Public sceptical of pharma research
pharmafile | September 21, 2010 | News story | Research and Development | Animal testing, Animal tests
Businesses including drug companies are seen as broadly untrustworthy or self-serving when it comes to medical research.
This is one of the findings published by Ipsos MORI in a work looking at public attitudes to research involving animals containing human material (ACHM), such as human cells or genes.
Participants in Exploring the Boundaries: Report on a public dialogue into ACHM were happier with the thought that universities or other “not for profit” institutions were doing such research, rather than large multi-national companies.
However, such scepticism was partially offset “by participants’ faith in medical science and appreciation of the benefits”, the report says.
More than half (53%) of respondents agreed on balance that scientists should be allowed to conduct experiments on live animals.
Making more rapid progress on developing new treatments for life-threatening diseases such as leukaemia and AIDS was seen as a justification.
To be acceptable to the public, it also needs to be demonstrated that the beneficiaries of ACHM research will be “ordinary people – not only the rich or better-off”, or sufferers in the developing world.
The public is also clued in to the idea of the money required for new treatments. “There seemed to be considerable awareness and focus on the costs of drugs to the NHS, and participants were keen for assurance that these costs would not be excessive,” the report says.
It was also found that what the experimentation is for – for example, to test new drugs or just to find out more about the issue – is a hugely important factor for the public.
In vitro experiments caused less concern than those on living creatures, such as transgenic or chimeric animals. But participants were unconcerned about whether the experiment was done at the gene level or the cell level, says Ipsos MORI.
In the survey, 44% of the general public said they would trust the regulation of ACHM research, compared to 29% who said they would not.
But regulation should focus on animal welfare, minimising risk and looking carefully at the kind of animal that is created and the tissues and organ types involved.
Commissioned by the Academy of Medical Sciences with support from the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre for public dialogue in science and innovation, the research was funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Adam Hill
Related Content
Number of UK animal testing procedures falls to lowest level since 2007
A report from the Home Office of the UK Government has revealed that the prevalence …
FDA trial may help to cut the number of dogs used in clinical trials
A new study may help to significantly reduce the number of dogs that are used …
Minister calls for end of animal testing
British MP Norman Baker has called for an end to all animal testing in the …
