Skip to main content

Table 1 Results for questions about “Benefits Arguments” to morally justify animal research

From: The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America

Argument (A)/Counterargument (CA)

 

Group

Is this a good enough reason to justify using animals in medical research?

Do any of the following responses make the argument much less convincing?

Of those convinced: proportion who judged the counterargument as persuasive

Yes

No

Yes

No

A1. Animal experimentation benefits humans greatly.a

 

Public

698/1270 (55 %)

572/1270 (45 %)

   

Med School

140/188 (74 %)

48/188 (26 %)

   

CA: If great human benefits justify using animals in medical research, this should also justify using humans in the same medical research.a

 

Public

  

610/1260 (48 %)

650/1260 (52 %)

291/692 (42 %)

Med School

  

48/188 (26 %)

140/188 (74 %)

25/140 (18 %)

CA: If animals can experience pain and suffering, it remains unclear why we morally may use them in experiments for human benefit.a

 

Public

  

792/1264 (63 %)

472/1264 (37 %)

348/691 (50 %)

Med School

  

95/188 (51 %)

93/188 (49 %)

60/70 (86 %)

A2: Animal experimentation is necessary for human benefit.a

 

Public

621/1246 (50 %)

625/1246 (50 %)

   

Med School

126/181 (70 %)

55/181 (30 %)

   

CA: More humans would benefit if the money spent on animal experiments was instead devoted to humanitarian aid (for example, in developing countries).

 

Public

  

584/1249 (47 %)

665/1249 (53 %)

226/613 (37 %)

Med School

  

67/180 (37 %)

113/180 (63 %)

42/126 (33 %)

CA: There are now alternative experimental methods that do not use animals and that allow science to advance.a

 

Public

  

1049/1244 (84 %)

195/1244 (16 %)

482/612 (79 %)

Med School

  

130/181 (72 %)

51/181 (28 %)

87/126 (69 %)

CA: It is unclear why the statement 'animal experimentation is necessary for human benefits' justifies animal experiments, but the statement 'human experimentation is necessary for human benefits' does not justify the same experiments on humans.a

 

Public

  

667/1238 (54 %)

571/1238 (46 %)

245/612 (40 %)

Med School

  

62/180 (34 %)

118/180 (66 %)

32/126 (25 %)

A3: There are no alternatives to animal experimentation.a

 

Public

507/1240 (41 %)

733/1240 (59 %)

   

Med School

98/172 (57 %)

74/172 (43 %)

   

CA: Researchers have not looked hard enough for alternatives to animal experimentation. For example, since using animals to test drugs has been required by law, researchers may have assumed that there is no other way.a

 

Public

  

801/1235 (65 %)

434/1235 (35 %)

280/498 (56 %)

Med School

  

81/171 (47 %)

90/171 (53 %)

38/96 (40 %)

CA: If more effort was devoted to developing alternative research methods that do not use animals, animal experimentation may not be necessary anymore.a

 

Public

  

985/1239 (79 %)

254/1239 (21 %)

352/501 (70 %)

Med School

  

106/171 (62 %)

65/171 (38 %)

55/96 (57 %)

A4: Humans naturally need to seek knowledge.a

 

Public

293/1240 (24 %)

947/1240 (76 %)

   

Med School

19/169 (11 %)

150/169 (89 %)

   

CA: This can justify almost anything, including harmful experiments on humans against their will, in order to gain knowledge.a

 

Public

  

690/1227 (56 %)

537/1227 (44 %)

127/289 (44 %)

Med School

  

126/168 (75 %)

42/168 (25 %)

5/19 (26 %)

CA: We have learned a great deal from earthquakes, fires and warfare; but, this does not justify recreating these things in order to gain more knowledge.

 

Public

  

859/1231 (70 %)

371/1231 (30 %)

167/287 (58 %)

Med School

  

121/168 (72 %)

47/168 (28 %)

10/19 (53 %)

  1. aStatistically significant difference between public and medical students (p < 0.05 after Bonferroni correction). Clinically significant difference between public and medical students (statistically significant, and a clear majority of at least 60 % on opposite sides of the yes/no response option): none