not tantamount to the consistent rejection of all animal
experiments, since 79 percent (+3) consider animal experiments to be permissible if
unnecessary suffering of the animals can be avoided. The acceptance rate for animal
experiments is a little lower if all the requirements of the law are met (71%) and in the
development of medicines to treat diseases such as cancer, rheumatic diseases or Alzheimer’s (70%).
Figure 3
Somewhat lower still is the acceptance of animal experiments for medical research in
general. Basically it can be said that the more abstract the justification (“medical research”, “basic biomedical research”, “drug development”), the lower the acceptance of
animal experiments. By contrast, if specific diseases are mentioned (such as cancer), the
acceptance rate rises.
Two further statements were tested for the first time in 2014. Eighty-three percent of
respondents agreed with the statement that a coordinated program is required to research methods that could serve as alternatives animal experiments. This is the most
accepted statement of all in this block of questions. Far more controversial is the statement that more and more animal experiments are being carried out in Switzerland. A
relative majority of 40 percent admitted they were unable to judge, while 30 percent
believed this statement and 30% did not.
Figure 4
4
It is generally the case that – subject to certain, strict conditions – animal experiments
for the benefit of medical progress are accepted. Two further purposes that we tested,
however, do not fall into this category: basic research in the human body and – with
high rates of rejection – the preservation of Switzerland’s position as a research center.
The view of a (relative) majority of respondents is that these two ends do not justify the
means (animal experiments).
Trust in animal welfare organizations and other
actors that voice opinions on animal welfare issues
Doctors have lost a degree of credibility. While more than two-thirds of all respondents
still consider doctors are credible when it comes to animal welfare issues, they now rank
second on the credibility barometer, behind animal welfare organizations.
Figure 5
The Federal Council, which has recently been much talked about in this context as a
result of the FSVO campaign, is a credible actor for about half of respondents (52%).
By contrast, much lower values are reported for the pharmaceutical industry and the
media, which are trusted by only about a third of respondents (34%). Even the credibility values of extreme animal rights organizations are not so low (35%). Respondents
reserve the least trust for politicians – but this is probably only secondarily related to
their reputation in the area of animal welfare.
Propositions and conclusions
Animal experiments are an emotionally charged subject that invariably has negative
connotations: Animal experiments per se are considered undesirable. Against this background, the long-term history in the development of public opinion on animal experiments in Switzerland offers some interesting conclusions.
With clear attitudes on the subject, the trend with regard to this issue has been in line
with assumptions on typical issue trends since 2009. While discussion on the new animal welfare act has resulted in decreased attention to the issue and to the scope for action, it has also led to a renewed increase in the obligation upon the actors concerned to
actively provide information under the new regulation. On this emotional and controversial issue direct democracy was useful as a means of finding a new regulation with
broad-based support in cooperation with industry and science in line with the preferences of the population. The system of direct democracy increased involvement and - at
least for a time - the level of people’s information on the subject and thus facilitated a
solution on a stable legal and social footing.
Even the situation of animal welfare organizations points to consistency and at the same
time to change in the last few years. Animal welfare organizations enjoy considerable
and growing sympathy, even if their actions go too far. While they are expected to abide
5
by the law, they should also make the most of their scope for action. If anything this
point of view is stronger now than it was in 2009, and the credibility of extreme animal
rights organizations is also greater today than it was five years ago.
In 2009, attacks by animal rights organizations were the subject of broad discussion,
and there was an increased critical awareness of illegal actions. Both are now clearly
apparent in a comparison of the survey findings.
In 2013, by contrast, a major environmental topic of debate in Switzerland concerned
the fate of the ship Arctic Sunrise and the ensuing captivity of Greenpeace activist
Marco Weber. Here the Russian state was presented as the aggressor, while broad sections of the population expressed solidarity with the activist, which presumably prompted the Russian state to back down at the end of 2013. The context thus appears to be
important for the form of activities. Today, animal rights activists are seen as less of a
danger.
And what about the search for alternatives? The activities to reduce animal experiments,
like the research association Forschung für Leben and the 3R Research Foundation
Switzerland, are not very well known. Only 30 percent of respondents report having
heard anything about the subject of reducing animal experiments. Since direct business
interests are even less acceptable today as a justification for animal experiments, despite
little pressure with regard to the issue, there is correspondingly greater potential today
to help shape opinion on the subject of animal experiments with information concerning
the 3Rs (Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of animal experiments).
In addition to the important legal regulations, obligations on researchers to minimize the
stress on animals and to search for alternatives are very broadly accepted. And cooperative efforts by industry and universities with the involvement of an active state policy of
animal welfare authorities are more or less in line with the intuitive sense of responsibility that people feel for the search for alternatives to animal experiments. So there are
good reasons for a campaign to reduce animal experiments and to inform the population
about this.
Proposition 1: Animal experiments are only acceptable with high legal and ethical
standards
Although a consistent majority is in principle against animal experiments, a considerable majority is conversely prepared to accept reasonable justifications for animal experiments. This involves strict legal conditions and is subject to stringent ethical requirements with clearly identifiable medical benefits. Direct business interests are increasingly not seen as sufficient justification.
Proposition 2: Basis for the search for alternatives and debate on animal experiments are particularly strong in Switzerland
The debates around animal welfare initiatives and the new Swiss animal welfare act
have reduced the pressure with regard to the issue and increased acceptance of the rules
applicable here. If animal experiments are necessary, there is a preference for accepting
them in Switzerland rather than abroad. The Swiss trust the actors concerned to make
the necessary efforts to reduce constraints and stresses on animals and to search for
alternatives as intensively as possible.
Proposition 3: Animal rights organizations credible – greater responsibility for
research, industry and the state
The animal rights organizations and their actions against animal experiments are well
accepted, whereas the level of knowledge on details in the field of animal experiments
is falling. Under these conditions, there is again more scope for proactive efforts by the
actors that approve and conduct animal experiments. Research, industry and the state
are jointly responsible for doing the utmost to improve the situation of animals and to
search for alternatives and to provide more information on the subject.
6
Data basis
The results of the survey on “Acceptance of animal experiments” are based on a representative survey of 1006 respondents aged 18 years or from all over Switzerland. The
survey was carried out by gfs.bern between 21 and 30 July 2014. The statistical error in
the sample size for the groups surveyed is as follows:
Table 1
Sampling errors
Selected statistical sampling errors according to sample size and base distribution
Sample size
N=
N=
N=
N=
1000
600
100
50
Error rate base distribution
50% to 50%
± 3.2 percentage points
± 4.1 percentage points
± 10.0 percentage points
± 14.0 percentage points
20% to 80%
± 2.5 percentage points
± 3.3 percentage points
± 8.1 percentage points
± 11.5 percentage points
Legend: with around 1000 respondents and a declared value of 50 percent, the effective value lies between 50
percent ± 3.2 percentage points and at a base value of 20 percent between 20 percent ± 2.5 percentage points. In
survey research, a safety margin of 95 percent is usually used – this means that a 5% probability is accepted that
the demonstrated statistical association is not present in the population.
© gfs.bern
To minimize misinterpretations, we did not undertake subgroup analyses under n = 50
cases.
7
gfs.bern team
LUKAS GOLDER
Senior Project Manager, Member of the Executive Committee, Political and Media
Scientist, MAS FH in Communication Management
Focus areas:
Integrated communications and campaign analysis, image and reputation analysis, media analysis/media impact analysis, youth research and social change, referendums,
elections, modernization of the state, health policy reforms.
Publications in anthologies, specialist magazines, daily press and on the internet
MARTINA IMFELD
Project Manager, Political Scientist
Focus areas:
Analysis of political topics und issues, national referendums and elections (SRG trend,
VOX analyses, election barometer), image and reputation analysis, integrated communication analysis, media content analysis, qualitative methods, social themes (youth research, racism, families, middle class)
THOMAS MILIC
PhD, Project Manager, Political Scientist
Focus areas:
Referendums, elections, state reforms, quantitative methods, parties, political communication, public opinion
Numerous publications in book form, in anthologies and in scientific journals
STEPHAN TSCHÖPE
Head of Analysis and Services, Political Scientist
Focus areas:
Coordination of services, complex statistical data analysis, computer and interview
programming, projections, analysis of parties and structured with aggregate data, integrated communications analysis, visualization
8
MEIKE MÜLLER
Scientific Associate, Sociologist and Media Scientist
Focus areas:
Data analysis, programming, integrated communications analysis, qualitative data analysis, coordination of services, media analysis, research and visualization
CLOÉ JANS
Political Scientist
Focus areas:
Research, presentation support, teaching assistance, data analysis, programming, media
analysis and visualization
JOHANNA LEA SCHWAB
Secretariat and Administration, Office Administrator (Federal Proficiency Certificate)
Focus areas:
Desktop publishing, visualization, project administration and administration of lectures
9
gfs.bern
Hirschengraben 5
Postfach 6323
CH – 3001 Bern
Phone +41 31 311 08 06
Fax +41 31 311 08 19
[email protected]
www.gfsbern.ch
Das Forschungsinstitut gfs.bern ist Mitglied des Verbands Schweizer
Markt- und Sozialforschung und garantiert, dass keine Interviews mit
offenen oder verdeckten Werbe-, Verkaufs- oder Bestellabsichten
durchgeführt werden.
Mehr Infos unter www.schweizermarktforschung.ch