Co-producing Human and Animal Experimental Subjects: Exploring the Views of UK COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participants on Animal Testing.

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES Science Technology & Human Values Pub Date : 2023-07-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-15 DOI:10.1177/01622439211057084
Samantha Vanderslott, Alexandra Palmer, Tonia Thomas, Beth Greenhough, Arabella Stuart, John A Henry, Marcus English, Rebecca de Water Naude, Maia Patrick-Smith, Naomi Douglas, Maria Moore, Susanne H Hodgson, Katherine R W Emary, Andrew J Pollard
{"title":"Co-producing Human and Animal Experimental Subjects: Exploring the Views of UK COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participants on Animal Testing.","authors":"Samantha Vanderslott, Alexandra Palmer, Tonia Thomas, Beth Greenhough, Arabella Stuart, John A Henry, Marcus English, Rebecca de Water Naude, Maia Patrick-Smith, Naomi Douglas, Maria Moore, Susanne H Hodgson, Katherine R W Emary, Andrew J Pollard","doi":"10.1177/01622439211057084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Preclinical (animal) testing and human testing of drugs and vaccines are rarely considered by social scientists side by side. Where this is done, it is typically for theoretically exploring the ethics of the two situations to compare relative treatment. In contrast, we empirically explore how human clinical trial participants understand the role of animal test subjects in vaccine development. Furthermore, social science research has only concentrated on broad public opinion and the views of patients about animal research, whereas we explore the views of a public group particularly implicated in pharmaceutical development: <i>experimental subjects</i>. We surveyed and interviewed COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK, on their views about taking part in a vaccine trial and the role of animals in trials. We found that trial participants mirrored assumptions about legitimate reasons for animal testing embedded in regulation and provided insight into (i) the nuances of public opinion on animal research; (ii) the co-production of human and animal experimental subjects; (iii) how vaccine and medicine testing, and the motivations and demographics of clinical trial participants, change in an outbreak; and (iv) what public involvement can offer to science.</p>","PeriodicalId":48083,"journal":{"name":"Science Technology & Human Values","volume":"48 4","pages":"909-937"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10387720/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Technology & Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211057084","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Preclinical (animal) testing and human testing of drugs and vaccines are rarely considered by social scientists side by side. Where this is done, it is typically for theoretically exploring the ethics of the two situations to compare relative treatment. In contrast, we empirically explore how human clinical trial participants understand the role of animal test subjects in vaccine development. Furthermore, social science research has only concentrated on broad public opinion and the views of patients about animal research, whereas we explore the views of a public group particularly implicated in pharmaceutical development: experimental subjects. We surveyed and interviewed COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK, on their views about taking part in a vaccine trial and the role of animals in trials. We found that trial participants mirrored assumptions about legitimate reasons for animal testing embedded in regulation and provided insight into (i) the nuances of public opinion on animal research; (ii) the co-production of human and animal experimental subjects; (iii) how vaccine and medicine testing, and the motivations and demographics of clinical trial participants, change in an outbreak; and (iv) what public involvement can offer to science.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人类与动物共同制造实验对象:探索英国 COVID-19 疫苗试验参与者对动物试验的看法。
社会科学家很少把药物和疫苗的临床前(动物)试验和人体试验放在一起考虑。在这种情况下,通常是在理论上探讨这两种情况的伦理问题,以比较相对待遇。与此相反,我们通过实证研究来探讨人类临床试验参与者如何理解动物试验对象在疫苗研发中的作用。此外,社会科学研究只关注广泛的公众舆论和患者对动物研究的看法,而我们探讨的是与药品研发特别相关的公众群体:实验对象的看法。我们调查并采访了英国牛津 COVID-19 疫苗试验的参与者,了解他们对参加疫苗试验以及动物在试验中的作用的看法。我们发现,试验参与者反映了法规中关于动物试验的合法理由的假设,并提供了以下方面的见解:(i) 公众对动物研究的细微看法;(ii) 人类和动物试验对象的共同生产;(iii) 疫苗和药物试验以及临床试验参与者的动机和人口统计在疫情中的变化;以及 (iv) 公众参与能为科学带来什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
6.50%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: As scientific advances improve our lives, they also complicate how we live and react to the new technologies. More and more, human values come into conflict with scientific advancement as we deal with important issues such as nuclear power, environmental degradation and information technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values is a peer-reviewed, international, interdisciplinary journal containing research, analyses and commentary on the development and dynamics of science and technology, including their relationship to politics, society and culture.
期刊最新文献
A Sustainable City Made By Resident-Experts - How Designerly Intervention Enacted Rights of the Public and Urban Infrastructure What's in the Blood? Temporalities at Play in Diet-Related Risk Management Testing Practices Underground Roots for Ancestral Futures: Exploring Lithium Through an Experimental Alliance between Chemistry and Anthropology Reflections on an Inclusive Boundary Worker Out of Sync: The Making and Remaking of Data and Regulations on Greenhouse Gases at the International Maritime Organization
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1