Mapping Perceptions of Animal Experimentation: Trend and Explanatory Factors n

Fabienne Crettaz von Roten, University of Lausanne

Objective. The goal of this article is to map out attitudes toward animal experimentation in Switzerland, more specically, to document the current attitudes, analyze the change of attitudes over the last 10 years, and explain these attitudes. Methods. This study analyzes a series of Swiss surveys that measure public attitudes toward the environment and science (ISSP, 1994, 2000; EB, 2001, 2005). Results. It is shown that the relative majority of Swiss are against animal research in 2005 and that refusals are increasing since 1994. Attitudes toward animal testing are explained by attitudes toward science, attitudes toward nature, and values. Conclusions. The study of attitudes toward animal experimentation makes important contributions to sociology and, in particular, to the public understanding of science (PUS) research.

For a long time, news agencies have reported on the activities of animal research opponents. Animal-rights activists vandalized many laboratories in the United States until the end of the 20th century but activism seems in a lull in recent years. In fact, most actions now occur in Europe; they can take diverse forms, such as hate campaigns, vandalism, verbal or physical attacks on scientists conducting experiments and pharmaceutical companies shareholders, protests against the construction of animal research laboratories (University of Oxford and Cambridge, UK 2004), as well as calls for the retraction of research papers from scientic journals. Although some authors conclude that the opponents of animal testing are winning public sympathy, others state that the population has turned against animal activists (Johnston, 2006). In Switzerland, where the political system of direct democracy allows the public to launch a campaign to collect signatures for a so-called initiative on any subject, animal experimentation was the object of a referendum in 1985, 1992, and 1993. Each time, the citizens refused to abolish animal research. In addition, the number of experimental animals used fell strongly between
n Direct correspondence to Fabienne Crettaz von Roten, Observatoire Science, Politique te , University of Lausanne, Ba timent Vidy, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland et Socie h Fabienne.CrettazVonRoten@unil.ch i . The data used in this article are available to the public at the Swiss Information and Data Archive Service for the Social Sciences h www.sidos. ch i . The author will share all coding materials with those wishing to replicate the study. The author thanks two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 89, Number 2, June 2008 r 2008 by the Southwestern Social Science Association

538

Social Science Quarterly

1983 and 2000, but it has risen each year since 2000, due partly to increased te rinaire research in genetics (e.g., genetically modied mice) (Ofce Ve de ral, 2006). Fe The use of animals in experimental research parallels the development of sciences: among others, medicine, biology, pharmacology, biomedicine, and biotechnology (Baumans, 2005). In the case of monkeys, Haraway (1989) studies the creation of an important laboratory, by R. Yerkes, and she describes how primates became the most practical producers of knowledge that interests science-based industries. In the case of mice, Rader (2004) explores how their status came to be that of the omnipresent vertebrate experimental organism in biomedical sciencesin institutional and scientic terms. Recently, animal experimentation was again on the Swiss public agenda, with surprising results: in November 2005, an initiative succeeded in preventing the construction of an animal research laboratory at the University of Lausanne.1 Furthermore, there is a collection of signatures for an initiative to restrict animal research at the Geneva University laboratories. Clearly, animal experimentation is an important political issue in Switzerland that warrants further investigation. Contrarily to other countries, there are few results on the publics attitudes toward animal research in Switzerland: the goal of the present article is to ll this gap. In the United States, the National Science Foundation surveys show that between 1988 and 2001 the acceptance of animal experimentation decreased: in 1988, 53 percent of Americans approved animal research; in 2001, only 44 percent approved it (National Science Board, 2002). If one compares Europe (EU15) between 2001 and 2005, one notes only a slight reduction in the acceptance of animal testing (45 percent in 2001 compared to 43 percent in 2005) while at the national level, many European countries record a strong reduction in the rate of acceptance (Denmark and Greece 16 percent, Portugal 12 percent, Sweden 10 percent; only two countries, Spain and Belgium, do not record a decrease) (Crettaz von Roten, 2006a). This article also investigates explanatory factors of current attitudes toward animal experimentation in Switzerland. The literature identies two types of predictors: some are intrinsic to the experiment itself (type of research, particular species, animal suffering, and possibility of alternatives), while others are extrinsic, that is, related to the characteristics of the respondents (sociodemographics, conception of nature and science, psychological factors, values) (Hagelin, Carlsson, and Hau, 2003; Serpell, 2004; Crettaz von Roten, 2006a). In this research, we document the role of the conception of nature and science on the perception of animal research.
1 Analysis of the campaign shows that the opponents of the laboratory built their strategy on budgetary argument, the lack of trust toward the requests of the researchers, and increasing sensitivity to the animal cause (Blanchard, 2006).

Mapping Perceptions of Animal Experimentation

539

Philosophers, historians, and social scientists have widely studied the various conceptions of nature, including, among others, whether nature is considered spiritual or sacred or not, and including the type of relationship with human societyseparation, with opposition between nature and humans; connection, with dominion of nature by humans; or integration, with harmony between nature and humans (Frank, 1997; Strauss, 2005). Researchers have also stated that the conception of nature is socially constructed and varies according to cultural and historical determinations. In the West, the redenition of nature over the last century facilitated the emergence of world mobilization for the environment (Frank, 1997) and animal rights (Kruse, 1999; Taylor, 2005). In particular, since the 1970s, the animal-rights movement has challenged the use of animals in modern Western society by rejecting the idea of dominion of human beings over nature and animals and stressing the intrinsic value and rights of individual animals (Singer, 1975; Clark, 1984; Regan, 1988; Jasper and Nelkin, 1992). In a climate of ontological insecurity, dened as the fragmented and fugitive nature of postmodern labour markets, communities and domestic relations (Franklin and White, 2001:224), leisure activities associated with animals and pet keeping have increased, with companion animals becoming common objects of love, care, and protection (a shift from anthropocentrism to anthropomorphism).2 Therefore, pet ownership is likely to be associated with rejection of animal experimentation (Driscoll, 1992; Hagelin, Carlsson, and Hau, 2003). Besides the conception of nature, the opposing viewpoints about animal experimentation also concern science (Cothran, 2002): it questions whether animal experimentation is scientic, whether experimenting on nonhuman primates is vital to science, whether experimenting on dogs has led to medical breakthroughs, and whether scientists should pursue new forms of animal testing. Animal-rights activists have less faith in science and are more willing to explore alternatives to the Western, reductionist, scientic understanding (Broida et al., 1993:136); they regret that modern science is linked to the pursuit of prot and they are concerned with the (ethical) limits and (empirical) boundaries of modern science (Taylor, 2005:7). A positive attitude to science seems likely to be related to animal experimentation approval. Our study aims to initiate a line of analysis that seeks to map out public perceptions of animal experimentation in Switzerland. This article, rst, analyzes the evolution of attitudes toward animal research over the last decade, and then determines explanatory factors of these attitudes.

2 A poster put up by opponents to the animal research laboratory at the University of Lausanne (2005) attempted to make the laboratory mouse look like a familiar animal, similar to a pet or animal cartoon character.

540
Methods

Social Science Quarterly

Data The issue of animal research has not given rise to specic surveys in Switzerland. Therefore, we performed a secondary analysis of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) Environment survey (1993, 2000) and the Eurobarometer (EB) Science (2001, 2005). The ISSP survey3 is an annual, cross-national collaboration within which countries each undertake a survey on rotating issues with nationally representative samples of the adult population (sample size between 1,000 and 1,400). Twenty countries participated in the 1993 survey that dealt with environmental concerns; the Swiss National Science Foundation nanced its realization a year later. Thirty-two countries, including Switzerland, participated in the 2000 Environment survey. The EB surveys,4 nanced by the European Commission, have been conducted between two and ve times per year since 1973; they measure the state of public opinion toward the European Union and other issues, including science. The national samples come from a multistage random design of the adult population, with approximately 1,000 face-to-face interviews conducted. Twenty countries participated in the 2001 survey that dealt with attitudes toward science; the Swiss National Science Foundation nanced its realization the same year. Thirty-two countries participated in the 2005 Science survey, including Switzerland.

Measures of the Dependent Variable There are different questions that measure acceptance of animal experimentation. Hagelin, Carlsson, and Haus (2003) review of surveys identies three main variations in wording of the question: whether the type of research is specied, whether particular species are mentioned, and whether the word pain is used. Different phrasing of questions causes different answers within the same population. The ISSP and EB surveys do not use the same questions: It is right to use animals for medical testing if it might save human lives for the former, and Scientists should be allowed to experiment on animals like dogs and monkeys, if this can help resolve human health problems for the latter. To summarize, the questions specify the same type of research (medical research), and neither mentions the pain inicted on the animals. However, the ISSP question does not state the particular species involved in the research and is thus a very broad measure, whereas the EB question species
3 4

See h http://www.issp.org i . See h http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm i .

Mapping Perceptions of Animal Experimentation

541

the specieslike dogs and monkeys. Previous studies have illustrated the effect of speciesism,5 that is, the use of dogs and monkeys results in lower support for experimentation than other species such as small rodents (Driscoll, 1992, 1995; Hagelin, Carlsson, and Hau, 2003). Measures of the Independent Variables To investigate explanatory factors of current attitudes toward animal testing, the EB Science survey 2005 was used, as it is the latest survey with the greatest number of explanatory factors found in the literature. The independent variables are sociodemographic variables, scientic knowledge, and items measuring attitudes toward science and technology, attitudes toward nature, and values. Sociodemographic Background. In addition to gender (coded 1 for men; 2 for women), the following three variables were included in the analysis: age (in years), education (highest level achieved, transformed into three dummies: one differentiating the upper secondary level (coded 1) from the other levels (coded 0), one differentiating the tertiary level (1) from the other levels (0), and one differentiating the students (1) from the other levels (0)), and city size of residence (living in a city with more than 100,000 residents (coded 1), between 10,000 and 99,999 residents (2), between 2,001 and 9,999 residents (3), and less than 2,000 residents (4)). Scientic Knowledge. The level of scientic knowledge was measured using 13 true/false questions about the theoretical and factual ndings of science.6 Each item was dummy coded so that a value of 1 was assigned to the correct answer and a value of 0 to the incorrect answer and dont know. The scores on these 13 questions were summed and then transformed into two dummies: one differentiating the low level of knowledge (0 to 4 correct answers coded 1) from the other levels (coded 0), and one differentiating the high level of knowledge (10 to 13 correct answers coded 1) from the other levels (coded 0). Attitudes Toward Science. Attitudes toward science are measured by 20 ve-point Likert-type items,7 by level of information on new medical
Arbitrary discrimination on the basis of species membership. See h http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf i for the actual statements. 7 For information related to the items excluded from the nal model, contact the author.
6 5

542

Social Science Quarterly

discoveries and new scientic discoveries on a three-point Likert-type scale; and by frequencyon a four-point Likert-type scaleof reading articles on science and attending public meetings or debates about science or technology. Attitudes Toward Nature. Attitudes toward nature are measured by three ve-point Likert-type items: We have a right to exploit nature for the sake of human well being; We have a duty to protect nature, even if this means limiting human progress; and We have a duty to protect the rights of animals whatever the cost; by level of informationon a three-point Likert-type scaleon environmental pollution and by level of approvalon a four-point Likert-type scaleof cloning animals such as monkeys or pigs for research into human diseases and of developing large biodiversity parks in Switzerland to protect and re-introduce animal and plant species. Values. Values are introduced by three items measuring how importanton a four-point Likert-type scalethe respondent considers: tolerance and respect for other people; protecting the dignity of any human unborn life; and protecting information about our private life from misuse and exploitation. We performed an ordinary least square regression model with an iterative procedure (STEPWISE) to determine the simplest model.
Findings

Evolution of Acceptance of Animal Experimentation An analysis of the data shows that, since 1994, the acceptance of animal research has decreased consistently in Switzerland (Table 1). Particularly, the acceptance of animal research decreased by 4.2 points from 1994 to 2000, by 10.2 points between 2000 and 2001, and by 13.3
TABLE 1
Evolution of the Percentage of Acceptance of Animal Experimentation, ISSP and EB 19942005 Year Acceptance of animal experimentation
a b

1994 62.4
a

2000 58.2
a

2001 48.0
b

2005 34.7b

It is right to use animals for medical testing if it might save human lives. Scientists should be allowed to experiment on animals like dogs and monkeys, if this can help resolve human health problems.

Mapping Perceptions of Animal Experimentation

543

points from 2001 to 2005. Moreover, we observed an inversion of the majoritys point of view: until 2000, more than 50 percent of respondents were in favor of animal testing (62.4 and 58.2 percent, respectively), in 2001, the percentage in favor was just below 50 percent (48 percent) and in 2005, the relative majority is against animal research (49.6 percent disapprove whereas 34.7 percent approve). It is important to point out that the difference of 10.2 points observed between 2000 and 2001 is partly produced by the exact phrasing of the question used in each respective survey. If part of the decrease between 2000 and 2001 is due to the indicator, we should not overinterpret this interval of time, but focus on the two decreasing trends from 1994 to 2000, and from 2001 to 2005. Besides acceptance and rejection, some respondents choose explicit dont know or neutral responses neither . . . nor (NSRs). These responses suggest that the cognitive stimulus is insufciently strong to produce a clear evaluative response to the attitude object. By quantifying those responses, we measure the difculty of evaluating an object, that is, an index of cognitive and evaluative distance (CED) (Pardo and Calvo, 2006). For these authors, there are many possible reasons for a high CED: low salience of the object, complexity or cognitive barriers, and/or ambivalent perception. Animal experimentation is an issue on which few people have no opinion: the cognitive and evaluative distance is around 14 percent (e.g., 12.2 percent in 1994, 15.8 percent in 2005), which is considered to be quite low (in their study of science perceptions, Pardo and Calvo (2006) found an average CED of 24 percent). Finally, for animal experimentation, most of the CED are neutral responses, not dont know responses (e.g., 9.9 percent of neutral responses out of a total of 12.2 percent CED in 1994, 13.1 percent of neutral responses out of a total of 15.8 percent CED in 2005), indicating more ambivalence rather than low salience or cognitive barriers. Explaining Attitudes Toward Animal Experimentation How does one explain the current attitudes toward animal experimentation in Switzerland? The optimal model, which explains 30 percent of the variation in the attitudes toward animal experimentation, is multicausal and includes variables from four explanatory factor families: sociodemographic factors, and factors related to science, nature, and values (Table 2). A positive beta coefcient indicates that an increase of the factor in question implies a higher degree of acceptance of the animal research, controlling for the other independent factors, whereas a negative beta coefcient indicates that an increase of the factor in question implies a lower degree of acceptance of the animal research. Men are more likely to accept animal experimentation than are women. The acceptance of animal experimentation is also linked to positive attitudes

544
TABLE 2

Social Science Quarterly

Results from the Stepwise Regression Analysis to Explain Attitudes Toward Animal Experimentation on Selected Independent Variables, EB 2005 Unstand. Coeff. Gender (1 5 men, 2 5 women) Information about new medical discoveries Attend public meetings or debates about science or technology Developments in science and technology have improved the quality of life for your generation Science and technology do not play an important role in industrial development For people like me it is not important to be involved in decisions about science and technology We have a duty to protect the rights of animals whatever the costs Approval of cloning animals such as monkeys or pigs for research into human diseases Information about environmental pollution Approval of developing large biodiversity parks in Switzerland to protect and reintroduce animal and plant species Protecting information about our private life from misuse and exploitation Intercept Adequation test: F11, 352 5 13.56, p 5 0.000 0.459 0.009 0.230 0.219 0.163 0.122 0.138 0.340 0.005 0.140 0.212 1.544 Beta Coeff. 0.168 0.189 0.141 0.116 0.143 0.119 0.113 0.235 0.105 0.105 0.097 p Value 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.013 0.003 0.010 0.018 0.000 0.040 0.023 0.036 0.007

toward science, specically, with more information on recent medical discoveries, more attendance at debates on science, greater appreciation of the contributions of science to the quality of life and industrial development, and less desire to be involved in decisions about science and technology (delegation, trust). These ve signicant explanatory factors indicate that these ve aspects of the relationship between science and society (information, engagement toward science, inuence on everyday life, link between science and industry, and governance of science) intervene independently on attitudes toward animal research. Animal research advocates are found to have less protective attitudes toward animals, less desire to develop large biodiversity parks, more positive views of cloning animals, and to be less informed about environmental pollution. Finally, we nd that animal experimentation acceptance is linked to a specic value: animal research supporters are less concerned about the protection of information about private life. Other factors found signicant in the literature (age, education, city size, scientic knowledge) are not signicant once these 11 variables are incorporated into the model (redundancy of information).

Mapping Perceptions of Animal Experimentation

Discussion

545

Following a downward trend, the relative majority of the Swiss population rejects animal experimentation in 2005. This result sheds light on recent political events in Switzerland, such as opposition to an animal research laboratory in the Canton of Vaud and an initiative to restrict animal research in the Canton of Geneva. Understanding attitudes toward animal testing is therefore an important political and sociological issue, with signicant ramications for the country. Perceptions of animal experimentation are explained by a multicausal system that exhibits similarities and dissimilarities with literature ndings. More opposition to animal experimentation is found to be linked with women. This gender difference was explained, for some authors, by the different socialization patterns among men and women, which emphasizes a relational orientation of care for women as well as nurturing and empathy that extend to animals (Herzog, Betchart, and Pittman, 1991; Pifer, Shimizu, and Pifer, 1994). Other authors suggested that this difference is linked more with womens experience of social inequalities (oppression and male domination), which incline women to embrace more egalitarian ideology: women see animals as a symbol of their own victimhood and are thus more concerned for the rights of animals and more opposed to animal experimentation (Donovan, 1990; Peek, Bell, and Dunham, 1996). Attitudes toward science constitute the most important family of explanatory factors, with ve signicant items among 11 predictors of attitudes toward animal testing. However, our predictors differ from those of the literature: Broida et al. (1993) reported the inuence of faith in science; Peek, Bell, and Dunham (1996) reported peoples views of the harm posed by science. The latter predictors are global indicators, whereas we found indicators of engagement with science (scientic information, participation in debate, and involvement in decisions about science). This may be linked with the relationship between science and society: the attitudes toward science are on the whole positive in Switzerland but we observe an increase of negative and ambivalent attitudes. The support for research decreases from 81.3 percent in 2000 to 68.3 percent in 2005; the perception that the benets of science are greater than any harmful effects it may have decreases by 14 percent from 2001 to 2005 (Crettaz von Roten, 2006b). Among the successive explanations for the deteriorating relationship between science and society,8 lack of active public participation is now emphasized (Gibbons, 1999; Bauer, Allum, and Miller, 2007). Following our analysis, public engagement seems also pertinent in the case of animal
8 Bauer, Allum, and Miller (2007) review key issues of public understanding of science research over the last 25 years, from the science literacy paradigm between 1960 and 1985 focusing on public decit knowledge to the current paradigm from mid 1990s onward focusing on public participation and deliberation.

546

Social Science Quarterly

experimentation. Finally, Pifer, Shimizu, and Pifer (1994) established an inconsistent relationship between scientic knowledge and attitudes toward animal research (positive relationships in some countries and negative in others). In the present analysis, the level of scientic knowledge is not signicant once the above explanatory variables are included in the model. The signicance of attitudes toward nature is consistent with previous results that found a connection between pro-environment attitudes and opposition to animal research (Pifer, Shimizu, and Pifer, 1994; Jerolmack, 2003). Animal experimentation opponents adopt a more holistic vision of humans place within nature, one where human beings have a place in nature, not as dominators, but, rather, as protectors of animals, biodiversity, and the environment (Frank, 1997; Taylor, 2005). Finally, the presence of an item related to cloning animals among this group of predictorswith the highest beta coefcientis not surprising because concerns toward cloning arise partly from the belief that it is against nature (Einsiedel, 2000:944), that is, cloning revives concerns of the unforeseen consequences of interfering with nature. On the whole, the Swiss respect and value nature: in 2000, 28.2 percent agreed that [n]ature is spiritual or sacred in itself (21.4 percent in 1994), and 17.1 percent agreed that [n]ature is sacred because it is created by God (14.2 percent in 1994). More, people give importance to respect and protection of nature and animals: in 2005, 93.1 percent believed that [w]e have a duty to protect nature, even if this means limiting human progress; 78.9 percent believed that [w]e have a duty to protect the rights of animals whatever the costs. At rst glance, the inuence of valuing the protection of ones privacy on attitudes toward animal experimentation may appear quite surprising, but there are a number of hypotheses that may shed light on the ndings. On one hand, preserving privacy is a fundamental right, established in the universal declaration of human rights; privacy is associated with autonomy, dignity, trust, and liberty, a series of issues that are raised in the animal research controversy (the dignity of laboratory animals, trust in animal experimenters and the regulation system). On the other hand, the right of privacy concerns, in the information society, the ability of individuals to control the collection and use of personal information held by others, in particular with information and communication technology. Therefore, privacy may be linked with animal experimentation via the notions of rights, dignity, and trust, or via the notions of science and technology. The controversy over animal research is one of the most cited science controversies (Nelkin, 1995). In general, science controversies reect an increase of ambivalent attitudes toward science and technology, but protests are less against science than against the use of the scientic rhetoric to mask political and moral choices (Nelkin, 1995:447). This is particularly true in Switzerland where, according to EB 2005, decisions about science and technology should be based on moral and ethical criteria (60.2 percent) and not on an analysis of the risks and benets involved (24.1 percent) (Crettaz

Mapping Perceptions of Animal Experimentation

547

von Roten, 2006b). With this 60.2 percent approval of ethical and moral decisional criterion in science, Switzerland is largely above the European average (32.9 percent), and is exceeded by only two other European countries (Norway at 62.5 percent and Iceland at 64.3 percent). With 49.7 percent of inhabitants who often think of the signicance and the meaning of the life, the Swiss level of spirituality measured in this study is also above the European average (35.2 percent). Therefore, spiritual and ethical dimensions, often excluded from the scientic debate in favor of technoscientic arguments more easily negotiable, must be integrated in the democratic debate on animal experimentation. From the above elements of discussion, mapping perceptions of animal experimentation improves our understanding of the relationship between science and society because animal experimentation is an important point in the publics relationship with science. This line of research merits further developments: improving the indicators of perception of animal experimentation, exploring new predictors, and analyzing longitudinal data. Future research should also contextualize survey results through a framing of media coverage on animal experimentation. Finally, the asymmetry in the study of the relationship between science and society could be overcome by studies on scientists active in animal experimentation: their views, practices, and experiences with regard to public communication and engagement. Such studies would have practical outcomes, as it is one of the most difcult areas of public engagement for scientists (Rothwell, 2006).

REFERENCES Bauer, Martin, Nick Allum, and Steve Miller. 2007. What Can We Learn from 25 Years of PUS Survey Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16(1):7995. Baumans, Vera. 2005. Science-Based Assessment of Animal Welfare: Laboratory Animals. Scientic and Technical Review 24(2):50314. Blanchard, Philippe. 2006. Analyse de la Campagne. Pp. 5190 in Philippe Blanchard, Fabienne Crettaz von Roten, Romain Felli, Olivier Fillieule, and Jean-Philippe Leresche, eds., Le Vote du 27 Novembre 2005 sur lAnimalerie de Dorigny. Final report. University of Lausanne. Broida, John, Leanne Tingley, Robert Kimball, and Joseph Miele. 1993. Personality Differences Between Pro- and Anti-Vivisectionists. Society & Animals 1(2):12944. Clark, Stephen R. L. 1984. The Moral Status of Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cothran, Helen. 2002. Animal Experimentation: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. ` lExperimentation Animale. Pp. Crettaz von Roten, Fabienne. 2006a. Les Suisses Face a 1549 in Philippe Blanchard, Fabienne Crettaz von Roten, Romain Felli, Olivier Fillieule, and Jean-Philippe Leresche, eds., Le Vote du 27 Novembre 2005 sur lAnimalerie de Dorigny. Final report. University of Lausanne.

548

Social Science Quarterly

. 2006b. Les Suisses et les Sciences en 2005: Structure et Facteurs Explicatifs des Attitudes. Pp. 291312 in Jean-Philippe Leresche, Martin Benninghoff, Fabienne Crettaz von Roten, and Martina Merz, eds., La Fabrique des Sciences. Des Institutions aux Pratiques. Lausanne: PPUR. Donovan, Josephine. 1990. Animal Rights and Feminist Theory. Signs 15(2):35075. Driscoll, Janis Wiley. 1992. Attitudes Toward Animal Use. Anthrozoos 5(1):3239. . 1995. Attitudes Toward Animals: Species Ratings. Society & Animals 3(2):139 50. Einsiedel, Edna F. 2000. Cloning and its DiscontentsA Canadian Perspective. Nature Biotechnology 18:94344. Frank, David John. 1997. Science, Nature, and the Gobalization of the Environment, 18701990. Social Forces 76(2):40937. Franklin, Adrian, and Robert White. 2001. Animals and Modernity: Changing HumanAnimal Relations, 194998. Journal of Sociology 37(3):21938. Gibbons, M. 1999. Sciences New Social Contract with Society. Nature 401:8184. Hagelin, Joakim, Hans-Erik Carlsson, and Jann Hau. 2003. An Overview of Surveys on How People View Animal Experimentation: Some Factors That May Inuence the Outcome. Public Understanding of Science 12(1):6781. Haraway, Donna. 1989. Primate Visions. London: Routledge. Herzog, Harold A., Nancy S. Betchart, and Robert B. Pittman. 1991. Gender, Sex Role Orientation, and Attitudes Toward Animals. Anthrozoos 4(3):18491. Jasper, James M., and Dorothy Nelkin. 1992. The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest. New York: Free Press. Jerolmack, Colin. 2003. Tracing the Prole of Animal Rights Supporters. A Preliminary Investigation. Society & Animals 11(3):24563. Johnston, Philip. 2006. Public Turns on Animal Terrorists. Available at h www.Telegraph. co.uk i . Kruse, Corwin R. 1999. Gender, Views of Nature, and Support for Animal Rights. Society & Animals 7(3):17997. National Science Board. 2002. Science & Engineering Indicators2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Nelkin, Dorothy. 1995. Science Controversies: The Dynamics of Public Dispute in the United States. Pp. 44456 in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald R. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, eds., Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. te rinaire Fe de ral. 2006. Expe riences sur Animaux en Suisse. Available at h http:// Ofce Ve www.bvet.admin.ch/themen/tierschutz/00777/index.html?lang=fr i . Pardo, Rafael, and Felix Calvo. 2006. Mapping Perceptions of Science in End-of-Century Europe. Science Communication 28(1):346. Peek, Charles W., Nancy Bell, and Charlotte C. Dunham. 1996. Gender, Gender Ideology, and Animal Rights Advocacy. Gender & Society 10(4):46478. Pifer, Linda, Kinya Shimizu, and Ralph Pifer. 1994. Public Attitudes Toward Animal Research: Some International Comparisons. Society & Animals 2(2):95113.

Mapping Perceptions of Animal Experimentation

549

Rader, Karen. 2004. Making Mice: Standardizing Animals for American Biomedical Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Regan, Tom. 1988. Animal Rights. Pp. 4243 in Mark Bekoff and Carron A. Meaney, eds., Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Rothwell, Nancy. 2006. Public Engagement on the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research. Pp. 3843 in Jon Turney, ed., Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action. London: Wellcome Trust Publication. Serpell, James A. 2004. Factors Inuencing Human Attitudes to Animals and Their Welfare. Animal Welfare 13:14551. Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York: Random House. Strauss, Linda M. 2005. Concepts of Nature. Pp. 35157 in Sal P. Restivo, ed., Science, Technology and Society. An Encyclopedia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, Nicola. 2005. Luddites or Limits? The Attitudes of Animal Rights Activists Towards Science. Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal II(4):116.