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. Animals harm other animals. | ||||||
Public | 153/1237 (12 %) | 1084/1237 (88 %) | ||||
Med School | 7/169 (4 %) | 162/169 (96 %) | ||||
CA: It is unclear why we should take this (we may harm animals) as moral advice from animals, but not take other moral advice from animals (for example, animals rape and kill members of their own species would mean we may rape and kill humans). In other words, animals are not qualified to give moral advice.a | ||||||
Public | 655/1227 (53 %) | 572/1227 (47 %) | 80/148 (54 %) | |||
Med School | 114/168 (68 %) | 54/168 (32 %) | 2/7 (29 %) | |||
A2: Animals cannot really feel anything. They are simply living machines. | ||||||
Public | 84/1239 (7 %) | 1155/1239 (93 %) | ||||
Med School | 9/168 (5 %) | 159/168 (95 %) | ||||
CA: This would mean that a pet cat or dog is simply a living machine, without any feelings like happiness, sadness, fear or pain.a | ||||||
Public | 574/1237 (46 %) | 663/1237 (54 %) | 60/83 (72 %) | |||
Med School | 118/167 (71 %) | 49/167 (29 %) | 6/9 (67 %) | |||
A3: Animals are property. | ||||||
Public | 179/1215 (15 %) | 1036/1215 (85 %) | ||||
Med School | 9/161 (6 %) | 152/161 (94 %) | ||||
CA: Since animals can desire things, intentionally act to fulfill those desires, and can understand (even dimly) that it is me that wants something and is trying to get it, they are not simply property. | ||||||
Public | 759/1212 (63 %) | 453/1212 (37 %) | 84/176 (48 %) | |||
Med School | 110/160 (69 %) | 50/160 (31 %) | 2/9 (33 %) |