Based on a series of interviews with animal rights activists (ARA), this paper argues that the generalization that ARAs are opposed to science is false and misleading. A close examination reveals that ARAs are opposed to specific forms of biomedical research that they consider both unethical and unscientific.

Based on a series of personal interviews with animal rights activists (ARA), it is observed that ARAs likely belong to several different cause-associated groups. This multiple issue involvement often stems from a recognition of the links between animals and broader social critique.

Many participants feel that profit controls the way researchers think about and use animals in research. ARAs typically think that the science is not categorically “wrong,” but misguided instead.

Humans construct meanings of animals based on a wider acceptance of the species boundary, which typically leads to the perception that non-human animals are inferior to humans. Though perceptions of animals have changed over time, they still conform to the idea of a species boundary. Science justifies the use of animals by characterizing animals as inferior and different to humans, which is in juxtaposition to the theory that animals are needed in science because they are similar to humans. Additional research on the attitudes of ARAs is needed to institute meaningful dialogue between ARAs and scientists.