Sign In
New Zealand
News release
From:
New Study Reveals New Zealanders' Views on Animal Use in Scientific Research and Teaching
Wellington, New Zealand – A recently conducted study reveals New Zealanders’ perspectives and knowledge on the use of animals in scientific research, testing, and teaching. The study was conducted on behalf of the New Zealand board of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART NZ). It uses a robust methodology to capture a diverse range of views, the survey provides a comprehensive and reliable insight into a topic of significant societal and ethical importance in New Zealand. Its results are important for all stakeholders: animals, organisations that use animals in research, testing and teaching, research funders, animal welfare organisations, veterinarians, government and others overseeing animal use, and the public.
Key findings from the research include:
1. High Engagement but an Information Gap: Animal use in scientific research is a topic of significant interest to New Zealanders, with 94% of respondents caring to some degree about the issue, and 67% caring moderately or very much. However, there is a discernible gap in knowledge. Only 16% feel well-informed about the regulation of this animal use, and 43% of respondents acknowledged a lack of awareness regarding the permitted uses of animals. Animal use for cosmetic testing is banned in New Zealand, but only a third of respondents thought this was so.
2. Most research uses are accepted: Over 60% of respondents found animal use acceptable for improving animal health, species conservation, biological research, environmental management, developing live animal alternatives, and animal husbandry. Veterinary research was the most accepted at 69%, with only 8% opposing it. The majority (62%) also
supports developing alternatives to live animal use.
3. Greater opposition to some uses: Producing offspring with compromised welfare was the only use the majority judge unacceptable, with 56% against and only 17% in favour. There is also majority opposition to animal testing of harmful chemicals, with between 59% and 64% finding it unacceptable depending on whether they harm people, animals, plants or the environment. Using animals to produce biological agents and product testing on animals were both judged acceptable by only a third of respondents, with almost equal unacceptability.
4. Varied Opinions on Regulation: While 48% of respondents believe that the current oversight by Animal Ethics Committees is adequate, 54% state a preference for more public involvement in ethical approval, and 44% more government involvement.
5. Mixed Perceptions of Animal Research Organisations: About a quarter of those surveyed are unsure of their stance on organisations involved in animal research but 34% believe these organisations carry out work essential for human health. A quarter of respondents hold the views that they are secretive, well-regulated, may have conflicts of interest, and adhere to good animal welfare standards, showing a mix of beliefs.
6. Demand for Increased Transparency and Public Engagement: A notable 76% of respondents express the need for more transparency from research institutions. Additionally, 54% of participants voice a desire for greater public involvement in related decision-making processes.
7. ANZCCART NZ Openness Agreement: There is a clear opportunity to increase public understanding of the ANZCCART NZ Openness Agreement, which aims to increase accessibility of information about animal use in research and teaching, enhancing public understanding. Currently only 9% of respondents are currently aware of it. Around two
thirds of those respondents learned of the agreement either from the ANZCCART NZ website or a scientific or medical publication.
8. Trusted Information Sources: Half of the survey participants place trust in animal welfare organisations for reliable information on the topic, and 42% trusted veterinarians who care for animals used in research, testing and teaching.
The findings underscore a collective concern for the ethical treatment of animals in scientific contexts. The desire for clarity, openness, and enhanced communication from all involved parties is clear. While online platforms are currently the primary source of information for many, there's a preference for accurate and comprehensive insights from trusted entities, and an opportunity for trust in others to be enhanced by greater openness and other measures.
The survey illuminates opportunities for enhanced dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders in animal research and the public. These include working with respected animal welfare organisations and veterinarians and making pertinent information about animal use and its ethical oversight more accessible. Animals used in research cannot represent themselves, so are dependent on societal views to protect and advance their welfare. The results of this survey must be listened to, and it should be repeated regularly to check progress, and to assist those striving for it.
About the Study: This research was undertaken by NielsenIQ on behalf of the New Zealand board of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) aimed at understanding public sentiments about the use of animals in scientific research, testing, and teaching within New Zealand. The study employed an extensive survey and sampling methodology ensuring a representative and diverse set of views. We would like to acknowledge and thank all respondents who participated in the survey. This project would not be possible without their input.
Expert Reaction
These comments have been collated by the Science Media Centre to provide a variety of expert perspectives on this issue. Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Views expressed are the personal opinions of the experts named. They do not represent the views of the SMC or any other organisation unless specifically stated.
Dr Christine Sumner, SPCA Scientific Officer
What we are reading from this report are some very positive shifts in public perception and understanding of animals being sentient creatures, capable of feeling emotions and experiencing pain and trauma. It features very strong signals to those who use animals in research, testing, and teaching – and to the government – that the public expects more development and implementation of alternatives to animals in research, testing, and teaching. Namely, that New Zealanders have high expectations for the welfare of animals used in research, testing, and teaching, that they want more transparency around this topic and that there is significant interest in alternatives to alleviate animal suffering.
“These points all align with our organisational position at SPCA – which is that we only support the keeping of animals for research, testing, and teaching when the animals' physical, health, and behavioural needs are met, and when it is ensured animals experience positive welfare for the entirety of their life.
Dr Jodi Salinsky, Animal Welfare Officer & University Veterinarian, University of Auckland
"Congratulations to ANZCCART and MPI on this important piece of work. It has been a long time coming, as the last survey of this kind was completed in 2005 (published in 2007). If we are to engage with our community and support understanding of animal-based research, testing, and teaching, it is important to consider their perceptions and opinions.
"These are interesting results that need more investigation, but it is clear that people want to know more. Fortunately, the NZ Openness Agreement has been signed by many members of the research community in Aotearoa, showing a willingness to work in this space. It fills me with pride that veterinarians working with animals in this field are a trusted source of information for people. I can confirm that these veterinarians care deeply for the animals, spending time and energy on ways to provide them with the best life possible, while helping ensure that research outcomes are as robust as possible."
Professor Ngaio Beausoleil, Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Massey University
A key finding of this study is that many members of the New Zealand public are interested in the use of animals in research and teaching but that they feel poorly informed about how such use is regulated and would like more information and transparency.
"To address such concerns, ANZCCART NZ spearheaded an Openness Agreement with the aim of encouraging organisations directly using animals and those supporting or funding the use of animals to be more open and transparent about these activities, their benefits and costs, including any harms to the animals involved. So far, 30 New Zealand organisations, including universities, companies and government agencies, have become signatories to the agreement. As well as initiating the Openness Agreement, ANZCCART provides information to the public about how the use of animals in research and teaching (at primary, secondary and tertiary levels) is regulated in New Zealand, what kinds of activities are permitted – with approval from an Animal Ethics Committee, and how the welfare of research/teaching animals can be improved.
"Given that this study highlighted the low level of public awareness about such matters, ANZCCART, signatories to the Openness Agreement, trusted animal welfare organisations and veterinarians could focus efforts on public outreach to help address concerns about the use of animals in research and teaching.
Dr Jim Webster, Team Leader Animal Ethics, AgResearch
Public insights provided by this report are of great value to researchers like myself who are grappling daily with the ethical issues of the use of animals in scientific research, testing, and teaching; as well as to organisations that are using animals for these purposes, to ensure that they are evolving in line with changing public expectations.
"The finding that there is considerable interest in the use of animals in research, yet not a great deal of knowledge regarding this use does not surprise me given the historical approach of research organisations to providing public information about animal research only when necessary.
"Encouragingly, there has been a shift towards greater transparency driven by an Openness Agreement on Animal Research and Teaching for New Zealand that was launched in 2021 and which many organisations are now signed up to. Organisations such as my own (AgResearch) have also been public in our commitment to only use animals in research if there is no non-animal alternative, and we’re also engaging with animal welfare and advocacy groups to share perspectives and find common ground.
"Ethical oversight of animal research was another area highlighted by the survey, with only half of respondents feeling it is adequate and requiring more public and government involvement. My view is that we have a rigorous system of ethical oversight that incorporates a blend of public and government involvement in New Zealand, but we clearly do need to keep working on building the public awareness and trust in this area.
Dr Mike King, Bioethics Centre, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin
Animal use in research, teaching and testing is a matter of ethical concern for many, and rightly so. At the centre of this issue is the welfare of animals, as well as the potential benefits gained from that use, for animals, people and the environment.
"Animals cannot represent themselves, but this survey provides an opportunity for others to represent them, along with their other values, and beliefs. Justifying the use of animals in research, testing or teaching hinges on a delicate balance of ethical values and obligations. This balance that is inherently complex, often leading to differing opinions among well-intentioned, reasonable people, even if there is much they also agree on.
"Understanding diverse viewpoints on this subject enriches our thinking, and all stakeholders in research, testing and teaching across the spectrum of this issue will have regard to the results presented in this report when thinking about their practices and seeking improvements. A progenitor to this survey was conducted almost 20 years ago. It should be repeated more often, perhaps biannually, mirroring the UK government approach with its “Public Attitudes To Animal Research” survey. Such regular polls are vital. They capture changing perspectives and steadfast convictions, providing essential insight for all parties involved and fostering progress.
