Advertisement

How Do Scientists Doing Animal Experimentation View the Co-evolution Between Science and Society? The Swiss Case

  • Fabienne Crettaz Von RotenEmail author
Chapter
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

Laboratory animal science is a very relevant domain in which to study the co-evolution between science and society, by reference to Nowotny et al.’s (Re-thinking science. Knowledge in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity, 2001) concept. Cross-fertilizations between science and society also combine university, industry, and government. A socio-historic analysis of this co-evolution in Switzerland highlights three new constraints for scientists doing animal experimentation: in their training, in their scientific practice, and in their relationship with society. A few studies have documented these changes separately, but they have not previously been analysed simultaneously. We propose to remedy this deficiency by studying scientists doing animal experimentation in Switzerland. The results of this study indicate a heterogeneous level of acceptance of each constraint, and few links between the level of acceptance of one constraint and the level of acceptance of another constraint. A multivariate analysis allows us to visualize the number of constraints accepted according to socio-demographic and professional groups of scientists.

References

  1. Birke, L., Arluke, A., & Michael, M. (2007). The sacrifice: How scientific experiments transform animals and people. West-Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blanchard, P., Crettaz von Roten, F., Felli, R., Fillieule, O., Leresche, J. P. (2006). Le vote du 27 novembre 2005 sur l’animalerie de Dorigny. Les significations du vote: Analyses sociales, politiques et territoriales [The vote of November 27, 2005 on the Dorigny animal laboratory. The meanings of the vote: social, political and territorial analyzes]. OSPS, Université de Lausanne.Google Scholar
  3. Carlsson, H. E., Hagelin, J., Höglund, U., & Hau, J. (2001). Undergraduate and postgraduate students’s responses to mandatory courses (FELASA category C) in laboratory animal science. Laboratory Animals, 35(2), 188–193.Google Scholar
  4. Cressey, D. (2011). Nearly one-quarter of biologists say they have been affected by animal activists. A nature poll exposes the battle scars. Nature, 470, 452–453.Google Scholar
  5. Crettaz von Roten, F. (2008). Mapping perception of animal experimentation: Trend and explanatory factors. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2), 537–549.Google Scholar
  6. Crettaz von Roten, F. (2009). European attitudes towards animal research: Overview and consequences for science. Science, Technology and Society, 14(2), 349–364.Google Scholar
  7. Crettaz von Roten, F. (2011). Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication, 33(1), 52–75.Google Scholar
  8. Crettaz von Roten, F. (2013). Public perceptions of animal experimentation across Europe. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 691–703.Google Scholar
  9. Crettaz von Roten, F. (2018). Laboratory animal science course in Switzerland: Participants’ points of view and implications for organizers. Laboratory Animals, 52(1), 69–78.Google Scholar
  10. Crettaz von Roten, F. (2019). Expérimentation animale: Analyse de la controverse de 1950 à nos jours en Suisse [Animal experimentation: Analysis of the controversy from 1950 to the present in Switzerland]. Neuchâtel: Editions Livreo Alphil.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2010). National competent authorities for the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU. Working document on Project evaluation and retrospective assessment. Assessed January 30, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/Endorsed_PE-RA.pdf
  12. European Commission. (2013). Seventh report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the Member states of the European Union. Assessed January 30, 2018, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0859:FIN:EN:PDF
  13. Fenwick, N., Danielson, P., & Griffin, G. (2011). Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers’ views on the three Rs: Replacement, reduction and refinement. PLoS One, 6, e22478.Google Scholar
  14. Franco, N. H., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2014). Scientists and the 3Rs: Attitudes to animal use in biomedical research and the effect of mandatory training in laboratory animal science. Laboratory Animals, 48(1), 50–60.Google Scholar
  15. Franco, N. H., Sandoe, P., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2018). Researcher’ attitudes to the 3Rs—An upturned hierarchy? PLoS One, 13(8), e0200895.Google Scholar
  16. Giugni, M., & Passy, F. (1997). Histoires de contestation. Les nouveaux mouvements sociaux et leur institutionnalisation en Suisse, 1975–1995 [History of protest. New social movements and their institutionalization in Switzerland, 1975–1995]. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  17. Greenacre, M. (2010). Correspondence analysis. WIREs Computational Statistics, 2, 613–619.Google Scholar
  18. Hagelin, J., Carlsson, H. E., & Hau, J. (2003). An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: Some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Understanding of Science, 12(1), 67–81.Google Scholar
  19. Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Knight, S., Vrij, A., Bard, K., & Doug, B. (2009). Science versus human welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 463–483.Google Scholar
  21. NC3Rs. (2008). Views on the 3Rs – Survey Report 2008. National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. www.nc3rs.org.uk/opinion survey. Accessed 30 January 2018.
  22. Nelkin, D. (1995). Science controversies: The dynamics of public dispute in the United States. In S. Jasanoff, G. R. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 444–456). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  24. OVF. (2016). Nombre d’animaux de 1983 à 2015 [Number of animals from 1983 to 2015]. Confédération suisse. Accessed November 2, 2016, from http://tv-statistik.ch/fr/statistiques-dynamiques/index.php
  25. Paul, E. S. (1995). Us and them: Scientists’ and animal rights campaigners’ views of the animal experimentation debate. Society and Animals, 3(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  26. Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., et al. (2008). Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321, 204–205.Google Scholar
  27. Pifer, L., Shimizu, K., & Pifer, R. (1994). Public attitudes toward animal research: Some international comparisons. Society and Animals, 2(2), 95–113.Google Scholar
  28. Pollo, S., Vitale, A., Gayle, V., & Zucco, F. (2004). The ‘3Rs’ model and the concept of alternatives in animal research: A questionnaire survey. Lab Animal, 33(7), 47–53.Google Scholar
  29. Regan, T. (1980). Animal rights, human wrong. Environmental Ethics, 2(2), 99–120.Google Scholar
  30. Rothwell, N. (2006). Public engagement on the use of animals in biomedical research. In J. Turney (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 38–43). London: Wellcome Trust Publication.Google Scholar
  31. Royal Society. (2006). Science communication: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers (Final report). London: Author.Google Scholar
  32. Russell, W. M., & Burch, R. L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.Google Scholar
  33. Ryder, R. (1971). Experiments on animals. In S. Godlovitch, R. Godlovitch, & J. Harris (Eds.), Animals, men and morals (pp. 41–71). New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schatz, G. (1998). The Swiss vote on gene technology. Science, 281, 1810–1811.Google Scholar
  35. Schuppli, C., & Weary, D. (2010). Attitudes towards the use of genetically modified animals in research. Public Understanding of Science, 19(6), 686–697.Google Scholar
  36. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  37. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015). Annual report of animal usage by fiscal year. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.Google Scholar
  38. van Luijk, J., Cuijpers, Y., van der Vaart, L., Leenaart, M., & Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. (2011). Assessing the search for information on three Rs methods, and their subsequent implementation: a national survey among scientists in the Netherlands. ATLA, 39, 429–447.Google Scholar
  39. Weihe, W. E. (1988). The implications of the animal protection law for research in Switzerland. International Journal of Psychology, 23, 383–398.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations