Remember earlier this week when we were discussing some of the positions people might hold with respect to the use of animals in research?
These included animal rights positions, which held that animals have inherent rights not to have their bodies transgressed (or that, by virtue of their capacity to suffer, they have rights not to be used in ways that might lead to their suffering), and animal welfare positions, which hold that animal suffering matters — that it is something to be avoided or minimized — but do not ground the ethical importance of animal suffering in animals’ status as right-bearers. And, I wrote:
Besides the animal rights and animal welfare positions, there is also the possibility of staking out a position that holds that animals and animal suffering have no moral significance, that animals are not deserving of any special regard.
Today, DrugMonkey notes that the Los Angeles Times blog’s write-up of yesterday’s Pro-Test rally at UCLA is accompanied by a poll. The poll asks readers for their opinions of the use of animals in medical research, presenting these three choices:
- Yes — and I support it if the animals are treated well
- No — it’s inhumane by definition and I don’t support it
- Not sure
Do you notice any positions that aren’t given as choices in the poll?
DrugMonkey did — and offered a visual representation of the views that get included in, and those that get excluded from, the conversation in framing the poll in this way.
Now, possibly the “unconcerned about animals” range of the spectrum wasn’t part of the poll because, as I noted:
The prevailing regulations covering animal use recognize animal welfare as something that must be protected.
Given that the regulatory environment in the U.S. aims to protect animal welfare, … people who [are unconcerned with animal welfare] … are still legally bound to treat animals in accord with what would be required by an animal welfare position.
But at that point, why not phrase the poll questions like this:
- Yes — provided it meets all the legal requirements for animal use
- No — even if the research meets all the legal requirements for animal use
- Not sure
Alternatively, why not ask readers’ views of those legal requirements? I think the laws and regulations that apply to medical research with animals are:
- Too strong — they provide too much protection to the animals
- Too weak — they provide too little protection to the animals
- Just right — they provide the right level of protection to ensure than animals used in research are treated humanely
- Not sure
- I have no earthly idea what the current laws and regulations that apply to medical research with animals require
After all, the answer you get depends an awful lot on how you phrase the question. Would it be so wrong, then to construct a poll question in such a way that readers become aware of gaps in their own information? Couldn’t a newspaper, or a newspaper’s blog, even take the opportunity to help readers fill in those gaps with objectively reported information?
Surely the niggling about choices or wording is vastly outweighed by the silliness of calling these things polls in the first place.
As I’m sure you know very well, these demonstrate absolutely nothing … other than perhaps who can best mobilize supporters in order to get the “right” answer.
A plague on all such non-polls, I say …
At the very minimum, I’d think you’d need to predicate your revised choices with a statement that makes it clear that there are existing laws regulating the care and welfare of experimental animals and how they may be used. I strongly suspect that many of those who are against animal experimentation are almost completely unaware of the stringency of existing laws protecting animals.
I think the questions about how to frame these things are really interesting, I like the idea of framing it as related to the legality of the research. But that particular poll is a joke. I tried to go vote- as I watched, over maybe 10 minutes, the “no” votes were escalating rapidly (went up by almost 100!) and it refused to count my “yes” vote. Seems like someone broke the poll… of course, it also seems like those groups often accomplish goals by doing sneaky things in the middle of the night, so maybe it is not a surprise?
Internet polls are close to useless anyways. The framing issue only makes much sense in so far as how it influences people who read the question by making the more ignorant ones possibly feel a need to have their opinions pushed into one opinion or the other. And of course, polls almost never have an option indicating ignorance of a situation. No one would almost ever click that and you don’t want to tell your audience that they might be ignorant. It is a good way to lose readers.
Also, just to be clear, the part of my last remark about not insulting readers was more cynicism about newspapers function than any statement intended about how they should function.
Well, its really unfortunate- I checked now, and whatever they were doing last night worked because they’re up to about 5000 fake votes. I wish the paper would just take that down, if it is so easy to manipulate, it is just needlessly inflammatory.
I just clicked the poll, which I have done before, coming from a different computer each time. But what I said on another blog, what about killing animals for fun? I fish. That involves using night crawlers, other fish, insects, etc. for bait that need to be killed, catching the fish, then cleaning, and eating usually with beer (both the catching and eating). My son is a boy scout and animals are food. I also maintain an aquarium where the fish are not killed and fed well. I also have other pets. But I still kill animals and have not problem with it (in this example fish for fun).