Attitudes to the use of animals in biomedical research: Effects of stigma and selected research project summaries.
Attitudes to the use of animals in biomedical research: Effects of stigma and selected research project summaries.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0290232
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
三组参与者（主要从英国招募）完成了一项调查，以检查在生物医学研究中使用动物的态度，在阅读了一个研究项目的外行（N = 182）或技术（N = 201）总结，或没有总结（N = 215）。然后，他们完成了一项调查，包括动物态度（AAS），动物目的（APQ），动物心灵信仰（BAM）和同情商数（EQ）量表。APQ适用于评估对使用动物研究选定的疾病的态度，这些疾病被认为是可控的，因此“值得责备”和潜在的耻辱（成瘾和肥胖）以及“心理”（精神分裂症和成瘾）与“身体”（心血管疾病和肥胖），在选定的物种（大鼠，小鼠，鱼，猪和猴子）中。因此，APQ被用来研究如何感知的可控性和性质的障碍影响的态度，动物使用，在不同的物种和三个汇总组的影响。正如预期的那样，动物使用的态度所衡量的AAS和APQ（总）与BAM和EQ分数呈正相关，符合假设的规模都衡量亲福利的态度。两个研究总结组的参与者没有区分大鼠、小鼠和鱼（或技术总结组中的鱼和猪）的使用，而在无总结组中，所有物种都有区分。参与者给出了简单的总结，他们对使用动物进行精神分裂症研究和成瘾研究同样关注。APQ评级表明，用于成瘾研究的动物（以及与所有汇总组中的心血管疾病相比的肥胖症）更受关注。因此，研究项目摘要提供的信息影响了人们对在生物医学研究中使用动物的态度。然而，在任一总结组中，与动物使用的一致性均未总体增加。
Three groups of participants (largely recruited from the UK) completed a survey to examine attitudes to the use of animals in biomedical research, after reading the lay (N = 182) or technical (N = 201) summary of a research project, or no summary (N = 215). They then completed a survey comprising the animal attitude (AAS), animal purpose (APQ), belief in animal mind (BAM) and empathy quotient (EQ) scales. The APQ was adapted to assess attitudes towards the use of animals for research into disorders selected to be perceived as controllable and so ‘blameworthy’ and potentially stigmatised (addiction and obesity) and ‘psychological’ (schizophrenia and addiction) versus ‘physical’ (cardiovascular disease and obesity), across selected species (rats, mice, fish pigs and monkeys). Thus, the APQ was used to examine how the effects of perceived controllability and the nature of the disorder affected attitudes to animal use, in different species and in the three summary groups. As expected, attitudes to animal use as measured by the AAS and the APQ (total) correlated positively with BAM and EQ scores, consistent with the assumption that the scales all measured pro-welfare attitudes. Participants in the two research summary groups did not differentiate the use of rats, mice and fish (or fish and pigs in the technical summary group), whereas all species were differentiated in the no summary group. Participants given the lay summary were as concerned about the use of animals for schizophrenia as for addiction research. APQ ratings otherwise indicated more concern for animals used for addiction research (and for obesity compared to cardiovascular disease in all summary groups). Therefore, the information provided by a research project summary influenced attitudes to use of animals in biomedical research. However, there was no overall increase in agreement with animal use in either of the summary groups.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
6.6
作者：
Lincoln, Tania M.;Arens, Elisabeth;Rief, Winfried
通讯作者：
Rief, Winfried
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Higgs, Matthew J.;Bipin, Sasha;Cassaday, Helen J.
通讯作者：
Cassaday, Helen J.
影响因子：
1.6
作者：
Herzog, Harold;Grayson, Stephanie;McCord, David
通讯作者：
McCord, David
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Bournele, Despina;Beis, Dimitris
通讯作者：
Beis, Dimitris
影响因子：
1.6
作者：
Hills, AM
通讯作者：
Hills, AM