“It’s Not Good for the Animals, but I Think It Should Be Done”—Using Focus Group Interviews to Explore Adolescent Views on Animal Experimentation

SIMPLE SUMMARY: There are comparatively many studies that explore how adults judge animal experiments. But how do young people think about this topic? Our group interviews conducted with Austrian teenagers showed that the participants assessed animal tests more positively than we had expected. The teenagers evaluated animal experiments mainly based on the following criteria: the relevance of research, the extent of animal suffering, and the existence of alternatives. All groups found positive aspects for animal experiments and identified acceptable animal experiments among the examples discussed. Particularly with regard to the approval of animal experiments, a key consideration was the extent to which the research is relevant to humans. ABSTRACT: The present study focused on an in-depth analysis of adolescents’ (aged 15–16) attitudes towards animal experimentation. Focus group interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding regarding the ethical considerations of this age group. The data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis. All participants considered their own knowledge about the whole topic as low. Our results show that adolescents in the study had considerably more positive attitudes toward animal experimentation than the literature had suggested. All groups identified positive aspects of animal experimentation and accepted at least one scenario of animal experimentation. Most of the groups rated half of the examples presented as acceptable. The participants tended to make specific assessments in view of a concrete scenario and seemed to form their positions anew. In their discussion, students focused mainly on the following criteria: the relevance of research, the extent of animal suffering, and the existence of alternatives. Generally, we hypothesize that the focus group discussions took place largely within the framework of anthropocentric ethics.