Support For Use Of Animals Containing Human Material
According to the results of this study, the majority of the general public in the United Kingdom is in favor of research using animals containing humane material (ACHM), if doing so can improve human health and cure diseases.
According to the findings of this research, 48% of the U.K. public supports animals containing human material (ACHM) if the goal is to improve human health; 31% thought such research was unacceptable.
Prior to this study, participants had little knowledge of specific research involving ACHM, though most knew of similar research and were not surprised by it. Overall, research participants were generally accepting and supportive of ACHM research in principle, with their support being based on the assumption that such research would improve human health or cure human diseases. When told ACHM was conducted for these reasons, 48% found it acceptable versus 31% when participants were not informed prior to questioning.
The majority of participants consider ACHM research to be acceptable by trading off their view of the purpose of the research against concerns about the process. They believe that ACHM is valuable because of benefits to human health, but were concerned about:
- Changes to the brain of an animal.
- Changes involving animal and human reproductive systems.
- Risk of cross-contamination or genetic mutations outside of the lab.
- Acceptance of limited experimentation may lead to unacceptable research in the future.
- Animal welfare.
- Who benefits from the research.
In addition, participants generally trust (54%) regulation of ACHM research in the United Kingdom, believing that the focus for such regulation should be on transparency and the independent supervision of research.
The underlying values of participants were also explored through discussions and certain generalities were revealed, including:
- Human lives are considered precious because they have potential to go beyond other species.
- Participants made judgments about what is acceptable by considering type of animal and degree of suffering they might experience.
- The majority of participants utilized pragmatic and secular perspectives.
- Participants had faith and trust in medicine in particular.