“Narratives can be convincing”
Scientists as villains, laboratory animals as victims, 3R methods as saviors in times of need. In this interview, Caroline Brall and Caroline Schlaufer explain what this has to do with the Swiss referendums on animal testing.
Where do you currently stand with your NRP 79 research project “A political and ethical analysis of the debate around animal testing”?
So far, there have been four federal referendums on the subject of animal testing in Switzerland: in 1985, 1992, 1993 and 2022. We are interested in how the debates on this topic were conducted and how they have changed over time. To this end, we first delved into the literature and are now focusing on the evaluation of newspaper articles as part of a media analysis. We compiled a total of 1200 articles from the four daily newspapers NZZ, Bund, 24 heures and Le Temps.
What does this analysis look like?
All articles have to be coded, i.e. analyzed according to a certain pattern. For example: Is the article positive or negative with regard to the voting topic? What arguments does it contain? Who wrote the article? What stories, i.e. narratives, are told in it?
What are the narratives about?
We humans like to hear stories: Stories about heroes and villains that may contain a moral at the end. We are interested in the narratives that are told around the topic of animal testing, because narratives are powerful in public discourse and can be convincing. For example, depending on the point of view, the animals or, conversely, Switzerland as a research location are portrayed as victims.
The research project is still at a relatively early stage, but are there any initial, preliminary results?
There are initial trends from the media analysis so far. For example, it is clear that in the last vote in 2022, the 3R topic was much more prominent than before. In the previous votes, this topic was more in the background and the term was hardly known to the population.
It can also be said that fewer newspaper articles appeared about the 2022 vote compared to previous votes. And something else can be deduced from the research to date: In the 2022 vote, religious arguments were used significantly less frequently compared to earlier votes.
We will probably vote on the next animal testing initiative in 2026 or 2027. Will this vote also be part of the research project?
Unfortunately not. This is not possible in terms of time, as our research project ends in 2027. However, it will still be interesting to see what narratives are built up as part of this vote.
What next steps are planned?
This year, we will focus on the following steps: On the one hand, we want to make progress with the evaluation of the newspaper articles, then we want to conduct a large representative survey of the Swiss population regarding narratives. And we want to create a map of the various pros and cons together with various stakeholders.
Referendums on animal testing
In Switzerland, four federal referendums were held to date on the subject of animal testing:
December 7, 1985: the popular initiative “for the abolition of vivisection” was rejected with 70.6 percent of votes against and by all cantons.
February 16, 1992: The popular initiative “for the drastic and gradual restriction of animal experiments (away from animal experiments!)” was rejected with 56.3 percent of votes against.
March 7, 1993: The popular initiative “to abolish animal experiments” was rejected by all cantons (72 percent no).
February 13, 2022: The popular initiative “Yes to a ban on animal and human experimentation” was rejected by 79% of votes against and by all cantons.