ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Initial survey on the use of animals in scientific research and teaching reveals divided opinion of the Brazilian population.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing the 3Rs: innovation, implementation, ethics and society.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSpecific legislation regulating the use of animals in research in Brazil was introduced in 2008. However, the viewpoint of the Brazilian population regarding the use of animals in research and teaching activities remains largely unknown. Investigation of the public viewpoint on and understanding of the topic is required given the current shifts in the animal ethics scenario in Brazil. The objective of this study was to provide the first insight into the Brazilian population viewpoint on the use of animals in scientific research and teaching activities.
methodsData collected in a survey involving 2,115 individuals aged 16 years or older and residing in 130 municipalities distributed across the five Brazilian macroregions (North, Northeast, South, Southeast, and Midwest) were analyzed. The margin of error for entire sample was set at 2%, with a 95% confidence interval.
resultsThis survey revealed that most Brazilian citizens are in favor of the use animals in research, particularly for medical purposes. Different views depending on the nature of research were identified. Approximately 80% of respondents were also in favor of frequent oversight of laboratories and animal facilities.
conclusionSurvey findings indicate that the opinion of the Brazilian population is divided when it comes to the use of animals in scientific research and teaching. Divided opinions expose a limited understanding of the importance of basic sciences and emphasizes the need for improved communication between the scientific community and the general population. Further strategies aimed to promote animal welfare are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.