自然科学实验班 11307110002 蔡彦玮 ENGL110046.01
学术英语（社会科学）
【 Abstract 】
In this study, 75 Chinese undergraduates completed a questionnaire that measured attitudes toward animal testing. Their attitudes are categorized into two factors: general attitudes toward animal testing, and opinions of animal welfare and conditions of testing. Overall, there is support for animal testing provided with some conditions, although there is also concern for the welfare of animals and lab regulations in China. These results are discussed in relation to previous work of other countries. Some significant national differences (that Chinese are more positive about testing and less positive about lab-animal welfare), and the absence of gender difference (that women are as pro-animal testing as man) are found in the study.
【 Introduction 】
Animal testing , also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, refers to the use of animals in experiments within academic, research, or commercial establishments. It is affirmed that virtually every medical and biological breakthrough in the 21st century relied on the use of animals in some way, which aroused much controversies around the world, especially in institutions of high education. In this context, the objective of this essay is to investigate Chinese undergraduates' attitudes towards animal testing. Through questionnaire and interview, undergraduates' level of understanding of animal testing as well as opinion of animal welfare and related ethical issues are investigated. The findings of the research are analyzed for further comparison of the differences of undergraduates' attitudes with different culture background.
【 Literature Review 】
Supporters of the use of animals in experiments, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way [1] , and the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences argues that even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in many areas [2] . Animal rights, and some animal welfare, organizations—such as PETA and BUAV—question the legitimacy of it, arguing that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, poorly regulated, that medical progress is being held back by misleading animal models, that some of the tests are outdated, that it cannot reliably predict effects in humans, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation [3] .
There are various data indicating the necessity of animal testing's . While alternative methods such as computer program and cell culture have been developed for many types of testing, the use of animals must still be embraced under the background that alternative testing methods have not proven themselves to be as reliable and applicable as animal testing [4] .
In addition, given the great distinction between species, there are great differences in

自然科学实验班 11307110002 蔡彦玮 ENGL110046.01
学术英语（社会科学） responses/reaction between animals and humans to particular drugs and bio-products. One example of the danger of relying on animal models for drug testing is the case of the drug Vioxx manufactured by Merck Laboratories [5] . More than 80 million people worldwide used this drug in the treatment of arthritis. However, the drug which was found to have "heart protective effect" among mice proved to be carrying a high risk for causing heart attacks among humans. As Dr.
John J. Pippin, M.D and chief advisor to the FDA stated, the Vioxx animal testing debacle is not unique. Over the years, millions of patients have been exposed to harmful drugs, such as Rezulin and Baycol, that seemed safe in tests on mice, dogs, rats, monkeys, horses, and other animals.
Ethically, the most important fact is that animals do have the feeling of suffering. Currently, some organizations have claimed that a large proportion of animal procedures involve only mild procedures such as a single injection, a blood sample or a change of diet. Where significant pain or distress could be caused, pain killers or anaesthetics must be considered according to local regulations. However, no data concerning the reality of lab animal's actual situation are found [6] .
An issue more relevant to Chinese is that China has become a hotspot for animal testing outsourcing. Beijing, for example, provides scarce implementation and regulation of its animal regulations. What is more concerning is the fact that these guidelines were not even created until
2004 and are poorly performed. There is said to be little document of how companies in China conduct animal testing because documentation is not required. Without the appropriate clause to ensure that documentation is mandatory, companies may have little motivation to make an effort to ensure animal welfare is safeguarded.
As a result of these controversies, throughout the years there have been various groups protesting using animals for the purpose of testing products which include medical products and consumer products. At the same time, many biology and medicine groups are calling for using animal testing rationally for cures and discoveries about illnesses and disorders. This paper may fill the vacancy of research about general attitudes of Chinese undergraduates towards animal testing.
【 Methodology 】
The main method of the research is online questionnaire, assisted by interview. The survey is divided into two parts, the first part investigates students' understanding of animal testing while the second one investigates opinions of animal welfare and relevant ethics. By comparing certain related questions in the two parts, comprehensive understanding can be obtained. The questions are categorized into five sets:
(No.5)Do you think animal testing can reliably predict effects in humans? (Yes/No)
(No.6)Have you heard about the misleading effects of animal models? (Yes/No)
(No.7)Have you heard about alternative methods of animal testing(eg. computer program and cell culture)? (Yes/No)___Do you think them as reliable as animal testing? (Yes/No)
Questions 5-7 aim to test participators' understanding of the capability of animal testing and its alternative methods. Yes/No questions are used to get clear and simplified answers.
(No.8)Have you heard about legal regulation of animal testing in some countries? (Yes/No) In

自然科学实验班 11307110002 蔡彦玮 ENGL110046.01
学术英语（社会科学）
China? (Yes/No)
(No.9)What do you think that best described the bio-lab situation around the world?
(No.10) What do you think that best described the bio-lab situation in China?
In this set, a pair of Yes/No question is used to test undergraduates' knowledge of certain lab-regulation around the world and in China. Then each participator is told to score for the average bio-lab situation of the two ranges. The statistical result of Yes/No questions and the relative value of the scores will be analyzed to estimate students' concern and expectation of lab-animal regulations and conditions of testing.
(No.11)Do you think animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation? (Yes/No)
(No.13)Do you think animal testing is cruel, poor scientific practice? (Yes/No)
(No.14)Do you support the idea to build more monuments for animals? (Yes/No)
(No.12)Do you think the costs outweigh the benefits? (Yes/No)
The purpose of the first three questions is to reflects participators' attitudes towards the cost of animal testing. The last question requires students to generate a clear judgment between the costs and benefits. These data is collected to help confirm students' attitudes.
(No.4)Can you identify the differences between animal testing for medical products, for consumer products and for pure research?
(No.15)Do you support the involvement of animal testing to consumer products(eg. cosmetic products)? (Yes/No)
This set focuses on the involvement of animal testing in consumer products, which are generally regarded as having limited contributions to scientific progress. Analysis of data in this set is likely to get further understanding of students' apparent value.
(No.16)Do you think animal testing will still be the mainstream technology in research in the next two decades? (Yes/No)
(No.17)One word to summary your attitude towards animal testing_______
The last question requests participates' attitude directly. Their answer will then be categorized as positive, neutral or negative for data analysis.
【 Data Analysis 】
During 6-13 March 2012, 75 undergraduates handed in their feedback online, among which 53.3% are male students and 20% students' major is related to biology and medicine. Moreover, 26.7% students have personal experience of animal testing. Though most of the sample are students in high ranking colleges in Shanghai, the sample still represent deep-minded undergraduates growing up under modern Chinese culture .
There are 66.7% undergraduates who believe animal testing can reliably predict effects in humans though more than 53% students have heard about the misleading effects of animal models. When it comes to alternative methods, 60% believe they are not as reliable as animal testing. Answers to the first set of questions indicate that students' understanding of scientific power of animal testing is consistent with current mainstream view. Therefore, we can conclude that enough knowledge has been accumulated to form undergraduates' independent attitudes.

自然科学实验班 11307110002 蔡彦玮 ENGL110046.01
学术英语（社会科学）
In the second set, 60% students have heard about certain legal regulations, however, only one third of whom have some knowledge of Chinese lab regulation. When told to score for bio-lab situation around the world and China, participators generally score 26% higher for foreign laboratories than for Chinese labs, among which 66.7% describe bio-lab situation in China as "poorly complying with regulations". These data clearly showed that most students are not concerned about lab-animal regulations and conditions of testing in China, which they don't expect to be animal-friendly.
The third set reveals that about three quarters of the respondents show clear awareness of lab-animals' suffering. However, there are still 63% respondents hold the view that the benefits outweigh the costs. At the same time, the fourth set shows the case that 88% participants have the awareness of animal testing for consumer products and there are still 56% support the involvement of animal testing in cosmetic products. The primacy of pro attitude towards animal testing in consumer products suggest participators' overall approval of animal testing.
For the last set, it is unexpected that almost all the participators believe animal testing will still be the mainstream technology in research in the next two decades. Their personal attitude can be simplified as 65% positive, 30% neutral and 5% negative. Students whose major is related to biology and medicine have a higher rate of support than other students. And there is no significant differences between male students and female students.
【 Discussion 】
The purpose of the study is to investigate Chinese undergraduates' awareness of technological development concerning animal testing and current situation of regulation, besides their attitudes towards animal testing as a whole.
Overall, the participants of this study appear to be quite supportive of animal testing and welfare, as indicated by the relatively positive answers of question (12)(15)(16)(17). It should be pointed out that this is to some extent different from the results of earlier studies, which generally find that attitudes toward animal testing to be negative. It may be that in China debates about the benefits of animal testing, particularly for the advancement of the medical and biological sciences, have filtered down to university undergraduates who are likely to encounter such debates in academic activities. In general, the present results suggest that attitudes toward animal testing may be more positive than previous studies have found.
Compared to some research (reference[7][8]), the findings clearly suggest that there are significant cross-nation differences. Chinese undergraduates were more positive than British counterparts in their attitudes toward animal testing, and were also less confident, or in other words, less concerned about animal welfare and conditions of testing. This may result from the differences of comprehensive national strength, social welfare standards and cultural background of the two countries. An alternative explanation is that these findings are a statistical defect as a result of poor sample representativeness (as mentioned above and will be further discussed). Future studies should, therefore, attempt to replicate these findings across cultures while using larger and more

自然科学实验班 11307110002 蔡彦玮 ENGL110046.01
学术英语（社会科学） representative samples.
It also seems to be the case that the significant differences found between different genders in a
British study are not obvious among Chinese undergraduates. In the research, female participators tend to be a little more anti-animal testing than male participators. this difference in attitudes may be associated with women being more “tender-minded” than men, which leads them to being more concerned about issues involving pain or death [9] . That is to say, Chinese women of the new generation may be less tender-minded or men be more tender-minded. However, chances are that the dilution of the difference is merely the counteract of the overall positive attitudes and poor sample representativeness. Anyway, the difference can be one objective for future research.
The results of this study are of direct practical relevance. They reinforce the recommendation for involving more relevant courses in higher education to help undergraduates develop independent thinking. A more important implication of these findings is the comparative study of modern
Chinese society. Since the research results are discussed in relation to past and foreign work on animal testing, the study is capable of reflecting some aspects of Chinese social development, which are embodied in undergraduates.
In terms of limitations, the research did however look at a narrow range of scientific area of animal testing- mainly about the clarification and model effects- taken by undergraduates from only a few universities. It may be the case that students from other colleges intending to concern about other parts- for example the differences between monkeys and nematodes as the test animals- would not judge in the same way. It is also not clear whether less educated students would have the same opinion as most students being investigated.
In conclusion, this study shows that the Chinese undergraduates' attitudes towards animal testing tend to be more positive than the older generation and their Britain counterparts. In addition, the lack of gender difference in the study and undergraduates' indifferent attitudes towards Chinese lab regulation are also points for further discussion. Furthering this research will be of importance for public debate over animal testing, and over undergraduates’ education.
【 Reference 】
[1] The use of non-human animals in research: a guide for scientists The Royal Society , 2004, page
[2] "Science, Medicine, and Animals" , Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Published by the National Research Council of the National Academies 2004; page 2
[3] "Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs" , People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals , accessed July 5, 2010.
"UK Legislation: A Criticism" , accessed July 5, 2010, and "FAQs: Vivisection" , British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection .
"Biomedical research" , The Humane Society of the United States, accessed July 5, 2010.
"Animal experimentation issues" , Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine .
Croce, Pietro. Vivisection or Science? An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding
Health . Zed Books, 1999.

自然科学实验班 11307110002 蔡彦玮 ENGL110046.01
学术英语（社会科学）
Langley, Gill . Animal research is poor science , Peter Tatchell interviews Gill Langley of the Dr
Hadwen Trust , accessed July 5, 2010. Langley argues that animal research is holding back medical progress at circa 07:16 minutes, and that some of the tests are outdated at circa 11:15 minutes.
[4] Carbone, Larry. '"What Animal Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare
Policy . Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 68–69.
[5]Carbone 2004, p. 94.
[6] Science 27 July 2001: Vol. 293. no. 5530, pp. 608 – 609 doi : 10.1126/science.1061621
PMID
11474086
[7] Views on Animal Experimentation(BIS research) 29 March 2011 SRI HEALTH BIS NC3Rs combined animal experimentation 2011 FINAL report PUBLIC 110411
[8] Swami, V., Furnham, A. & Christopher, A. N. (2008). Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 49 ,
269–276.
[9] Broida, L., Tingley, L., Kimball, R. & Miele, R. (1993). Personality differences between pro- and anti-vivisectionists. Society and Animals , 1 , 129–144.