Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Public openness in laboratory research : a survey study Kwok, Eugenia 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42446-Kwok_Eugenia_Public_MURC_2014.pdf [ 1.19MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42446-1.0228377.json
JSON-LD: 42446-1.0228377-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42446-1.0228377-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42446-1.0228377-rdf.json
Turtle: 42446-1.0228377-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42446-1.0228377-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42446-1.0228377-source.json
Full Text
42446-1.0228377-fulltext.txt
Citation
42446-1.0228377.ris

Full Text

E U G E N I A  K W O K  Public Openness in Laboratory Research: a Survey Study http://ubyssey.ca/news/ubc-animal-research-333/ http://ubyssey.ca/news/stop-petition345/ National level: Canadian Council on Animal Care National level: Canadian Council on Animal Care Assessment National level: Canadian Council on Animal Care Education Training Communication Assessment National level: Canadian Council on Animal Care Education Training Care Replacement Reduction Refinement Assessment Education Training Communication National level: Canadian Council on Animal Care Education Training Care Replacement Reduction Refinement Guidelines Program Assessment Education Training Communication Institutional level: UBC Animal Care Committees Institutional level: UBC Animal Care Committees Veterinarian Institutional level: UBC Animal Care Committees Veterinarian UBC Scientists Institutional level: UBC Animal Care Committees UBC student representative Veterinarian UBC Scientists Institutional level: UBC Animal Care Committees UBC student representative Animal Care Staff Veterinarian UBC Scientists Institutional level: UBC Animal Care Committees UBC student representative Animal Care Staff Community Representative Veterinarian UBC Scientists Institutional level: UBC Animal Care Committees UBC student representative Animal Care Staff Community Representative Veterinarian UBC Scientists • scientific background •Association with the institution •Expertise in animal experimentation Spectrum of Public Attitudes Do not support Fully support Affected by Factors http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/10/the-grim-good-of-animal-research http://oggybloggyogwr.blogspot.ca/2013_06_01_archive.html Objective  Identify key factors that affect public acceptance of animal use in research   potential model for increasing public openness  http://tibilog.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/evolution-learning-marketing-in-the-21st-century/hands-up/ Methods  n = 247 participants  Demographic questions: Age Sex identity Education Level  10 identical survey replicates  Participants randomly placed into replicates http://www.daisygreenmagazine.co.uk/beauty/features-beauty/skin-care-through-the-ages/ http://sunny7.at/wohnen/tipps/wer-hat-hier-das-sagen- http://asihwidi.wordpress.com/ Methods Methods  Observe how nicotine effects brain development   understand the effects of pre/postnatal nicotine exposure on the adolescent and adult brains of mice  Methods Methods  Choose “Yes”, “No”, or “Neutral”   Provide a reason for their choice or select from a choice and reason left by a previous participant  Quantitative Results yes  36% neutral 17% no 47% Support for smoking research using mice n = 247 46 42 19 23 38 79 Male FemaleSupport for smoking research using mice  (Sex Identity) yes neutral noχ² = 8.35 p  = 0.02 Quantitative Results  Age and Education level did not significantly affect results   Most participants were between ages 19-29   Most participants had college or university level education   Those with secondary level education had higher support Qualitative Methods  Three most popular reasons were analyzed from each group   Reasons were grouped based on recurring themes  Qualitative Methods Q: “Do you support the use of mice in this research?”  Example: “No because we already know smoking is bad for you. We don't need more proof.” Qualitative Methods Q: “Do you support the use of mice in this research?”  Example: “No because we already know smoking is bad for you. We don't need more proof.”  Primary factor= non-beneficial  Qualitative Methods Q: “Do you support the use of mice in this research?”  Example: “No because we already know smoking is bad for you. We don't need more proof.”  Primary factor= non-beneficial Secondary factor= Pre-existing information Qualitative Results  Factors for disapproval:  Non-beneficial Pre-existing science Smoking known to affect health  Research unethical Euthanasia unacceptable  Unnecessary cost to animal   Qualitative Results  Key factors for support:  Benefits to science and humans   Mice are a good model for human testing   “It’s just a mouse!”   Factors for disapproval:  Non-beneficial Pre-existing science Smoking known to affect health  Research unethical Euthanasia unacceptable  Unnecessary cost to animal  Conclusions  Participant acceptance for smoking research using mice was low   Sex identity significantly affects acceptance towards this use of animals   Key factors affecting public attitudes:  benefits vs. cost to the animal  benefits to science  ethicality   Recommendations  Future research to investigate ways of implementing public opinion into legislation   Increase public openness to research protocols to allow for transparency and better public knowledge   Acknowledgements  UBC Animal Welfare Program   Drs Elisabeth Ormandy, Marina von Keyserlingk, and Daniel Weary   APBI 398 Applied Animal Biology Research Methods Class   UBC Multidisciplinary Undergraduate Research Conference Literature Cited Schuppli, C.A. and Fraser, D. 2007. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 294-301.   Schuppli, C.A., Fraser, D. and McDonald, M. 2004. Expanding the three Rs to meet new challenges in humane animal experimentation. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 32: 525-532.  Ormandy, E.H., Schuppli, C.A. and Weary, D.M. 2013. Public attitudes towards the use of animals in research: effectiveness of invasiveness, genetic modification and regulation. Anthrozoös 26: 165-184.   Thank you! http://westmorelanda13.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/the-guts-of-autism/ 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42446.1-0228377/manifest

Comment

Related Items