1. University of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan; sumaiafati89@gmail.com
2. University of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan; zaheraesha56@gmail.com

*             Correspondence: sumaiafati89@gmail.com

Keywords: society, societal behavior, animal, public engagement

1. INTRODUCTION

A wide spectrum of opinions is fostered by the use of animals in research; some individuals strongly favor it, while others express a wish for its total abolition [1, 2, 3, 4]. But as Knight et al. [5] point out, the basic justifications for supporting or opposing animal research haven’t changed much over time. Generally speaking, those who are against animal research emphasize the welfare of the animals and their suffering, while those who are in favor of it—such as scientists and researchers—base their arguments on the advantages of their work and the dearth of viable alternatives to animal models [6, 7]. There seems to be an underlying presumption that people’s sentiments are one-dimensional and that different forms of animal exploitation are not distinguished from one another in earlier public attitudes research [8]. Studies on public views typically employ survey-style methodologies; however, some studies fail to reveal full methodological information [9], and in certain instances, the questions that comprise these surveys are written in a biased manner, undermining the validity of the findings. The so-called “deficit” or “Enlightenment” model argues that the general public lacks the background knowledge necessary to participate in debates or engagement activities with animal research [10]. Despite receiving some backing from data demonstrating a correlation between scientific knowledge and endorsement of animal experimentation, such as [11-15], the deficiency model has been heavily contested. Indeed, a study has demonstrated that public support may decline with increasing information, especially when the subject matter is seen morally dubious, as in the case of [16]. Similar findings have been made by other studies, which discovered that familiarity with animal research was occasionally linked to lower levels of support [12-18].  Additionally, some writers have advocated for the democratisation of scientific activity and suggested that research and society cannot realistically be kept apart [10,19,20]. As science is becoming more democratic [21], it is crucial to comprehend public perceptions of scientific practices that elicit strong opinions or could be viewed as morally dubious, like animal research, and to create innovative channels for public participation on these topics. “The evaluation of an object, concept, or behaviour along a dimension of favour or disfavour, good or bad, like or dislike” [22] (p. 3) is what is meant to be understood when one refers to “attitude.” Although different from beliefs and values, attitudes are still connected to them. The expectancy-value model [23, 24] makes the assumption that an individual’s accessible beliefs about an object—defined as “the subjective probability that the object has a certain attribute” [22]—are what shape their attitudes. “A person may believe that exercise (the attitude object) reduces the risk of heart disease (the attribute),” according to Azjen and Fishbein [22] (p. 4). The expectancy-value model has a significant implication: attitudes towards an object are created automatically and inexorably as we learn new (and relevant) details about its characteristics and as our subjective values of those characteristics start to associate with the object [24]. Accordingly, evaluating people’s opinions towards animals and animal research might provide additional insight into whether or not various forms of animal study are normatively seen as “good” or “bad” on a personal and societal level. Previous study has demonstrated that a number of factors, including personal and cultural traits, animal qualities, and research characteristics, can affect people’s views towards animals in general and animal-based research in particular (as noted by Knight and Barnett [8]). The following review offers an update on the survey-based public opinions literature that was evaluated ten years ago by Hagelin et al. [4] by thoroughly examining these important elements. The authors then go into greater detail about the drawbacks of survey-style methodologies. Lastly, the article offers suggestions on how to fill in the gaps in this expanding body of work in order to progress towards more reliable models of public involvement in light of this critique.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Numerous studies have concentrated on personal traits, or aspects of an individual that may affect their decision to support or oppose the use of animals in research, in an effort to better understand the range of attitudes towards the use of animals by humans in general and in particular. The following section covers the following personal characteristics: age, sex, background (rural vs urban), experience with animals/pet ownership, and religion. Factors that are more influenced by an individual’s ideas and maybe affected by personal traits are also covered, such as vegetarianism and the belief in the animal mind. Age is strongly connected with moral approval of using animals in research, according to most reports [4]. According to Kellert and Berry’s 1981 study [25], younger people are more likely than older people to be against using animals. The authors went on to explain how older men had a more instrumental perspective on animals, implying that older people typically highlight the usefulness of animals. Similar findings have been made by other investigations [26–28]. Conversely, several studies have discovered that younger participants, as those in [11], are more in favour of animal-based research than older individuals. Age-related changes in attitudes towards animals may be due to a cohort effect, in which individuals with similar backgrounds are more likely to have similar opinions and attitudes [29], or they may be caused by age-related changes in attitudes [30]. Studies on views towards the treatment of research animals (and animals in general) have repeatedly shown a relationship with sex identification; almost all of them state that women are more likely than men to object to the use of animals [12, 25, 26, 31, 32]. Women are less likely than males to support the use of animals in research [33–37], and the majority of studies on the animal protection movement have revealed a two- or three-to-one ratio of female activists to male activists [38–40]. Numerous studies have found that sex identification has a constant impact on attitudes towards using animals in research, with variations between males and females being observed in at least 15 different nations [14]. Sex identification was found to be the biggest correlation of aversion to animal research across a variety of predictors, according to Pifer [15]. Women may be less in favour of using animals because they are more prone to ascribe mental states to them and to react sympathetically in the event that they perceive that using animals would result in pain or suffering for the animals [18]. In fact, compared to females, males have been demonstrated to exhibit lower levels of belief in the mental capacities of animals [41] (see the topic of belief in animal mind in the following paragraph). Furthermore, according to Kellert [42], men showed more “dominionistic” views towards the environment, whilst women showed more “moralistic” attitudes. This difference may help to explain why there are sex differences in attitudes towards the use of animals. Others have studied the relationship between views towards the use of animals in research and sex role orientation (SRO), as opposed to categorising persons only based on their biological sex [43, 44]. According to Herzog et al. [43], attitudes range across masculine and feminine SRO, with people who identify as more feminine typically being less supportive. Peek et al. [44] theorise, however, that the structural placement of females in society—that is, the possibility that females view their own and animals’ situations in society as similar—is the reason why sex differences differ rather than SRO. In a similar vein, women’s social standing may encourage a deeper empathy for animals. For instance, Kendall et al. [29] contend that women are more likely to take on nurturing roles as primary family carers and to participate in domestic duties that need them to interact with animals directly. According to certain studies, persons from rural backgrounds are more likely than those from urban backgrounds to accept the use of animals for research purposes and to support it [14,46,47]. This research implies that different environments—rural and urban—provide different chances for people to interact and build connections with animals. They also offer a range of cultural experiences that help to mould and reinforce people’s attitudes towards animals [29]. Urban and rural areas frequently employ animals differently [39]. An individual’s attitudes towards animals in various circumstances, including animal research, may be influenced by their utilitarian interactions with animals that are associated with rural environments. An analysis of opinions across cultural boundaries about the use of animals in research revealed a relationship between a country’s degree of industrialization and urbanisation and its citizens’ views on the use of animals in research [14]. For example, the two least industrialised nations in the European Community supported animal research the most. According to Crettaz von Roten’s research [13], there are disparities in the acceptance of animal research across European nations. Specifically, industrialised nations—those where labour is primarily physical—have higher levels of support for animal research than post-industrial nations—those where labour is primarily mental. According to Pifer et al. [14], nations with stronger ties to the land tend to view animals more pragmatically and utilitarianly, meaning that using animals for human purposes is not considered as controversial. In industrialised nations, animals are more likely to be family members and companions than to be encountered by people on a daily basis [39]. Perhaps as a result, living in an urban area has been linked to a higher level of concern for the welfare of animals [31,46,48]. A person’s past or current interactions with animals can also influence their attitudes about the use of animals for human purposes [35]. For instance, Driscoll [26] discovered that pet owners perceived animal-based research to be less acceptable than non-pet owners. Other research has also supported this conclusion, demonstrating that pet owners develop a bond with their animals, which in turn reinforces a generally good attitude towards other animals [49–52]. Contact with members of a “outgroup” (such as non-human animals) can promote understanding amongst people and lessen prejudice against that group, according to “contact theory,” e.g., [53]. Additionally, interaction with animals can promote empathy and emotional attachment [54–57]. This could help to explain why having good experiences with animals encourages attachment and good feelings towards animals in general, which runs counter to using animals for utilitarian or instrumental purposes, such using them for research [58]. Therefore, having a pet or having other pleasant animal experiences may make people more opposed to animal experimentation. On the other hand, a bad experience with an animal might also influence people’s opinions, leading them to favour the usage of animals more [59]. Furthermore, an individual’s attitudes towards animals can also be influenced by the kind of interaction they have with them. As was previously said, contact with animals in situations like farming can foster an instrumental perspective of animals rather than a companionship-based one. Religion can affect a person’s perspective on and interactions with animals. For instance, it has been demonstrated that Christianity is positively correlated with support for using animals in research [60]. diverse Christian denominations held diverse opinions, according to Driscoll [26]. People who identified as neither religious nor Catholic regarded different instances of animal-based research as less acceptable than people who identified as traditional Protestant. Of course, some religious traditions also have particular animal species that are either avoided (like pigs in Judaism) or adored (like cows in Hinduism). People’s willingness to support or oppose the usage of particular species for research reasons may be impacted by this. The kind of person they are and how they morally assess events can affect whether or not they are willing to support animal research. Individuals have been categorised into four ethical orientations by prior research: subjectivists (low idealism, high relativism), exceptionists (high idealism, low relativism), situationists (high idealism, high relativism), and absolutists (high idealism, low relativism) [61]. Using this concept, Galvin and Herzog [62] have demonstrated that animal advocates are more likely to be absolutists (high idealism) than subjectivists (low idealism). Galvin and Herzog [63] also demonstrated in a different study that individuals who rejected hypothetical animal research ideas exhibited a high degree of idealism. These results were further supported by Wuensch and Poteat’s study [64], in which individuals who were significantly more relativistic and significantly less idealistic approved of various kinds of animal research ideas. Overall, the data to date points to a negative correlation between support for animal experimentation and idealism-inclining personality types, and a favourable correlation with relativism. Compared to non-vegetarianism, vegetarianism has been linked to a decreased acceptance of the use of animals in research [11,17,50]. Vegetarianism is linked to value orientations such as an increase in altruistic values and a decrease in traditional (i.e., instrumental) values [65]. Beliefs, attitudes, norms, and values are the main social and psychological factors that influence demand for specific types of food [46]. Furthermore, in terms of people’s “world view” or “ethical ideology,” vegetarianism is probably related to a broader ideological perspective [27,66,67]. Hence, vegetarianism is an action or behaviour that arises from a certain attitude towards animals rather than being a predictor of attitudes towards animals per se. Vegetarians are more likely to be against the use of animals in research because of underlying views that could lead to a greater concern with animal rights, protection, or welfare. Similarly, support for animal studies is adversely correlated with an interest in environmental issues, which may potentially be connected to vegetarianism [12]. Research has indicated that those with a left-wing political leaning are less likely to be in favour of animal testing. Differences in people’s worldviews or ethical beliefs may potentially account for this finding [9,66,68], since opinions about animals are closely linked to opinions about other political and social issues [27]. The phrase “belief in animal mind” (BAM) refers to the idea that animals are capable of having minds. Do you think that animals have a sense of self, are able to solve issues, or can feel emotions like fear, sadness, happiness, or pleasure? [18, 41]. BAM appears to explain more of the difference in people’s attitudes than personal variables, including sex, in one small qualitative study [8]. BAM is a somewhat consistent predictor of attitudes towards the human use of animals [18,41,46,69]. BAM has a negative correlation with endorsement of animal use and a favourable correlation with empathy for both humans and animals [46], concern for animal welfare, and humane behaviour towards animals [8, 12]. It may seem wrong to put animals through discomfort in the name of animal study if one thinks that particular species are likely to have minds and emotions. According to this logic, people should be less receptive to studies with animals that have high BAM ratings, especially non-human primates. However, compared to other species including dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, and mice, a study by Knight et al. [5] revealed that there was greater acceptance for the use of monkeys in medical research. Scientists expressed considerable support for using monkeys in research in this study, as opposed to laypeople or animal welfare experts. Despite giving monkeys the label of “animal mind,” scientists believed that monkeys were a better choice for animal models in medical research, as demonstrated by Knight et al. [5]. This result indicates that other considerations (including the perceived value or need for research) may occasionally take precedence over BAM. Factors related to animal features also affect people’s opinions about this topic, even though the majority of studies have concentrated on personal and cultural aspects to explain difference in attitudes. The traits of animals that will be covered in this section are genetic modification, species, sentience, neoteny, and appeal. Depending on the species involved, people’s opinions towards the use of animals vary [26,41,70]. Individuals frequently believe that non-human primates and pets like dogs and cats are more intelligent than other species like fish or mice [41,71]. People are more in favour of employing animals with smaller brains, such rats and mice [71], and less in favour of using animals that are considered pets [26], or that are thought to have “higher” mental abilities that allow them to utilise tools, solve issues, and have self-awareness [8, 41]. Consequently, a person may be in favour of using mice and rats for dissection yet be against using chimps, cats, or dogs for the same purpose. Committee members expressed less comfort with research involving companion animals and non-human primates, according to Schuppli [69], who conducted a recent study involving interviews with members of animal care committees (those tasked with conducting the ethical review of research proposals involving the use of live animals). Different perspectives on species can stem from a variety of factors, including beliefs about the mentalities of different species or their similarities to humans [69, 72]. Other factors include personal affection for specific animal species or individuals [73], special consideration given to certain species based on our typical relationships with them [35, 74], where the species is thought to be on the phylogenetic scale [75], or their “cuteness” or attractiveness [4, 8, 41]. It has also been demonstrated from literature on public attitudes towards species conservation that animals that maintain their newborn appearance—known as neoteny—are more likely to receive support for conservation initiatives [76,77]. It’s not always the case, but, because less phylogenetic species make for more acceptable subjects for animal experimentation. There was no species effect when moving from zebrafish to mice in a study where participants were asked if they would be prepared to accept the use of animals to build skin cancer models (despite predictions that support would diminish when fish were substituted with mammals [78]). As our understanding of animal behaviour and welfare advances, attitudes towards the use of various species in research may also shift. For instance, new findings indicate that fish—often regarded as a suitable alternative to mammals in research [79–81]—may be capable of feeling pain [82, 83]. Animal genetic alteration is often seen negatively by the public, though opinions vary widely [84]. Maintaining public approval of research involving animals poses new issues when it comes to genetic modification of animals. Concerns over the “unnaturalness” of genetic alteration and its possible unintended repercussions are among the public’s serious concerns [68,85]. It has been demonstrated that when genetic material is altered by genetic engineering, people’s perceptions of what is “natural” decline [86]. Macnaghten [85] discovered in his 2001 study that there is a great deal of worry around genetic modification and the potential applications of genetically modified (GM) animals. A “reaction against the proposed technology as intrinsically a violation of nature and transgressive of so-called natural parameters” [85] (p. 25) was demonstrated by research participants in focus groups; this may be referred to as the “yuk response” [87]. These results are corroborated by other research, such as [26, 88]. One major worry regarding genetically modified animals is that nature might “bite back,” which is one of the main concerns that have surfaced. Genetic alteration may have unanticipated and potentially harmful effects [84, 89].  Along with these primary objections to genetically modified organisms, a more recent study by Macnaghten [89] demonstrates the growing public concern over the usage of more animals in research because the genetic alteration process is currently unreliable and inefficient. Studies by Schuppli et al. [74] and Ormandy et al. [90] that contend that the development and application of genetically modified animals contradicts the Three Rs principles (replacement, reduction, and refinement), especially reduction, further support this viewpoint. People’s decisions on whether to support or oppose research can also be influenced by the features of the study in which an animal will participate. The goal of the study, the degree of invasiveness (or injury) the animal will endure, and the availability of non-animal substitutes are the research characteristics that will be covered in the sections that follow. Animal experiments used in medicine are frequently seen more favourably than those involving the testing of cosmetics. For example, Aldhous et al. [91] found that people were more likely to disapprove of an experiment designed to test the safety of a cosmetics ingredient than if it tested the efficacy and safety of a drug or vaccine, regardless of whether the mice were subjected to pain, illness, or surgeries. This finding was supported by a number of other studies [8,14,26,64,69].  On the other hand, Schuppli and Weary [11] discovered that respondents to an online public participation survey were more in favour of using pigs for environmental research (to lower agricultural pollution) than for biomedical research (to lower organ transplant rejection rates). However, other significant considerations might take precedence over the research’s goal. As an illustration, non-animal substitutes for the biomedical research scenario employed in Schuppli and Weary’s study [11] (such as raising the donation of human organs) might be considered a more practical choice. It would seem that people’s opinions of animal studies are likely to vary according on the research’s need, goal, or benefactor. The perceived necessity of animal research is related to the availability of non-animal alternatives, with research that is deemed unnecessary being less favoured. As noted by Henry and Pulcino [92], “the literature suggests that animal research that is viewed as providing tangible, meaningful benefits to humans is considered more acceptable than animal research that is viewed and less beneficial or necessary.” Stanistreet and Spofforth [93] discovered, for instance, that participants were less in favour of using animals in research that was considered “non-necessary” than in research that was considered “necessary.” It appears that people’s attitudes regarding the use of animals in research may be especially influenced by the availability of non-animal alternatives, or by the belief that alternatives exist, for example [4]. Two studies in particular show that opposition is stronger when there are non-animal substitutes accessible. According to research by Knight et al. [18], participants were more inclined to favour animal use when they believed that using animals was their only option. But Knight et al. [18] also discovered that their subjects—nine men and eight women—could hardly conjure up any alternatives to using animals in research and instruction, leading them to conclude that employing animals was the only option available. In a subsequent investigation, Knight et al. [5] demonstrated that varying perspectives regarding the availability of non-animal substitutes could account for some of the disparities in views between scientists and animal welfare practitioners towards animal experiments. It has also been demonstrated that people’s support for animal-based research is influenced by the invasiveness of an experiment or the degree of pain the animals suffer [33, 37]. According to research by Richmond et al. [94], the most frequent criticism of animal experiments concerns whether or not the animals go through pain and suffering. Actually, a review by Hagelin et al. [4] showed that including the terms “pain” or “death” in a survey makes respondents less likely to support animal research. Results from a more recent study [92] showed that participants were more against biomedical research that harmed animals. Furthermore, Bateson [95] has argued that while determining whether or not to move forward with animal research, considerations such as the significance of the study and the possibility of benefiting the animals should be taken into account in addition to the degree of pain the animals endure. The public also cares about these variables, particularly the significance of the research, as the aforementioned subsections have explained. A considerable amount of study has been done on how the public feels about using animals in general and animal research in particular. Nonetheless, there might be some issues that need to be resolved for subsequent research.

The following section discusses three main flaws in the study: using college students as participant samples; using Likert scales or rating scales that prevent more qualitative reasoning; and using general questions about “animal use” rather than specific questions about various uses of animals or even types of animal research. Many earlier studies have employed undergraduate students (typically majoring in psychology) as their sample groups, e.g., [31,62,64,99], while many others have used a wider public membership to measure attitudes towards animals and animal research, e.g., [13,26,35]. Actually, Herzog and Dorr [100] discovered that “the data in 11 of these articles were obtained using undergraduates” after looking through 15 issues of Society and Animals published between 1993 and 1998. Of these, nine were based on students enrolled in psychology classes, one used education students as subjects, and one did not identify the source of the students” [100] (p. 2). Notably, Kellert [101] and Kellert and Berry [25] found that age and education were associated with attitudes and knowledge about animals based on a sizable national sample. This implies that college students are probably more worried about animals than the broader public because they are young and educated. Considering that public concerns played a role in the development of the regulations governing the use of animals in research, it is important to develop new methods of evaluating attitudes towards this use that represent a range of viewpoints, rather than restricting the scope of studies with a convenience sample of students. “Undergraduate psychology majors are a narrow source of information on human/animal relationships,” as Herzog and Dorr further note [100] (p. 2). This is supported by a recent piece in the Economist [102], which examines the advantages of crowd sourcing (e.g., using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform to recruit survey participants) and notes the difficulties of using undergraduate students as information sources. The diversity of participants is the main advantage of crowd sourcing: information from participants that belong to wealthy, educated, industrialised, democratic, and western fractions of the global population is less likely to be relied upon. A second limitation is that the majority of research has focused on broad topics regarding the use of animals. This issue has been highlighted by Kellert and Berry [25], Driscoll [26], and Knight et al. [18], who have demonstrated that people have complex opinions about various forms of animal use as well as strong preferences for and dislikes from particular animal species. It is unclear to ask someone if they agree or disagree with a statement like “it is alright to do research on animals.” This remark might only be contested by those with more extreme opinions because it does not describe the type of research being done or, perhaps more crucially, the kind of animals being used. The use of animals in research is evolving, in part because more and more technologies are being used to create animal models of disease, including genetic modification [90] and ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU) mutagenesis, which is a widely used technique for chemically inducing mutations, especially in mice [103] and zebrafish [104]. Research on the public’s perceptions of genetically modified animals has so far mostly examined farm animals rather than the far more common use of laboratory animals. So yet, just one study [78] has investigated people’s opinions regarding ENU mutagenesis. Furthermore, fresh advancements in customised medicine, especially in the field of oncology, might present fresh difficulties. For instance, a patient suffering from a malignancy may be able to have samples of the tumour extracted and implanted into animal hosts (such as mice) in order to test a variety of treatments and produce a more individualised therapeutic intervention for the patient [105]. In addition to probably increasing the number of animals used, such processes might necessitate changes to the way the current animal protocol is reviewed and approved. They might also involve the public more directly and personally in the use of animals. A third drawback is that many of the research mentioned above were conducted using techniques that required participants to answer questions with a simple “Yes” or “No” response, or on a scale (such as a Likert scale, rating, or preference scale), without providing any context or explanation for the participants’ possible reasoning. Participants are unable to offer any justification for their response and are restricted in their response choices by the researcher’s alternatives (which could result in researcher bias) [106]. It is crucial to investigate the rationale behind people’s Likert scale or “Yes/No” answers. It is possible to alleviate the drawbacks of limited response possibilities by designing questions with a thorough understanding of the subject matter. This involves asking insightful questions that enable respondents to support their arguments. Such a thorough comprehension is frequently derived from preliminary qualitative study, the results of which are then confirmed by quantitative research. Restricted response options make it difficult for policy makers to appreciate the subtle differences in attitudes and move forward in resolving societal concerns since they do not allow for consideration of people’s worries (e.g., why they would be opposed to particular sorts of study). Aside from scholarly studies, questions on people’s support or opposition to animal research are frequently asked in national opinion surveys. The polls are nonetheless vulnerable to the previous objection that they provide participants with fixed response possibilities, despite the fact that they can be useful for monitoring opinions over time and for eliciting more diverse viewpoints from a larger and more representative sample population. Hobson-West [107] goes on to say that caution should be exercised when citing other people’s interpretations of national opinion surveys because both sides of the contentious argument over animal experimentation can use the same polls as support for their positions. According to Pytlik Zillig and Tomkins [108], societal viewpoints on the political, legal, ethical, and other effects of scientific and technology research can be provided through public involvement. Public policy and regulations pertaining to animals are frequently improved as a result of shifts in societal views [109]. There might be a lack of current procedures, though, to incorporate public opinion into policies about animal research. A recent piece [110] emphasises the secrecy surrounding animal research, while another [111] shows some of the issues that could arise if choices on animal research are not made in public. A policy community that “tend(s) to produce outcomes that consistently favour network members at the expense of excluded groups” [111] (p.357) is cautioned against by Lyons’ case study [111]. In the paper, Lyons outlines a particular field of study (xenotransplantation between pigs and primates) in which choices were taken without consulting specialists or stakeholders outside the policy community, and without broader public participation, which was detrimental to the animals involved. These initiatives run counter to the growing democratisation of science and scientific policy [10,19,21] and emphasise the importance of greater public participation, particularly in the case of controversial research. As a result, when creating animal policies, regulating authorities should consider public opinion regarding research involving animals and involve a wide range of stakeholders, including the general people. Conducting additional empirical studies that examine public attitudes towards animal research in ways that address some of the critiques outlined in this report is one strategy for enhancing public engagement on animal research issues. Studies that, for instance, (1) steer clear of convenience sampling of students and guarantee a range of perspectives from participants; (2) employ a carefully thought-out experimental framework that permits investigation of not just the boundaries of what people are willing to accept, but also the reasons behind them; and (3) concentrate on improving public awareness of particular (rather than general) aspects of animal research, such as attitudes towards emerging technologies (like genetic modification or other genetic alteration techniques) and the most frequently used species in research (zebrafish and mice), as well as the regulatory bodies that supervise animal research.

3. CONCLUSION

People’s opinions towards the use of animals in study are influenced by a variety of elements, which can be divided into three categories: (1) cultural and personal traits; (2) animal features; and (3) research qualities. The increasing trend towards greater transparency and democratisation of scientific research will be facilitated by an understanding of public attitudes towards the use of animals in study. It will also guarantee that the conduct of science, especially animal research, stays in line with social values. As a result, assessing social values and resolving societal issues are crucial because it is frequently argued that the general public benefits most from the produced and proven therapeutic items.

REFERENCES

1. Views on Animal Experimentation; MRC: London, UK, 2010. Available online: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1343_sri-views-on-animal-experimentation-2010.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2011).
2. Gallup Poll. Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans. 2010. Available online: http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx (accessed on 15 September 2011).
3. Eurobarometer 73.1. Science and Technology Report; European Union, 2010. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_en.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2011).
4. Hagelin, J.; Carlsson, H.-E.; Hau, J. An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: Some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Underst. Sci. 2003, 12, 67–81.
5. Knight, S.; Vrij, A.; Bard, K.; Brandon, D. Science versus human welfare? Understanding attitudes towards animal use. J. Soc. Issues 2009, 65, 463–483.
6. Baldwin, E. The case for animal research in psychology. J. Soc. Issues 1993, 49, 121–131.
7. Paul, E.S. Us and them: Scientists’ and animal rights campaigners’ views of the animal experimentation debate. Soc. Anim. 1995, 3, 1–21.
8. Knight, S.; Barnett, L. Justifying attitudes towards animal use: A qualitative study of people’s views and beliefs. Anthrozoös 2008, 21, 31–42.
9. Herzog, H.A.; Rowan, A.N.; Kossow, D. Social attitudes and animals. In The State of the Animals; Salem, D.J., Rowan, A.N., Eds.; Humane Society Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 55–69.
10. Elam, M.; Bertilsson, M. Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 2003, 6, 233–251.
11. Schuppli, C.A.; Weary, D.M. Attitudes towards the use of genetically modified animals in research. Public Underst. Sci. 2010, 19, 686–697.
12. Broida, J.; Tingley, L.; Kimball, R.; Miele, J. Personality differences between pro- and anti-vivisectionists. Soc. Anim. 1993, 1, 129–144.
13. Crettaz von Roten, F. Public perceptions of animal experimentation across Europe. Public Underst. Sci. 2013, 22, 691–703.
14. Pifer, L.; Shimizu, K.; Pifer, R. Public attitudes toward public research: Some international comparisons. Soc. Anim. 1994, 2, 95–113.
15. Pifer, L. Exploring the gender gap in young adults’ attitudes about animal research. Soc. Anim. 1996, 4, 37–52.
16. Evans, G.; Durant, J. The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public nderstanding of science in Britain. Public Underst. Sci. 1995, 4, 57–74.
17. Ormandy, E.H.; Schuppli, C.A.; Weary, D.M. Public attitudes toward the use of animals in research: Effects of invasiveness, genetic modification and regulation. Anthrozoös 2013, 26, 165–184.
18. Knight, S.; Nunkoosing, K.; Vrig, A.; Cherryman, J. Using grounded theory to examine people’s attitudes towards how animals are used. Soc. Anim. 2003, 11, 179–198.
19. Irwin, A. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst. Sci. 2001, 10, 1–18.
20. Jasanoff, S. States of Knowledge: Co-Construction of Science and Social Order; Routledge: New York, NY, USA and London, UK, 2006.
21. Schiele, B. On and about the deficit model in an age of free flow. In Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices; Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, N.R.J., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., Shi, S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 93–118.
22. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 11, 1–33.
23. Fishbein, M. An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Hum. Relat. 1963, 16, 233–240.
24. Fishbein, M. Attitude and the prediction of behaviour. In Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement; Fishbein, M., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1967; pp. 477–492.
25. Kellert, S.R.; Berry, J.K. Knowledge, Affection and Basic Attitudes toward Animals in American Society; PB-81–173106; National Technical Information Services: Springfield, VA, USA, 1981.
26. Driscoll, J.W. Attitudes towards animal use. 1992, 32–39.
27. Furnham, A.; Pinder, A. Young people’s attitudes to experimentation on animals. The Psychologist 1990, October, 444–448.
28. Medical Research Council. Animals in Medicine and Science; Medical Research Council: London, UK, 1999.
29. Kendall, H.A.; Lobao, L.M.; Sharp, J. Public concern with animal well-being: Place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociol. 2006, 71, 399–428.
30. Kellert, S.R. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
31. Gallup, G.G; Beckstead, J.W. Attitudes towards animal research. Am. Psychol. 1988, 43, 474–476.
32. Matthews, S.; Herzog, H.A. Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Soc. Anim. 1997, 5, 169–175.
33. Rajecki, D.W.; Rasmussen, J.L.; Craft, H.D. Labels and the treatment of animals: Archival and experimental cases. Soc. Anim. 1993, 1, 45–60.
34. Plous, S. Attitudes towards the use of animals in psychological research and education: Results from a national survey of psychology majors. Psychol. Sci. 1996, 7, 352–358.
35. Wells, D. L; Hepper, P.G. Pet ownership and adults’ views on animal use. Soc. Anim. 1997, 5, 45–63.
36. Navaro, J.; Maldonado, E.; Pedraza, C.; Cavas, M. Attitudes among animal research among psychology students in Spain. Psychol. Rep. 2001, 89, 227–236.
37. Swami, V.; Furnham, A.; Christopher, A. Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scand. J. Psychol. 2008, 49, 269–276.
38. Herzog, H.A. The movement is my life: The psychology of animal rights activism. J. Soc. Issues 1993, 49, 103–119.
39. Jasper, J.; Nelkin, D. The Animal Rights Crusade; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
40. Plous, S. An attitude survey of animal rights activists. Psychol. Sci. 1992, 2, 194–196.
41. Herzog, H.A.; Galvin, S. Common sense and the mental lives of animals: An empirical approach. In Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes and Animals; Mitchell, R.W., Ed.; State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 1997.
42. Kellert, S.R. American attitudes towards and knowledge of animals: An update. Int. J. Study Anim. Probl. 1980, 1, 87–119.
43. Herzog, H.A.; Betchart, N.S.; Pittman, R.B. Gender, sex role orientation and attitudes towards animals. Anthrozoös 1991, 4, 184–191.
44. Peek, C.W.; Dunham, C.C.; Dietz, B.E. Gender, relational role orientation, and affinity for animal rights. Sex Roles 1997, 37, 905–920.
45. Adams, C.J. Bringing peace home: A feminist philosophical perspective on the abuse of women, children and pet animals. Hypatia 1994, 9, 63–84.
46. Hills, A.M. Empathy and belief in the mental experience of animals. Reviews and research reports. Anthrozoös 1995, 8, 132–142.
47. Kalof, L.; Dietz, T.; Stern, P.C.; Guagnano, G.A. Social psychological and structural influences on vegetarian beliefs. Rural Sociol. 1999, 64, 500–511.
48. Ohlendorf, G.W.; Jenkins, Q.A.L.; Tomazic, T.J. Who cares about farm animal welfare? In The Social Risks of Agriculture: Americans Speak out on Food, Farming, and the Environment; Wimberley, R.C., Harris, C.K., Molnar, J.J., Tomazic, T.J., Eds.; Praeger: Westport, CT, USA, 2002; pp. 87–101.
49. Blackshaw, J.; Blackshaw, A.W. Student perceptions of attitudes to the human animal bond. Anthrozoös 1993, 6, 190–198.
50. Furnham, A.; Heyes, C. Psychology students’ belief about animals and animal experimentation. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 1993, 15, 1.
51. Paul, E.S.; Serpell, J.A. Childhood pet keeping and humane attitudes in young adulthood. Anim. Welf. 1993, 2, 321–337.
52. Hagelin, J.; Johansson, B.; Hau, J.; Carlsson, H-E. Influence of pet ownership on opinions toward the use of animals in biomedical research. Anthrozoös 2002, 15, 251–257.
53. Allport, G.W. The Nature of Prejudice; Beacon Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1954.
54. Boogaard, B.K.; Oosting, S.J.; Bock, B.B. Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in The Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 2006, 104, 13–22.
55. Daly, B.; Morton, L.L. An investigation of human-animal interactions and empathy as related to pet preference, ownership, attachment, and attitudes in children. Anthrozoös 2006, 19, 113–127.
56. Furnham, A.; McManus, C.; Scott, D. Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoös 2003, 16, 135–146.
57. Serpell, J.A. In the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-Animal Relationships; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996.
58. Serpell, J.A. Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, S145–S151.
59. Knight, S.; Vrij, A.; Cherryman, J.; Nunkoosing, K. Attitudes towards animal use and animal mind. Anthrozoös 2004, 17, 43–62.
60. Bowd, A.D.; Bowd, A.C. Attitudes toward the treatment of animals: A study of Christian groups in Australia. Anthrozoös 1989, 3, 20–24.
61. Forsyth, D.R. A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 122, 175–184.
62. Galvin, S.L.; Herzog, H.A. Ethical ideology, animal right activism and attitudes towards the treatment of animals. Ethics Behav. 1992, 2, 141–149.
63. Galvin, S.L.; Herzog, H.A. The ethical judgment of animal research. Ethics Behav. 1992, 2, 263–286.
64. Wuensch, K.; Poteat, G.M. Evaluating the morality of animal research: Effects of ethical ideology, gender, and purpose. J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 1998, 13, 139–150.
65. Dietz, T.; Frisch, A.S.; Kalof, L.; Stern, P.C.; Guagnano, G.A. Values and vegetarianism: An exploratory analysis. Rural Sociol. 1995, 60, 533–542.
66. Buss, D.; Craik, K.; Dake, K. Contemporary worldviews and perception of the technological system. In Risk Evaluation and Management; Covello, V.T., Menkes, J., Mumpower, J., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 93–130.
67. Herzog, H.A.; Golden, L.L. Moral emotions and social activism: the case of animal rights. J. Soc. Issues 2009, 65, 485–498.
68. Eurobarometer 55.2. Europeans, Science and Technology. 2001. Available online: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2001/pr0612en_report.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2009).
69. Schuppli, C.A. Decisions about the use of animals in research: Ethical reflection by animal ethics committee members. Anthrozoös 2011, 24, 409–425.
70. Driscoll, J.W. Attitudes towards animals: Species ratings. Soc. Anim. 1995, 3, 139–150.
71. Eddy, T.J.; Gallup, G.G.; Povinelli, D.J. Attribution of cognitive states to animals: Anthropomorphism in comparative perspective. J. Soc. Issues 1993, 49, 87–101.
72. Plous, S. Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. J. Soc. Issues 1993, 49, 11–52.
73. Arluke, A.B. Sacrificial symbolism in animal experimentation: Object or pet? Anthrozoös 1988, 2, 98–117.
74. Schuppli, C.A.; Fraser, D.; McDonald, M. Expanding the 3Rs to meet new challenges in humane animal experimentation. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2004, 32, 525–532.
75. Hagelin, J.; Hau, J.; Carlsson, H.E. Attitude of Swedish veterinary and medical students to animal experimentation. Vet. Rec. 2000, 146, 757–760.
76. Batt, S. Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: A multivariate approach. Biosci. Horiz. 2009, 2, 180–190.
77. Gunnthorsdottir, A. Physical attractiveness of a species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös 2001, 14, 204–215.
78. Ormandy, E.H.; Schuppli, C.A; Weary, D.M. Modelling skin cancer in zebrafish or mice: Factors affecting public acceptance. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2012, 40, 321–333.
79. Guidelines on the Care and Use of Fish in Research, Teaching and Testing. 2005. Available online: http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Fish.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2014).
80. DeTolla, L.J.; Srinivas, S.; Whitaker, B.R.; Andrews, C.; Hecker, B.; Kane, A.S.; Reimschuessel, R. Guidelines for the care and use of fish in research. ILAR J. 1995, 37, 159–173.
81. Fabacher, D.L.; Little, E.E. Introduction. In The Laboratory Fish; Ostrander, G.K., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 1–9.
82. Braithwaite, V.A.; Huntingford, F.A. Fish and welfare: Do fish have the capacity for pain perception and suffering? Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, S87–S92.
83. Chandroo, K.P.; Duncan, I.J.H.; Moccia, R.D. Can fish suffer?: Perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004, 86, 225–250.
84. Birke, L.; Arluke, A.; Michael, M. The Sacrifice: How Scientific Experiments Transform Animals and People; Purdue University Press: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2007.
85. Macnaghten, P. Animal Futures: Public Attitudes and Sensibilities toward Animals and Biotechnology in Contemporary Britain; IEPPP, Lancaster University: Lancaster, UK, 2001.
86. Rozin, P. The meaning of “natural”: Process more important than content. Psychol. Sci. 2005, 16, 652–658.
87. Midgely, M. Biotechnology and monstrosity: Why we should pay attention to the ‘yuk factor’. Hastings Centre Report 2000, 30, 7–15.
88. Schuppli, C.A.; Molento, C.F.M.; Weary, D.M. Understanding attitudes towards the use of animals in research using an online public engagement tool. Public Underst. Sci. 2013.
89. Macnaghten, P. Animals in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology 2004, 38, 533–551.
90. Ormandy, E.H.; Schuppli, C.A.; Weary, D.M. Worldwide trends in the use of animals in research: The contribution of genetically modified animal models. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2009, 37, 63–68.
91. Aldhous, P.; Coghlan, A.; Copely, J. Let the people speak. New Sci. 2009, 2187, 26.
92. Henry, B.; Pulcino, R. Individual difference and study-specific characteristics influencing attitudes about the use of animals in medical research. Soc. Anim. 2009, 17, 305–324.
93. Stanistreet, M. ; Spofforth, N. Attitudes of undergraduate students to the uses of animals. Stud. High. Educ. 1993, 18, 177–196.
94. Khaliqa Minhas, Andleeb Batool & Amina Irfan. Comparative Evaluation of Allopathic and Herbal Extract (Cinnamon and Fenugreek) on Diabetes Control in Albino Mice. Dinkum Journal of Natural & Scientific Innovations, 2(09):571-595.
95. Bateson, P. Ethics and behavioral biology. Adv. Stud. Behav. 2005, 35, 211–233.
96. Morel, V. Causes of the furred and feathered rule the internet. Nat. Geogr. 2014. Available online: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140314-social-media-animal-rights-groups-animal-testing-animal-cognition-world/?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_intl_ot_w# (accessed on 26 May 2014).
97. Kruse, C.R. The movement and the media: Framing the debate over animal experimentation. Polit. Commun. 2001, 18, 67–87.
98. Wolch, J.R.; Gullo, A.; Lassiter, U. Changing attitudes towards California’s cougars. Soc. Anim. 1997, 5, 95–116.
99. Sieber, J.E. Students’ and scientists’ attitudes on animal research. Am. Biol. Teach. 1986, 48, 85–51.
100. Herzog, H.A.; Dorr, L.B. Electronically available surveys of attitudes toward animals. Soc. Anim. 2000, 8, 2–8.
101. Kellert, S.R. Public Attitudes toward Critical Wildlife and Natural Habitat Issues; PB-80–138332; National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 1980.
102. The Economist. The roar of the crowd: Crowdsourcing is transforming the science of psychology. 2012. Available online: http://www.economist.com/node/21555876 (accessed on 9 May 2013).
103. de Angelis, M.H.; Flaswinkel, H.; Fuchs, H.; Rathkolb, B.; Soewarto, D.; large-scale production of mutant mice by ENU mutagenesis. Nat. Genet. 2000, 25, 444–447.
104. de Bruijn, E.; Cuppen, E.; Feitsma, H. Highly efficient ENU mutagenesis in Zebrafish. Meth. Mol. Biol. 2010, 546, 3–12.
105. Bally, M.; University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Personal communication, 2012.
106. Cummins, R.A.; Gullone, E. Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities, Singapore, 8–10 March 2000; pp. 79–93.
107. Hobson-West, P. The role of public opinion in the UK animal research debate. J. Med. Ethics 2010, 36, 46–49.
108. Pytlik Zillig, L.M.; Tomkins, A.J. Public engagement for informing science and technology policy: What do we now, what do we need to know, and how will we get there? Re. Policy Res. 2011, 28, 197–217.
109. Kirkwood, J.K.; Hubrecht, R. Animal consciousness, cognition and welfare. Anim. Welf. 2001, 10, S5–S17.
110. Holmberg, T.; Ideland, M. Secrets and lies: “Selective openness” in the apparatus of animal experimentation. Public Underst. Sci. 2012, 21, 354–368.