Who opposes animal research which causes pain?

I'm sceptical about the last graph. Were those who took part in the poll only Protestant, Catholic, or atheist? There was "other" in the race poll.

Interesting! That's a tough question to answer, though. I think many people would actually answer "it depends" or "not enough info", so the response given is less valuable. (I'm not sure what I'd put...).

How much pain & injury? How valuable is the new information? Are there other routes to gain the same information with less harm to the animals?

"Allowed in some cases, but only upon review and maybe oversight by an ethics board" isn't an option.

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.

Question is a bit too vague for my tastes, leading to too many interpretations

Scientists should be allowed to do research that causes pain and injury to animals like dogs and chimpanzees if it produces new and usefulinformation about serious human health problems.

That way we can filter out those who think we're just asking if we can use new acne treatments on dogs and chimps.

Thanks for the labels, they help.

*wow* very interesting. I would have expected the more religious to care less about animal experimentation.

It seems that the less religious tend to be more critical of human exceptionalism, which may tend to to make them more supportive of animal "rights" (if only due to intellectual consistency - animals are no less sentient than certain subgroups of humans). But most atheists are probably not so concerned with this kind of intellectual consistency. But there is a distinction between animal rights and animal welfare.

I'm sceptical about the last graph. Were those who took part in the poll only Protestant, Catholic, or atheist? There was "other" in the race poll.

the N's for the other groups were small. e.g., 23 jews. and only around 25% of those with no religion are atheists, fwiw.

I say, that wasn't very conclusive in any direction.

1) the 95% intervals for male vs. female don't overlap

2) finding no strong trends is a finding in and of itself

I think 'cause lots of people, religious or otherwise, own dogs or animals, those folks have a personal attachments and wouldn't like to imagine their pets experimented on and I think that pet-lovers anthropomorphize a lot about their pets.

Probably emotional/irrational gut-feeling, regardless of what they believe (like often mentionned on the blog, what people say they believe in words isn't what they believe implicitly).

I'd reckon many people would still feel bad if they kicked a puppy, even if they thought that a puppy didn't have a soul.