Attitudes to the Uses of Animals in Higher Education: Has Anything Changed?

Figures & data

Table 1 Student approval ratings (A = approve, N = neutral, D = disapprove) for the use of freshly killed and live animal material (results given as percentages of those responding). Results for 1985–86 from Downie and Alexander (1989): n=250–5; for 2005 first year, n=142; final year, n=132

	First year 1985–06			First year 2005			Final year 2005
Practical	A	N	D	A	N	D	A	N	D
Rat dissection: rats bred for laboratory use	38	25	37	44	27	29	46	27	27
Sheep’s heart & lungs dissection: slaughter-house material	73	21	6	87	7	6	83	14	3
Immunology: sera produced by antigen injection into laboratory animals	34	42	24	61	25	14	58	30	11
Behavioural observations on living blowfly maggots	58	33	9	79	16	5	83	11	7

Table 2 Student approval ratings for rat dissection under three conditions. Results given as percentages of those responding: first years n=136; final years n=134

	Approval levels
		First years			Final years
Condition	Low	Intermediate	High	Low	Intermediate	High
One animal per class	43	22	35	37	21	42
One animal per small group	6	28	66	10	19	72
One animal per student	50	23	27	57	20	23

Table 3 Staff and student rating of ethical factors in the design of animal-based practical work (results given as percentages of those responding ‘high’ only). Staff, n=42; First year, n=140; Final year, n=128; First year 1987–8, n=273 (data from Downie and Alexander, 1989)

Factor	Staff 2005	Final year 2005	First year 2005	First year 1987–88
Minimising the number of animals used	86	77	56	64
The fate of the animals after the practical	71	55	44	50
Conservation status of the animals	80	72	68	90
Humane procedure to kill animals/avoidance of animal distress	90	95	91	95
Dealing with student distress	49	44	34	50

Table 4 Staff and students giving different purposes of animal experimentation high approval ratings (results as percentages of those responding). Staff, n=46; Final year, n=127; First year, n=120

Category	Staff	Final year	First year
Testing of new compounds likely to help treat serious human diseases like malaria and cancer	91	93	74
Testing of compounds used in everyday life, such as detergents to ensure they are safe for people to use	39	21	9
Testing of compounds intended for use in cosmetics	14	4	3
Fundamental research intended to improve our understanding of how living organisms work	91	58	40
Testing of new compounds likely to help treat diseases of animals like cats and dogs	65	52	42

Table 5 Staff ratings of educational aims of animal dissection. Results as percentages of those responding (n=45). Total responses add to more than 100% since staff were free to make more than one choice

Statement of aim	Response
Dissection gives students hands-on experience with fresh material	76
Students learn to co-operate as part of a group	18
Dissection helps students learn observational skills	69
Dissection gives students confidence with instrument use	58
Dissection aids teaching	64
Other	20

Table 6 Student reactions to dissection a) interest, b) skills learned. Results are percentages of those responding to sets of statements. For first years, n=163; for final years n=138. Total responses add to more than 100% since students were free to make more than one choice

Statements	Response (year)
		Final	First
a)	Dissection is boring and has put me off studying biology	0	1
	Dissection is boring. I would rather do different practical work	1	2
	Dissection is interesting but less time should be spent on it	7	4
	Dissection is an interesting part of the course and has the right amount in the course	41	36
	I find dissection very interesting and would like to do more	41	56
	Other	12	4
b)	No, I don’t believe any more research using dissection is required	4	3
	No, I don’t want a job that involves animal research	12	11
	No, I won’t require dissection in the subject I’ve chosen	16	6
	Yes, dissection is an important skill in any biological field	32	47
	I don’t know if I will require it in the future	32	34
	Other	8	3

Table 7 Student reactions to alternatives to dissection. Results as percentages of those responding to a set of statements. For first years, n=148; final years, n=135. Total responses add to more than 100% since students were free to make more than one choice

Statements	Response
	Final year	First year
I would rather use a substitute over fresh material	9	7
I have used substitutes in the past and they were as educational as fresh material	14	8
Alternatives allow repeated investigations that cannot be done with fresh material	39	26
Dissection allows the student to feel and explore real animals, which is an experience that cannot be substituted	43	52
You cannot investigate the subject like you can on a fresh specimen	24	24
Other	9	2

Table 8 Staff and student evaluation of different media in providing alternatives to dissection. Results are percentages rating each medium as high. For staff, n=42; final years, n=127; first years, n=129

Medium	Staff	Final year	First year
Video recording	23	51	46
Interactive CD-ROM	33	35	41
Plastic models	12	25	26
Preserved specimens	28	50	37
Textbooks	9	15	12

Table 9 Staff and student agreement levels with statements that a) dissection de-sensitises students, b) experimentation encourages people to regard animals as ‘things’. Results are percentages of those giving low, intermediate or high agreement. For staff, n=45; final years, n=135; first years, n=141

			Agreement level
	Group	Low	Intermediate	High
a)	Staff	96	2	2
	Final year	79	15	7
	First year	68	20	12
b)	Staff	89	9	2
	Final year	71	17	12
	First year	60	27	13

Table 10 Final year student (n=133) evaluation of their own changes in attitude towards animal experimentation. Results as percentages of those responding to a set of statements. Total responses add to more than 100% since students were free to make more than one choice

Statement	Response
I now realize that experiments on animals are an essential part of learning for my course	29
I now enjoy conducting such experiments	5
I now feel that the use of animals is more important at my level	23
I no longer believe such experiments are acceptable	3
No change: I have remained totally against animal experiments	4
No change: I have always thought animal experimentation is acceptable	40
Other	11

Table 11 Staff perceptions (n=36) of changes in student attitudes to animal experimentation. Results as percentages of staff agreeing with a set of statements. Total responses add to more than 100% since staff were free to make more than one choice

Statement	Response
Most students become more willing to conduct animal experiments	53
Most students become more reluctant to complete animal experiments	3
No change: most students remain interested in animal experiments	19
No change: most students remain unwilling	8
Other	17

Table 12 Staff and student agreement levels with statements relating to a diet experiment on students. Results are percentages of those agreeing with particular statements. Total responses add to more than 100% since staff and students were free to make more than one choice. For staff, n=46; final years, n=133; first years, n=138

Statement		Response
	Staff	Final year	First year
I don’t think that there are any ethical issues relating to students making observations on their own diets	26	35	44
It is important that students who have personal reasons for not revealing information about their diet should be able to opt out of the practical	70	67	43
When collecting data on individual students’ diets, it is important that the information is kept anonymous	87	44	38
When collecting student data for analysis, it is important that the students have the opportunity to give or with-hold consent	80	65	39
It is up to the co-ordinators of the course to decide which data students should be required to collect	15	6	4

Table 13 Student importance ratings a) of discussing ethical issues in advance of animal practicals, b) impact of bioethics coverage on views towards animal use. Results as percentage of students rating low, intermediate or high. In a) first years, n=141; final years, n=137. In b) final years only, n=104

	Group	Low	Intermediate	High
a)	First year	11	28	62
	Final year	4	19	77
b)	Final year	29	40	31

Table 14 Staff responses (n=47) to statements on the role of bioethics in undergraduate bioscience courses. Results as percentages of those responding. Total responses add to more than 100% since staff were free to make more than one choice

Statement	Response
Bioethics should be taught in lectures	34
Bioethics should be taught in lectures and discussed in tutorials/discussion groups	72
Bioethics is not important in the course I teach in	6
Bioethics is as important as the skills developed by animal experimentation and should be discussed in greater detail	34
Bioethics is covered at a sufficient level	23
Other	6

DownieJ.R. and AlexanderL. (1989) The use of animals in biology teaching in higher education. Journal of Biological Education 23, 103-111

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar