Study Reveals How People Perceive Laboratory Animals Compared to Other Species

A recent study, published in the academic journal *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, sought to examine the process by which people reduce the moral burden associated with the use of animals in experiments and their perceptions of these animals in relation to other species.

Kevin Vezirian, Brock Bastian, and Laurent Bègue-Shankland, scholars from various institutions, conducted a study titled “Hairy, Mindless Test Tubes: Categorizing Animals as Laboratory Subjects Leads to the Denial of Their Minds.” The purpose was to explore people’s perceptions of “laboratory animals,” since, although they empathize with their suffering and are concerned about their well-being, they seek to justify their use in the name of science.

According to one estimate, approximately 190 million animals are used each year in laboratories around the world, whether for biological, genetic, medical, or agronomic research. Although about 45 countries have banned animal testing for cosmetic purposes, deeming it unnecessary in that industry, in medical science it is still considered essential for the development of new drugs. In fact, 45.5% of all animal experimentation is carried out to meet these legislative requirements (European Commission, 2021).

These procedures cause serious adverse effects in animals, such as skin and eye irritation, internal bleeding, paralysis, and extremely high levels of stress and distress. This reality is a cause for concern in society; however, many people who empathize with animals also believe that the use of these models is an essential and necessary scientific practice for reasons of human health and safety.

Given this context, the authors of the study sought to determine whether categorizing animals as subjects of pharmaceutical testing would result in the denial of their minds, and they examined whether discursive manipulation regarding the suffering they experience might affect the extent of this tendency.

What was the study about?

To conduct an in-depth analysis, the researchers surveyed 3,405 participants, showing them images of various animals (such as rabbits, hamsters, dogs, and macaques) accompanied by a brief description.

One group of participants read descriptions that focused on the animals’ physical characteristics, such as size and coat color. For example, one of the texts stated: “This animal is a dog, specifically a beagle. It is a four-legged animal, and its coat color can consist of various shades, such as white, brown, or black. The beagle is a diurnal animal, which means it is active during the day and rests at night.”

On the other hand, another group was shown the same animal, but labeled as a laboratory subject, as follows: “This hamster lives in a laboratory to be used as a test animal for medical, personal care, and household products. For scientific purposes, it will be subjected to testing and will suffer organ failure, bleeding, and irritation. At the end of the experiment, the hamster will be euthanized.”

This experimental manipulation was followed by a dependent variable in which participants rated the extent to which they believed the animal presented possessed 15 mental capacities, such as: pleasure, fear, anger, taste, joy, happiness, desires, longings, planning, goals, pride, pain, hunger, sight, and hearing. These items measured mental attribution and identified other relevant dimensions such as primary and secondary emotions, intentions, and thought. This was assessed using a 7-point Likert scale (where 1 meant “does not possess” and 7 meant “definitely possesses”). Additionally, a speciesism scale and three other individual items were included to measure the moral disengagement strategies used to justify experimentation.

To complement this initial analysis (Study 1a), the experts included Studies 1b and 2b. The first (1b) aimed to consolidate the previous findings, demonstrating that labeling animals as test models instantly leads to a lower recognition of their mental capacity compared to the same animals presented in their natural habitat. The purpose of the second study (2b) was to replicate the widespread denial of mental capacities in “laboratory animals” and to thoroughly examine the factors that explain when and why people are more likely to deny these capacities to them; to this end, they investigated whether an increased sense of individual responsibility for the harm caused amplified the tendency to deny that animals possess minds.

Concluding Remarks

Following the study, it was concluded that participants consistently attributed fewer mental and cognitive abilities to animals described in a laboratory setting than to those presented based on their physical characteristics.

The findings indicate that when people are reminded of the harm associated with experimentation and are presented with an animal described in this context, they downplay their perception of the animal’s mental abilities. By doing so, they are able to rationalize and justify the animal’s use in research settings.

With regard to the moral responsibility participants felt regarding experimentation and the use of products tested on animals, it was found that they did not assume individual responsibility. Since experimentation is widespread and, in many cases, a legal requirement, the procedures are perceived as a product of collective responsibility, leaving little room for individual pangs of conscience.

In short, the data suggest that simply classifying animals as “laboratory animals” is enough for people to view them as “hairy test tubes,” even though consumers generally claim to care about the ethical aspects of the products they buy.

According to the study’s authors, and in line with their initial hypothesis, this phenomenon is very similar to what happens when justifying meat consumption: it is easier to alleviate any internal moral conflict by objectifying animals raised for food and experimentation, reducing them to a lower existential level than that of other species. You can read the full study here.

While moving away from animal testing on all fronts may be a major challenge, the development of alternative methods is well underway, as is the implementation of the 3Rs principle (Replace, Reduce, Refine). For all these reasons, we hope that very soon the use of animals in experiments will no longer be a necessary and mandatory practice globally—not only within the cosmetics industry, but throughout the scientific community.

Make a difference to help move us forward on this path— donate and support the development of animal-free science.

Featured