Natural and unnatural: activists' representations of animal biotechnology

Abstract

Social representations of animal biotechnology were examined with a total of 22 animal welfare and rights activists in five focus groups. Content analysis of interview data showed that the social representation of animal biotechnology was organized according to intersecting utilitarian and moral reasoning. On one hand, activists were supportive of the medical applications of animal biotechnology and of their potential to help cure diseases. On the other hand, activists' concerns included a fundamental moral objection to the human use of animals in general, and a more specific objection to their genetic modification. The genetic manipulation of animals was negatively described as ‘disgusting’ and an emotional response, called the ‘yuck factor’ characterized the process of collective symbolic coping with the new technology. The activists were wary of ‘going against nature’ and were uneasy about humans interfering with the natural order. The results were discussed in the light of the many questions the human/animal relationship poses in modern society. An attempt is made to integrate the social representations theory and the public understanding of science in the study of the local public's views of new biotechnologies.

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to explore the social representations of xenotransplantation among a group of Italian pro-animal activists. An attempt will be made to integrate the social representations theory (SRT) and the public understanding of science (PUS) in the study of local public's views of new biotechnologies. After discussing the two theoretical perspectives, findings of recent research on the public perception of animal biotechnology will be presented. Drawing on focus group data, pro-animal activists' representations will be discussed in the light of the symbolic role of animals in modern society.

Genetic engineering has the potential to produce domestic animals that can be used for food-related and biomedical purposes. An increased demand for meat has caused pressure to utilize the potential of biotechnology to improve productivity in animal agriculture, whereas in the biomedical field, engineered animals could be used for three major purposes: (1) the production of live cells, tissues, and organs for xenotransplantation; (2) the production of biopharmaceuticals for animal or human use; and (3) the creation of animal models of human diseases (for example, the onco-mouse) to test the safety of new drugs and further biomedical research (Straughan, 2000; GeneWatch, 2002; The Royal Society, 2001).

As the acceptance of new technologies by the general public tends to be of major concern for both policy institutions and commercial enterprises, interest in the investigation of public perceptions of new biotechnologies such as animal biotechnology and xenotransplantation has been raised.

Social representation theory

Social representation theory (SRT) is a theoretical perspective at the crossroads of many socio-psychological concepts and disciplines such as social psychology, anthropology, history, philosophy and sociology, which constructs social representations as ‘structured mental…content about socially relevant phenomena, which take the form of images or metaphors…created in everyday discourse between social groups’ (Wagner, Elejabarrieta & Lahnsteiner, 1995, p. 673). On one hand, social representation is perceived as a social process of communication and discourse. On the other hand, social representations are seen as individual attributes or a structure of individually assessable knowledge. The versatility of the theory stems from this dual view of the concept. Social representations are a theory about the world, socially constructed during everyday conversation, and, at the same time, they are individual mental content about socially relevant phenomena (Wagner, 1994).

Social representations serve important social functions in guiding and justifying actions, maintaining social identity and allowing for communication between group members (Moscovici, 1984, 1988). Since incongruous and unusual things constantly catch the individual's attention, social representations help to establish an order, to conventionalize new objects by locating them in a known category. Two processes characterize the formation of social representations. The first is a process of anchoring the unfamiliar to a familiar reference point, while the second, objectification, aims to transform abstraction into something concrete, intelligible and communicable (Moscovici, 1984, 1988). Metaphors are examples of the objectification process in that they are devices for making something unfamiliar more familiar. The affective and moral connotations of the content of the metaphor are generalized into the representation so that the metaphor and the representations become the same thing (Wagner et al., 1995; Wagner & Kronberger, 2001).

SRT has been widely criticized during the last 25 years for a number of reasons (cf. Räty & Snellman, 1992 for a review). One of the most convincing criticisms is the lack of clear definition of the concept of social representation and the consequent vagueness of the theory. Jahoda (1988) objected to the extension of the concept of social representation by arguing that the lack of formal definition and of boundaries of the concept entails that anything could be considered a social representation.

Moreover, SRT is often portrayed as being in controversy with approaches based on the study of discourse and rhetoric (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Edwards, 1997). Particularly problematic from the discourse analytic point of view has been the tendency in social representation research to treat the process of anchoring and objectification as taking place at an individual cognition, rather than as aspects of communication, which occur in the context of everyday talk and interaction (van Dijk, 1991; Potter & Billig, 1992). Some researchers have attempted to reconcile social representations and the study of discourse by drawing attention to the argumentative and rhetorical aspects of anchoring and objectification (Byford, 2002; Billig, 1988). The arguments set out by Billig (1988) recommend considering the two processes as products of discursive interaction and communication, reflecting the broader ideological and social functions of representations.

Räty & Snellman (1992) agreed with Harré (1984) in that the theory has failed to analyze the relationship between scientific and everyday conceptions. In this line, Harré (1984) maintained that social representations are basically individual conceptions, since no attention has been paid to the analysis of the ‘sociality’. Allansdottir, Jovchelovitch and Stathopoulou (1993), on the other hand, have praised the openness and versatility of the theory. They point out how SRT has introduced the ‘social’ into the discipline as a reaction against the predominant reductionism inherent in traditional psychological approaches. In this sense, social representations were conceived as a ‘system of values, ideas and practices’ (Moscovici, 1973, p. xiii), which have a supra-individual quality.

The public understanding of science

The traditional approach to public understanding of science (PUS) usually measures levels of scientific literacy among the general population, in the belief that scientific literacy could render one more competent in everyday life, more able to make informed decisions and more supportive of a given technology. Empirical evidence on this issue are controversial (Bauer et al., 1994; Evans & Durant, 1995), with few studies showing a weak connection between knowledge and acceptance of new technologies (Pfister, Böhm & Jungermann, 2000). In this light, the so-called deficit model of PUS, which presents the ‘public’ as lacking in scientific knowledge, has been roundly criticized for a number of reasons. Firstly, critics claim that the deficit model misrepresents science by portraying it as an unproblematic body of knowledge, which may not be the case. Secondly, some claim that the deficit model overlooks the fact that a great deal of scientific knowledge is both far removed from and largely irrelevant to everyday life. As a consequence, people acquire as much scientific knowledge as they need and no more.

Consequently, the critical PUS acknowledges the need for more successful ways of hearing what people are saying about genetics and some researchers suggest using qualitative methods,to understand what is called ‘lay local public’, that is lay people in their everyday local setting, possessing relevant knowledge and skills that reflect local cultural and material conditions (Edwards, 2002; Michael, 2001). In this view, lay people are assumed to draw upon familiar knowledge that is available from the layperson's social and cultural context to grasp novel or unfamiliar knowledge.

Collective symbolic copying

The positions discussed by the critical PUS seem close to those of Wagner and Kronberger (2001) who maintained that the understanding of a new technology passed through an intermediate stage where the public compensated for their lack of scientific literacy by using representations, which were the results of a collective symbolic coping with the new technology. When something new strikes the attention of individuals, they engage in a process of collective material and symbolic coping with the new, that is a sense-making activity which involves naming and attributing characteristics to it in order to make it intelligible and communicable. Objectification is the process by which members of a group reach consensus over a trope or discourse, making the new a part of the individual's symbolic world. The trope does not have to be scientifically true but simple, embedded into the group's frame of reference and its symbolism has to be coherent with the group's prevalent discourse.

Since biotechnology is an important source of innovation in contemporary society, and people do not have the resources in terms of education and time to examine the scientific literature on the issue, then lay people need to develop an understanding of the phenomenon in order to come to terms with it. Through this process, the new phenomenon is located in the symbolic universe of everyday thinking and common sense. In this sense, social representations are forms of collective symbolic coping with new phenomena (Wagner & Kronberger, 2001; Wagner, Kronberger & Seifert, 2002).

In the same line, some researchers have attempted an integration of SRT and the PUS. Durant, Evans & Thomas (1992) investigated the relation between public interest in science, attitudes toward science and the social representations of medicine and science in Britain, showing significant differences between professional and popular representations of science. Michael & Brown (2004) pointed out that however people grasp a new phenomenon, it will involve drawing upon certain familiar resources including analogies with meat, in order to seize the meaning of xenotransplantation. Moreover, the public problematised both the technological innovations and the metaphors that might serve in their understanding as meat holds many connotations concerned with, for example, animal welfare, butchery, corporal purity and so on.

Animal biotechnology

Modern applications of animal biotechnology are an intensely disputed topic in that they raise contrasting issues such as, on one hand, the shortage of human donors and the heavy investments of biotechnology firms in developing transgenic animals for use in replacement surgery, and, on the other, a number of animal rights organizations questioning the use of animals for human benefit and the ethical and clinical consequences of xenografting.

A consistent pattern of opposition to animal biotechnology has been noted since 1991 (EORG, 2002; Gaskell et al., 2000). The prospect of using transgenic animals as a ‘spare parts bin’ to compensate for the lack of human donors is likely to exacerbate the controversy over medical dependence on animal bodies and to emphasize the unforeseen risks related to trans-species diseases.

Wagner and Kronberger (2002a, 2002b) found that collective coping with biotechnology in general involved a discourse related to moral concern about interfering with nature. Human beings were seen as transgressing natural boundaries and interfering with natural harmony. In this sense, they were perceived as doing something they were not allowed to do and, in a way, playing God. As a consequence, lay discourse defined biotechnology as both morally objectionable and risky, in the light of the unforeseen consequences of messing with sacred Nature. Nature was thought as some kind of living being which could either be benevolent or take revenge on humans who have trespassed natural borders.

In the same vein, Brown (1999b) pointed out that animal biotechnology implied the transgression of human-animal boundaries and stimulated reactions of disgust as described by the ‘yuck factor’, that is public revulsion at what is perceived to be meddling with life. In trying to capture the idea of xenografting, individuals resorted to intuitive feelings such as the ‘yuck factor’ and to science fiction, in order to reflect on the existence of hybrids—falling somewhere between human and non-human.

The issue of xenotransplantation stimulates images of monsters generated by the combination of different body parts of different species. Such images bring to mind Frankenstein and other stories where monsters were created by the human desire to reach immortality. A desire to be immortal and forever young was considered morally unacceptable in itself. Moreover, moral questions arose on the acceptability of taking healthy organs from animals to be transplanted in humans and on perceiving animals as just machines or ‘spare parts bins’ (Nerlich, Clarke & Dingwall, 1999; Wagner & Kronberger, 2002a). Concern was expressed about the preservation of animal welfare and about the environmental impact of GM animals (AEBC, 2002).

Reviews of the relevant literature by Breakwell (2002) and by Macnaghten (2001) showed that existing research consisted predominantly of quantitative opinion surveys, which measured the public perception of animal biotechnology. They called for a deeper investigation of the ethical reasoning and belief system behind the widespread opposition to animal biotechnology.

Pro-animal activists

Scientific and lay discourse on human-animal relationships differ largely on the perception of similarity between humans and animals. On one hand, scientific discourse has highlighted the biological similarities and moral differences between humans and animals, while on the other hand, in cultural discourse, animal rights groups have maintained the biological dissimilarities and the moral equality of humans and animals (Brown, 1999a; Brown & Michael, 2001).

Since the 1970s, the modern Animal Rights Movement has supported a moral approach to animals, challenging the use of animals in modern western society and raising questions on the exploitation of animals for human benefit. Under pressure from groups such as the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, European legislation on animal experimentation has been changed in order to safeguard animal welfare and to encourage the validation of alternative methods.

The works by Singer (1977), Regan (1988) and Midgley (1983) have provided the philosophical basis for a moral reasoning on animals and animal welfare and have maintained the individual animal's intrinsic value and rights. The Animal Rights Movement, as formed after the publication of these works, contained a powerful new worldview that redefined the relationship of human beings to nature and animals. Moreover, individuals faced major changes in lifestyle when embracing the animal crusade. Activists strove to achieve consistency between their beliefs and their actions, many of them being vegetarian and trying to live a ‘cruelty-free life’ by shopping for products that have not been tested on animals. Those changes in thinking and lifestyle affected interpersonal relationships so that their partners and friends were often chosen within the movement (Herzog, 1993).

Sutherland and Nash (1994) maintained that the Animal Rights Movement rejected the traditional cosmology of Western society, which gave humans dominion over nature and animals, and offered a new environmental cosmology where animals were placed at the center of the moral universe of society.

Ethnographic studies suggested that assuming an animal rights perspective was in a way similar to religious conversion. These similarities included a fundamental shift in worldview, dramatic changes in lifestyle (for example, diet) and the conviction that the new perspective was morally correct and that other types of behavior (for example, vivisection) were morally wrong (Herzog, 1993; Jasper & Poulsen, 1995).

Scholars found that animal rights activists tended to be disproportionately female, well-educated, upper middle class and liberal (Peek, Bell & Dunham, 1996; Plous, 1991; Galvin & Herzog, 1992; Jamison & Lunch, 1992; Nibert, 1994; Kruse, 1999). Shapiro (1994) described the animal rights activist as sharing an attitude of caring for animals, as sensitive toward animal suffering and as skillfully investigating instances of suffering. Participants in the animal rights movement had distinctive, well-articulated and sometimes impassionate beliefs about animals.

Besides these orthodox positions, a branch of the movement has rejected the philosophical doctrine of animal rights in favor of a moderate version of animal welfare that accepts animal rights as an ideal state of affairs that can be achieved through improvements in animal welfare measures. This branch of the movement accepts some forms of animal exploitation and considers animal rights as the long-term goal, and animal welfare as the short-term one. This hybrid position is called ‘new welfarism’ and its supporters the ‘new welfarists’ (Francione, 1998).

This study qualitatively explores the content of the animal rights and welfare activists' representations of genetically modified animals (GMA), in order to further the understanding of the belief system underlying the animal rights movement and the reasons for public uneasiness about animal biotechnology. By providing access both to individual cognition and social discourse, the integration of the social representations approach and the public understanding of science one could allow an in depth investigation of the activists' worldviews, as they are shaped and communicated in everyday life.

Method

The study draws upon the analysis of five focus group discussions involving a sample of animal welfare and rights activists in the Modena district, Italy, in January and February 2004. In short, a focus group is a form of group interview that takes advantage of communication between participants to generate data. Group work ensures that priority is given to the respondents' hierarchy of importance, their language and their frameworks for understanding the world. In this sense, argumentative interaction highlights the respondents' attitudes, priorities, language and framework of understanding (Krueger, 2000).

Guided by a skilled interviewer, participants shared their ideas and perceptions, influencing each other by responding to ideas and comments in the discussion. Accessing this kind of communication, which may include jokes, anecdotes and argument, is useful to the researcher since people's representations are not entirely self-contained in pre-existing responses to direct questions, such as those in questionnaires (Merton, 1987; Morgan, 1997).

Moreover, naturally occurring groups are preferred since they provide one of the social contexts within which meanings are built and representations generated. By using a pre-existing group, the researcher may be able to intercept and seize the kind of interaction which best approximates original everyday communication (Bloor et al., 2001; Kitzinger, 1994). In this sense, the focus group technique matches the social origin of representations.

Participants

Participants were recruited among the three animal rights and welfare organizations in the Modena district, namely: (1) the Anti-Vivisection League,1 which comprised about 15 active members, mainly under 40-years-old, doing voluntary service at the local cat and dog shelters—the association mainly deals with the abolishment of any form of violence against animals (for example, vivisection, hunting, bullfighting and the use of animals in zoos and the circus), the promotion of vegetarianism and the protection of stray animals; (2) the National Foundation for the Protection of Animals,2 which deals with the protection of animals and the prevention of animal abuse by inspectors3—it runs five dog pounds, three cat rescue centres and one wild animal shelter mainly thanks to volunteers; and (3) the Center for Animal Aid,4 which managed six dog pounds, two cat rescue centres and one wild animal shelter, mainly thanks to volunteers.

A few members of the Anti-Vivisection League were also members of the Center for Animal Aid and/or the National Foundation for the Protection of Animals. We decided to attribute each participant to the association they declared themselves part of when they were interviewed.

Two focus groups were composed of members of the Anti-Vivisection League, one of members of the Center for Animal Aid and two of members of the National Foundation for the Protection of Animals. Each focus group was composed of three to six participants as suggested by Bloor et al. (2001).

The sample consisted of 22 activists, seven male and 15 female, ranging from 19 to 55 years of age (mean age = 36.1). Eight participants belonged to the National Foundation for the Protection of Animals, three to Center for Animal Aid and 11 to the Anti-Vivisection League. Sixteen out of 22 were vegetarian or vegan (72.7%).

Group membership was associated with diet as all the members of the Anti-Vivisection League said they were vegetarian, one out of two members of the National Foundation for the Protection of Animals and one out of three members of the Center for Animal Aid reported the same diet.5

Phone calls introducing the research and recruiting participants were made about one week in advance. Sessions were relaxed and participants sat in a circle. Focus group discussions lasted approximately 25–50 minutes and were carried out at the offices of the Anti-Vivisection League, the National Foundation for the Protection of Animals and the Center for Animal Aid. Five focus groups saturated the representational field and no more new ideas came up in discussion (Krueger & Casey, 2000).

Results

Analysis of the material

Verbal interactions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Outside interruption (e.g., telephone) and competing distractions (e.g., barking) were also reported. The transcription produced a total of 52 pages of text.

Semantical content analysis classified signs according to their meanings and enabled the researcher to obtain a clear picture of the categories of meaning, as they emerged from intervieweesì discourse, and to have an idea of the frequency of appearances of the major themes (Bauer, 2000; Knodel, 1993; Krippendorff, 2004; Morgan, 1997; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990).

Table 1. Participants' membership of animal rights and welfare associations

	National Foundation for the Protection of Animals	Centre for Animal Aid	Anti-Vivisection League
	1 FG = 5 participants	1 FG = 3 participants	1 FG = 6 participants
	1 FG = 3 participants		1 FG = 5 participants
Total number of participants	2 FG = 8 participants	1 FG = 3 participants	2 FG = 11 participants

Table 2. Description of the sample

Variables	Group labels	Frequency	Percent
Gender	Men	7	31,8%
	Women	15	68,2%
Education	Secondary school (I)	2	9,1%
	Secondary school (II)	11	50%
	Master (5 years)	3	13,6%
	Missing	6	27,3%
Profession	Employee	9	40,9%
	Self-employed	4	18,2%
	Other	1	4,5%
	Missing	8	36,4%
Pet owner	Yes	19	86,4
	No	3	13,6
Religious beliefs	Religious person	2	9,1%
	Non churchgoer	12	54,5%
	Non religious person	8	36,4%
Diet	Vegetarian or vegan	16	72,7%
	Non-Vegetarian	5	22,7%
	In the middle	1	4,5%

The interview material was analyzed using the software package NUD*IST 4.0 (Buston, 1997; Richards & Richards, 1994). Recurring beliefs or explanations represented thematic units, be they a phrase or a set of statements. Participants' discourse, as divided into thematic units, was coded according to meaning into nodes/categories. The choice of categories followed a bottom-up strategy, the categories jumping out of the material after repeated examination of the transcripts. Each node/category consisted of several excerpts from interviews. One text unit could belong to various categories or nodes whereas others were not indexed at all (Krippendorff, 2004).

The utilitarian concern

Useful, natural selection for animals, for humans and medical research

On the basis of the categorization process, activists' views on the genetically modified animals issue seemed to be organized according to a continuum between utilitarian and moral reasoning. On one hand, when approaching the issue of animal biotechnology, activists took into consideration the usefulness of the animal biotechnology. A few of them thought that GMAs were useful for the advancement of medical research and not dissimilar to those produced by natural selection. In this vein, biotechnological research was judged according to its perceived objective. Members of the Anti-Vivisection League considered it useful when promoting either animal or human well-being by advancing medical research, while unacceptable when perceived as a further exploitation of animals (see Figure 1).

Questions: The media have reported on GMA. Are you familiar with the issue? (Xenotransplantation, animal cloning etc.) What do you think about it?

Responses: 27MFG3 indeed, that makes no sense…creating some totipotential cells that you can use for transplantation, creating a tissue that is going to be transplanted into an organism that is able to create a new organ to me, it's important. (National Foundation for the Protection of Animals)

3MFG1 so, today's use of genetic engineering isn't that different to Darwin's use not so long ago. (Anti-Vivisection League)

3MFG1 I'm against everything that is done to animals for human benefit, but if the research aims to improve the characteristics [then it is acceptable]. (Anti-Vivisection League)

1MFG1 are you joking? Nobody carries out research for the well-being of animals, I'll tell you what, genetic modifications are done first of all to obtain hens without feathers, for instance. Second, to get huge cows or, what do you call it?, or calves or pigs to make more profit. From one [cow] you can get more steaks or they are used to get pigs' livers or pigs' or monkeys' hearts that you can give to humans with a sick liver or for…. (Anti-Vivisection League)

Figure 1. Concept map. Note: t.u. = text units.

Table 3. Themes of the content analysis

Themes	Frequency				Extension			Evaluation
	Anti- Vivisection league	Centre for Animal Aid	National foundation for the protection of animals	Total	Anti- Vivisection league	Centre for Animal Aid	National foundation for the protection of animals
	Utilitarian reasoning
1. Useful			3 t.u.	3 t.u.			3	Positive
1.1. GMA = natural selection	4 t.u.			4 t.u.	3			Positive
1.1.1. for animals	3 t.u.			3 t.u.	1			Positive
1.1.2. for humans	5 t.u.			5 t.u.	2			Negative
1.2. medical research	1 t.u.		6 t.u.	7 t.u.	1		4	Positive
2. Useless	4 t.u.	1 t.u.	3 t.u.	8 t.u.	3	1	2	Negative
2.1. dangerous	2 t.u.	2 t.u.		4 t.u.	2	2		Negative
2.2. GMA = vivisection	3 t.u.		1 t.u.	4 t.u.	2		1	Negative
Moral reasoning
3. Disgust	2 t.u.		2 t.u.	4 t.u.	2		2	Negative
3.1. against nature	3 t.u.		1 t.u.	4 t.u.	3		1	Negative
3.2. sick society	8 t.u.			8 t.u.	3			Negative
3.2.1 to change society	4 t.u.			4 t.u.	3			Negative
3.2.1.1. organ donation			2 t.u.	2 t.u.			1	Positive
3.2.1.2. human cloning			2 t.u.	2 t.u.			1	Positive
3.2.2. therapeutic fury	5 t.u.			5 t.u.	3			Negative
3.2.3. ethically wrong	4 t.u.			4 t.u.	3			Negative
3.2.3.1. low respect			3 t.u.	3 t.u.			2	Negative
Note: t.u. = text units.

Useless and dangerous

On the contrary, some activists saw animal biotechnology as useless and even dangerous for human health. In particular, activists called into question the effectiveness of xenotransplantations and the benefits of such procedures for humans in general. They seemed quite skeptical about the feasibility of xenografting and its success rate.

Questions: The media have reported on GMA, are you familiar with the issue? (Xenotransplantation, animal cloning etc.) What do you think about it?

Responses: 3MFG1 then the [xeno] transplantation doesn't work, then we know that it doesn't [work]. (Anti-Vivisection League)

6MFG1 unfortunately there's a terrible problem, and nobody is mentioning that, you have talked about transplantations, survival rate is practically zero. (Anti-Vivisection League)

25FFG3 why should we clone animals? There're so many of them already. (National Foundation for the Protection of Animals)

36FFG4 even extremely dangerous, modifying pigs for transplantations seems extremely dangerous to me, it gives the idea that you insert an organ of a different species into the human body, with all the problems related to that species, the diseases, it seems to me a very dangerous carrier. (Anti-Vivisection League)

32FFG4 we're exceeding and as you said, if we would really say, we don't even know about the health issues and the consequences for human health of these kinds of things. (Anti-Vivisection League)

Vivisection

When discussing their positions, interviewees mentioned vivisection as a metaphor for animal engineering. In their opinion, as vivisection had turned out to be misleading and unreliable, in the future animal biotechnology could turn out to be scientifically mistaken and untrustworthy. Members showed little faith in traditional science and concern for animal welfare was always present in their discourse.

Questions: The media have reported on GMA, are you familiar with the issue? (Xenotransplantation, animal cloning etc.) What do you think about it?

Responses: 36FFG4 vivisecting an animal, hurting it, this goes on the background [where] is the respect for human life? Since the so-called scientists save human lives by stealing vital organs [from animals] for humans, [it means that] the end justifies the means, to me, the opposite is true in the sense that…. (Anti-Vivisection League)

1MFG1 how come? You're against vivisection and you aren't against, you are in favor of using animals for human transplantations? (Anti-Vivisection League)

Moral reasoning on the human/animal relationship and on society

Disgust and against-nature

Besides utilitarian reasoning, the activists pointed out the moral unacceptability of animal biotechnology and disgust was the prevailing feeling about the issue. Interviewees expressed a moral concern about genetic engineering involving animals and they thought that it interfered with nature. This applied both to crops and animals. The genetic modification of organisms goes against nature and as a consequence, it was considered as unnatural.

Questions: The media have reported on GMA, are you familiar with the issue? (Xenotransplantation, animal cloning etc.) What do you think about it?

Responses: 41FFG5 I've heard about that, it's disgusting, both for animals and for humans, we've been doing so well for thousands of years up to now, I can't see why we should modify them. (National Foundation for the Protection of Animals)

34FFG4 it's against nature, if something is made in a certain way, then I think it's reasonable to respect it. (Anti-Vivisection League)

37MFG4 a metaphor comes to my mind to make you understand how it's wrong (…), for instance, plastic, while in nature everything is created by nature, then it returns to nature, it decomposes, plastic lasts for thousands of years, in the same way, genetic modifications provoke irreversible modifications that alter the balance [of nature]. (Anti-Vivisection League)

Ethically wrong and low respect

The activists reasoned about the acceptability of putting human welfare above animal welfare. They were against any exploitation of animals, and in this light they depicted the genetic engineering of animals as ethically wrong. The main argument characterizing their position was the lack of respect for animal lives.

Questions: The media have reported on GMA, are you familiar with the issue? (Xenotransplantation, animal cloning etc.) What do you think about it?

Responses: 32FFG4 besides that, it doesn't sound fair. (Anti-Vivisection League)

24FFG3 above all, the low respect for animal lives, beyond the [importance of] science. (National Foundation for the Protection of Animals)

23MFG3 I'm against it simply because it doesn't make any sense that people genetically modify animals, and moreover it doesn't make any sense to make animals suffer without any good reasons, then if you mention the fact that you can modify animals since they're eaten anyway, I'm against it anyway, animals have to( ) totally against. (National Foundation for the Protection of Animals)

23MFG3 thinking about killing somebody in order to make somebody else feel better, this is absurd. (National Foundation for the Protection of Animals)

Sick society, to change society, human cloning and organ donation

Members of the Anti-Vivisection League perceived modern society as sick, schizophrenic and egoistic in its behaviour. In this view, society was trying to remedy the damage it had itself caused by polluting and failing to respect nature. The activists aimed at changing society, and they hoped for a more natural way of life in harmony with nature, where the prevention of illness played a fundamental role. One member of the National Foundation for the Protection of Animals suggested the promotion of human organ donation and another called for human cloning, instead of animal cloning.

Questions: The media have reported on GMA, are you familiar with the issue? (Xenotransplantation, animal cloning etc.) What do you think about it?

Responses: 1MFG1 a sick one, aiming at self-destroying, it is trying to remedy the health damages that we're causing, since cancer is caused by us, it hasn't always been there, everything depends on us, we're talking about respect for life, even if I'm recovering from illness thanks to an animal, anyway it isn't ethical, secondly, it's not scientific, thirdly, the right way is to find a balance in the planet, in our style of life, we shouldn't do research by hurting other forms of life, … trying to remedy he damage we've caused. (Anti-Vivisection League)

1MFG1 then we shouldn't turn to these things, it's only the symptom of a schizophrenic society. (Anti-Vivisection League)

4FFG1 a sick one. (Anti-Vivisection League)

1MFG1 secondly, in my opinion, what has been doing as remedy to the damage that man does to himself with his way of life and his behavior, since we know very well that prevention should be the most important thing of all, if we behaved in an appropriate different way, in a non-polluted environment, no stress, if we ate in a correct way, if we had humane rhythms of work and if we resigned ourselves to the idea that we have to die, sooner or later, and it's useless to try to achieve immortality. (Anti-Vivisection League)

25FFG3 anyway I believe we should start doing it [cloning] on man, not on pigs. (National Foundation for the Protection of Animals)

Therapeutic fury

Xenotransplantation was perceived as a consequence of therapeutic fury. As a result of a sick society where everyone wanted to live forever and nobody was ready to die, scientists had gone as far as the manipulation of nature and the disruption of the natural order. In particular, members of the Anti-Vivisection League were disgusted by therapeutic fury, which characterized medical research. Science was perceived as immoral in that it has been pushed too far by the human desire to live forever.

Questions: The media have reported on GMA, are you familiar with the issue? (Xenotransplantation, animal cloning etc.) What do you think about it?

Responses: 4FFG1 we're all highlanders (omissis) The problem is that nobody wants to die anymore (omissis), to me the world has its own biodiversity, which does exist, we want to modify all these rhythms, for what? To be more and more present, more and more greedy, older and older. (Anti-Vivisection League)

4FFG1 this is too much. I don't want to say that I should be the one drawing the line on human intervention. I don't want to, but for sure [xeno] transplantation goes beyond curing, survival spirit, it's…. (Anti-Vivisection League)

On one hand, the applications of genetic engineering to animals were perceived positively by those participants who viewed this technology as useful for medical research, especially for animal welfare. On the other hand, those pointing to the uselessness and dangers of this technology viewed genetically modified animals negatively. The theme of the ethical unacceptability of this technology was prevalent among members of the Anti-Vivisection League, which maintained the need to respect animals.

Disgust was the prevailing feeling among participants. Genetic modification of animals was seen as a process that went against the rules of nature. Members of the Anti-Vivisection League blamed our sick society and therapeutic fury for breaking the natural laws in order to achieve immortality. The activists hoped for a new society where animals were respected. Members of the National Foundation for the Protection of Animals promoted organ donation as an alternative to xenografting.

Genetic engineering was associated with natural selection by those members of the Anti-Vivisection League viewing GMA in a useful, positive way, and with vivisection by those perceiving genetic engineering as misleading.

Discussion

This study investigated the representation of animal biotechnology as shared by members of three animal welfare and rights activists in Italy. In accordance with the views of a wider European public, animal welfare and right activists were uneasy about animal biotechnology (AEBC, 2002; Breakwell, 2002; Gaskell et al., 2000; Hampel, Pfenning & Peter, 2000; Singer, Corning & Lamias, 1998).

The social representation of GMAs was organized according to intersecting utilitarian and moral reasoning. On one hand, activists were supportive of the medical applications of animal biotechnology, and the potential for biotechnology to help cure diseases was generally judged to be an important improvement (Gaskell et al., 2000; Hampel et al., 2000; Pfister et al., 2000). In this reasoning, the prevalent ethical approach was so-called utilitarianism, according to which the evaluation of animal biotechnology should rely on the value of its results, such as the protection of human life. The representation of GMAs was objectified in a metaphor pointing to natural selection and breeding. In this view, animal biotechnology was not dissimilar to common agricultural practices such as selective breeding.

On the other hand, activists' concerns included a fundamental moral objection to the human use of animals in general, and a more specific objection to their genetic modification. In particular, members of the Anti-Vivisection League adopted a deontological reaction against the proposed technology as intrinsically violating respect for animals. Moreover, activists were concerned about the unforeseen consequences of the genetic modification of animals (The Boyd Group, 1999; Macnaghten, 2001).

Following the results of Wagner and Kronberger (2002a), a negative picture of science emerged and people involved in scientific research were considered not to be acting responsibly. Activists had little faith in traditional science and described it as misleading. Vivisection was frequently used as a metaphor illustrating the objectifying process by which the representation of animal engineering was generated. The negative evaluation of animal experimentation spread as far as to include the modern application of biotechnology on animals. Activists reasoned from the animal point of view and encompassed concerns about the preservation of animal welfare and about the maintenance of standards of care in the treatment and use of animals.

Social representations, while providing a common discourse to maintain and reproduce the local identity of the members of the pro-animal activists groups, do not say much in term of members' political positions. According to Rouquette and Flament (2003), four concepts could describe the social thinking: (1) opinions; (2) attitudes; (3) representations, binding together different opinions; and (4) ideologies, providing a fundamental cognitive anchoring point. As one moves from the first concept to the next, the inter-individual variability decreases and the integration of contents increases. Individuals showing different attitudes towards a social object could share the same underlying social representation, that being an anchor for their attitudes. In the same way, individuals showing different social representations could refer to the same ideological framework, the latter being a more integrated concept. Unfortunately, the ideological level of analysis has not been taken into consideration in this study. However, there are doubts about the applicability to the Italian context of other research, carried out mainly in the USA, reporting activists' tendency to hold liberal positions.

Quite surprisingly, no claim opposing animal biotechnology was based on religious beliefs. Italy is known as a Catholic country and the presence of the Pope and the Vatican so close to Italian territory is a strong source of influence. Moreover, 70% of the sample declared that they were religious. One possible explanation for these data is that Emilia-Romagna, the region where this study was carried out, is one of the most leftwing in Italy and the Catholic religion is not as rooted in individuals' belief systems as it is in people from other regions.

The genetic manipulation of animals was negatively described as disgusting and aberrant. The paucity of language to express reactions to animal biotechnology seemed evident. By trying to capture the essence of such technology, an emotional response such as the ‘yuck factor’ was aroused and collective coping was characterized by something which confused conventional classifications (Brown, 1999a).

Since animal biotechnology implies the biological mingling of animal and human genes, one of the fundamental distinctions of Western thought came to falter. The history of Western civilization has been characterized by an attempt to distinguish humans and animals by means of tools such as rationality, or consciousness, which seems to have allowed humans to emerge from the irrational, instinctual world and to enter into the superior domain of culture (Agamben, 2002; Baratay, 2003; Martinelli, 2002; Rivera, 2000; Horigan, 1988; Descola, 1996). In this sense, the human-animal distinction relies on the rigid dualistic view of nature and culture, reinforced by the Cartesian separation between nature and culture. This dualistic view supports the idea that the genetic engineering of animals is intrinsically wrong. In other words, if the realm of nature is given and distinct from the realm of human artifice, it constitutes a sin to introduce artifice into nature (Rollin, 1995).

In particular, activists were wary of ‘going against nature’ and this result is congruent with those by Wagner and Kronberger (2002a) and by Macnaghten (2001). Wagner and Kronberger (2002a) found that public coping with biotechnologies was characterized by a growing moral concern about humans interfering with the natural order. In the same way, genetic engineering was described as inappropriate tampering with life and with the order of nature where every species has its place and purpose and where natural boundaries should not be transgressed by unnatural means. This tendency to consider species as sacred things came on one hand from the Judaeo-Christian tradition of maintaining the belief that God is the one who creates kinds, and on the other hand from the Aristotelian argument that species were in some sense real and immutable units of classification. If natural species were fixed and clearly separated elements created by God, then a mingling of the natural order was metaphysically wrong.

From an anthropological point of view, Michael (2001) suggested that the uneasiness of Europeans concerning animal biotechnology could be related to the fact that new technology, by making the animals a completely artificial product, diminished the richness of the animal as a symbolic counterpart, usable for the formation of human identity. People, having long used animals as a symbolic resource in the structuring of their social identities, are disoriented by the threat that biotechnology poses to that resource. In other words, if animals are no longer the resource of naturalness and the symbolic entity humans are trying to take distance from, then what are the characteristics of a human being? If an animal is artificial, then who am I?

As for xenotransplantation, activists perceived that humans' desire to live forever has driven scientific research to the engineering of animals, which was seen as further exploitation of animals by humans. Members of the Anti-Vivisection League defined contemporary society as sick in perpetrating therapeutic fury on humans, who were striving to reach eternal life. The wish to be immortal or young forever seemed close to being realized once science was capable of using animals as a source of spare parts. The fulfillment of this wish was considered morally unacceptable. They blamed modern society and supported a new society where humans lived healthily and in harmony with animals and nature and maintained an ethical approach to other living beings. Once again, the social representations of animals and of the appropriate relations between humans and animals serve as a means to define the activists' identities and to show this to society.

Notes

1. In Italian, ‘Lega Anti Vivisezione’ (L.A.V.); see < http://www.comune.modena.it/associazioni/Anti-Vivisection Leaguemo/ > .

2. In Italian, ‘Ente Nazionale per la Protezione degli Animali’ (E.N.P.A.); see < http://www.National Foundation for the Protection of Animals.mo.it/ > .

3. Inspectors follow up reports from citizens and, where applicable, draw up a statement concerning the living conditions of the animals.

4. In Italian, ‘Centro Soccorso Animali’ (C.S.A.); see < http://www.centrosoccorsoanimali.org/default.php >.

5. No statistical analysis was carried out due to the small number of subjects (N = 22).