P. 1
Essay Animal Testing

Essay Animal Testing

|Views: 384|Likes:
Published by Nel Otting
The acceptability of performing test on animals was explored in a field research project, in a rural area in the eastern part of the Netherlands. This project is a part of the practical training for second-year students of Anthropology in Leiden.
The acceptability of performing test on animals was explored in a field research project, in a rural area in the eastern part of the Netherlands. This project is a part of the practical training for second-year students of Anthropology in Leiden.

More info:

Published by: Nel Otting on Jun 07, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less




Table of contents

Preface.................................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 1: The municipality of Odoorn and the village of Tweede Exloermond .................................. 5 Geography .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Historical development....................................................................................................................... 5 Demography ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Economic structure............................................................................................................................. 7 Social structure ................................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2: Research methods ................................................................................................................. 9 Main focus and theory........................................................................................................................ 9 Research design................................................................................................................................ 10 Research methods............................................................................................................................. 13 In the field ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Chapter 3: Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 16 Panel of respondents......................................................................................................................... 16 Knowledge, experience and behaviour ............................................................................................ 16 Attitude towards animal-testing ....................................................................................................... 18 Personal characteristics .................................................................................................................... 19 General care for animals................................................................................................................... 21 Social-economic status ..................................................................................................................... 24 Politics, religion and domicile.......................................................................................................... 25 Concern for the environment and alternative medicine.................................................................... 27 Differentiation in species of animals ................................................................................................ 28 Reasons for objections to animal testing .......................................................................................... 30 Chapter 4: Summary and Conclusion................................................................................................... 32 Bibliography......................................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix A: Questionaire.................................................................................................................... 35

Page 2

Almost anywhere in the world people share their territory with all kinds of animals, although in different cultures the relationship with animals and the attitude towards certain species may vary. Indian religions like Hinduism and Buddhism embody a profound respect for all living beings. It is taught that animals take part in the cycle of reincarnation and there is great tolerance, even for harmful animals like rats and insects. Among 'primitive' peoples we find respectful attitudes, because animals have abilities that the human race lacks; for instance the singing of birds and their ability to fly. According to religions that originated in the Middle-East (Judaism, Islam and Christianity), all animals are subordinate to the human race. In the Bible it is said that man is steward over the earth, but how this task has to be fulfilled is still open for discussion (Smit, 1989: 9-13). Is man obliged to take care of animals in an affectionate and respectful manner or can man abuse and exploit animals whenever he thinks it is necessary? It seems that people in western Europe chose the second option. Although people might take good care of their domesticated animals, there are many forms of exploitation in other areas. Animals are extensively bred on farms, not only as a source of food, but also for leather and fur. Other forms of (ab)use include the exploitation of animals in commercials and in circuses. Furthermore, animals are experimented upon in laboratories in different fields of research and this type of use forms the subject of this document. Although scientists had begun to use animals in experiments even before the emergence of Christianity, animal research rose sharply after WW II, together with the development of medical science. Not only has the number of animals risen, but the variety of species has also increased. Rodents, in particular rats and mice, are in often used because they are easy to breed. In addition to indigenous species several kinds of non-human primates are used in labs in the Netherlands. The advantage of primates like Chimpanzees in research is their genetic and anatomic similarity to the human species. The fact that the chimp is strongly related to man however, and its position as an endangered species, has led to stormy, ethics related discussions within the community. Opposition to animal testing has existed almost as long as animals have been used in tests. Organised opposition to all kinds of animal abuse began in England at the beginning of the nineteenth century. At the end of that century, in 1875, the 'Victoria Street' society was founded, which opposed in particular the use of animals in experiments. About twenty years later a Dutch equivalent was founded, which still exists under the name Proefdiervrij. Nowadays Proefdiervrij and a similar organisation, the Anti Vivisectie Stichting, are the two pressure groups in the Netherlands that agitate against the use of animals in research. Proefdiervrij claims in its brochure Proef zelf maar that the majority of the Dutch population is against testing on animals. As a student of anthropology and as a labtechnician that works in an animal research centre I wondered whether Proefdiervrij


really represents the opinion and feelings of so many people in the Netherlands. Are we becoming a society in which exploitation of animals in research will no longer be acceptable? This means that scientists would have to spend considerable effort in searching for alternatives, and eventually legislation on these experiments would also need to adjust to new standards. Hence, a consensus was sought, representing an element of Dutch society, with a view to arriving at conclusions in the matter of animal experimentation. This field research project, involving the people in a Drenthian village, formed a part of the practical training for second year students of anthropology or non-western sociology at the university of Leiden. The research was carried out during the first three weeks of January 1999 in Tweede Exloermond, a village situated within the municipality Borger-Odoorn in the east of the Drenthian province.

During fieldwork in Tweede Exloermond I lived at the home of the Prins family. Herewith I wish to thank Arie and Trijn Prins for their generous hospitality, which comprised so much more than just board and lodging. I also like to extend my gratitude to Donna Devine, who has scrutinised this manuscript and has offered invaluable suggestions to make it more readable.


Chapter 1: The municipality of Odoorn and the village of Tweede Exloermond
The municipality of Borger-Odoorn was formed a year ago, in January 1998, as a result of the reorganisation of the Drenthian municipalities. Previously Borger and Odoorn were two distinct municipalities. Because the village under investigation is situated in the former municipality Odoorn, only this area will be dealt with in the remainder of this Chapter. The former municipality of Odoorn can be subdivided into a western and a eastern part, which differ in landscapes. The western part is a sandy and hilly area, called the Hondsrug, and is characterised by sloping fields, moorlands and woods. In this area old villages or esdorpen are situated, like Exloo, Valthe and Odoorn. The eastern part of the municipality, which is situated between the Hondsrug and the province of Groningen, was a peat swamp in the old days. The villages in this area originate from the peat-digging period in the 19th century and are characterised by ribbon development surrounded by rectangular agricultural fields. Eerste Exloermond, Exloerveen, Zandberg, Valthermond and also Tweede Exloermond, where the field research was carried out, are situated in this area. The village of Tweede Exloermond is L-shaped. The long leg of the L is formed by the Zuiderdiep, a 7 km long road which ends in the province of Groningen. Originally this road was laid out along a canal, that was used for peat transportation in the old days. This canal was filled up about twenty years ago and replaced by a bicycle trail. The short leg is formed by the Exloerkijl Zuid, which is 3 km long and ends in the neighbouring village of Valthermond. Both roads have detached houses and farms on both sides. In the ‘corner of the L’ a few neighbourhoods are situated with houses in rows.

Historical development
The villages on the Hondsrug, Valthe, Exloo and Odoorn, started their development as esdorpen or brinkdorpen; their names were already mentioned in writings from the thirteenth and fourteenth century (van der Werff, 1997: 28). In esdorpen a couple of farms were built around an open village square, the brink. Around these farms the fields or essen were situated, where rye and buckwheat were cultivated. Cattle were held for their manure because the sandy soil was not very fertile. Between the farmhouses, fruit and vegetable gardens were cultivated. These villages, where existence was based on a combination of agriculture, gardening, cattle-breeding and pasturage, were spread over the sandy plain in the centre of the Drenthian area (van Dam, 1996: 29; Zwier,1995: 12-31). In the Dutch Golden Age rich merchants from cities in Holland started to invest in peat-digging, which took off in the south-west of the Drenthian province and


continued in the middle and the northern part. Peat exploitation east of the Hondsrug did not begin before the middle of the nineteenth century, but at that time villages like Tweede Exloermond began to develop as peat-colonies or veenkolonien. For the exploitation of the peat-moor, straight canals and perpendicular smaller canals were dug for the dehydration and transport of peat. Many labourers were recruited from towns like Stadskanaal in Groningen and very often women and children had to participate in the peat-digging. Along the canals small houses were built for the labourers and their families. Bridges were built over the canals and in time new neighbourhoods developed in the vicinity of these bridges. Wherever the peat was removed the underlying soil was highly suitable for agriculture, and farmhouses also soon appeared along the canals. After reclamation of the peat-moor, unemployment was widespread in the area and the new farmers weren't able to provide enough jobs. A solution was sought in industrialisation, and after WW II towns like Emmen (25 km from Tweede Exloermond) and Coevorden developed as typical industrial and commercial areas (Groen, 1994: 57-59; Kleijn, 1984: -). Another important source of income in the province of Drenthe is the tourist industry. After WW II the province was discovered by the Dutch population as an appropriate area for rest and recreation. Many people started to spend their holidays here because of the quietness and the beautiful scenery. Many hotels and camping sites were built and hundreds of kilometres of bicycle trails were laid out through the area (Kleijn, 1984: -). In the municipality of Odoorn, the old esdorpen Exloo and Odoorn in particular are much visited by tourists. The former peat-colonies like Tweede Exloermond, however, are not considered to be very attractive and are thus neglected by visitors.

In the old municipality of Odoorn live at least 12600 people, spread over eleven villages. These people can be divided into agegroups as follows: age 0-10 age 11-20 age 21-60 age 61 + 1615 1424 7101 2473

Valthermond and Tweede Exloermond have the largest numbers of inhabitants, respectively 3588 and 2337 people (information from Borger-Odoorn municipality). In Tweede Exloermond these 2337 people live in 940 houses (Drenthe in Cijfers 1997: 8) which means that the average household contains 2.5 persons. Information on gender division and age-groups specific for this village is not available, so conclusions on family composition or single person households can't be made.


Economic structure
Much of the land in the former municipality of Odoorn is used for agriculture, and especially east of the Hondsrug many people earn their living in this branch. Other areas in Odoorn, that offer much employment are building trade and business. In the next table the numbers of jobs (at least 12 hours per week) in the various professional areas within the municipality are listed: Line of business Agriculture Industry Building trade Business Transport Business services Other services Number of jobs 386 85 419 361 151 163 295 1860

(abstract from Drenthe in cijfers 1997: 39)

The table above shows that within the municipality Odoorn 1860 jobs are listed, while 5800 inhabitants are registered as employer (Drenthe in Cijfers 1997: 30). The remaining 4000 people work elsewhere, mostly in towns like Emmen, Assen, Stadskanaal and Groningen. In Tweede Exloermond a small industrial area (2.3 ha) was built in 1992 at the Noorderkijl and the first companies were established in 1993. At this point the emphasis returns to the subject of animals in experiments. In the Netherlands 92 organisations hold a licence for the appliance of animals in research. Among them are universities, hospitals, institutes for agricultural research, industrial enterprises and lab-animal breeding farms (Zodoende, 1997: 33). It seems that Drenthe is the only province in our country without licence-holding institutes (Veterinaire Hoofdinspectie van de Volksgezondheid, personal communication). Although people from Odoorn find jobs in Groningen, the experience with animal research among these people might be lower than among the rest of the Dutch population.

Social structure
In Odoorn municipality are twelve schools for primary education that are attended by 1200 children. Two of these schools, one Protestant and one secular, are situated in Tweede Exloermond. For secondary education, children go to Emmen or Stadskanaal and for university study they have to leave the province of Drenthe altogether (Drenthe in Cijfers 1997: 25-27).


Various congregations are represented in the municipality, most of them Protestant. In Tweede Exloermond are four church buildings, all situated along the Zuiderdiep. These churches are Baptist, New Apostolic, Samen op weg (coalition of Dutch reformed and Calvinist) and Vrijzinnig Hervormd (liberally reformed) respectively. The Sunday services in these churches are well attended by the people of Tweede Exloermond. In the municipal council the four most powerful Dutch political parties are represented; namely PvdA, VVD, CDA and D66, supplemented with the small religious parties RPF/GPV and a municipal party Gemeentebelangen. The PvdA is the only party that holds a department in the Odoorn municipality; the office is situated in Valthe. A variety of sports associations with appropriate indoor and outdoor accommodations exist in Odoorn. In Tweede Exloermond we find grounds for soccer, tennis, horseriding and clubs for volleyball, skating and gymnastics. In 1989 a new gymnasium, the Hunsowhal, was built in this village. Corporate life is rich in Odoorn municipality; various clubs offer opportunities to get together with other people for activities like dance, theatre and making music. Some associations exist especially to meet the entertainment needs of the local youth or those of the elderly. Tweede Exloermond has its own clubs for music, acting, singing and folk dancing (Information from municipality Borger-Odoorn).


Chapter 2: Research methods
Main focus and theory
The goal of the research project in Drenthe was to find an answer to the following question: What is the public opinion among the villagers of Tweede Exloermond towards experimenting on animals in research? The following question was of particular interest: Are the majority of these villagers against animal testing? With the expression 'experimenting on animals' is meant: all treatment of animals and the administering of substances to these creatures with the goal of gaining knowledge that benefits humans. The effect of the experimentation may vary from mild inconvenience to severe suffering and even the death of the animal. The expressions 'animal testing' and 'animal research' also fit in this definition. Some people use the term 'vivisection' for experimenting on animals, while others apply this word only in cases of what they call needless experiments. Because there is no agreement, neither on the use of the term nor about the need of experiments, the word 'vivisection' was not used in the questionnaire during fieldwork and will not be used in the remainder of this document. The organisation Proefdiervrij claims that the majority of the Dutch population is against animal experimentation. After fruitless attempts to track down studies or opinion polls on this subject, it was Proefdiervrij itself who finally provided me with two studies on which its claim was based. The first study was performed by NSS/marktonderzoek bv via CATI (computer assisted telephonic interviewing). The questionnaire was compiled in co-operation with Proefdiervrij. When the respondents in this study (N=325) were asked the names of animal welfare organisations nobody seemed to know Proefdiervrij. When the name Proefdiervrij was mentioned, 56% of the people were able to state the main goal of the organisation (the goal is expressed in the name). Eighty percent of the respondents agreed with some or with all of the aims of Proefdiervrij. Concerning the use of different species of animals, more than 70% of the respondents opposed the use of primates, dogs, cats and horses, while 44% were against the use of rats and mice. Other frequently used species in research, like guinea pigs, rabbits, pigs, sheep, birds and fish, were not mentioned in the questionnaire. Furthermore NSS found that females were more often opposed to animal experimentation than males and younger people (<35) oppose more often than older people. NSS also stated that people in lower social classes (classes C and D) oppose more than higher class people (classes A and B); however, NSS forgot to define these social classes in the study.


The second study brought to my attention by Proefdiervrij was a comparative study of 15 Nations, performed by Pifer and Shimizu (1993). From 1989 until 1992 respondents in various countries world-wide were interviewed on a broad range of topics, so they were not sensitised on the subject of animal research. They were asked to agree/disagree with the statement: "Scientists should be allowed to do research that causes pain and injury to animals like dogs and chimpanzees if it produces new information about human health problems". Low levels of opposition were found in Japan and the USA, while high opposition was found in France, Belgium and Great Britain. In the Netherlands the results were as follows: Strongly agree 11% Agree 39% Uncertain/don't know 5% Disagree 15% Strongly disagree 30% (N=489) From these numbers we may conclude that 50% of the Dutch population agrees with medical experiments, even on animals with a high aaibaarheid (soft, cuddly appearance) like dogs and chimps. Only 45% seems to disagree, which is not the majority of the population, as suggested by Proefdiervrij. Furthermore, Pifer and Shimizu concluded that in each of the 15 countries more women than men were opposed to animal experiments. This gender-based difference appeared to be largest in our country (32% of men versus 58% of women). Scientific knowledge (measured by score on ten questions) was not found to have a relationship with an attitude towards animal research. However, a relationship was found between a negative attitude towards animal testing and concern about the environment in some Western European countries. Except for answering the question whether the majority of the population is against animal-testing, the gender-based attitude toward animal research was investigated in Tweede Exloermond. Age of the respondent and concern for the environment were also included in the examination. Social class seems to have some influence on the attitude, but is very difficult to determine. Social class is not the sum of education and profession, but also takes into account the opinion of other people about the person in question. Other factors that might have an influence on people's attitude were explored. Chronic illness and dependency on medical drugs for instance may lead to higher acceptability, while at the other end of the scale religious beliefs and other personal philosophies, like overall concern for animals, may lead to lower acceptability of animal testing.

Research design
A variety of factors that play a role in the subject "animals in experiments" are represented in the conceptual model in figure 1. The factors that were examined in Drenthe are represented in bold face in this diagram.


Animals in experiments |- Actors | |- Opponents | | |- Animal welfare organisations | |- Researchers / License holders | | |- Universities / Academic hospitals | | |- Other hospitals / Healthcare labs | | |- Institutes on agriculture / cattle breeding | | |- Scientific institutes | | |- Industrial enterprises | | |- Schools for MBO / HBO | | |- Lab animal breeding companies | |- Control | | |- DEC | | |- UHI | |- Public | |- Variables | |- Gender | |- Age | |- Education | |- Profession | |- Religion | |- Having pets or farm animals | |- Health |- Goals | |- Production of vaccines, drugs (46.3 %) | |- Education (1 %) | |- Toxicological research, food industry etc. (7.9 %) | |- Science (44.1 %) | |- Diagnostics (0.7 %) |- Objections | |- Emotional /general concern for animals | |- Religious | |- Philosophical / ethical | |- Environmental | |- Alternative methods available | |- Financial |- Species | |- Domestic animals (dog, cat) | |- Farm animals (cow, pig, sheep) | |- Rodents (rat, mice) | |- Exotic animals (non-human primates) | |- Lower vertebrates (fish, reptiles) | |- Birds |- Level of inconvenience | |- Psychological stress | |- Moderate pain | |- Severe pain | |- Death |- Other abuses | |- Bio industry | |- Hunting, fishing, poaching | |- Breeding of fur animals | |- Animals in entertainment |- Origin of animals |- Captured in the wild |- Bred in labs |- Bred in companies |- Obtained from asylum / stray animals Figure 1: Conceptual model of research on acceptability of animal experiments.


Although animals are used in many fields of research, the investigation in Tweede Exloermond was confined to their use in the testing of medical drugs, food additives and household chemicals. This selection is made on the basis that any respondent may use these products and therefore understand what the problem is about. Cosmetics were included in the investigation, although since February 1997 legislation has been changed and the use of animal in the testing of cosmetics is no longer allowed (Zodoende, 41). Furthermore it was examined whether the tested species of animal plays a role in people's attitude. It is very difficult to make judgements about the levels of pain and stress that are experienced by animals during experiments, and for that reason these factors were left out in this project. The origin of lab-animals was also neglected in this project because people's opinion here might depend on the species of animals. They might prefer that rats but not monkeys be captured in the wild. It might complicate the investigation without answering the main questions. With the aid of the conceptual model above the main focus is narrowed down to the next question: What is the attitude of people in Tweede Exloermond toward the testing on animals of medical drugs, food additives and household chemicals before their application by humans? Sub-questions are: 1. Does the majority of this population oppose animal research? 2. Do gender and age play a role in people's attitude toward animal testing? 3. Which other factors play a role in agreement/disagreement with animal testing? 4. Does it matter for the acceptability of animal testing which species are used in the experiments? In the attitude of people toward experiments on animals, different aspects play a role: • Knowledge about animals in experiments • Experience with animals in experiments • Behaviour concerning animal research Factors that may determine the knowledge about animals in research are age, education and profession. Experience with the subject may be related to dependency on medical drugs, or to education and profession. Behaviour patterns in our country may be related to the amount of money people have to spend. This in turn is related to profession and earnings. The aspects of knowledge, experience and behaviour that contribute to "attitude toward animal research" were examined with the aid of specific questions. For instance people were asked if they ever conducted experiments on animals or if they ever saw them. Furthermore they were asked if they ever bought products not tested on animals or demonstrated against animal research.


To answer the second sub-question respondents were asked to indicate their gender and age. Other factors that may influence people's attitude (third sub-question), besides the already mentioned concern for the environment, are level of education, profession and earnings, religion and political orientation. Another factor that may play a role is concern for the well being of animals in general. Dependency on medical drugs may lead to a more positive attitude toward animal research. A variety of questions were designed to investigate the factors mentioned above. To answer the fourth sub-question a list of various species was made, including pets with a soft, cuddly appearance, farm animals and harmful animal. The questions were elaborated in a questionnaire which is present (in Dutch) in the appendix of this document.

Research methods
One of the areas to be investigated in Tweede Exloermond was whether the majority of the population is against animal testing. Furthermore we wanted to find out whether variables like gender, age and concern for the environment play a role in people's objections. To examine these questions and to apply statistics to the results it was important to use a broad panel of respondents. For these reasons testing research methods were used, rather than exploring and descriptive methods. There was an exploring component in the questionnaire with the aim of finding other factors that might relate to agreement about or objections to animal research. The unit of investigation or the population included all persons of 18 years and older, male and female, who live in Tweede Exloermond. To investigate the gender-based attitude as well it was important to select almost equal numbers of male and female respondents. Because age also seems to play a role it was important to select respondents in a wide age range. Aselect sampling of respondents on the basis of education, profession, religion and health was difficult, if not impossible. Sampling, based on these personal characteristics of people, demands files that might not be public.

The research in Tweede Exloermond was performed by means of a structured questionnaire, which was administered via the "drop and collect" method (Russell Bernard, 260-62). Advantages of this method are: • All respondents get the same questions; there is no interviewer bias. • Respondents feel free to give socially undesirable answers, because the anonymity provides a sense of security. • With the "drop and collect" method a higher response is to be expected than by providing the questionnaire by mail.


Of course there are disadvantages as well: • The interviewer has no control over the way the respondent interprets the question. This means that the questions have to be very clear and simple. • The interviewer has no control over the person who fills in the questionnaire. This is not a great problem in this project, because every adult in the village is a member of the population under research. • With this method illiterate and visually disabled people are excluded. In our industrialised country however the number of illiterate people will be very low. The population from which respondents would be selected included all persons of 18 years and older in the village. Because of legislation on privacy, a public file from which to select respondents was necessary. Telephone books are public and can be used as a sampling frame which represents the population. A disadvantage however is the absence of people either without a telephone or with an unlisted number. Another public file which was used in this research project is the postcode book. This file is also available on floppy disc and CD-ROM. With a list of every postcode within the village a list of all addresses in the village was made, which were all numbered. With the aid of a table with aselect numbers a sample of 60 addresses was drawn. The resulting addresses yielded a household, not a person. When dropping off the questionnaires the interviewer could request that a man and then a woman co-operate at alternating addresses. It was to be expected that by using all the postcodes every age group would be included. A problem might be that addresses under a certain postcode are situated in an industrial area without houses. The small industrial area in Tweede Exloermond developed after 1994 and was situated at the Noorderkijl. These addresses were not yet listed in the postcode file that was use

In the field
Before entering the field I completed numbering the sampling frame and during the first two days in the Tweede Exloermond I drew my sample of 60 addresses and made a checklist. On the third day I began dropping the questionnaires, but soon it became very clear that this method would not work. Of the first four addresses on my checklist, at three of them nobody answered the doorbell. Trying again during the evening was no option because my hostfamily had strongly advised me not to go out after dark. The consequence was that in the panel of respondents, couples that both had a job may be poorly represented. The next approach was to try every third house. If nobody was at home then the next house with the lights on and a car in front of the door was tried. The same number of houses per street, as drawn in the aselect sample, was maintained as much as possible. Maybe unjustly I expected traditional households in this part of the country, where men go out working while wives stay at home to take care of the household and rear the children. More often than was expected a man answered the doorbell and it was not necessary to ask for a male and then a female to fill in the questionnaire.


Most people were co-operative and it took me no more than two hours to drop ten questionnaires. Older people refused very often, especially females. The reason for these refusals was not clear, but may result in there being only few elderly people in the panel of respondents. Collecting the Questionnaires took more time; people weren't always at home at the agreed upon time and I had to try later. Fieldwork was started with 65 envelopes containing the questionnaires, an answering envelope and a letter of introduction. Sixty envelopes was dropped at the homes and five were distributed at the kitchen table of the hostfamily. At the end of the three weeks 55 questionnaires were returned that were ready for analysis.


Chapter 3: Analysis
Panel of respondents
The answers in the questionnaires (see appendix 1) were analysed using the program SPSS for Windows, version 7.5. A number of 55 questionnaires were filled in satisfactorily by 23 males and 32 females. The respondents and their age-groups are summarised in table 1. One female didn’t give her age.
Age group * gender Crosstabulation Count male Age group 18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-78 gender female 2 7 4 7 3 23 1 11 11 4 3 2 32 Total 1 13 18 8 10 5 55


Table 1 This table shows that young males in comparison with females are poorly represented in the investigation. In the older age groups more men than women participated in the research project.

Knowledge, experience and behaviour
The aspects of knowledge, experience and behaviour, in the context of animal use in experiments, were investigated on basis of the answers to the first 10 questions. When asked if people knew organisations or companies in the Netherlands (question 1), which use animals in research, only the Dutch institute for applied research TNO (Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek) was mentioned by name. Instead of organisations, most respondents wrote down fields of research, like medical science, pharmaceutical industry, research on HIV and the consumer industry. Some people mentioned the cosmetic industry, though in the Netherlands these industries are no longer allowed to test their products on animals. However, cosmetics that are produced and tested on animals in other countries are still available on the Dutch


market About half of the respondents were aware that animal research is restricted by legislation (question 2). Although most people could recall a few animal welfare organisations, none of them knew of Proefdiervrij or Anti-vivisectie Stichting (questions 7 and 8). With the answers on questions 1, 2, 7 and 8 a score for ‘knowledge’ was composed, ranging from 0 to 9 points. The mean score for knowledge was 2.7 points. Among the respondents only one person has worked in the field of animal research, although 50 people could remember seeing instances of experiments on animals, either on television or in magazines. With these numbers, ‘experience’ can not really be used as a variable in this analysis. In the panel of respondents two persons have agitated for the sake of animals (question 5), while 15 people wrote that they sometimes buy animal-test-free products (question 6). If shopkeepers sold animal-test-free products, many people stated that they would buy these products, and 33 persons indicated they would buy them even for slightly higher prices. However, if the prices for these products were doubled, only five respondents would still buy them (questions 10-12). Cross-tabulation (not represented) revealed no correlation between ‘income’ and ‘willingness’ to buy more expensive animal-test-free products. Fifteen respondents were members of an organisation promoting animal welfare. Not surprisingly, none of them was a member of Proefdiervrij or Anti-vivisectie stichting. A score for ‘animal-friendly behaviour’ was based on the answers to questions 5, 6 and 10. The score varied from 1 to 5 points with a mean value of 2.6.


Attitude towards animal-testing
The attitude towards experimenting on animals was explored with questions 22 to 26, in which respondents were asked how strongly they agreed/disagreed with a ban on animal testing. It appeared that a distinction could be made between the testing of medicines and the testing of other consumer products. Most of the respondents agreed with a ban on animal testing for paint, soap, cosmetics and food additives, while concerning the testing of medicines they had a more differentiated opinion. These latter results are summarised in table 2.
Oppose medicine testing Valid Percent 9.1 40.0 18.2 16.4 16.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 9.1 49.1 67.3 83.6 100.0

Frequency Valid very pro testing pro testing no opinion against testing strongly against testing Total 5 22 10 9 9 55 55

Percent 9.1 40.0 18.2 16.4 16.4 100.0 100.0


Table 2 It appears that 33% (9+9 respondents) is against the testing of medicines on animals, versus 49% (22+5 respondents) that is in favour of the use of animals in this field of research. A score for opposition to the testing of consumer products other than medicines is derived by a summation of answers to questions 22, 23, 24 and 26. In these questions a scale from 0 to 4 points was applied for, respectively, strongly against to strongly in favour of a ban. The higher the score, the stronger the opposition to the use of animals in testing these kinds of products. When respondents neither agreed nor disagreed, the summation would lead to 8 points. The scores were grouped as follows: 0 - 5 points 6 - 10 points 11 - 13 points 14 - 16 points agrees with testing no strong opinion opposes testing strongly opposes testing

The results are summarised in table 3.


Attitude towards testing consumer products Valid Percent 5.5 12.7 47.3 34.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 5.5 18.2 65.5 100.0

Frequency Valid pro testing no opinion against testing strongly against Total 3 7 26 19 55 55

Percent 5.5 12.7 47.3 34.5 100.0 100.0


Table 3 From this table we can conclude that 82% of the respondents are against the use of animals in the testing of consumer products, while 5.5% agree with these kind of experiments. To investigate whether ‘knowledge’ and ‘behaviour’ as mentioned above were correlated with attitudes toward animal testing, cross-tabulations were performed and Kendall’s τ values (a correlation coefficient for ordinal variables) were calculated. A weak correlation was found between ‘lab animal-friendly behaviour’ and ‘attitude towards the use of animals in the testing of consumer products’, where Kendall’s τ had a value of 0,27.

Personal characteristics
The relationship between gender and attitude towards animal testing was investigated by cross-tabulation and the calculation of Cramer’s V ( for nominal variables). Both in the field of medicines and in the field of other consumable products an association was observed with Cramers’s V values of 0.30. A diagram of the results concerning consumer products is presented in figure 2.


16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 pro testing no opinion against testing strongly against

male female


Attitude towards testing consumer products

Figure 2 Further calculations revealed that 88% of the female respondents oppose the testing of animals for consumer products versus 74% of the males. In the case of medicine testing these percentages are 41% female- versus 22% male opposition. These data show that women more often oppose the use animals in the testing of medicines as well as in the testing of other consumer products. Another question was whether ‘opposition to experimenting on animals’ is related to the age of the respondent. Cross-tabulation (data not shown) and a calculation of the correlation coefficient Kendall’s τ (τ = -0.13) showed no significant correlation. The correlation between age and the opposition to the use of animals in the testing of consumer products was not much higher; τ = -0.19. These negative values of τ would suggest that opposition to animal research decreases as people become older. Furthermore, it was investigated whether elderly people included in our panel have more chronic diseases in their household, which might lead to dependency on medical drugs. These results are presented in figure 3.




chronic disease in h Count
no 0 18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-78 yes

age group

Figure 3 Although a correlation is found between age and chronic diseases (Cramer’s V = 0.51, Kendall’s τ = 0.30), this does not lead to a higher acceptance of the use of animals in experimental research. As many as 44 respondents mentioned having offspring, the number of children varies from one to five, with most respondents (24) having two. No correlation was found between having children and an attitude towards animal experimentation.

General care for animals
It was examined whether the owners of domestic animals were more often opposed to animal-research. A variety of species can be found in Tweede Exloermond, and are subdivided into four groups. 1. 2. 3. 4. Cats and/or dogs Rodents like rabbits and hamsters Birds like chickens, geese, canaries and parakeets Fishes and reptiles

Cross-tabulation (not shown) demonstrated a low association between having domestic animals and a negative attitude towards animals in research, both in the testing of medicines and in the testing of other consumer products. These associations were slightly higher in the case of owners of fishes/reptiles (nine people), with Cramer’s V values of 0.38 and 0.35.


Another question was whether respondents had a farm with cattle. Although the questionnaire was dropped at a few big farmhouses along the Zuiderdiep, none of the respondents owned cattle. Only one respondent kept sheep, another one mentioned having been born and raised on a cattle farm and a third was married to a blacksmith, who shoed horses for a living. Because only two people depended financially on the exploitation of animals, this question was not taken into account in the analysis. People’s attitudes towards different kinds of animal (ab)use were further investigated in questions 13 to 21. In these nine questions respondents were asked how strongly they disagreed/agreed (on a scale 0 to 4) with restriction on certain types of animal exploitation. Strong agreement with restriction or prohibition corresponds to the high score of 4 points and to a more animal-friendly attitude. A score of 2 points corresponds with to neutral opinion. The majority of the respondents had few problems with the types of exploitation as mentioned in the questions. The mean values of the scores on most questions varied from 1.2 to 1.9, which means disagreement with a reduction in these types of animal use. There were two exceptions, however; most people agreed with the ban on the fur trade and with the statement that animals in bio-industry need more ranging space (a mean score of 3.2 for both). The aversion to the breeding and the slaughter of animals for fur is widespread in the Netherlands and also in this part of the country. The concern for animals in bio-industry was not expected, especially because most people disagree with the statement that the Dutch should reduce their meat consumption. Bio-industry might be an issue in this part of Drenthe nowadays however, as a consequence of the plague that badly affected pig farms in NoordBrabant last year. It was said that pig breeders there had plans to move their activities to the Drenthian countryside. A conversation with locals in the gym, during the fieldwork period, made clear to me that this branch of industry was not welcome in this area, for a variety of reasons. For every respondent a total score for animal-friendly attitude was calculated by a summation of the scores on the nine questions mentioned above. A neutral opinion on every question corresponds to a total score of 18 points. The scores varied from 5 to 32 questions, with a mean value of 16.9. To explore the relationship of these attitudes with opposition to animal testing, the scores were grouped as follows: 5 - 14 points 15 - 21 points 22 - 32 points ‘less animal -friendly attitude’ ‘neutral attitude’ ‘animal-friendly attitude’

The distribution of these scores among the respondents is visualised in figure 4.


Bar Chart




0 less friendly neutral friendly

animal friendly attitude

Figure 4

Cross-tabulation demonstrates a weak correlation between ‘concern for animals’ and ‘opposition to their use in medical testing’, with Kendall’s τ = 0.23. In the case of the testing of other consumer products however a higher correlation is observed, with a Kendall’s τ value of 0.42, as can be seen in table 4.
Attitude towards testing consumer products * animal friendly attitude Crosstabulation Count animal friendly attitude less friendly neutral friendly Attitude towards testing consumer products pro testing no opinion against testing strongly against 3 6 12 4 25 1 9 8 18 5 7 12

Total 3 7 26 19 55


Table 4


Social-economic status
Previous studies showed a relationship between social status and attitude towards animal testing (NSS/marktonderzoek). Social classes are difficult to determine in a three-week period. For this reason the relationship between the respondent’s attitude and his or her level of education and profession was explored instead. The level of education was relatively low, which might be due to the lack of universities and schools for higher professional education (HBO) in this part of the country. A scale of education was made according to the following scheme: 1. 2. 3. 4. No education after primary school LBO (lower professional education) and MAVO MBO (medium professional education) and HAVO HBO (higher professional education)

Only two persons completed secondary education at HAVO level and are therefore categorised under group 3. Cross-tabulation revealed that opposition to animal-testing is not correlated with level of education. With the aim of investigating the relationship between people’s line of work and their opinion concerning animal research, their jobs were grouped according to the categories mentioned in chapter 1, page 5. Some activities were difficult to classify, for instance the technical trades like welder, mechanic, painter and engine fitter. These are grouped in the category ‘business services’. Other activities, in which it was not clear whether people were self-employed, were categorised in ‘other services’, examples of which are gardener and farrier. After classification it became clear that most people are blue-collar workers, either skilled or unskilled. Twenty-two respondents work in the categories of business services or other services, while 24 people hadn’t a job at all. Thus exploring the correlation between ‘line of work’ and attitude is pointless in this panel of respondents. Striking is that none of the respondents works in agriculture, although Tweede Exloermond is a rural area. Only two of them have spouses that make a living in agriculture. The list with ‘lines of business’ in chapter 1 shows that, next to agriculture, most jobs in the Odoorn municipality are found in the building trade and in business. This is in strong contrast to the findings in our panel of respondents, where only four people earn a living in these two categories. Because the categorisation of jobs according to ‘lines of business’ was meaningless, another means to classify jobs was sought. It was explored whether having a job at all had any influence on people’s opinion. First it was determined which people in our panel of respondents have a job. Cross-tabulation soon revealed that women in particular are without paid work, as is presented in table 5. For this association between gender and having a job a Cramer’s V value of 0.64 was found.


Having a job * gender Crosstabulation Count gender male female 5 19 2 15 22 8 2 29 Total 24 10 17 51

Having a job

no job part-time job full-time job


Table 5 In the panel most of the women that have a job work part-time, while the majority of the men have a full-time job. The men without paid work are all over age of 56. These findings are not representative for the village; full-time working couples are not included in the panel because they were not at home at the times of dropping the questionnaires. The association between ‘having a job’ and ‘attitude towards animals in research’ will be similar to the association between ‘gender’ and ‘attitude’ which was dealt with above. A group of 15 respondents refused to reveal their household income. Of the 40 people that divulged their income, 37 earn less than f75,000 a year. These relatively low incomes reflect the levels of education and the jobs in the field of business and other services. These factors are, among others, indicators for social class, and among the panel of respondents no significant class differences were observed.

Politics, religion and domicile
Within the panel of respondents 24 people were associated with one of the four distinct Protestant churches (Baptist, Samen op weg, New Apostolic and Liberally Reformed) in Tweede Exloermond, while 25 people were not members of any congregation. Among the respondents were two Roman Catholics, who have to attend Catholic mass outside of the village. Seventeen people attend church on a weekly basis, while a few others go once a month or less. For the analysis the members of the four churches were grouped in the category ‘Protestant’. Other categories were ‘no membership’ and ‘Roman Catholic’. No significant association was observed between church affiliation and opposition to animal-testing.


Last year the respondents voted in the Tweede Kamer elections as shown in figure 5.

Bar Chart



0 not voted PvdA VVD CDA D66 Groen links RPF/GPV SP

political party

Figure 5

As was to be expected from the jobs and religious affiliations of the respondents, the left-wing and Christian parties had a lot of support here. For the analysis the parties were grouped into ‘left-wing’, ‘Christian’ and ‘right-wing’, where D66 was grouped under ‘left-wing’. Cross-tabulation showed some association between political preference and attitude towards animal research. In the case of medicine testing, where a Cramer’s V value of 0.32 was found, right-wing voters tend to agree more, while Christian voters more often have no opinion. Also in the case of testing of other products (Cramer’s V = 0.27) the Christian voters more often have no opinion on the subject. The choice of a newspaper can be determined by factors like political preference, education and profession. For instance the Volkskrant is often associated with leftwing people, NRC handelsblad with right-wing business people and the Telegraaf with less educated people who like a ‘readable’ newspaper. The reading of certain newspapers may have an influence on general knowledge and on people’s opinion on diverse subjects. The choice of newspapers was also investigated in the panel of respondents, where the door-to-door (huis aan huis) papers were ignored. The majority reads regional newspapers, like the Drentsche Courant or the Nieuwsblad van het Noorden. Three respondents read the Telegraaf and one respondent is a Trouw reader. Seven respondents read more than one newspaper, sometimes including the Telegraaf .


According to a few locals from the village no significant differences can be observed among the different regional newspapers and hence the choice of newspaper can’t serve as a variable in the subject of attitude towards animal testing. It was also investigated whether being born and raised in this part of the Drenthian province influences people’s attitude. Among the respondents 28 people have always lived in the village, while 14 people used to live in neighbouring villages. Two other persons left the village temporarily, for studies in Zwolle and Leeuwarden, respectively. In contrast to these native Drenthians, nine respondents originated from other parts of the country but ended up living in Tweede Exloermond. Crosstabulation showed that the ‘newcomers’ tend to oppose animal testing slightly more, with Cramer’s V values of 0.25, both in the case of medicine testing and the testing of other products.

Concern for the environment and alternative medicine
General concern for the environment and attitude towards alternative medicine in the panel of respondents was explored. Among the respondents were five members of the organisation Greenpeace (question 46). Every respondent states that he or she separates his or her waste (question 47), which is not surprising. Odoorn municipality, like other municipalities in the country, supplies every household with garbage containers for different types of waste. The separation of garbage can for these reasons not be used as a variable in the analysis. Thirty-two people never buy products in a health-food shop (reform or natuurwinkel), while 17 respondents indicated they do so less than once a month (question 48). Only six people buy health-food on a regular base. This might be due to the fact that there are not many health-food shops in the area around Tweede Exloermond. As many as 42 people claim to take measures to reduce their energy consumption, while 12 respondents reduce their use when they think about it (question 49). One person wasn’t concerned about resources at all. Although not much variability in concern for the environment was to be expected, the scores for the questions 46, 48 and 49 were summated. The scores varied from 1 to 5 points and the mean value was 2.4. The relationship between opposition to animal testing and concern for the environment was then tested but no correlation was found, neither in case of medicine testing nor in the testing of other products. The last factor to be explored is the use of alternative medicine in association with opposition to animal research. From among the respondents, 28 people visited an alternative practitioner, while 39 people used homeopathic medicines. The overlap between these two groups is considerable; 27 people turn to both methods in instances of physical problems. One respondent indicated that he used homeopathic medicines only for his dog. Some association is observed between having a chronic disease and the use of alternative methods; people without chronic physical problems in their household tend to turn more easily to an alternative practitioner and to use homeopathic drugs more often. The associations were explored between seeking help in alternative


methods and opposition to animal-experimenting. These associations were weak; the strongest association was observed between the use of homeopathic drugs and opposition to the testing of consumable products, with Cramer’s V value = 0.39. Cross-tabulation of this association is presented in table 6.

Attitude towards testing consumer products * uses homeopathic medicin Crosstabulation Count uses homeopathic medicin no yes Attitude towards testing consumer products pro testing no opinion against testing strongly against 3 4 10 2 16 3 16 17 39

Total 3 7 26 19 55


Table 6

Differentiation in species of animals
Another research question in this project was whether it matters which species of animals are used in research. A list of 16 species was drawn up and respondents were asked how strongly they agreed with the use of these animals in experiments. The answers were scored on a scale from 0 to 4, where 0 corresponds to strong agreement with the use of the species in question and 4 to disagreement. In concordance with former questions a higher score is then associated to a more animal-friendly attitude. When respondents don’t have a strong opinion they score 2 points on these questions. The species of animals, with the mean scores of all respondents, are listed in table 7 (where 4 decimals is somewhat overdone).


Statistics N Valid CAVIA MICE RATS RABBITS CATS DOGS SHEEP PIGS BOVINES HORSES CHIMPS RHESUS BIRDS FISHES REPTILES INSECTS 50 53 54 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 53 52 Missing 5 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 Mean 2.9800 1.8491 1.7593 3.0588 3.2549 3.3725 3.3137 3.1176 3.2353 3.3333 3.2157 3.1961 3.0980 2.8627 2.6792 1.9615

Table 7

Most respondents have no problems with testing on rodents like mice and rats, where mean scores are 1.8. However, opposition is observed in the case of rodents like rabbits and guinea pigs (cavia in table 7), where mean scores are 3.0. Testing on rats and mice appeared to be even more acceptable than testing on cold-blooded animals like fish and reptiles. Furthermore, experiments on insects lead to little opposition (mean score 2.0). The greatest opposition is observed in the case of dogs (mean score 3.4), followed by horses, sheep and cats. Among the respondents there is also considerable resistance to the use of exotic animals like chimpanzees and rhesus macaques, where mean scores of 3.2 were observed. Some people oppose to experiments on any kind of animal, while others differentiate the species in their acceptability as lab-animals. A score for this more relaxed attitude is composed as follows: for every respondent the steps between the lowest and highest score for all the species were counted. For example the number of steps between agreement (rats for instance) and strong disagreement (dogs) is three. The results are listed in table 8.


STEPS Valid Percent 31.4 2.0 35.3 21.6 9.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 31.4 33.3 68.6 90.2 100.0



0 steps 1 steps 2 steps 3 steps 4 steps Total System Missing Total

Frequency 16 1 18 11 5 51 4 4 55

Percent 29.1 1.8 32.7 20.0 9.1 92.7 7.3 7.3 100.0


Table 8 As can be seen in this table, 16 respondents are fundamental in their opinion that all species of animal are the same concerning their use as lab-animals, while the majority differentiates among the species of animals. The relationship between differentiation in species and opposition to animal testing was investigated and a considerable negative correlation (Kendall’s τ = −0.46) was observed in the case of medicine testing. This means that people who are more fundamental in their opinion also object more often to the testing of medicines.

Reasons for objections to animal testing
The questionnaire contained one open question, in which people were asked to describe the reason they oppose animal testing. The purpose was to find out on what grounds people might reject animal testing; for instance, emotional, religious, ethical or financial. Many people gave no reason, but mentioned the conditions under which they agreed with animal testing. Most often these conditions were testing for medical science only. One person held that testing should be performed only on vermin. The reasons for objections could be categorised as follows: • • • • Objection to the pain and the suffering of animals Objection because animals are subjected and can’t protest It shouldn’t be and other reasons Objection because alternative methods are available

The numbers of answers in these categories are summarised in figure 6.


Bar Chart



0 animal suffering shouldn't be and oth condition: medical p condition: certain s animal subjection alternatives


Figure 6 The left four bars in this figure represent the reasons for objection and the right two bars the conditions under which people agree with animal testing. Two respondents referred to the Bible in their answer: however, the first one used it to reject and the other to justify animal testing:
Als mensen zijn wij geschapen door de Schepper met verantwoordelijkheden om die schepping te onderhouden en te verzorgen en te beschermen. Dierproeven uitvoeren is niet erg redelijk ten opzichte van dieren en niet de opdracht die we van de Schepper kregen.

In short, God created humans and gave them the responsibility to preserve and protect Creation. Animal testing is not justified and not the instruction given to us by the Creator. This answer is grouped under the third category.
…Wanneer het gaat om- of ter voorkoming van ziektes voor de mens mag het van mij, mits er wel met respect voor het dier mee omgegaan wordt. Mijn stelling is dat de mens boven het dier staat (Bijbels gegeven).

Which means that this person agrees with animal testing for the purpose of treating or prevention of diseases, provided that the lab-animals are treated with respect. His or her proposition is that humans are superior to animals (stated in Bible). The purpose of this question was to find out whether people might object to animal research on religious, philosophical or other grounds, rather than the fact that it causes the animals pain(is zielig). It became clear that the question was very poorly formulated and it would have been better had this question been presented orally to the panel of participants.


Chapter 4: Summary and Conclusion
The fieldwork project, the results of which are presented here, was carried out in January 1999 in Tweede Exloermond. This village is situated in the municipality of Odoorn, in the eastern part of the Drenthian province. In this former peat colony, now home to 2500 villagers, people’s attitude towards animal experimenting was explored. The research was carried out by means of a written questionnaire that was distributed by the ‘drop and collect’ method. These questionnaires were collected a few days later. The ‘drop and collect’ method turned out to be a convenient way to obtain the most response in the shortest time. It was regrettable, in fact, that the field was entered with only 65 copies of the questionnaire because it was not difficult to find co-operating respondents. The first goal of the research project was to determine whether the majority of the village population opposes animal testing. It became clear that, concerning people’s attitude, a subdivision needed to be made between testing for medical purposes and testing for consumer purposes in the production of soap, paint and food-additives. Concerning these consumer goods, a considerable majority of 82% of the respondents opposes the use of animals in testing. For the purpose of medical research however, 49% of the panel agrees and only 33% disagrees with these kind of experiments. These results substantially confirm the findings of Pifer and Shimizu (1993), who found 50% agreement and 45% disagreement in the Dutch population. It goes without saying that simply counting the advocates and opponents of the use of animals in experiments is neither satisfying nor very interesting. More appealing was to determine which factors influence people’s opinion concerning this subject. Earlier studies by NSS/marktonderzoek (1997) showed that gender, age and social class play a role in forming people’s attitudes. Pifer and Shimizu also observed that concern for the environment was another factor associated with opposition to the use of animals in laboratories. The gender-based difference in attitude was confirmed in this study, where women oppose more often than men. However, age seemed to play no role in people’s opinion regarding animal testing in this research project. As features of social class, the influences of education, profession and incomes were investigated. Within our panel of respondents, however, differences in socioeconomic status were not significant. The panel consisted of people with jobs in business- or in other services, with moderate incomes. Most of them had completed their studies at the LBO or the MBO level. It should also be kept in mind that the panel was not wholly representative of the village population. Working couples or working singles were not included in the panel because they were not at home when the questionnaires were dropped. The hypothesis that concern for animals used in research is correlated with concern for the environment could not be confirmed in this research project.


Several other factors that may have influenced people’s opinion regarding animal testing were explored. In this section only those that showed some correlation are mentioned. • Political preferences were found to play a role. Right wing voters tend to be more in favour of animal testing, while supporters of Christian parties more often held no opinion. • A relationship was observed between ‘opposition to testing of consumer products’ and a more ‘animal friendly attitude’, which was measured with a set of questions about agreement/disagreement concerning different kinds of animal (ab)use. In the case of ‘medical testing’ this correlation was lower. • The group of respondents that had lived elsewhere in the Netherlands before they settled in Tweede Exloermond are more opposed, however slightly, to animal testing. Among the respondents no strong objections to testing on mice and rats were found. In fact, the use of these pre-eminent lab-animals was even preferred above the use of insects and reptiles. Considerable opposition was observed regarding the use of domesticated species like horses, cattle, dogs and cats. Primates as well should not be used in an experimental capacity, according to our panel. This differentiation in species of animals was also observed by NSS/marktonderzoek. People who are fundamental in their opinion that no species of any kind should be used are also more often opposed to medical testing. The reasons that people gave for their objection to animal research were very briefly formulated. Although two people referred to the Bible and some others gave a more ethical reason as to why ‘it shouldn’t be done’ the answers came right from the heart without any philosophical or other basis. Here, however, one of the disadvantages of the ‘drop and collect’ method became clear. It would have been better to have posed the question orally and thus force the respondents were to think it over. A second disadvantage of the ‘drop and collect’ method was the lack of full-time working couples and singles in the panel. This problem could have been solved by using a telephone book instead of a post-code file to select addresses. People could have been called in the evening hours to ask for their participation. Other groups that might have been relevant in this project, such as cattle farmers or others that depend financially on animals, were also missing from the panel. Neither trades-people nor academics nor people in the building trade were present in the panel, although it is of course possible that these groups are scarcely -if at all- to be found in the population of Tweede Exloermond. The group of ‘foreigners’, people that have lived elsewhere in the Netherlands, tend to oppose the use of animals in laboratory testing even more than the east-Drenthians, who have lived in the region all of their lives. This suggests that the opinion of the villagers of Tweede Exloermond is not entirely representative of the Dutch population. It would be interesting therefore to repeat this research project in other parts of the Netherlands.


Dam, K.I.M. van, (1996) Nederland dichterbij; Drenthe. Amsterdam: Readers Digest. Drenthe in cijfers 1997. Provincie Drenthe. Groen, P.C., (1994) Landschap en Dorpen in Drenthe. Zuidwolde: Stichting het Drentse boek. Kleijn, A., (1984) Dorpen in Drenthe. Zutphen: Terra. Pifer, L., (1993) Public Attitudes toward Animal Research; a comparative Study of 15 Nations. Paper presented at World Congress on alternatives and animal use in the life Sciences: Baltimore, Maryland. Russell Bernard, H., (1995) Research Methods in Anthropology; Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: AltaMira Press. Smit, C., (1989) Dierproeven; 100 jaar discussie. Kampen: La Riviere & Voorhoeve. Verslag (1997) NSS/Marktonderzoek BV. Werff, E.O. van der, (1997) 'Onder de Bisschop' in H. Gras (ed.), Rond Hunze en Hondsrug, pp. 28-43. Gemeente Odoorn. Zodoende, Annual Report (1997) of the Veterinaire inspectie of the Dutch Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport. Zwier, G.J., (1995) Reisgids Nederland; Drenthe. ANWB/VVV.


Appendix A: Questionaire
Deze vragenlijst bevat een aantal open vragen en een aantal meerkeuze vragen. Bij de meerkeuze vragen kunt u aankruisen wat van toepassing is. De eerste tien vragen zijn bedoeld om na te gaan of u bekend bent met het onderwerp "dierproeven".
1 Kunt u bedrijven of instellingen noemen in Nederland die gebruik maken van proefdieren?

___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Nr 2 3 4 5 6 7

Vraag Bestaat er volgens u een wetgeving op het gebied van proefdier gebruik in Nederland? Heeft u via uw werk of opleiding ooit met proefdieren gewerkt? Heeft u ooit dier experimenten gezien, eventueel op televisie of op foto's? Heeft u ooit actie gevoerd ten behoeve van dieren? Koopt u wel eens bewust produkten die niet op dieren zijn getest (b.v. in de Bodyshop)?



Weet niet

Welke organisaties kent u die zich inzetten voor het welzijn van dieren?

__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________


Welke organisaties kent u die zich speciaal inzetten voor de afschaffing van dierproeven?

__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________


Van welke organisatie(s) die zich inzetten voor het welzijn van dieren bent u lid/donateur?

__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Nr 10 11 12

Wanneer de Nederlandse middenstand meer proefdier vrije produkten zou gaan aanbieden, bent u dan bereid deze te kopen, als deze produkten: Vraag Ja Nee Weet niet even duur zijn iets duurder zijn tweemaal zo duur zijn


De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op het welzijn van proefdieren en dieren in het algemeen.
Kunt u aangeven of u het eens bent met de volgende uitspraken: zeer Nr Uitspraak
mee eens mee eens geen mening mee oneens zeer mee oneens

13 14 15 16 17



20 21 22

23 24 25


Jagen in Nederland zou eigenlijk verboden moeten worden. Sportvissen in Nederland zou eigenlijk verboden moeten worden. Het "acteren" van dieren in reclamespotjes zou verboden moeten worden. De verkoop van bontkleding zou verboden moeten worden. Dierentuinen en dolfinaria moeten opgeheven worden; dieren horen in hun natuurlijke omgeving. Circus ondernemingen zouden geen gebruik moeten maken van exotische dieren als apen, leeuwen, tijgers en olifanten. Circus ondernemingen zouden geen gebruik moeten maken van dieren als paarden, honden en katten. Nederlanders zouden veel minder vlees moeten eten. De leefruimte van dieren in de bio-industrie moet vergroot worden. De eventuele giftigheid van een nieuwe structuurverf voor plafonds mag niet op dieren getest worden. De eventuele giftigheid van een nieuw wasmiddel mag niet eerst op dieren getest worden. Nieuwe conserveringsmiddelen voor de voedsel industrie mogen niet op dieren getest worden. Nieuwe medicijnen, bijvoorbeeld tegen hart- en vaatziekten, zouden niet op dieren getest mogen worden op eventuele bijwerkingen. Cosmetica produkten, zoals make-up en crèmes zouden niet op dieren getest mogen worden.


Welke dieren zouden wat u betreft gebruikt mogen worden voor het testen van nieuwe geneesmiddelen en voedseladditieven. zeker wel geen liever zeker Nr Dieren
wel mening niet niet

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Cavia’s Muizen Ratten Konijnen Katten Honden Schapen Varkens Runderen Paarden Chimpansees Rhesus apen Vogels Vissen Reptielen Insekten

43. Heeft u huisdieren? Zo ja, welke?
__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

44. Heeft u een agrarisch bedrijf met dieren? Zo ja, welke dieren?
__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

45. Wanneer u bezwaren heeft tegen dierproeven wilt u dan hieronder zo duidelijk mogelijk de redenen aangeven.
__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________


Hieronder volgen enkele vragen over gezondheid en milieu
46. Bent u lid/donateur van Greenpeace? ja nee 47. Doet u aan afvalscheiding, bijvoorbeeld van oud papier, glas of GFT? ja nee 48. Hoe vaak koopt u produkten in een natuur- of reform winkel? ongeveer eenmaal per week ongeveer eenmaal per maand minder dan eenmaal per maand nooit 49. Neemt u water- en energiebesparende maatregelen in het dagelijks leven, zoals lampen uit als u ruimte verlaat, kraan dicht tijdens tanden poetsen enz. zoveel mogelijk alleen als ik er aan denk nooit 50. Wendt u zich in geval van ziekte weleens tot een alternatieve geneeskundige? ja nee 51. Gebruikt u weleens homeopathische (genees)middelen? ja nee 52. Heeft iemand in uw huishouden een chronische aandoening waartegen dagelijks medicijnen gebruikt moeten worden? ja nee


Tot slot volgen nog enkele vragen omtrent uw persoonlijke gegevens
53. Wat is uw geslacht? man vrouw 54. Wat is uw leeftijd? 55. Wat is uw burgerlijke staat? gehuwd ongehuwd samenwonend 56. Hoeveel kinderen heeft u? ___________________ ___________________

57. Welke opleidingen heeft u gevolgd na de lagere school (ook buitenschoolse opleidingen mogen genoemd worden)? _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ 58. Indien u werkt: wat is uw beroep? 59. Hoeveel uur per week werkt u? 60. Indien uw partner werkt: wat is zijn of haar beroep? ___________________ ___________________ ___________________

61. Wat is het jaarinkomen van uw huishouden? minder dan f50.000 f50.000-f75000 f75.000-f100.000 f100.000-f125000 meer dan f125.000 62. Bent u aangesloten bij een kerkgenootschap? Zo ja, welke? ___________________ 63. Gaat u regelmatig naar de kerk? minstens eenmaal per week eenmaal per maand minder dan eenmaal per maand nooit


64. Op welke partij heeft u gestemd bij de laatste parlementsverkiezingen? ___________________ 65. Welke krant(en) leest u? ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ 66. Heeft u altijd in deze gemeente gewoond? ja nee 67. Zo nee, kunt u aangeven in welke plaats(en) u heeft gewoond met vermelding van het aantal jaren? ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________

U kunt de ingevulde vragenlijst in de bijgevoegde beige envelop doen. Deze envelop wordt binnen circa een week bij u opgehaald. Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking.


You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->