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

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.

Encountering Berlant part two: Cruel and other optimisms

“…Affective realism, we argue, is what allows ATs to continue in their working role, providing deep, attentive care for the individual (in this case animal), or even the collective, whilst also experiencing that animal's pain, loss, suffering and sacrifice as personal harm (Roe & Greenhough, 2021). In society more widely, attachment to the expectation that if animals are used, it is done so in a humane way, does considerable affective work in seeking to allay the discomfort many (if not all) feel when confronted with the fact of animal research (Vanderslott et al, 2021). Reassurances about the high standards of animal welfare, which can deliver a good life for research animals, is an affective and material performance of governance that the British populace have been trained to pay attention to and trust in.…”

“…In society more widely, attachment to the expectation that if animals are used, it is done so in a humane way, does considerable affective work in seeking to allay the discomfort many (if not all) feel when confronted with the fact of animal research (Vanderslott et al, 2021). Reassurances about the high standards of animal welfare, which can deliver a good life for research animals, is an affective and material performance of governance that the British populace have been trained to pay attention to and trust in.…”