‘If you are empathetic you care about both animals and people. I am a nurse and I don’t like to see suffering anywhere’: Findings from 103 healthcare professionals on attitudes to animal experimentation

Abstract

This report presents qualitative and quantitative data from 103 UK healthcare professionals describing attitudes to the current system of animal testing (to produce medicines and health interventions). To gather qualitative testimony, these healthcare professionals were organised into six separate focus groups (of 18, 17, 17, 15, 17 and 19 participants) where they were asked ‘what is your opinion about the current system of animal testing?’ The study focussed on attitudes to the current system rather than attitudes to animal testing in general. The healthcare professionals also completed a quantitative attitude scale questionnaire consisting of 20 statements (all favourable) towards the system of animal testing as currently practised. Statements such as ‘Testing agencies abide by legislation to safeguard animal welfare’ were displayed and the healthcare professionals were invited to agree or disagree with these statements. The results from both the quantitative and qualitative data suggest that healthcare professionals were opposed to the current system of animal experimentation.

Keywords

animal experimentation attitudes healthcare professionals

Introduction

According to Home Office figures (Home Office, 2013) in the United Kingdom, around 4 million animals are used each year as ‘test subjects’ to produce medicines, other health interventions and consumer goods. The majority of such animals are mice (74%; Home Office, 2013), but other species include beagle dogs, cats, horses, pigs (Home Office, 2013) and finally primates (sometimes taken from the wild; The Scientific Committee on Health and Environment Risks (SCHER), 2009: 8). About 60 per cent of such animals are deployed in medical research (European Union, 2013) with the remainder used in tests for consumer products. Often such tests are painful and ultimately fatal for the animals concerned (Home Office, 2014a). Welfare legislation (such as the Animal Welfare Act, 2006) which exists to protect animals not involved in research does not apply to animals bred and used for scientific purposes (Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986).

A great deal of controversy surrounds animal experimentation (Haugen, 2006; Hunnicutt, 2013). Nevertheless, clinical research investigating healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) attitudes to the practice is sparse. A detailed literature search (Appendix 1) of medical databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL) produced only two studies (Dignon, 2016; Glick, 1995), one of which was an investigation of the author’s own. Both studies identified opposition to the practice among HCPs (and medical students in Glick’s study) and such opposition may also be reflected in data gathered from the general public (Ipsos MORI, 2006, 2010, 2012).

In the field of psychology (when compared to health), a larger number of studies of attitudes to animal experimentation have been conducted. A search of the Psych-Info database revealed five such studies (Furnham et al., 2003; Hagelin et al., 2003; Ormandy and Schuppli, 2014; Serpell, 2004; Swami et al., 2008). These all suggest that opposition to animal testing is associated with demographic factors. For example, women oppose the practice more than men (Furnham et al., 2003; Ormandy and Schuppli, 2014; Swami et al., 2008) and young people more than the old (Hagelin et al., 2003).

A further predictor of opposition may be a concept referred to as ‘animal mind’ (Swami et al., 2008). Belief in animal mind describes the extent to which respondents acknowledge an animal’s capacity to ‘think’ and to display ‘self-aware’ behaviour (such as love, altruism, fear, sadness, suffering, forethought and pleasure). Respondents who believe in ‘animal mind’ are more likely to oppose animal testing (Furnham et al., 2003; Ormandy and Schuppli, 2014; Swami et al., 2008). Social media sites (notably Facebook and YouTube) abound with videos of animals displaying ‘thinking’ behaviour (such as self-sacrifice), and it is sometimes argued that such sites may have an influence on attitudes to animal testing (Dignon, 2016).

Opposition to animal testing clearly exists, but the practice has nevertheless increased in recent years (Home Office, 2013). Legally, any drug company wishing to launch a new therapy must first test the drug on animals (Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986; Heywood, 1990). Companies performing such tests are currently entitled to carry them out in secret¹ (Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986). Disclosure, even by the researchers themselves, of any of the test procedures can potentially carry a heavy penalty, including imprisonment, (Widdicombe, 2014). The secrecy clause also makes it difficult to assess whether welfare standards are genuinely being met.

Animal testing (in best practice) is underpinned by the ‘3Rs’ (Animals (Scientific procedures) Act, 1986). This stands for Replacement (with the use of alternatives where feasible), Refinement (to minimise the pain of the procedures) and Reduction (to lessen the total number of animals involved). According to antivivisectionists, however (BUAV, 2011), the 3Rs are normally disregarded (Taylor, 2010). Random inspections are rarely carried out and ‘rubber-stamping’ of research licences (by the Home Office) is common (Animal Aid, 2006).

Animal rights groups have staged many protests against vivisection. Such protests have generally been peaceful (The Economist, 2011), but a minority have involved more extreme action. In January 2014, members of a campaign to shut down Huntington Life Sciences (UK; a laboratory accused of extreme animal cruelty; Broughton, 2001) were sentenced to imprisonment (Press Association, 2014) for extreme forms of direct action. This might have been expected to increase public support for animal research, but a diminishing level of acceptance of animal testing over the past 6 years appears to be evident (Ipsos MORI, 2010, 2016).

In this study, nurses’ attitudes to animal testing (as currently practised) are assessed. It is important to investigate such attitudes among this group as nurses are the largest professional sector in the National Health Service (NHS) and spend the most time with patients (DOH, 2012). Nurses are also the professionals who most often dispense the medicines developed from animal research. In addition, nurse prescribing (where nurses actually write the patient’s prescription) has grown in recent years (Royal College of Nursing, 2012), and such nurse prescribers may have an interest in how the drugs they prescribe have been developed. Given the nurse’s clinical knowledge and experience, it is also likely that they will supply ‘information rich’ testimony concerning drug research. For these reasons, it is important to assess attitudes among this group to the current system of animal testing.

Methods

The study gained ethical approval from the research ethics committee at Coventry University. In all, 103 nurses were recruited from the ‘top up’ B.Sc. degrees in Professional Practice and Public Health Studies. These nurses were studying part time to top up their nursing diplomas to degree level. They attended the university on an ‘earning while learning’ basis while also working full time in the health sector.

As part of their degree, the HCPs completed an advanced research methods module. A normal part of this module was a session on research ethics which included a discussion of animal testing (involving a 40-minute lecture presenting a neutral view of the topic). To prepare for this session, HCPs were directed to research the topic of animal experimentation in the 2 weeks prior to the lecture. They were given a list of resources which would allow them to examine arguments both in favour of and against the practice (see Appendix 2). HCPs were informed that accessing these resources was a requirement of the module and that they would be expected to contribute their ideas (based on this preparation) during the scheduled session. They were also told about the study at this stage and their consent to participate was sought verbally. The lecturer (who was also the principal investigator) stated her own position (one of opposition to the current system) as a way of demonstrating ‘reflexivity’ (Gerrish and Lacey, 2013: 425). This describes a process where researchers clearly and honestly state their own bias and acknowledge that their work will be influenced by this standpoint. The investigator strongly emphasised, however, that attitudes that were different to hers would be actively elicited for reasons of balance, and that no HCP should feel impeded from expressing such attitudes.

On the day of the study (in the penultimate week of the module, after the scheduled ethics session), information leaflets and consent forms were distributed, and written informed consent was obtained. HCPs were also made aware that they could withdraw at any time, and that refusal to participate would have no effect whatsoever on their later experience of the module (which would be exactly consistent with that of participating students). All but five HCPs agreed to participate and those that refused did so without supplying a reason. Data comprising age, sex, years of work experience, grade and employer were collected from each participant.

Qualitative data were gathered from an extended series of 103 nurses (with findings from a subsample of 52 HCPs appearing elsewhere; Dignon, 2016). Quantitative findings, however, from all 103 HCPs appear for the first time in the current report. Qualitative data were collected during six focus groups (with 18, 17, 17, 15, 17 and 19 participants, respectively) which lasted on average for 40 minutes. In these groups (facilitated by an independent researcher), participants were asked ‘what is your opinion about the current system of animal testing?’ Focus groups were a highly appropriate method for this investigation as they enabled HCPs to engage in animated debate and to generate ideas and information by discussing issues with each other (Crossley, 2003; Wilkinson, 1998). Transcripts of the recorded focus groups were read and re-read and the researcher fully immersed herself in the data. Thematic analysis (Gooden and Winefield, 2007; Jowett et al., 2012; Sullivan, 2003) was used to identify recurring themes which included concerns over welfare and secrecy.

Prior to the focus groups, the study also collected quantitative attitudinal data. These were gathered using an ‘attitudes scale’ (Oppenheim, 2005). Attitude scales aim to avoid potential bias which may result from direct questioning (Oppenheim, 2005). Direct questions (such as ‘Are you in favour of the current system of animal experimentation?’) can lead the respondent into giving answers he or she feels the researcher wishes to hear (Oppenheim, 2005). Attitude scales, on the other hand, present neutral statements with which the respondent is invited to agree or disagree.

The scale was compiled by the author and was entitled ‘Attitudes to the Current System of Animal Experimentation’ (ACSAE). It had previously been pilot tested on 25 full-time students for validity who reported that the scale was clear and comprehensible.

The instrument contained 20 statements covering areas such as welfare, repetition and suffering. Examples of the statements were as follows:

The current system of animal testing is unlikely to lead to unnecessary suffering.

As far as possible breeding facilities breed only the number of animals required for testing.

After each statement, the HCP was invited to indicate their response as follows:

Strongly agree Agree No opinion Disagree Strongly disagree

All the statements were favourable (e.g. ‘Testing agencies abide by legislation to safeguard animal welfare’). Attitude scales normally contain an equal number of favourable and unfavourable statements (Dignon, 1996), but in this study only statements presenting a favourable attitude were used. It was envisaged that favourable statements would enhance validity (Friedman and Amoo, 1999) as unfavourable statements may have appeared leading. Consideration was thus given to the context in which the instrument was administered (Ogden and Lo, 2012) which was a context in which the topic under investigation was a ‘contested’ one (Hunnicutt, 2013).

Results

The mean age of the HCPs was 39 years (range: 24–59 years; standard deviation (SD): 8.7 years), and their length of healthcare experience on average was 13 years (range: 2–39 years; SD: 8.9 years). The participants consisted largely of senior nurses, all but one being Band 5 or above, and most were at Band 6 or above. A total of 87 were females and 16 were males (Table 1), and many different specialisms (such as cardiovascular, acute and critical care, long-term conditions, palliative care, paramedic nursing, midwifery and mental health) were represented. All had been educated to at least diploma level.

Table 1.

Demographic data of sample.

Age group (years)		Gender		Years of experience
50–59	16	Male	16	Less than 5	10
40–49	28	Female	87	5–9	37
30–39	45	Total	103	10–19	32
24–29	14			20 and over	24
Total	103			Total	103
Band		Employer
Band 8	7	NHS	94
Band 7	9	Military	5
Band 6	46	Other	4
Band 5	40	Total	103
Below Band 5	1
Total	103

NHS: National Health Service.

Results: quantitative

Table 2 shows responses across all 20 statements. High levels of disagreement were evident in every one of the 20 favourable statements presented. The responses were subsequently re-coded as follows: Strongly agree and agree were re-coded into a single category agree, while strongly disagree and disagree were re-coded into a single category disagree. This was because very few strongly agree or strongly disagree responses were obtained (with respondents ticking agree or disagree instead). Among those who expressed an opinion, levels of disagreement for all statements were highly statistically significant (p < 0.01, binomial probability test).

Table 2.

Responses to attitude statements.

	Strongly agree	Agree	No opinion	Disagree	Strongly disagree
The regulations to maximise animal welfare are properly enforced	0	16	12	72	3
Testing agencies abide by legislation to safeguard animal welfare	0	18	12	72	1
The conditions under which animals are kept prior to testing are adequate	0	5	17	77	4
Testing facilities seek to minimise suffering to animals when they are undergoing procedures	0	13	13	76	1
As far as possible breeding facilities breed only the number of animals required for testing	0	9	21	69	4
Conditions in breeding facilities are acceptable	0	8	18	75	2
Animal technicians comfort animals when they are undergoing procedures	0	8	29	63	3
Staff involved in testing treat the animals well	0	10	33	59	1
Staff in facilities where animals are bred for testing treat the animals well	0	11	32	59	1
The tests used in the current system of animal research are ‘evidence based’	0	11	26	63	3
The tests used in the current system of animal research produce valid results	0	16	19	65	3
Research protocol is followed during testing	0	17	34	51	1
The current system of animal testing is appropriately regulated	0	15	18	66	4
The current system of animal testing is unlikely to lead to unnecessary suffering	1	14	10	74	4
The type of tests used minimise unnecessary suffering	0	7	15	79	2
The current system of animal testing presents few ‘conflicts of interest’	1	10	21	65	6
Duplication is minimised in the current system of animal research	0	7	36	59	1
Healthy dogs and cats are rehomed at the end of their testing career	0	14	15	71	3
I expect that the rules in Britain on animal experimentation are well enforced	0	24	17	59	3
I am in favour of the current system of animal testing	0	11	16	71	5

Results: qualitative

In addition to collecting quantitative data, the study also gathered qualitative data from five separate focus groups. The following eight themes were identified from this qualitative testimony:

Alternatives

Validity

Unnecessary suffering

Secrecy

Awareness

Not enough regulation

Profit

In favour of

Each of the themes was linked in such a manner that a theory surrounding HCP views on animal testing could be constructed. This theory stated that the need for alternatives was closely linked to poor research validity and unnecessary suffering. Such suffering was allowed to continue because experimenters were accorded secrecy and also because of a lack of awareness and not enough regulation. Low regulation and poor validity were a result of research being conducted by private pharmaceutical companies for profit.

The one theme which was not linked to any of the others was the theme of being in favour of animal testing. This theme was based on testimony from three HCPs only and was inconsistent with testimony from the rest of the sample. For this very reason, however, it was important to discuss it. This theme, together with the others identified, will now be described, starting with the theme of the need for alternatives.

Alternatives

One of the most important themes identified was the theme of alternatives to animal experimentation. Arthur² suggested that animal researchers should move forward into genetic modelling and in vitro testing (as a way of testing the outcomes from particular drugs) rather than experimenting on ‘actual living creatures that have to suffer’. Karina asked whether animal researchers were seriously looking for alternatives or whether they chose to use animals because it was the ‘done thing’:

I think it hasn’t been questioned because everyone takes for granted that we have to use animals. We haven’t had a chance to even think about what the alternatives are.

For some HCPs, experimenting in a controlled and safe way on humans and omitting the animal stage altogether was such an alternative. Hortense, Freda, Amber, Daisy, Jaswinder and Hitesh all explained that some patients with incurable diseases would prefer to be given the opportunity to try experimental drugs even where those drugs had not yet been tested on animals. In their personal lives, Jemima and Belinda both reported the loss of loved ones who were not offered potentially lifesaving drugs because such drugs had not yet moved forward to human trials. Belinda stated that her loved one would

rather take the possibility that she’s going to get dementia over the fact that she could die. I mean she had 2 young kids – so it was anything she could get really. She wanted to see her kids grow up.

Billy also felt that humans should be allowed to volunteer themselves sooner where appropriate:

I don’t think they should always test these things on animals … why not ask the people who have got these conditions – give them that opportunity. It might not work but then it might. If you think it’s going to help them and it’s going to give them that chance to improve their lives and if you gone through the ethics side as well – you’ve told the patients this might not happen at all or it might improve things, you’ve gone down all those legal channels then it might lead to something useful.

Validity

In addition to identifying the possibility of using alternatives, the nurses also questioned the validity of the results from animal experiments, partly because humans and animals have different physiology:

Billy:

That’s why there is a branch of veterinary medicine for animals and our medicine for humans. Because we’re not compatible with each and every drug that an animal is. Their drugs aren’t transferable to humans and I just don’t think it’s right to test our drugs on them. I’m curious as to how they tested drugs like antibiotics and paracetamol. Animals are allergic to antibiotics and if you give paracetamol to a dog it’s toxic:

Alisha:

It makes you wonder about the extent of the validity of some of these products. Some of these drugs will have been proven to work really well on animals but when you use them on humans you get a different result.

Angelique believed that poor treatment of animals prior to a research study could affect the experiment’s validity. Animals that are poorly nourished and hydrated and improperly housed and exercised might already be in poor health and may therefore fail to respond to otherwise effective experimental medication.

Unnecessary suffering

Another theme of importance to the nurses was the theme of unnecessary suffering. Nancy felt that the whole discussion should be about the minimising of the suffering because there was ‘a lot of stuff that is still done that is unnecessary’. In Mairead’s view, the breeding of animals for research was a production line with living creatures serving as fodder for the experimenter’s curiosity. Even though such animals were bred to be experimented on, they could still be treated nicely and could be given exercise, decent food and decent accommodation.

It was up to humans to advocate for animals on these issues:

Anya:

Animals haven’t got a choice about whether they participate in the research. They can’t say no, and therefore need humans to advocate for them.

Belinda:

I also think if you are empathetic you care about both animals and people. I am a nurse and I don’t like to see suffering anywhere. I hate the thought of anyone being abused and I feel the same way about all living things. I love animals. So it’s about being an advocate for them really.

Secrecy

A key issue raised by the HCPs was the issue of secrecy. Lara, Brenna, Sapphire, Sorcha, Candice, Carmel and Poppy all criticised the secrecy in which animal experiments were conducted. Secrecy was thought likely to increase unnecessary suffering as poor welfare standards could be hidden from public view:

Angharad:

Independent people should be allowed to visit these laboratories. … so that we can see what’s going on. It’s all under wraps – there’s a lot that probably goes on that nobody gets to know about.

Sia:

If they’re going to use animals then they should be honest and transparent like we have to be in healthcare.

Grace:

We have inspectors in the health service and they come out and regulate us – just come unannounced to make sure we are working to a standard. Can’t we have the same thing in animal research?

The theme of secrecy was also linked to the theme of validity. Some HCPs suggested that such secrecy compromised the validity of results from animal studies:

Arthur: These drug companies can say something but you can’t actually see the research that proved it. Wasn’t that what happened with Tamiflu? It worked on animals but not on humans. I wish we could get our hands on the actual research which proved whether it worked or not. To me that’s just common sense. It should all be open because how do you know what’s true and what’s not true. It’s worrying that health services buy things like Tamiflu. I wouldn’t buy something without knowing for certain that it worked.

Ethel was interested in clear labelling, both of drugs and of consumer products:

Just like they write on things ‘this product was not tested on animals’ if they had to by law to put on packaging that ‘this product was tested on animals’ I wonder how many people would still want to use it?

Awareness

One of the most important themes identified was the theme of awareness. This theme was linked to the theme of secrecy, as public awareness was low because experimenters could conduct their research in secret:

Anya:

There can only be opposition if people are aware about these things and know about what is going on. If it’s carried out in secret and under wraps then any opposition is minimised.

Gertrude:

I think if people were aware they would have a different view and the opposition to animal experimentation would be greater.

Nancy:

If there was more awareness then these animals would have to be treated in a certain way. If we talk about this more the animals will get treated better.

Not enough regulation

A further theme raised was that there was not enough regulation. Angharad described the exemption of research animals from the Animal Welfare Act as a ‘disgrace’ while Mairead, Erin, Nigel, George and Neville all suggested that the regulations were not nearly strict enough:

Mairead:

There should be some decent minimum standards.

Erin:

They prosecute individuals that abuse animals, so why don’t they prosecute these big companies that are hurting these animals. You see it on the news that someone got so many years for abusing a dog but why hasn’t anybody done anything to these companies.

Profit motive

Linked to the theme of unnecessary suffering was the theme of the profit motive. While the HCPs acknowledged that some animal research was undertaken by not-for-profit groups, they asserted that the majority was conducted by drug companies producing therapies in order to make a profit. The theme of profit was linked to the theme of validity and the theme of suffering. In the view of these HCPs, to make a profit, these companies may be tempted to do the research as cheaply and as quickly as possible, compromising validity as well as animal welfare. This could lead to flawed protocol which could, in turn, lead to invalid results.

In favour of

While the overwhelming majority of HCPs in this study were opposed to the current system of animal experimentation, there were some who declared themselves in favour. Even among this cohort, however, such support was guarded:

Agatha:

I don’t like animal testing but sometimes it may be the only way but if they’re treated properly with decent welfare and proper rules and the animals are being well looked after then that’s OK but as soon as they mistreat the animals or over breed or anything like that the license should be gone. However I do think sometimes it’s a necessary evil and I still do believe that there is a remit for animal testing.

Alessia:

If they found a cure for horrendous diseases such as cancer or Parkinson’s or MS and it would mean that they would have to test on rats but because they’re testing on rats they would find a cure then I would be for it. but I would not support random testing out of curiosity that wouldn’t actually achieve anything. I think it has to have set guidelines and purpose but I would want somebody to find a cure and if that meant testing on animals I would be okay with that.

Joy:

I do agree that these animals are suffering and I totally disagree that this should happen. But through this testing we can get certain drugs that we use in our treatment which have been tested on live animals. Most people will be so scared to be the first to test such medications so I don’t think we should stop testing animals.

Some HCPs therefore clearly felt there was no alternative to animal testing. However, even these HCPs were critical of the way such experimentation was carried out under the current system. While giving support to the principle of animal experimentation, they emphasised the importance of minimising suffering, avoiding testing for curiosity and removing licences where standards had been contravened.

Discussion

The findings from this study indicate that among this sample of health professionals, there was significant opposition to the current system of animal experimentation. In their qualitative testimony, HCPs were concerned about failure to use alternatives, lack of validity of results, unnecessary suffering, the secrecy in which the research was conducted, lack of public awareness about the practice, lack of regulation and sanctions and the profit motive driving research. In addition, favourable quantitative attitude statements relating to the current system of animal experimentation were refuted by the clear majority of health professionals in this study.

HCPs were concerned that alternatives to animal testing (e.g. genetic modelling and in vitro testing) were not widely used and that companies opted for the cheaper method of animal research. With regard to validity, concerns about the accuracy of results were apparent. Having undertaken an advanced research method’s module, the HCPs were ‘research literate’ in comparison to the ‘average person’ (Brody et al., 2012). It is significant therefore that they queried the rigour of animal research with regard to protocol and procedure. A clear majority did not affirm quantitative statements that rigorous protocol was used in animal testing, nor that the testing produced valid results. The NMC (2008) states that nurses ‘must deliver care based on the best available evidence [and] must ensure any advice [they] … give is evidence-based’ (p. 6, Sackett et al., 2000; Straus et al., 2011). This study suggests, however, that animal testing is not viewed as evidence based. This is consistent with previous research (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006; Perel et al., 2007) which suggests that animal studies are poorly conducted and often invalid. Animal testing may therefore be viewed as a ritual, conducted because it has always been done that way, rather than because any systematic evidence is being generated.

Animal research still needs to establish exactly which tests are effective and which are not. According to some scholars, using animals may even delay or prevent the discovery of new lifesaving therapies (Greek and Greek, 2000) by generating misleading results. Similarly, we need to investigate whether aspects of the research protocol can be made more humane. It may be the case, for example, that tests could be halted at a much earlier stage (with less suffering and fewer fatalities) and equally valid findings could be produced.

HCPs were also concerned that animal research was conducted in secret. Such secrecy compromised the validity of the research, by removing it from external scrutiny, and made it less likely that animal welfare standards would be maintained. Because of such secrecy, there was a lack of awareness about animal experimentation. More public awareness would increase the likelihood of improved animal welfare and reduce animal testing. HCPs were also concerned with unnecessary suffering and deprivation. Animals could have had their lives enriched prior to (and during) the experiment with proper exercise, toys and better food, but in many cases this did not happen. In addition, animals who had survived the research process and could have been rehomed were euthanised.

Concern with regard to the profit motive was expressed both in qualitative testimony and in responses to the quantitative statements. In the view of these HCPs, animal research was often undertaken by large ‘for-profit’ companies who wanted their products to reach the market before those of their competitors. Such companies may cut corners on research procedure (Perel et al., 2007), and the welfare of the animals may therefore be compromised.

Compassion and empathy play a vital role in caring for patients and also in attitudes towards animal experimentation (Furnham et al., 2003; Serpell, 2004) with empathic and compassionate people showing higher levels of opposition to the practice. Nurses usually display high levels of compassion (de Zulueta, 2013) so it is unsurprising that such a group would be opposed to animal research. In addition, 84 per cent of the sample were women, and almost all studies of attitudes to animal experimentation suggest that women are much more likely to oppose such testing than men (Furnham et al., 2003; Hagelin et al., 2003; Swami et al., 2008).

The study clearly contains limitations. For example, the nurses were being taught by someone who did not support the current system of animal experimentation. They therefore may have been tempted to answer in the way they felt she would want them to (Bowling, 2014). It is unlikely, however, that the overwhelming opposition found in this study can be accounted for by ‘interviewer expectancy’ alone. A further limitation was that qualitative data were gathered in focus groups where the views of more vocal members may dominate (Smithson, 2000). This limitation was addressed by administering a quantitative questionnaire before the focus groups (in order to elicit everyone’s views and to triangulate results; Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). Findings from the questionnaire were consistent with those from the focus groups, and triangulating the results increased the study’s validity. This study therefore provides clear preliminary findings that participating HCPs were highly opposed to the current system of animal testing.

Conclusion

Nurses make up the majority of HCPs in the NHS (DOH, 2012) and are the professionals who spend the most time with patients. They have a key interest in the development of lifesaving drugs and therapies and would be likely to support any method which would lead to the development of new treatments. It is highly interesting that such professionals should have expressed such clear misgivings about the way in which the current system of animal experimentation operates. In an era where compassion is seen as central to the delivery of healthcare (de Zulueta, 2013), the nurses in this study appeared to display compassion not only to their patients but also to the animals on whom the drugs they dispense are tested. This study suggests that these nurses did not support the current system of testing medications on animals.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Appendix 2 Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Animal Aid (2006) Unhappy Anniversary: Twenty years of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Tonbridge: Animal Aid. Available at: http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/unhappy.pdf (accessed 11 May 2014).

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986) Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1968. London: HMSO. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/14/contents (accessed 11 May 2014).

Animal Welfare Act (2006) Animal Welfare Act 2006 (Section 58). London: HMSO. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/pdfs/ukpga_20060045_en.pdf (accessed 11 May 2014).

Bowling

(2014) Research Methods in Health: Investigating Health and Health Services (4th edn). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

Brody

Dalen

Annett

, et al. (2012) Conceptualizing the role of research literacy in advancing societal health. Journal of Health Psychology 17(5): 724–730.

Broughton

(2001) Seeing is believing: Cruelty to dogs at Huntington Life Sciences. The Ecologist 31(2): 31–33.

BUAV (2011) BUAV review of scientific publications concludes reporting of animal use and care and implementation of the 3Rs as wholly inadequate. BUAV Press Release (3 September 2011). Available at: http://www.buav.org/_lib/userfiles/files/20110309-BUAV-reviews-3Rs-reporting-in-scientific-publications-ATLA.pdf (accessed 11 May 2014).

Crossley

(2003) Would you consider yourself a healthy person? Using focus groups to explore health as a moral phenomenon. Journal of Health Psychology 8(5): 501–514.

Denzin

Lincoln

(2011) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

10.

De Zulueta

(2013) Compassion in healthcare. Clinical Ethics 8(4): 87–90.

11.

Dignon

(2016) ‘I think it will eventually be done away with’: Attitudes among health care professionals towards the current system of animal experimentation. Journal of Health Psychology 8: 1630–1643.

12.

Dignon

(1996) Acceptability of computer administered psychiatric interviews. Computers in Human Behavior 12: 177–191.

13.

DOH (2012) Liberating the NHS: Developing the Healthcare Workforce from Design to Delivery. London: HMSO.

14.

European Union (2013) Seventh Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union. Brussels: European Union. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0859 (accessed 25 September 2016).

15.

Friedman

Amoo

(1999) Rating the rating scales. Journal of Marketing Management 9(3): 114–123.

16.

Furnham

McManus

Scott

(2003) Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoös 16(2): 135–146.

17.

Gerrish

Lacey

(2013) The Research Process in Nursing (6th edn). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

18.

Glick

(1995) Animals for teaching purposes: Medical students’ attitude. Medical Education 29(1): 39–42.

19.

Gooden

Winefield

(2007) Breast and prostate cancer online discussion boards: A thematic analysis of gender differences and similarities. Journal of Health Psychology 12(1): 103–114.

20.

Greek

(2000) Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals. London: Bloomsbury.

21.

Hackam

Redelmeier

(2006) Translation of research evidence from animals to human. The Journal of the American Medical Association 296: 1731–1732.

22.

Hagelin

Carlsson

Hau

(2003) An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: Some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Understanding of Science 12: 67–81.

23.

Haugen

(2006) Animal Experimentation (Opposing Viewpoints). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.

24.

Heywood

(1990) Clinical toxicity – could it have been predicted?:Post marketing Experience In: Lumley

Walker

(eds) Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man. Lancaster: Quay Publishing: 57-67.

25.

Home Office (2013) Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. London: HMSO. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212610/spanimals12.pdf (accessed 12 May 2014).

26.

Home Office (2014a) Annual Statistics on Animal Research. London: HMSO. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469508/spanimals14.pdf (accessed 22 September 2016).

27.

Home Office (2014b) Consultation on the Review of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. London: HMSO. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/307830/Section24ASPAconsultation.pdf (accessed 22 September 2016).

28.

Hunnicutt

(2013) Animal Experimentation (at Issue). Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press.

29.

Ipsos MORI (2006) Survey for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI): Views on Animal Experimentation. London: Ipsos MORI. Available at: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/dti.pdf (accessed 13 May 2014).

30.

Ipsos MORI (2010) Survey for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS): Views on the Use of Animals in Scientific Research. London: Ipsos MORI. Available at: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1343_sri-views-on-animal-experimentation-2010.pdf (accessed 22 September 2016).

31.

Ipsos MORI (2012) Survey for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS): Views on the Use of Animals in Scientific Research. London: Ipsos MORI. Available at: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1512_sriBIS_animal_research_2012_final_report_September_published_final.pdf (accessed 13 May 2014).

32.

Ipsos MORI (2016) Survey for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: Public Attitudes to Animal Research in 2016. London: Ipsos MORI. Available at: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/sri-public-attitudes-to-animal-research-2016.pdf (accessed 22 September 2016).

33.

Jowett

Peel

Shaw

(2012) Sex and diabetes: A thematic analysis of gay and bisexual men’s accounts. Journal of Health Psychology 17(3): 409–418.

34.

NMC (2008) The Code: Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics for Nurses and Midwives. London: NMC.

35.

Ogden

(2012) How meaningful are data from Likert scales? An evaluation of how ratings are made and the role of the response shift in the socially disadvantaged. Journal of Health Psychology 17(3): 350–361.

36.

Oppenheim

(2005) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. New York: Continuum.

37.

Ormandy

Schuppli

(2014) Public attitudes towards animal research. Animals 4(3): 391–408.

38.

Perel

Roberts

Sena

, et al. (2007) Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. British Medical Journal 334: 197–200.

39.

Press Association (2014) Animal rights activists jailed for six years for Huntington Life Sciences plot. The Guardian, 17 April, p. 14.

40.

Regan

Morrison

(2013) Adolescents’ negative attitudes towards non-drinkers: A novel predictor of risky drinking. Journal of Health Psychology 18(11): 1465–1477.

41.

Resnicow

Andrews

Zhang

, et al. (2012) Development of a scale to measure African American attitudes toward organ donation. Journal of Health Psychology 17(3): 389–398.

42.

Royal College of Nursing (2012) RCN Fact Sheet, Nurse Prescribing in the UK. London: RCN.

43.

Sackett

Straus

Richardson

, et al. (2000) Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. London: Churchill Livingstone.

44.

Serpell

(2004) Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare 13: 145–151.

45.

Shaw

Bassi

(2001) Lay attitudes toward genetic testing for susceptibility to inherited diseases. Journal of Health Psychology 6(4): 405–423.

46.

Smithson

(2000) Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3(2): 103–119.

47.

Straus

Richardson

Glasziou

, et al. (2011) Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM (4th edn). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.

48.

Sullivan

(2003) Gendered cybersupport: A thematic analysis of two online cancer support groups. Journal of Health Psychology 8(1): 83–104.

49.

Swami

Furnham

Chrisptopher

(2008) Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 49: 269–276.

50.

Taylor

(2010) Reporting the implementation of the three Rs in European primate and mouse research papers: Are we making progress? Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 38: 495–517.

51.

The Economist (2011) Animal-rights protests: A beastly business: Peaceful protests against animal testing are on the rise, The Economist, 22 October, p. 11.

52.

The Scientific Committee on Health and Environment Risks (SCHER) (2009) The Need for Non-Human Primates in Biomedical Research, Production and Testing of Products and Devices. Brussels: European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_110.pdf (accessed 13 May 2014).

53.

Widdicombe

(2014) Animal testing should not be shrouded in secrecy: We need real reform now. The Guardian, 17 May, p. 14.

54.

Wilkinson

(1998) Focus groups in health research: Exploring the meanings of health and illness. Journal of Health Psychology 3(3): 329–348.