Sub Groups

ANIMALS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY SUB GROUP

Informal review of “Animal Futures: Public Attitudes and Sensibilities towards Animals and Biotechnology in Contemporary Britain”

 Author: Phil Macnaghten

The research presented in the report focused on attitudes and related factors of the UK public towards animals and biotechnology. The research is embedded within the methodological frameworks provided within sociology,  and relies primarily on focus group methodology to examine issues relating to the public acceptance or rejection of different “uses” of animals, how attitudes towards different animals vary across different contexts and between different socio-economic groups, and the individual responsibilities felt by members of the public towards animals. The methods adopted develop these themes in order to (ultimately) focus discussion on how participants view current and future applications of animal biotechnology. In my opinion, the research presented is methodologically rigorous. The results appear to form a solid platform of direct use to the development of policy recommendations, and are likely to be extremely useful to AEBC in its review of regulation of animals and biotechnology.

The results of the research are fascinating, in that they provide insight into the tension between attitudes and emotions towards animals in different roles (for example, as companion animals compared to farm livestock, or as wildlife, objects of prey or working animals). Differences appeared dependent on the background of participants and the “instrumental” uses to which they applied animals (or not). These tensions are likely to have profound implications for the acceptability (or otherwise) of different applications of animal biotechnology to the UK population. In particular, they indicate the potential for profound segmentation of public attitudes towards animal biotechnology. Different “axes” which defined public attitudes appeared to be linked to the extent to which an animal was used for food and clothing, as compared to companionship, or whether animals were being used in the context of medical or cosmetics research testing.  Frequently the boundaries between these activities began to blur according to immediate contexts as participants explored issues in depth. Participants attitudes towards the use of increased animal testing as the result of biotechnology innovations was similarly channelled according to the type of application, and the extent to which it was perceived as “useful”, something which, participants thought, needed to be assessed through public debate as well as through “scientific” assessment processes alone. Genetic modification of animals proved more controversial as far as participants were concerned. In common with much of the published literature, the results indicated that public concerns focused on whether such activity was necessary, was representative of  “tampering with nature”, or ethically problematic in some intrinsic sense. Instrumental users of animals were also ambivalent about genetically modified animals, voicing concerns about other socio-economic factors such as differential impact on producers in different parts of the rural economy. Participants also expressed a preference for greater public inclusion in the decision-making process and regulatory framework associated with animal biotechnology. The perceived need for greater public involvement and regulatory transparency has been observed in other areas of science governance, and is not confined to the emerging biosciences. Potential “triggers” of future public concern were identified – unnecessary animal testing, the socio-economic basis for justifying the “new genetics”, and the fundamental integrity of animals.

General comments

The research relies entirely on focus group methodology. The approach adopted by the researchers is rigorous and, as far as I can judge, not having been in attendance at the focus groups, the interpretation is reliable and accurate. All research methods have strong points, limitations, and restrictions (indeed the authors explicitly develop this theme on page 11). Triangulation of the results against those obtained from other methodologies would strengthen the interpretation of the findings – although such activity has most likely been, I suspect, curtailed by resource limitations rather than intent. Indeed, the authors are quite clear that their results are preliminary rather than definitive, a comment perhaps to be considered in the development of future research activities.

A further limitation of the research is that the authors have not referred to extensively to previous investigations / research activities which have relevance to the key research questions. Many key studies are not included in the Annex. I understand that the authors were specifically invited to build on a review of literature on public attitudes to animals and biotechnology undertaken previously for the AEBC by Professor Glynnis Breakwell.   The research therefore needs to be read against the background of the Breakwell report.  Explicitly demonstrating the consistency (or otherwise) of the results against other research outputs would certainly provide additional validation of the key findings: from the perspective of optimising policy outputs, I believe it is important to consider the results of research activity from varied disciplinary perspectives.   None-the-less, despite the absence of an explicit comparative analysis, the key results to not appear to differ substantially from those observed within the literature more generally, and there is no reason to doubt their validity.

I am also surprised that the views of “active supporters of campaigning groups” were excluded – Do these voices not represent a legitimate part of British opinion? I am not sure why it was thought inappropriate for the researchers to include representatives of these groups in a separate focus group. Is it because such individuals are assumed to be a very minor “segment” of UK society? It would be useful for the researchers to add further explanation of their participant selection methodology on page 11, paragraph 2.

Lynn Frewer

17^th July 2002