People's Opinion

When making a project that significantly changes the agenda for antibody production and use, it is important to shed light on the opinion of the general population. Is there at all a concerted demand among the public? To get these answers we conducted a survey asking people about their opinion on the use of laboratory animals in scientific research and antibody production.

The Respondents

The survey was available for one month and shared via our accounts on facebook and twitter. To get answers from all over the world we send out the survey to various iGEM teams asking them, if they would be interested to help us by sharing it. The survey brought in answers from 291 people. These people were primarily from Europe, but also people from North and South America, Asia and Australia responded to the survey. The majority of the respondents were young people in the ages of 19-29 and roughly 2/3 was either working or studying in the fields of life sciences such as biochemistry, molecular biology, bioengineering or medicine.

Results

From the above data, it is shown that most people (60 %) in general have an ambivalent perspective on the use of laboratory animals in scientific research. When asked specifically one the use of laboratory animals to produce antibodies, 87 % of the respondents answered ‘Yes’ and believe it is okay to use them. At first sight, this data indicates that people actually do not mind the use of laboratory animals when it concern production of antibodies. However, when asked to if they would prefer if antibodies were produced in an alternative organism like E. coli, 71 % of the respondents agrees that they indeed would prefer if an organism like E. coli produced the antibodies.

85 % of the respondents do not know of any alternative to antibodies. This could suggest that the people’s attitude towards the use of laboratory animals to produce antibodies reflect their lack of knowledge of alternatives, and not their general opinion. When looking at the elaborated opinions towards laboratory animals, some people write that they would prefer if the use was minimized. A general tendency among the answers is that there is some sort of compassion for the laboratory animals.

Conclusion

From this questionnaire, it is indicated that an alternative to the current method for antibody production would be appreciated. People are in general ambivalent about the use of laboratory animals, but they incline to the view that it is “better to use animals than not being able to help humans 100 %”, as one respondent writes. However, most people would prefer if E. coli produced antibodies rather than mice and rabbits. The fact that almost 90 % didn’t know of any antibody alternative (remember that 2/3 of the respondents worked / studied in the field of life sciences) also suggests that people have accepted the current way of antibody production - even though they understand the issue with antibody production.

When analyzing the survey data one has to consider the response group and whether or not the data can be transferred into a general opinion. Our purpose with the survey was to determine the opinion of the general population on the use of laboratory animals to produce antibodies. As 2/3 of the respondents were people working or studying in the field of life sciences, the data was not as representative for the general public as we wanted it to be. Additionally, only 291 people responded the survey. From a statistical point of view, more responses would have been preferred. Even though the data is not as credible as we would have liked, it still gives us a strong indication that a change in the current tradition-marked way of producing antibodies is needed.