Animal experiments and bioethics in high schools in Australia, Japan and New Zealand


Journal: Journal of Biological Education 32 (1998): 119-126.
Author: Miho Tsuzuki, Yukiko Asada, Shiro Akiyama, Nobuko Macer and Darryl R. J. Macer
Abstract

Attitudes to, and the practice of, animal experiments were surveyed in Australia (A), Japan (J), and New Zealand (NZ) in 1993. Mail response questionnaires were sent to a biology (b) and a social studies (s) teacher at randomly selected schools. The number of respondents and response rate were: NZb 206 (55%), NZs 96 (26%), Ab 251 (48%), As 114 (22%), Jb 560 (40%) and Js 383 (27%). Open questions looking at the images of bioethics, and the reasons why about 90% of teachers thought bioethics was needed in education, found more teachers expressed concerns about animal rights or experiments in New Zealand, then Australia, and least in Japan. Among the biology teachers, 90% in New Zealand use animals in class, 71% in Australia and 69% in Japan. About two thirds of all the samples said that they had had ethical concerns about animal experiments, which were examined in responses to open questions. The concept of humane use was expressed less in Japan than Australasia. 72% of biology teachers in NZ, 63% in Australia and 12% in Japan said there were guidelines at their schools for using animals in class. The impact of animal welfare guidelines is discussed, together with the general attitudes to animal use. Full results of the survey are available on Internet: <http://eubios.info/BHS.htm">

Animal experiments and bioethics in high schools in Australia, Japan and New Zealand

Introduction

The interactions between humans, animals and the environment have been increasingly considered in the last few decades, especially in scientific research and teaching. The issue of animal rights is a recent extension of the animal welfare movement which began at least a century ago. It challenges human beings to reconsider interactions between humans and other animals, and may be connected to the environmental movement that begs us to recognize the fact that there are symbiotic relationships between humans and all other organisms. This movement is based on the concept that to cause pain and suffering is wrong (Singer, 1976; Regan, 1983). It has been very influential in the introduction of animal welfare legislation and guidelines which have made teachers and researchers more aware of the pain that they can cause to animals involved in experiments.

In the high school there have been moves to provide alternatives to animal experiments (Strauss & Kinzie, 1991), but the extent of change in attitudes is largely based on anecdotal evidence. There are still those who vigorously defend the use of animals for teaching biology (Morrison, 1993), and it is generally recognised that some experience with at least live animals is essential for biology education. This is an issue which most biology teachers will have faced given the high publicity of the animal rights movement, so we could expect them to have formed some values on the issues (Baier, 1993). We surveyed the opinions of high school biology and social studies teachers in Australia, New Zealand and Japan about bioethical issues in an International Bioethics Education Survey (Macer et al. 1994). In this paper the analysis of the answers to questions on attitudes to animal experiments, and on the current practice, is presented.

The International Bioethics Education Survey

In July-August 1993 the International Bioethics Education Survey was conducted in Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The questionnaire used in Japan in 1991 (Macer, 1992) was further developed in English and Japanese. The questionnaire consisted of 22 question sections containing about 110 individual questions, including 41 open-ended ones. In most questions teachers chose their answers from two to five options (e.g. Yes/No/Don't know; Agree strongly/Agree/Neither/Disagree/Disagree strongly), and were asked to write reasons for their answer. In some questions, for example on teaching materials and the images of bioethics, they were simply asked to write their comments (Macer et al. 1994; Asada et al. submitted). The ideas in each comment were assigned to different categories, which were compared. The open question comments are published (with English translation of Japanese comments) for reference use elsewhere (Macer, 1994; Macer et al. 1996).

In this paper five questions (responses: No/Yes) concerning animal experiments and guidelines in schools are analysed, as follows:

Q1. Do you use animals for biology experiments?

Q2. Have you ever had ethical concerns about using animals? (What?..)

Q3. Have students ever said that they have ethical concerns about using animals? (What?..)

Q4. Do think that some animal experiments are necessary to teach biology at high school?

Q5. At your school are there any guidelines about using animals in class? (What do they say?..)

In 1993 two questionnaires were sent with covering letters to both principal and teacher to each high school principal, requesting the principal to give one to a biology teacher and the other one to a social studies teacher. We choose these two subjects to explore where bioethical issues were taught more, in natural or social sciences. Return stamped addressed envelopes were included. About one fifth of the high schools in Japan (N=1400) were chosen combining a random selection from the total high school list of the Ministry of Education (N=1172) and the schools that replied to the earlier randomised national survey of biology teachers in 1991 (N=228).

All the 338 high schools in New Zealand were sent questionnaires, and those schools with more than 1000 students were sent four questionnaires (a total of 375 possible teachers in each subject). In Australia, 528 schools were surveyed from combining all the schools available to foreign students, random selections from telephone books, and all 28 government maintained schools in the Australian Capital Territory.

Results

Response rate and sample characteristics

The response rates are indicated in Table 1. In all countries biology teachers responded more. Reminders were sent to schools in Japan that had not replied after two months, which increased response by about 5% to those levels.

The sample characteristics are shown in Table 1. General information gathered in the surveys included sex, age, marital status, children, education, importance of religion (religiousity), race, income and rural/urban locality (Table 1). There were no significant differences in the age of respondent teachers between these three countries, and most teachers were married and had children. However, there were significantly fewer women among the Japanese teachers than in New Zealand and Australian teachers (P<0.01), reflecting the general teacher population. Significantly more teachers in New Zealand and Australia had a higher degree than Japanese teachers, and Japanese teachers placed less value on religious practice (P<0.01).

The schools included were representative of the total in Japan and New Zealand, but in Australia there were more private schools represented in the sample (Table 1), reflecting the selection of schools in our sampling, which included many schools open to international students. This could also have led to the somewhat higher religiousity among the Australian respondents than in the other two countries. Geographically, responses from all regions of New Zealand, all states of Australia and all prefectures of Japan were obtained (Macer et al. 1996).

Level of use of animal experiments

There have been campaigns by animal rights groups against the use of animals in school biology experiments in these countries which could have been thought to have reduced the use of animals. However, 90% of the biology teachers in New Zealand who responded, use animals in class, 71% in Australia and 69% in Japan (Q1, Table 2), which suggests a high level of continued use of animals in class. The level of use is significantly higher in New Zealand high schools (P<0.05). The response to Q4 is interesting for comparison (Table 2), because while the responses to this question were significantly correlated to the actual use in all samples (P<0.05), in Japan and New Zealand, two thirds of the biology teachers who did not use animals in class said that they were needed to teach biology. This could be a mark of frustration with current guidelines or availability of animals in schools.

Not many social studies teachers used animals in class, most of the positive respondents to Q1 were also teaching general science. More than half of the social studies teachers thought there was a need to conduct animal experiments to teach biology. However, most of the teachers who used animals in class also had some concerns (Q2, Table 2), and the teachers from New Zealand, who were the most positive to use animals and in stating a need for experiments, also expressed the most concern about student abuse of animals and lack of respect for life.

The term "animal experiment" that we used in Q4 is ambiguous, necessitated by the brevity of space alloted to the subject in the total questionnaire. We can discern some idea of the interpretation of this phrase from the comments to the other questions, although we only used this phrase in Q4. The phrase used in the other questions was "using animals", which is very broad as can be seen in the example comments and categories which we used for analysis of Q2 discussed below. Perhaps some teachers did not consider observing bird courtship on beaches as an experiment, nor dissecting organs from dead animals, because they do not involve killing animals, however, both are experiments. A few New Zealand teachers referred to use of body organs provided from animal slaughter houses which could be referred to more accurately as using parts of dead animals. Other teachers may not think of ant studies if they are also performing rabbit ones. While the comments given suggest many did differentiate live experiments from ones using dead animals, this ambiguity does need to be considered when interpreting the results, and upon reflection a further question should have been added to either clarify the definition or to provide a case study as an example.


Table 1: School and teacher characteristics

Abbreviations: NZ=New Zealand; A=Australia; J=Japan; b=biology teacher; s=social teacher
%'s
NZb
NZs
Ab
As
Jb
Js
Number of respondents (N) 20696 251114 560383
Response rate (%) 5526 4822 4027

School characteristics
School size: <60033 3346 4025 24
>600 6767 5460 7576
Location: Urban Government 6064 1315 4945
Private 910 6265 1618
Rural Government 2924 11 333
Private 22 2419 44

Teacher characteristics

The main subject the teachers taught (%)

Biology 710 590 790
Science 280 270 300
Social / Ethics 047 039 0.498
Geography 050 030 --
Many / Other 13 1431 12
Average age (years) 4143 4242 4140
% female 3638 5237 128
% married 83 8679 7077 75
% who have children 78 8576 7670 72
Education: Graduate 6458 5957 7882
Postgraduate 3037 3941 2117
Other 65 22 11
How important is religion? Very 2017 4247 710
Some 1729 2326 2537
Not too much 33 3219 1045 36
Not at all 3022 1617 2317

Table 2: Ethical concerns about animal experiments

Results for questions 1-4. Abbreviations: NZ=New Zealand; A=Australia; J=Japan; b=biology teacher; s=social teacher.
%
NZb
NZs
Ab
As
Jb
Js
Q1. Use animals in class 90 8 71 19 69 33
Q4. Need to teach 93 72 67 52 85 73

Q2. Have you ever had ethical concerns about using animals? No; Yes (what?...)

Q3. Have students ever said that they have ethical concerns about using animals?

Q2 Q3 Q2Q3 Q2 Q3Q2 Q3 Q2Q3 Q2 Q3
N - total 193197 6065 155194 5950 513500 214147
Have concerns (%) 65 7363 65 6380 71 6475 67 7245
Q2 Yes (%) 82 80 88 80 78 65
Q2 No (%) 60 42 67 35 33 10
N - total Yes 126145 3842 144187 5748 382327 14552
N - Yes with comments 122134 2931 136165 4136 297248 8626
N - of Don't know / No with comments 157 12 74 10 65 02
Comments cited by teachers and students who said Yes, they had ethical concerns (%)
Not stated 68 2426 612 2825 2224 4254
No need for animals 1511 87 2016 94 92 82
Don't use them 50 00 20 44 11 10
Only use dead animals 71 52 61 00 11 00
Live (observe) only 60 00 11 00 0.30 00
Return to nature after 61 00 11 00 00.3 00
Dissections 1421 510 1014 72 66 26
Invertebrates lower / Mammals special 33 32 22 00 43 00
Small number used 20 00 30 70 71 52
Humane use; No pain 1615 112 2613 114 21 02
Animal rights 812 1614 212 719 52 166
Cosmetic testing bad 03 1312 54 76 00 30
Cruel to hurt them 1741 2640 828 1419 739 625
Respect; Dignity 21 00 31 00 98 64
Debate in class; choice 12 05 23 04 22 00
Cost/benefit analysis 20 30 21 22 123 30
Feel guilty, but do expt 10 00 00 00 31 62
Disposal of dead body 00 00 01 00 21 00
Need experiments 11 00 11 00 22 12
No concern 01 00 11 00 00 00
Students abuse animals 193 00 50 20 22 00
Other8 38 58 44 29 76 4
Don't know 00 00 00 00 02 00


Ethical concerns about animal experiments

The teachers were asked whether they or their students had ever had ethical concerns about animal experiments. About two thirds of all the six teacher samples said that they had had ethical concerns about animal experiments (Q2, Table 2). In all samples, more teachers who used animals in class said that they had ethical concerns and generally they noted more student concerns than teachers who did not use them. More New Zealand biology and social studies teachers and Australian biology teachers said that their students had had ethical concerns than themselves. However, there must be concerns about the reliability of asking teachers to report student concerns, as can be seen from the fact that in all samples we find significantly more of the teachers who said they themselves had concerns, also said that students had concerns compared to those who had not had concerns (P<0.05; in the rows "Teachers Yes", "Teachers No", in Table 2). The open responses were examined and were placed into up to two categories, and comparisons made as shown in Table 2. The Japanese comments were translated into English, and the categories checked to be consistent. To illustrate the type and range of comments several are listed below, with the category indicated behind them (abbreviations, 2=Q2; 3=Q3; Y=Yes; N=No; D=Don't know; b=biology teacher; s=social studies teacher):


I feel it is completely different from eating them with thanks and something which is completely deviant from a natural food chain. 2Ys (No need)

Our school stopped using animals as did many others. Some parents and students expressed concern about the used animals. 2Yb (Don't use them+Respect)

No, we use things like heart/lungs from local meat works. 2Nb (Only use dead animals)

Because we need them for general knowledge, we keep them only to observe the natural state. 2Yb (Live only)

They say that would like to do experiments trying not to inflict pain. 3Yb (Humane use)

Students are naturally concerned about animals. We encourage this. 3Yb (Cruel)

When we anatomize large animal, I naturally felt the importance of life. 2Yb (Respect)

I'm always careful to explain to students why animals are used and to have respect for them. 2Yb (Cost / benefit analysis +Debate)

Sense for guilt to killing living animals. 2Yb (Feel guilty)

Benefits of use of animals must always outweigh any necessary (or accidental) trauma or death. Need to teach students that things other than humans are alive! 3Yb (Need experiments+Respect)

The way in which some students may handle the animals. 2Yb (Students abuse animals)


The detailed division of the comments into categories reveals whether the reasoning behind the responses is similar or not. There are different levels of concern between Australia and New Zealand, and Japan, for example the "Humane use; No pain" idea was expressed by 26%, 16% and 1.6%, respectively, of biology teachers; and 11%, 11% and 0%, respectively, of social studies teachers in these three countries. The concept of pain appears to be more widely expressed in Australia and New Zealand than in Japan, something also seen in the concerns attributed to students. In Japan the concept of "respect" was more common than in Australasia. The concept to only use "dead animals only" was not common in Japan, though to use a "small number" was expressed more in Japan. These are both practical concerns.

We would suggest that the comments in the category "cruel to hurt them" have less concrete ethical foundation than the concept of pain because reduction of pain is something practical that people can do, and it follows our initial response that hurting animals is cruel. It is interesting that apparently more students expressed these type of concerns in all countries than teachers. The more extreme but also sometimes vague concept "animal rights" was quite common in student concerns in Australia and New Zealand, but given less as a student concern in Japan than as a concern that teachers themselves had. Overall, this could suggest students have ethical concerns that are expressed at a less practical level of understanding, also seen in the "small number" category of comments. There are some significant differences in the citing of practical concerns compared to vague less practical concerns.

Significantly (P<0.01) more teachers in New Zealand and Australia were seeking alternatives than teachers in Japan, seen in the comments only using "dead animals" (15.1% of biology teachers in Australia, 6.3% in NZ, 0.5% in Japan), "observing" live ones only (6.3% in Australia, 1.4% in NZ, 0.3% in Japan) and "returning to nature" after use (5.6% in Australia, 0.7% in NZ, 0% in Japan).

In all countries more biology teachers expressed the concern "no need for them" than social studies teachers, even though in Q1 less social studies teachers had expressed a need to use animals. We interpret comments categorised under the headings "Cost/benefit analysis", "Feel guilty, but do experiment", "Need experiments" and the responses under "No concern" to the question Q2 and Q3 as positive to conducting experiments. More teachers in Japan "feel guilty" or try to "analyze cost and benefit", but still decide to do experiments, than in Australasia (P<0.05; the results for "Cost benefit" and "Feel guilty, but do experiments" were: Jb 11.5%, 3.4%; NZb 2.4%, 0.8%, Ab 2.1%, 0%).

An interesting point is that 1.8% of Japanese biology teachers, significantly more than other samples (P<0.05), made a comment about the proper "disposal of dead bodies" (Table 2). For example: "Students always ask how shall we deal with the frogs used for dissection. I'm to promise to dig and bury it in that case.", "It may not possible to say that students are more ethical than adults, but I think they have concern. They often want to make a grave. ". This was also seen in responses to Q4 in Table 3, under "after death treatment". Some schools have a shrine to remember the animals sacrificed in experiments, and most medical schools and animal research centres in Japan have a memorial stone and hold annual services of remembrance for experimental animals (also for those people who gave a family member's body to research).

In New Zealand, 19% of the teachers who had a concern said they were worried about the abuse of animals by students. This compares to 5% in Australia and 1.6% in Japan. Does this mean that New Zealand high school students are more cruel to animals? Most likely it suggests that teacher's consciousness of what behaviour is cruel to animals differs among these countries, but it is an interesting point for future study.

Awareness of Animal Welfare Guidelines

In all three countries there are government or ministerial guidelines on the treatment of animals in high schools. The results of Q5 reveal that knowledge of such guidelines, and also the presence of school guidelines varies significantly between Japan and Australasia, and between biology and social studies teachers (P<0.01; Table 3). About 90% of Japanese teachers said there were no guidelines for animal use at their school. The ideas expressed in the explanations of what guidelines there were were placed in up to two categories, as described above for Q2-3. Some example comments are listed below, which also illustrate the range of comments that were expressed, with the category indicated behind them (abbreviations, Y=Yes; N=No; D=Don't know; b=biology teacher; s=social studies teacher):

We built a memorial tower in the biology club, and we thanked animals which had been sacrificed for experiments. (We did this just as a casual suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary something traditional.) Yb (After death treatment)

Proper care and nutrition, killing humanely. Ys (Humane care)

Don't treat animals cruelly or use more than necessary. Ys (Minimise number + humane)

Follow the animal ethics guidelines put out by Department of Education. Yb (National guidelines)

Application required to Animal Ethics Committee for experiments except for invertebrates - currently not thought to be animals. Yb (Committee approves +no vertebrates)

Left to discretion of the teachers - they are the professionals in charge. Nb (No written guidelines)

A whole set of rules, some are bloody stupid. Db (Need experiments)

It is to the individual to choose whether they participate. Yb (Other)

The remarkable point is the apparent lack of knowledge of national guidelines, which exist in all three countries. Few teachers, NZb 26%, NZs 7%, Ab 27%, As 7%, Jb 0%, and Js 10%, specifically said that they follow a national guideline or the law (Table 3). The guidance of national committees may be included in the "Other guidelines" category, and it is possible some others mentioned specific details rather than where they came from. The types of ideas that the teachers thought were included were most commonly, "humane care or avoiding pain", with "respect" and "minimising number" common in Japan. The content of the guidelines may influence the awareness of ethical issues, especially if laws were placed on use of vertebrates, or on killing animals.

It is possible the 1993 "Law on the Protection and Control of Animals", and government guidelines for teaching in Japan, were too new for teachers to be aware of it, however, we think any differences may also lie in the discussion at school level and in the contents. While Australian and New Zealand guidelines mention establishment of a school committee, treatment by anaesthesia and recording the numbers, the Japanese ones do not mention these issues, and so there are not committees in schools. In universities there are committees established for all animal experiments, invertebrates and vertebrates. The government guidelines for teaching discuss the objective of experiments is to acquire scientific knowledge while understanding the importance of life at the same time, which have a more positive tone towards experiments than the Australasian ones.

Whether teachers follow guidelines or not depends on the contents of guidelines, and their enforcement. However, from the results of the survey we see people expressing concerns independently of knowledge of guidelines, however, the type of general ethical concern could be dependent upon the content of guidelines. Other major factors influencing ethical concerns that teachers have may be the extent of discussion of animal rights questions in teaching magazines, and the extent of animal rights discussion in public, which is brought to school by the students. A UK student survey found that many students did differentiate between cosmetic testing and use of animals for medical research, however, still 48% disagreed with animal dissection for teaching (Stanisstreet & Williams, 1992).

General responses mentioning animals in the surveys

At the beginning of the questionnaire the open question, "What do you think bioethics is?" was asked (Macer et al. 1996). There were significant national differences in the number of teachers who expressed concerns about animal rights or experiments (P<0.05), with the results being: NZb 17.6%, NZs 12.0%, Ab 8.0%; As 5.0%, Jb 1.1% and Js 0%. These were also consistent with a general trend for New Zealand and Australian respondents to give more comments about practical themes than Japanese teachers.

At the end of the questionnaire, immediately following the animal experiment questions was another open question, "Do you think that bioethics education is needed in education?". In all countries over 85% agreed. There were also significant national (P<0.05) and discipline (P<0.01) differences in teachers who responded with a comment about animal experiments, with results being: NZb 8.4%, NZs 1.1%, Ab 5.2%; As 0%, Jb 2.6% and Js 0%. These was less teaching of bioethics by biology teachers in Japan also (P<0.01), with the number of teachers who had taught bioethics in class being: NZb 67%, NZs 22%, Ab 70%; As 42%, Jb 45% and Js 39%. Despite rather similar enthusiasm for bioethics teaching, there was less teaching of "bioethics" as a word in Japanese biology classes; and it was lowest in New Zealand social studies classes. However, the teaching of ethical and social issues of selected areas of science and technology was lowest in Japan (Asada et al. 1996). Japanese teachers were less likely to express animal experiment issues in open comments to the other questions also, consistent with the results of surveys among biology teachers in Japan in 1991 (Macer, 1992) compared to New Zealand in 1990 (Couchman & Fink-Jensen, 1990).

Discussion and Conclusions

The ethical questions involved in the use of animal experiments are not simple. Standards of animal care change over time as public acceptance of what is acceptable treatment of animals changes. During 1993 we also conducted mail response surveys among the general public in these three countries as well as in Hong Kong, India, Israel, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore and Thailand, with collaborators (Macer, 1994). In all countries of this International Bioethics Survey there is 90+% support for "including discussion of social issues associated with science and technology in school, so that students can participate in contemporary debates". The question of animal experiments was not directly addressed in the International Bioethics Survey, though one question asked for agreement with the statement "Animals have rights that people should not violate". The results to this question among public, medical students and teachers are summarised in Table 4 (details in Macer, 1994). We find the highest level of agreement with this statement in Japan; and the strongest agreement in all countries was seen among the public respondents. However, in responses to other open questions about bioethics among the public we did not find Japanese respondents expressed any more concerns about animal rights than in other countries, and in general questions about bioethics they were among the lowest countries who had taught about the issues considered in the questionnaire.

These results are consistent with the results for teachers, as in Japan there was less awareness of guidelines and less practical or concrete concerns (Table 2) about the animals. Social studies teachers, and school students, also showed significantly less concrete concerns than biology teachers, suggesting that familiarity with animals that biology teachers had was a significant stimulus to thinking about issues such as humane care and minimising numbers or harm.

Society provides a complete range of opinions ranging from those who believe the use of animals is acceptable to teach biology, and attempt to solve problems including human disease to those who believe animals warrant the same standards we apply to people. The different factors that may be used in ethical balancing to decide whether a given animal experiment is ethical include (Porter, 1992): the aim; realistic potential to achieve the objective; alternatives; species of animal; pain likely to be involved; duration of the discomfort or stress; duration of the experiment in terms of the animal's life-span; number of animals; and quality of animal care. It is interesting to ask what reasons may lie behind national differences in the perception and balancing of all the factors? We could imagine, culture, economy, policy, or religion, however, the content of guidelines, the length of time they have been used, awareness of them, and experience with using animals, appear to be stronger factors affecting the types of concerns held by teachers when conducting animal experiments. We find Australians least positive about using animals in experiments, but New Zealanders and Japanese similarly positive to experiments, but with some differences in concerns.

We can see the full range of diversity of opinions in each country, with some very positive and others very negative. These three countries are all relatively moderate in the legislation about use of animals in schools, if we compare to the German Lander of Hessen which has a law to ban all experiments up to undergraduate level (Abbott, 1994), and other countries with no regulations. There appears to be the need for better education of teachers and students over the issues involved in animal experiments, and practical ways to minimise their use, the pain they suffer, and maximise the educational impact that they make. The availability of alternatives may also be an important factor in the future trends in the use of animals. There is a need for these issues to be incorporated into teaching training courses, the same way that training of persons who look after animals is encouraged. In the case of live vertebrate care the minimum requirements for researchers are laid down by law in some countries, for example, the Council of Europe (FELASA, 1995). What the survey found is that the majority of teachers expressed some ethical concerns, which is essential for widespread acceptance and implementation of guidelines.

There is a need expressed in education guidelines and background for students to learn about animals and have practical experience observing them, and we could actually expect the images of animals to change for the worse if people have no encounters with them (Donnelley et al., 1994; Lock, 1994). The animal right issues actually provides a great opportunity for discussion of ethical values in class about a practical question (Stanisstreet & Williams, 1992; Rowan, 1995; Jamieson, 1995). Bioethics debate can be useful for development of students cognitive ability, and topics such as genetic engineering provide useful ways to stimulate this (Lucassen, 1995). What we found in this survey is that teachers expressed that they need more teaching materials and resources to discuss the bioethics values, as well as ideas on further ways to teach biology and use animals in class. We have distributed teaching materials among teachers in these three countries with the hope that feedback is obtained to revise and improve them. They are also available on-line free on Internet <http://eubios.info/TM.htm">.

References

Note: that the books by Macer are also available on the Internet.

Abbott, A. (1994) Coalition pursues ban on animals in teaching. Nature, 372, 584.

Asada, Y., Akiyama, S., Tsuzuki, M., Macer, N.Y. & Macer, D.R.J. (1996) High school teaching of bioethics in New Zealand, Australia, and Japan. Journal of Moral Education , 25, 401-420.

Baier, S.W. (1993) The impact of animal rights on the use of animals for biomedical research, product testing and evaluation. American Biology Teacher, 55, 136-9.

Couchman, Paul K. & Fink-Jensen, Kenneth. (1990) Public Attitudes to Genetic Engineering in New Zealand, DSIR Crop Research Report 138. Christchurch: DSIR.

Donnelley, S. et al. (1994) The brave new world of animal biotechnology. Hastings Center Report, 24 (1), 32pp. supplement.

FELASA. (1995) FELASA recommendations on the education and training of persons working with laboratory animals: Categories A and C. Reports of the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations Working Group on Education accepted by the FELASA Board of Management. Laboratory Animals 29, 121-31.

Jamieson, D. (1995) "Teaching ethics in science and engineering: Animals in research", Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 185-6.

Japanese Ministry of Education guidelines, Law on the Protection and Control of Animals are used to regulate teaching. The research guidelines were criticised as insufficient in Swinbanks, D. (1986) Unprotected laboratory animals. Nature, 322, 103.

Lock, R. (1994) Using animals in school science lessons", School Science Review, 74, 129-30.

Lucassen, E. (1995) Teaching the ethics of genetic engineering. Journal of Biological Education, 29 (2), 129-138.

Macer, D.R.J. (1992) Attitudes to Genetic Engineering: Japanese and International Comparisons. Christchurch: Eubios Ethics Institute.

Macer, D.R.J. (1994)Bioethics for the People by the People. Christchurch: Eubios Ethics Institute.

Macer, D.R.J., Asada, Y., Akiyama, S. & Tsuzuki, M. (1994) Bioethics in High Schools in New Zealand, Australia & Japan. pp.177-185 in D.R.J. Macer, Bioethics for the People by the People. Christchurch: Eubios Ethics Institute.

Macer, D.R.J., Asada, Y., Tsuzuki, M. , Akiyama, S., & Macer, N.Y. (1996)Bioethics in high schools in Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Christchurch: Eubios Ethics Institute.

Morrison, A.R. (1993) Biomedical research & the animal rights movement: A contrast in values. American Biology Teacher, 55, 204-8.

National Health and Medical Research Council, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, and Australian Agricultural Council (1989) Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Experimental Purposes; Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes.

New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAF) (1991) Policy Paper 112, Tentative Proposals for an Animal Welfare Bill.

Porter, D.G. (1992) Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature, 356, 101-2.

Regan, T. (1983)The Case For Animal Rights. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Rowan, A.N. (1995) Ethics education in science and engineering: The case of animal research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 181-4.

Singer, P. (1976) Animal Liberation. London: Jonathan Cape.

Strauss, R.T. & Kinzie, M.B. (1991) Hi-tech alternatives to dissection. American Biology Teacher, 55, 154-7.

Stanisstreet, M. & Williams, T. (1992) Children's views about animal experimentation. School Science Review, 73, 146.


Table 3: Awareness of guidelines about using animals in class

Results for Q5: "At your school are there any guidelines about using animals in class?"

Abbreviations: NZ=New Zealand; A=Australia; J=Japan; b=biology teacher; s=social teacher.
NZb
NZs
Ab
As
Jb
Js
Yes (%)72 2363 3512 10
Yes - Number 14614 145 2962 10
Yes with comments 136 12125 18 505
Yes - Not stated (%) 714 1638 1850
No - Number 5013 82 31454 93
No with comments 11 316 7 11
No - Not Stated (%) 7876 8077 9699
DK - Number 635 6 232 36

Comments cited by teachers who said Yes, they were aware of guidelines (%)
Respect7 07 316 20
After death treatment 00 00 30
Humane care 247 1710 820
Dead animals only 57 1114 20
Forbidden to kill 67 67 50
Don't use or need 10 20 20
Minimise number 10 80 2610
No vertebrates to be used 140 00 30
Only for vertebrates 60 00 00
Small animals only 00 10 110
National guidelines/Law 267 277 010
Other guidelines/guidance 90 97 20
Committee approves 131 90 00
Safety1 03 00 0
No written guidelines 1 1 2 3 2 0
Need experiments 00 00 20
Other 1 0 1 0 11 0
Don't know 121 321 00

Table 4: Agreement with animal rights among public, teachers and medical students

Q. Animals have rights that people should not violate.
%
Public
Medical Students
Biology teachers
Social studies teachers
NZ
A
J
NZ
A
J
NZ
A
J
NZ
A
J
Agree Strongly 2924 4810 1835 1915 2714 2525
Agree43 4539 4244 4250 3845 4738 50
Neither16 2210 3225 1919 2722 2623 21
Disagree 107 215 133 1016 510 124
Disagree Strongly 22 11 00.5 24 13 20.3


To Papers list
To Eubios Ethics Institute book list
To Eubios Ethics Institute home page

Please send comments to Email < asianbioethics@yahoo.co.nz >.