Abstract

The use of animals in research is controversial and often takes place under a veil of secrecy. Lab animal technicians responsible for the care of animals at research institutions are sometimes described as performing ‘dirty work’ (i.e. professions that are viewed as morally tainted), and may be stigmatized by negative perceptions of their job. This study assessed if transparency affects public perceptions of lab animal technicians and support for animal research. Participants (n = 550) were randomly assigned to one of six scenarios (using a 3x2 design) that described identical research varying only the transparency of the facility (low, high) and the species used (mice, dogs, cows). Participants provided Likert-type and open-ended responses to questions about the personal characteristics (warmth, competence) of a hypothetical lab technician ‘Cathy’ and their support for the described research. Quantitative analysis showed participants in the low-transparency condition perceived Cathy to be less warm and were less supportive of the research regardless of animal species. Qualitative responses varied greatly, with some participants expressing support for both Cathy and the research. These results suggest that increasing transparency in lab animal institutions could result in a more positive perception of lab animal researchers and the work that they do.

Highlights

  • IntroductionThe people who work in these institutions, including lab animal technicians responsible for the care of animals are sometimes described as performing ‘dirty work’ (i.e. professions that are viewed as morally tainted) [1], and may be stigmatized by the negative perceptions of their job [2]

  • The use of animals in research is controversial

  • A total of 614 participants were recruited for this study

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The people who work in these institutions, including lab animal technicians responsible for the care of animals are sometimes described as performing ‘dirty work’ (i.e. professions that are viewed as morally tainted) [1], and may be stigmatized by the negative perceptions of their job [2]. Institutional transparency improves public perception of lab technicians and support for animal research ‘risky’ to disclose their profession [3,4]. The facility actively solicits public input via open houses, tour groups and school visits Using these two examples of institutional transparency, our study had the following aims: 1) to assess whether transparency affects public perception of lab animal technicians and 2) to assess whether transparency affects public support for animal research. An additional aim of our study was to test the effect of these species differences and any interaction between species and facility transparency on attitudes towards technicians and the research they conduct

Methods and materials
Recruitment
Design
Analysis
Results
Quantitative results
Qualitative results
General discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call