Veterinary students' ethical judgments on laboratory animal research: A vignette-based study of the 3Rs, ethical review, and animal welfare
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66179/rats.58Keywords:
Animal ethics, Animal welfare, Laboratory animal research, Veterinary students, Vignette methodology, 3RsAbstract
This study aimed to investigate veterinary students’ ethical evaluations of animal experimentation using vignettes that differed in key ethical features. The study was conducted with 333 students enrolled in a veterinary faculty in Türkiye. Participants evaluated five vignettes that varied in terms of ethical review approval, availability of alternative methods, research purpose, and animal welfare conditions. For each vignette, students rated both the acceptability of animal use and the level of ethical distress experienced during decision-making. Data were analyzed using Repeated-Measures ANOVA and Mixed ANOVA.
Vignette condition had a significant and large effect on acceptability scores for animal experimentation (F(3.62, 1201.02)=105.75, p<0.001, ηp²=0.242). The scenario without ethical review approval received the lowest acceptability scores, whereas the scenario in which animals were used despite the availability of alternatives was evaluated similarly to the cosmetic-use scenario. By contrast, the scenario involving a conflict between animal welfare and scientific benefit was associated with relatively high acceptability but also high ethical distress, suggesting that acceptance of animal use does not necessarily preclude ethical conflict.
Gender had a significant effect on acceptability, with male students reporting higher acceptance scores than female students across all vignette conditions (F(1,331)=84.53, p<0.001, ηp²=0.203). In contrast, taking a course related to laboratory animals had no significant effect. Class level and self-reported knowledge of the 3Rs were associated with general acceptability scores, although these effects were limited.
Overall, the findings indicate that veterinary students do not evaluate animal experimentation as uniformly acceptable or unacceptable; rather, their judgments are shaped by contextual ethical factors such as ethical review, the availability of alternatives, and animal welfare concerns. The results also support the usefulness of vignette methodology for examining ethical decision-making in animal experimentation and suggest that key ethical dimensions of animal use (including ethical review, alternative methods, and animal welfare) should be addressed explicitly in veterinary ethics education.
References
1. Kiraga L, Dzikowski A. Ethical concerns of the veterinarian in relation to experimental animals and in vivo research. Animals. 2023;13(15):2476. doi:10.3390/ani13152476 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13152476
2. Baumans V. Use of animals in experimental research: An ethical dilemma? Gene Ther. 2004;11:64-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3302371
3. Lauwereyns J, Bajramovic J, Bert B, Camenzind S, De Kock J, Elezovic A, Ahluwalia A, et al. Toward a common interpretation of the 3Rs principles in animal research. Lab Anim. 2024;53(12):347-350. doi:10.1038/s41684-024-01476-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41684-024-01476-2
4. Rosolowski J, Weber T, Malakpour-Permlid A, Oredsson S. Revisiting 3Rs: Rethinking replacement and new approach methodologies. Front Toxicol. 2025;7:1664209. doi:10.3389/ftox.2025.1664209 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2025.1664209
5. Magalhaes-Sant'Ana M, Hanlon AJ. Straight from the horse's mouth: Using vignettes to support student learning in veterinary ethics. J Vet Med Educ. 2016;43(3):321-330. doi:10.3138/jvme.0815-137R1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0815-137R1
6. Persson K, Gerdts WR, Hartnack S, Kunzmann P. “What If It Was Your Dog?” Resource shortages and decision-making in veterinary medicine—A vignette study with German veterinary students. Vet Sci. 2023;10(2):161. doi:10.3390/vetsci10020161 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10020161
7. Göçer A. Competencies of Turkish teacher candidates on genre oriented writing: Vignette example. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of the Faculty of Education. 2023;7(12):1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56677/mkuefder.1401842
8. Kapçak CB. Review of educational research using the vignette technique: A document analysis study. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences. 2025;11(2):311-345.
9. Rodriguez Perez C, Shaw DM, Earp BD, Elger BS, Persson K. One R or the other—An experimental bioethics approach to 3R dilemmas in animal research. Med Health Care Philos. 2024;27(4):497-512. doi:10.1007/s11019-024-10221-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-024-10221-y
10. Irwin A, Silver-MacMahon H, Santos L, Mossop L, Macconnell K. Not all uncivil behaviours are equal: Exploring responses to incivility in veterinary practice using vignettes. Ergonomics. 2025;68(5):634-645. doi:10.1080/00140139.2024.2343939 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2024.2343939
11. Knight A. Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility. Altern Lab Anim. 2007;35(6):641-659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290703500610
12. Vandeweerd JM, Kirschvink N, Clegg P, Vandenput S, Gustin P, Saegerman C. Is evidence-based medicine so evident in veterinary research and practice? History, obstacles and perspectives. Vet J. 2012;191(1):28-34. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.04.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.04.013
13. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-497. doi:10.1002/nur.20147 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
14. Uludağ Ö. History and importance of ethical rules in animal experiment studies. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2019;5(1):1401-1413. doi:10.30569/adiyamansaglik.482098 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30569/adiyamansaglik.482098
15. Andersen ML, Winter LM. Animal models in biological and biomedical research-experimental and ethical concerns. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2019;91(Suppl 1):e20170238. doi:10.1590/0001-3765201720170238 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720170238
16. Çavuş-Alan S. Use of experimental animals in research: Legal regulations in Türkiye. Rats. 2024;2(2):41-46. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14566562
17. Csukovich G, Pratscher B, Burgener IA. The world of organoids: Gastrointestinal disease modelling in the age of 3R and One Health with specific relevance to dogs and cats. Animals. 2022;12(18):2461. doi:10.3390/ani12182461 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12182461
18. Cederroth CR, Sandström J. Towards a new 3Rs era in experimental research. Front Behav Neurosci. 2024;18:1404294. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2024.1404294 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2024.1404294
19. Kabene S, Baadel S. Bioethics: A look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2019;12:15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v12i15.1875
20. Ormandy EH, Schuppli CA. Public attitudes toward animal research: A review. Animals. 2014;4(3):391-408. doi:10.3390/ani4030391 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani4030391
21. Grappe CG, Lombart C, Louis D, Durif F. "Not tested on animals": How consumers react to cruelty-free cosmetics proposed by manufacturers and retailers. Int J Retail Distrib Manag. 2021;49(11):1532-1553. doi:10.1108/IJRDM-12-2020-0489 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-12-2020-0489
22. Bonifacio RA, Baui AF, Uy MYT, Bandojo AJ, Etrata A. Generation Z's purchasing intention of cruelty-free cosmetic products: The moderating role of environmental and animal welfare concerns. Int Bus Educ J. 2024;17(1):118-132. doi:10.37134/ibej.Vol17.1.10.2024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37134/ibej.Vol17.1.10.2024
23. Yerlikaya H, Özen A, Yaşar A, Armutak A, Öztürk R, Bayrak S, et al. A survey of attitudes of Turkish veterinary students and educators about animal use in research. Vet. Med. – Czech. 2004;49(11):413-420. doi:10.17221/5725-VETMED DOI: https://doi.org/10.17221/5731-VETMED
24. Adami C, Murrell J, Fordyce P. Ethical considerations in clinical veterinary research. Vet J. 2023;300:106026. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2023.106026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2023.106026
25. Ipsos MORI. Public Attitudes to Animal Research in 2018. Ipsos MORI; 2018. Accessed November 19, 2018. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-05/18-040753-01_ols_public_attitudes_to_animal_research_report_v3_191118_public.pdf
26. Ormandy EH, Schuppli CA, Weary DM. Public attitudes toward the use of animals in research: Effects of invasiveness, genetic modification and regulation. Anthrozoös. 2013;26(2):165-184. doi:10.2752/175303713X13636846944240 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713X13636846944240
27. Özen A, Özen R, Yaşar A, Armutak A, Bayrak S, Gezman A, Şeker İ. Attitudes of Turkish veterinary students and educators towards the moral status of animals and species rating. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2009;15(1):111-118. doi:10.9775/kvfd.2008.88-A DOI: https://doi.org/10.9775/kvfd.2008.88-A
28. Çavuş-Alan S, Alan S. Consumers and future veterinarians: Attitudes of veterinary students toward welfare-friendly meat products and labelling in Türkiye. Rev Cient. 2025;36(1). doi: 10.52973/rcfcv-e361775 DOI: https://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-e361775
29. Hagelin J, Hau J, Carlsson HE. Attitude of Swedish veterinary and medical students to animal experimentation. Vet Rec. 2000;146(26):757-760. doi:10.1136/vr.146.26.757 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.26.757
30. Phillips CJC, Izmirli S, Aldavood SJ, Alonso M, Choe BI, Hanlon AJ, et al. An international comparison of female and male students' attitudes to the use of animals. Animals. 2011;1(1):7-26. doi:10.3390/ani1010007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani1010007
31. Randler C, Adan A, Antofie MM, Arrona-Palacios A, Candido M, Boeve-de Pauw J, et al. Animal welfare attitudes: Effects of gender and diet in university samples from 22 countries. Animals. 2021;11(7):1893. doi:10.3390/ani11071893 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071893
32. Özen R, Çavuş-Alan S, Özen A. Social problem-solving skills and empathy levels of veterinary clinicians in Türkiye. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2023;29(6):697-703. doi:10.9775/kvfd.2023.30271 DOI: https://doi.org/10.9775/kvfd.2023.30271
33. Çavuş Alan S, Özen R, Özen A. How are empathy and social problem-solving linked to demographic information? A survey among veterinary students from Türkiye. J Vet Med Educ. 2026. 0:aop doi:10.3138/jvme-2025-0092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme-2025-0092
34. Machado GF, Melo GD, Perri SH, Fernandes FV, Moraes OC, Souza MS, et al. Perceptions of animal experimentation: A longitudinal survey with veterinary students in Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil. J Biol Educ. 2017;51(4):391-398. doi:10.1080/00219266.2016.1257501 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1257501
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rats
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
