ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective: Specific 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. Methods: Data 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. Results: This 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. Conclusion: Survey 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.
RESUMO Objetivo: A legislação específica que regula o uso de animais em pesquisa no Brasil foi introduzida em 2008. No entanto, a opinião da população brasileira sobre o uso de animais em atividades de pesquisa e ensino ainda é desconhecida. No atual cenário brasileiro em mudança com relação à ética animal, é necessário avaliar as visões e o conhecimento da população sobre o assunto. O objetivo deste destudo foi realizar o primeiro levantamento da opinião da população brasileira sobre o uso de animais em atividades de ensino e pesquisa científica. Métodos: Analisamos os resultados de uma pesquisa com 2.115 indivíduos com 16 anos ou mais de 130 municípios das cinco macrorregiões brasileiras (Norte, Nordeste, Sul, Sudeste e Centro-Oeste). A margem de erro para toda a amostra foi de 2% dentro de um intervalo de confiança de 95%. Resultados: A pesquisa revelou que a maioria da população brasileira era favorável ao uso de animais em pesquisas, principalmente para fins médicos. Diferentes pontos de vista, dependendo da natureza da pesquisa, também foram identificados. Além disso, aproximadamente 80% dos entrevistados eram favoráveis ao monitoramento frequente de laboratórios e instalações de animais. Conclusão: A opinião da população brasileira está dividida com relação ao uso de animais em pesquisa e ensino científicos. Essa divisão expõe um entendimento limitado da importância das ciências básicas e destaca a necessidade de uma melhor comunicação entre a comunidade científica e a população em geral. Outras ações para alcançar as melhorias desejadas no bem-estar animal são discutidas.
Subject(s)
Humans , Animals , Public Opinion , Animal Experimentation , Brazil , Surveys and Questionnaires , CitiesABSTRACT
Introducción: la oposición a la utilización de animales en la investigación biomédica se apoya en diversos argumentos científicos y éticos. Objetivo: realizar una revisión bibliográfica sobre la bioética de la investigación preclínica en las ciencias biomédicas. Procedimientos empleados en la recogida de la información: la búsqueda en Internet abarcó artículos publicados fundamentalmente en los últimos 5 años. Se evaluaron revistas internacionales de impacto de la Web of Sciencies relacionadas con el tema (38 revistas). Se consultaron las bases de datos de sistemas referativos, como MEDLINE, PubMed y SciELO con la utilización de descriptores como animal research ethical, animal welfare, animal ethics committee, animal pain, alternatives to laboratory animals y sus y sus equivalentes en español. Se incluyeron artículos en idioma inglés, portugués y español. Se obtuvio 141 artículos, pero el estudio limitó solo a 53, porque enfocaban esta temática de manera más integral. Análisis e integración de la información: al analizar el comportamiento de los artículos respecto a su representatividad en las diferentes revistas científicas donde fueron publicados, 5,9 por ciento de ellos correspondieron a la revista Alternatives to laboratory animals: ATLA e igual porcentaje a la Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics. Los restantes artículos estuvieron distribuidos de manera uniforme entre las otras revistas. Conclusiones: el conocimiento y cumplimiento de los principios bioéticos que rigen la conducta de los seres humanos, su relación con el medio ambiente y las ramas del conocimiento, permite brindar un abordaje generalizador y un enfrentamiento abarcador a aspectos significativos de la investigación con animales(AU)
Introduction: opposition to the use of animals in biomedical research is based on a variety of scientific and ethical arguments. Objective: carry out a bibliographic review about the bioethics of preclinical research in biomedical sciences. Data collection procedures: an online search was conducted for papers preferably published in the last five years. An evaluation was performed of international high impact journals from the Web of Sciences which dealt with the subject (38 journals). Databases from reference systems such as MEDLINE, PubMed and SciELO were consulted with the aid of search terms like animal research ethical, animal welfare, animal ethics committee, animal pain, alternatives to laboratory animals and their Spanish counterparts. The papers included were in English, Portuguese or Spanish. Of the 141 papers obtained, the reviewers selected the 53 which approached the study topic in a more comprehensive manner. Analysis and integration of information: an analysis of the representativeness of papers in the scientific journals where they were published showed that 5.9 percent corresponded to the journal Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: ATLA, and an equal percentage to the journal Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. The remaining papers were evenly distributed among the other journals. Conclusions: awareness of and compliance with the bioethical principles governing the behavior of human beings and their relationship to the environment and fields of knowledge, enable a generalizing approach to and comprehensive management of significant aspects of animal research(AU)