IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01272-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Invertebrate research without ethical or regulatory oversight reduces public confidence and trust

Author

Listed:
  • Michael W. Brunt

    (The University of British Columbia)

  • Henrik Kreiberg

    (Government of Canada)

  • Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk

    (The University of British Columbia)

Abstract

Ethical and regulatory oversight of research animals is focused on vertebrates and rarely includes invertebrates. Our aim was to undertake the first study to describe differences in public confidence, trust, and expectations for the oversight of scientists using animals in research. Participants were presented with one of four treatments using a 2 by 2 design; terrestrial (T; mice and grasshoppers) vs. aquatic (A; zebrafish and sea stars) and vertebrates (V; mice and zebrafish) vs. invertebrates (I; grasshoppers and sea stars). A representative sample of census-matched Canadian participants (n = 959) stated their confidence in oversight, trust in scientists and expectation of oversight for invertebrates on a 7-point Likert scale. Participants’ open-ended text reasoning for confidence and expectations of oversight were subjected to thematic analysis. Participants believed invertebrates should receive some level of oversight but at two-thirds of that currently afforded to vertebrates. Four primary themes emerged to explain participant expectation: (1) value of life, (2) animal experience, (3) participant reflection, and (4) oversight system centered. Confidence in oversight was highest for TV (mean ± SE; 4.5 ± 0.08) and AV (4.4 ± 0.08), less for TI (3.8 ± 0.10), and least for AI (3.5 ± 0.08), indicating the absence of oversight decreased public confidence. Four themes emerged to explain participant confidence, centered on: (1) animals, (2) participant reflection, (3) oversight system, and (4) science. Trust in scientists was similar for TV (4.3 ± 0.07) and AV (4.2 ± 0.07), but higher for TV compared to TI (4.1 ± 0.07) and TV and AV compared to AI (4.0 ± 0.06); absence of oversight decreased public trust in scientists. These results, provide the first evidence that the public believe invertebrates should receive some level of oversight if used for scientific experiments. The gap that exists between current and public expectations for the oversight of invertebrates may threaten the social licence to conduct scientific research on these animals.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael W. Brunt & Henrik Kreiberg & Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk, 2022. "Invertebrate research without ethical or regulatory oversight reduces public confidence and trust," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01272-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01272-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01272-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01272-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Suzanne Slocum-Gori & Bruno Zumbo, 2011. "Assessing the Unidimensionality of Psychological Scales: Using Multiple Criteria from Factor Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 443-461, July.
    2. L. J. Frewer & C. Howard & D. Hedderley & R. Shepherd, 1996. "What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lynn J. Frewer & Chaya Howard & Duncan Hedderley & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food‐Related Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 95-102, February.
    2. Satish Kumar & Filomena Maggino & Raj V. Mahto & Riya Sureka & Leonardo Salvatore Alaimo & Weng Marc Lim, 2022. "Social Indicators Research: A Retrospective Using Bibliometric Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 413-448, July.
    3. Dan Jiang & Guangling Zhang, 2021. "Marketing Clues on the Label Raise the Purchase Intention of Genetically Modified Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Hanna Valerie Wolf & Tanja Perko & Peter Thijssen, 2020. "How to Communicate Food Safety after Radiological Contamination: The Effectiveness of Numerical and Narrative News Messages," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Ying Zhu & Xiaowei Wen & May Chu & Gongliang Zhang & Xuefan Liu, 2021. "Consumers’ Food Safety Risk Communication on Social Media Following the Suan Tang Zi Accident: An Extended Protection Motivation Theory Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-19, July.
    6. Mathew P. White & Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1196-1209, August.
    7. Anna C. Hurlimann, 2007. "Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australian community’s perspective," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 83-94, March.
    8. Kostagiolas, Petros & Korfiatis, Nikolaos & Kourouthanasis, Panos & Alexias, Georgios, 2014. "Work-related factors influencing doctors search behaviors and trust toward medical information resources," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 80-88.
    9. Kânoğlu-Özkan, Dilge Güldehen & Soytaş, Uğur, 2022. "The social acceptance of shale gas development: Evidence from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    10. Dirk Grasmück & Roland W. Scholz, 2005. "Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination by High‐Exposed and Low‐Exposed Inhabitants: The Role of Knowledge and Emotional Concerns," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 611-622, June.
    11. Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2006. "Psychological Determinants of Reactions to Food Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1045-1057, August.
    12. Ashkan Pakseresht & Anna Kristina Edenbrandt & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2021. "Genetically modified food and consumer risk responsibility: The effect of regulatory design and risk type on cognitive information processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    13. Douglas J. Sylvester & Kenneth W. Abbott & Gary E. Marchant, 2009. "Not again! Public perception, regulation, and nanotechnology," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 165-185, June.
    14. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    15. Lynn J. Frewer & Chaya Howard & Duncan Hedderley & Richard Shepherd, 1997. "The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Communication About Food Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 759-770, December.
    16. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    17. Mathew P. White & Sabine Pahl & Marc Buehner & Andres Haye, 2003. "Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 717-726, August.
    18. Farinaz Havaei & V. Susan Dahinten, 2017. "How Well Does the CWEQ II Measure Structural Empowerment? Findings from Applying Item Response Theory," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-20, May.
    19. César Merino-Soto & Arturo Juárez-García & Guillermo Salinas Escudero & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Parametric and Nonparametric Analysis of the Internal Structure of the Psychosocial Work Processes Questionnaire (PROPSIT) as Applied to Workers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-23, June.
    20. John T. Brady, 2012. "Health risk perceptions across time in the USA," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(6), pages 547-563, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01272-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.