Us and Them: Scientists’ and Animal Rights Campaigners’ Views of the Animal Experimentation Debate
Both animal rights campaigners and scientists who work with animals completed questionnaires to explore their beliefs and ideas about animal experimentation and their perceptions of how the other group viewed these same issues. The results showed that both groups had a negative and extreme view of the other, but they both also had a good understanding of the issues on both sides of the debate. Some agreement between the two groups about the relative capacity of animals to suffer was also noted.
For the purposes of this research, 22 animal rights campaigners and 22 animal researchers were surveyed. Each group demonstrated a clear knowledge of the arguments and issues on both sides of the animal experimentation debate, though they each rigidly maintained their own views. However, there were areas where both groups agreed, for example, both agreed on the existence of a phylogenetic hierarchy in animals’ capacity to suffer. At last half of each group conceded to the other’s position to a certain extent by noting possible instances where animal experimentation may or may not be acceptable. Both groups maintained moderate views of themselves, but extreme views of the opposition.
Some differences were also noted between the two groups. Scientists regarded “higher” order animals as having a smaller capacity suffering than the animal rights campaigners believed. The groups also applied different weight to the idea of animal suffering and the value of science when making judgments about the admissibility of animal experiments. Animal researchers considered the expected value and benefit of the experimentation as the initial evaluation point, while animal rights campaigners considered the amount of animal suffering first.