ArticlePloS one2024
Public controversy and citizens' attitude formation about animal research: A case for scholarship and recommendations on conflicts at the science-society interface.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers to science communication about research involving animal experimentation: A systematic literature review.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026Pooled it
- A cross-cultural comparison on perception for extended reality (XR) learning environmental simulation of animal drug administration.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- The Shifting Role of the Laboratory Animal Veterinarian: An Emerging Concern.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2026Article
- Pain research in a petri dish? Advantages and limitations of neuro-glial primary cell cultures from structures of the nociceptive system.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Activist groups attack animal research and put scientists and their institutions under pressure, whereas scientists often remain silent. We report an interdisciplinary research project driven by a communication science perspective on how citizens respond to news reports about animal research (3 experiments, overall N = 765) and a German science-initiated information platform ("Tierversuche verstehen"; controlled user study, N = 100). Findings demonstrate that a critical journalist perspective within neutral, two-sided news reports (e.g., skeptical expert statements or images of suffering animals) does not affect citizen opinion strongly. Information media provided by scientific institutions seem to be welcomed even by citizens who hold critical prior attitudes. From these results, we develop a set of recommendations for future public communication of animal research that builds on best practices in organizational and crisis communication. These suggestions are intended to empower animal researchers to actively participate in public debate to support citizens' informed attitude formation.
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.