Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31647851›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Assessing undergraduate student and faculty views on animal research: What do they know, whom do they trust, and how much do they care?

Eric P Sandgren, Robert Streiffer, Jennifer Dykema, Nadia Assad, Jackson Moberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eric P SandgrenPathobiololgical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5290-818X
Robert StreifferMedical History and Bioethics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Jennifer DykemaUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Survey Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Nadia AssadUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Survey Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Jackson MobergUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Survey Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research using animals is controversial. To develop sound public outreach and policy about this issue, we need information about both the underlying science and people's attitudes and knowledge. To identify attitudes toward this subject at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, we developed and administered a survey to undergraduate students and faculty. The survey asked respondents about the importance of, their confidence in their knowledge about, and who they trusted to provide information on animal research. Findings indicated attitudes varied by academic discipline, especially among faculty. Faculty in the biological sciences, particularly those who had participated in an animal research project, reported the issue to be most important, and they reported greater confidence in their knowledge about pro and con arguments. Among students, being female, a vegetarian/vegan, or participating in animal research were associated with higher ratings of importance. Confidence in knowledge about regulation and its adequacy was very low across all groups except biological science faculty. Both students and faculty identified university courses and spokespersons to be the most trusted sources of information about animal research. UW-Madison has a long history of openness about animal research, which correlates with the high level of trust by students and faculty. Nevertheless, confidence in knowledge about animal research and its regulation remains limited, and both students and faculty indicated their desire to receive more information from courses and spokespersons. Based on these findings, we argue that providing robust university-wide outreach and course-based content about animal research should be considered an organizational best practice, in particular for colleges and universities.

Indexed as

FacultyResearchStudentsUniversitiesAnimalsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTrust

Identifiers

PMID31647851
PMCPMC6812826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.