Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul;48(4):909-937.
doi: 10.1177/01622439211057084. Epub 2021 Nov 15.

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

Samantha Vanderslott  1   2 , Alexandra Palmer  3 , Tonia Thomas  1 , Beth Greenhough  3 , Arabella Stuart  1 , John A Henry  1   4 , Marcus English  1   4 , Rebecca de Water Naude  1   4 , Maia Patrick-Smith  1   4 , Naomi Douglas  1 , Maria Moore  1 , Susanne H Hodgson  5 , Katherine R W Emary  1 , Andrew J Pollard  1
Affiliations

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

Samantha Vanderslott et al. Sci Technol Human Values. 2023 Jul.

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.

Keywords: COVID-19; animal research; clinical trial; co-production; vaccine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Time line showing key moments in the testing of the ChAdOx nCoV-19 vaccine.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Survey responses to a question about the risk posed by the quick turnaround from animal to human testing.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abadie Roberto. 2010. The Professional Guinea Pig: Big Pharma and the Risky World of Human Subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    1. Animals in Science Committee. 2017. Review of Harm-benefit Analysis in the Use of Animals in Research. London, UK: Home Office.
    1. Aronczyk Melissa. 2013. “Market(ing) Activism: Lush Cosmetics, Ethical Oil, and the Self-mediation of Protest.” Journalism Media and Cultural Studies Journal 4 (2013): 1–21. doi: 10.18573/j.2013.10256.
    1. Ashall Vanessa, Millar Kate M., Hobson-West Pru. 2018. “Informed Consent in Veterinary Medicine: Ethical Implications for the Profession and the Animal ‘Patient.’” Food Ethics 1 (3): 247–58. doi: 10.1007/s41055-017-0016-2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ball Philip. 2020. “The Lightning-fast Quest for COVID Vaccines—And What It Means for Other Diseases.” Nature 589 (7840): 16–18. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-03626-1. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources