As noted by a reader the 2008 GSS just came out. I noticed this variable, ANSCITST:
Scientists should be allowed to do research that causes pain and injury to animals like dogs and chimpanzees if it produces new information about human health problems. (Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?)
I checked a few demographics. Results below the fold. I had to label them because the font was so small (also, red = "Strongly Agree," yellow = "Strongly Disagree").
Variables: GOD, BIBLE, SEX, RACE, RELIG, POLVIEWS and DEGREE.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In the United States we have the free speech built into the law, so it is somewhat a moot point. Of course, as evidenced by comments in many other Western countries the limits to speech are bounded by public consensus. So I decided to look at the GSS in terms of response to one question:
After I…
I heard on the radio several times in the past few weeks commentators refer to minority opposition to gay marriage, specifically the fact that New York and California have large numbers of blacks and Latinos who are voters. I was curious if Latinos really are notably more opposed to gay marriage…
The GSS has a variable, GENEGOO2, with an N ~ 2,500, that asks:
Some people say that genetic testing may cause trouble. Others think it is a wonderful medical advance. Based on what you know, do you think genetic testing will do more harm than good or more good than harm?
Below the fold are…
The GSS has a variable, ODDS1, which represents the question:
Now, think about this situation. A doctor tells a couple that their genetic makeup means that they've got one in four chances of having a child with an inherited illness. Does this mean that if their first child has the illness, the…
I'm sceptical about the last graph. Were those who took part in the poll only Protestant, Catholic, or atheist? There was "other" in the race poll.
Interesting! That's a tough question to answer, though. I think many people would actually answer "it depends" or "not enough info", so the response given is less valuable. (I'm not sure what I'd put...).
How much pain & injury? How valuable is the new information? Are there other routes to gain the same information with less harm to the animals?
"Allowed in some cases, but only upon review and maybe oversight by an ethics board" isn't an option.
Scientists should be allowed to do research that causes pain and injury to animals like dogs and chimpanzees if it produces new information about human health problems.
Question is a bit too vague for my tastes, leading to too many interpretations
Scientists should be allowed to do research that causes pain and injury to animals like dogs and chimpanzees if it produces new and usefulinformation about serious human health problems.
That way we can filter out those who think we're just asking if we can use new acne treatments on dogs and chimps.
Thanks for the labels, they help.
*wow* very interesting. I would have expected the more religious to care less about animal experimentation.
It seems that the less religious tend to be more critical of human exceptionalism, which may tend to to make them more supportive of animal "rights" (if only due to intellectual consistency - animals are no less sentient than certain subgroups of humans). But most atheists are probably not so concerned with this kind of intellectual consistency. But there is a distinction between animal rights and animal welfare.
I'm sceptical about the last graph. Were those who took part in the poll only Protestant, Catholic, or atheist? There was "other" in the race poll.
the N's for the other groups were small. e.g., 23 jews. and only around 25% of those with no religion are atheists, fwiw.
I say, that wasn't very conclusive in any direction.
1) the 95% intervals for male vs. female don't overlap
2) finding no strong trends is a finding in and of itself
I think 'cause lots of people, religious or otherwise, own dogs or animals, those folks have a personal attachments and wouldn't like to imagine their pets experimented on and I think that pet-lovers anthropomorphize a lot about their pets.
Probably emotional/irrational gut-feeling, regardless of what they believe (like often mentionned on the blog, what people say they believe in words isn't what they believe implicitly).
I'd reckon many people would still feel bad if they kicked a puppy, even if they thought that a puppy didn't have a soul.