Scientists and animal research: Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde? - In the Company of Animals

Introduction

In the past two decades, bioscientists have been forced to confront an increasing variety of critics. Nevertheless, at the same time, scientists still belong to one of the most admired professions (Pion and Lipsey, 1981). In the USA, 88 percent of the public believe that the world is better off because of science and scientists are second only to medical doctors in public prestige (NSB, 1989). In the United Kingdom, the three most respected public institutions are medicine, the military, and scientists in that order (Kenward, 1989). Nonetheless, there is still an underlying level of public uneasiness about science and scientists.

One critical group that has grown tremendously in size and influence in the last twenty years is the animal protection movement. As in the nineteenth century, protests over the use of animals in research, testing, and education have touched a responsive chord among the general public. In fact, animal research has long been one of those "hot button" issues that has the capacity to stimulate impassioned opposition. While the level of opposition has waxed and waned over the past one hundred and fifty years, it currently stands at an all-time high. About 15-20 percent of the public would like to see all animal use in research and testing stopped immediately, while another large segment are uneasy about the practice but are prepared to accept it because of its perceived benefits. By contrast? 85 percent of the public agree or strongly agree with the statement that it is acceptable to kill and eat animals. (See Table 1 for public attitudes to different uses of animals.)

Table 1. Attitudes to different uses of animals--United States
(Parents Magazine, 1989). (Based on a randomly selected
sample of 1009 American Adults)

                          Wrong:       Disapprove:
                        Should be       but should
Activity                 illegal      not be illegal    Acceptable

Killing for Fur            63               22              13
Cosmetics Testing          58               23              13
Killing for Leather        46               23              27
Hunting for Sport          33               27              36
Medical Research           18               18              58
Animal Performances        16               16              63
Capture for Zoos           12               17              66
Killing for Food            5                7              85

Public Attitudes toward Science and to Scientists

According to Haynes (1994), Western traditions were inimical to science prior to 1600 when the desire for knowledge (except theology) was perceived as dangerous and evil. This attitude is clearly reflected by the Faust, legend in which the scientist, Dr. Faust, makes a pact with the devil to gain knowledge and power. Francis Bacon changed public attitudes to the search for knowledge by arguing that scientists were simply developing an understanding of God's laws, but, ever since, the vision of the scientist as a noble seeker after truth has had to vie with a range of more negative stereotypes. For the most part, literature and public attitudes appear to emphasize the baser aspects of scientific character, although there have been relatively brief periods when public admiration for science and scientists has overcome public concern. For example, after Newton's death in 1727, he was the subject of considerable public adulation, and portrayals of medical researchers in the nineteenth century were often complimentary to the point of eulogy.

In the twentieth century, there have been periods of widespread public support for scientists, but mad and evil scientists have never entirely disappeared from view. They have been a staple of pulp fiction and, according to Haynes, "with the exception of the superficial characters of much science fiction, the dominant picture has been of scientists who recapitulate the unflattering stereotypes of earlier centuries--the evil scientist,, the stupid scientist, the inhuman scientist . . .. the scientist who has lost control of his discovery . . . " (1994, p. 295).

During the period after the second World War, from the late 1940s through the 1950s, public support for science in the United States was very high. It was felt that federally funded science could surmount any problem the country or world could throw at it. The development of the polio vaccine was the clear example. However, beginning in the late 1960s and lasting throughout the 1970s, science was perceived by more and more of the public as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution. Problems arising from chemical pollution, the destruction of the rain forests, and nuclear power have tended to undermine the public's confidence in science. More media attention, that displayed both the human fallibility of scientists as well as their accomplishments, left the public less confident in the pronouncements of science.

There is a tendency to view the 1950s, when science and scientists enjoyed great prestige, as the norm and the current drop in public approval as an unfortunate trend that must be reversed. However, Haynes' analysis (1994) indicates that public attitudes, as reflected in literary figures, were more usually negative and suspicious than supportive. Allen (1993) also argues that the positive public attitudes in the 1950s were anomalous, and that the public is usually much more ambivalent about the activities of scientists.