Perception and position of animals used in education and experimentation by students and teachers of ! " " # $ # % & ' ( ) ( # * ! ) ' + #

The way as society treats the animals may interfere in the success of the proposals for new ethical conducts and has the potential to in!uence the legislative and executive branches, as well as economy. Even in a particular place, such as the university environment, di"erent perceptions on the conduct regarding animal use can be found. This can be related to abilities and competences developed during the academic formation or training. Assuming that the ethical perception in animal use in educational and scienti#c activities are related to knowledge #elds, this study aimed to interview students and teachers of a private university considering the biological, social, technical, legal and human #elds. The survey was conducted at 17 courses with 87 interviews, through a questionnaire with 16 both open and closed questions, related to the ethics in using animals for teaching and research purposes, as well as knowledge about the animals; about alternatives; and about companies that test their products on animals. The respondents gave positive answers about their feelings towards the animals, but they still show the inheritance of Mechanistic view, once they use the rationality as a mean of di"erentiating Human being from the other animals. Our results indicate the obvious acceptance of the animal use for educational purposes, mainly mammals and rats, for the Veterinary Medicine and Biology courses. The majority of the respondents considered the animal use in scienti#c research and experimentation fundamental, mainly for medicine production and other therapies related to human health. On the other hand, they did not show to have information about experimentation, once they did not show knowledge about alternative methods. These results con#rm the traditional view that the bene#ts for scienti#c development justify the costs with animal welfare and the acceptance of practices that do not cause unnecessary su"ering. The data of this study pointed out few di"erences among academic #elds. This #nding suggests that ethical attitudes toward animal use in academic and scienti#c areas are beyond the carrier a$nity. These results indicate that there is few worry with information and awareness, which are essentials for changes in attitude. [P]

A forma como a sociedade percebe e trata os animais pode interferir no sucesso das propostas para novas condutas éticas e, potencialmente, in uenciar os poderes executivo e legislativo, bem como a economia.Mesmo em um meio especí co, como o ambiente universitário, é possível encontrar diferentes percepções na conduta com relação ao uso de animais, as quais podem estar relacionadas com habilidades e competências desenvolvidas durante a formação acadêmica.Partindo da hipótese de que a ética na percepção do uso do animal para nalidade educacional e cientí ca se relaciona com a área do saber, no presente estudo foram entrevistados graduandos e professores de uma universidade particular, considerando as áreas biológicas, sociais, exatas, jurídicas e humanas.Para tal, foram abordados 17 cursos e realizadas 87 entrevistas através de um questionário composto por 16 questões abertas e fechadas considerando aspectos éticos no uso de animais no ensino e pesquisa, bem como o conhecimento sobre os animais, alternativas e empresas que testam ou não em animais.Os entrevistados apresentaram respostas positivas sobre seus sentimentos com relação aos animais, porém ainda re etiram uma herança da visão mecanicista, uma vez que usaram a racionalidade como forma de diferenciá-los do homem.Nossos resultados indicam uma aceitação no uso de animais no ensino, principalmente mamíferos e ratos e nos cursos de medicina veterinária e biologia.A maioria dos entrevistados considera fundamental o uso dos animais na pesquisa cienti ca e experimentação, principalmente para produção de medicamentos e outras terapias relacionadas à saúde humana.Por outro lado, os entrevistados não Introduction ϐ purposes has provided a long history of public ethiȋǡ ʹͲͲʹǢ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͺǡ ǡ Sans & Molento, 2010).The development of animal experimentation was founded on Cartesian philosophy of the sixteenth century, whose main representative, Renée Descartes, disseminated the mechanistic ǡ ϐronment (Singer, 2004, Fin & Rigatto, 2007, Fischer & Oliveira, 2012).Only after the 1950s, the awareϐ space in the society.Starting with Jeremy Bentham, a new conception emerged associated with the comprehension of the Darwinian principles that humans are result of evolution and they share morphological, physiological and biochemical features with other animals, beyond mental processes as the emotions ȋ Ƭ Ǣ ʹͲͳʹǢ ǡ ʹͲͲʹȌǤ The modern animal welfare movement in the mid-nineteenth century was evolved under the question of "the Five Freedoms" which has a fundamental issue in animal use whether or not animals should be used for research, teaching or product testing (Rose & Grant, 2008).According to Fraser (1999), there were two groups with different concepts, assumptions, Ǥ ϐǡed by authors as Regan and Singer, makes a barrier for animal welfare scientists because of the liberal individualism, simplistic ethical principle, little empirical knowledge and lumps very diverse taxonomic groups together as animals and with the same neces-Ǣ ǡ Rollin, Midgley, Lehamn and Thompson, opens doors to communication.The fact that in limited circumstances animals may experience discomfort, pain or ϐǡ ϐnal decision.But the diversity of views and a complex cultural, social and personal dimension confound the reaching agreement as to the ethical acceptability taking the support ethical decision-making evolved to ethics committees (Rose & Grant, 2008).
From the end of twentieth century the society has questioned about ethical procedures in animal use ϐ Ǥ humanitarian principles of the animal experimentation, were developed, known as "the 3Rs principles": ǡ ϐǡ the improvement the experiments conditions, through reducing animal suffering.Since then, the abandonment of the live animal during practical classes has been a tendency, without harming for the learning (Russel & ǡ ͳͻͻʹǢ ǡ ʹͲͲͲȌ elaboration of alternative methods as three dimension-Ǣ ǡ -Ǣ Ǣ -Ǣ ȋ Ƭ ǡ 2003).In Brazil the relatively little use of alternatives is ϐ ȋ ǡ ² Ƭ Zambrone, 2004).
The attempt of establishing of rules for experimental research remotes the nineteenth centuries.Presently, the legislation of numerous countries permits the procedures with animals only if the objectives could not be achieved through other alternatives (van der Valk Ǥǡ ͳͻͻͻǢ ǡ ʹͲͲͲǢ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ Brazil there is the Brazilian Environmental Act 9.605 which considers "to practice act of abuse and maltreatment, to injure or to maim wild or domestic, native or exotic animals, besides carrying out painful or cruel experiences in live animals, although for educational or ϐ ǡ ǳvironmental crime (Brasil, 1998).A new federal regu-ʹͲͲͺǢ ͳͳǤͻͶǡ commonly known as the Arouca Act, this law establishes a set of rules for the use of animals in teaching Ǣ Ǣ creation of National Council for the Control of Animal Experimentation [CONCEA] (Tinoco, 2011).
Ethical, political and technical issues about animal use in teaching and research led also to the foundation of the Institutional committees of animal use, or ethical committees (CEUAs).Initially these committees ϐ ȋ ×ǡ ǡ ǡ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͺǢ ǡ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͺǢ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͳʹȌ performing the judgment based on the necessity of animal use and on the absence of alternatives, scienϐ ȋ ǡ ʹͲͲͺǡ Silla et al., 2009, Fischer & Oliveira, 2012).
The way as society treats the animals may interfere in the success of the ethical conducts, once their beϐ ǡtion and legislation, thereby impacting on the economy and even the sustainability of the livestock industries, thus government and industry should monitor both attitudes toward animal welfare and their relation to community responses on an ongoing basis (Coleman & Hay, 2004).Therefore, the community value provides a barometer which decision makers can adopt strategies ϐ ȋ ǡ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ fundamental to diagnose the perception of different sections of the society, to elaborate information, sensitivity and awareness planes, once the enforcement of these regulations is often dependent on public perception (Deguchi, Molento & Souza, 2012).Knowledge may give some indication of how attitude may change scientist seeking support (Knight¸ Nunkoosing¸ Nunkoosing¸ Vrij & Cherryman, 2003).Even in a particular place, such as the university environment, different perceptions on the conduct in animal use can be found (Phillips & McCulloch, 2005).These can be related to abilities and competences developed during the academic formation.Assuming that the ethical perception in animal use ϐ ϐǡdents and professional of a private university considering the biological, social, technical, legal and human areas aiming to characterize their perception about aniϐ Ǥ

Materials and methods
Survey -the subject ϐÀ Universidade Católica Paraná (PUCPR) between February 2008 and September 2010.The subjects ϐ ϐǣ School of health and biosciences (SHB: Nursing, Physiotherapy and Psychology), School of Education and Humanities (SEH: Philosophy, Physical education -bachelor, Languages -Portuguese habitation and Pedagogy), Business school (BS: Accounting Science), Polytechnic School (PS: Information Systems, Mathematics, Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Chemical Engineering) and School of communication and arts (SCA: Media-Advertising and Social Service).In order to determine the courses ǡ ϐ was elaborated and then 30% of them were sorted.

Survey -the Instrument
The research was made through a questionnaire with 16 open and closed questions, related to the ethics in using animals for teaching and research ǡ Ǣ Ǣ their products on animals.

Procedure
The questionnaire was applied to one student of each period and one teacher of each course.Thus, 17 courses and 87 interviewees were assessed, from these, 42 were women and 28 men.It was performed a random approach, considering the course and period.Only the Biology teachers were determined by sortation criteria, once they were known.For other courses, the teacher available was interviewed.ϐ research nature and aim of the study and after particiϐ Ǥ ǡ ϐdentiality of the information.The answer key and the consent terms are archived at the Laboratório Núcleo de Estudos do Comportamento Animal (NEC-PUCPR), ESB -PUCPR.This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University (Report n. 0002344/08).

Use of animals in teaching
The majority of the interviewees agreed with the animal use in teaching purposes, mainly mammals and rats for the Veterinary Medicine and Biology courses (Table 2).The interviewee of the biological and technological areas represented about 50% of agreement with the animal use in teaching, mentioning the greater diversity of the species and courses (Table 3).However, the interviewee did not show knowledge of ϐǡ -Ǣ ϐ ǡ ϐ ǡ ǡstration and surgical techniques (Table 2).The opinions about animal use in teaching were not consensual, since although the majority of the interviewee said they would not use any animal during classes, only 18% know about alternatives, and a total of 26% believe that the use of the animal is necessary for learning (Table 2).All the teachers answered that would only use the amount of animals necessary for learning and those they consider the alternatives.

Use of animals in experimentation
The majority of the interviewees considered fundaϐmentation, mainly for medicine production and other therapies related to human health.On the other hand, they did not show to have any information about research, once did not cite alternative methods (Table 4).Other contradiction was that the interviewees believed that the animals suffer any kind of maltreatment, and they still agree with the use of mammals, mainly rats (Table 4).The respondents of the biological area represented the least percentage of the sample that believe to be correct the animal use in research.Although they have access to information about companies which use or not animals for testing their products, the majority did not seek this information spontaneously before buying their products.From the respondents who were worried about knowing if the animal is used for test or not, the biological and technological areas prevailed, being the cosmetics the most cited products (Table 5).
the qui-square test to verify whether the responses were statistically different across the groups, being conϐ ͻͷΨ ȋ δ ͲǤͲͷȌǤ ǡ was considered as null hypothesis the homogeneity of the sample.In other words, it had as waiting value, the same proportion for each option.For open questions method the analysis where the main goals were to describe the perspective of the participants and to separate them into different groups based on their answers.Multiple choice responses statistically analyzed help to inferences with the goal of recognizing the main characteristics of the messages.

Results
The respondents gave positive answers about their feelings towards the animals.The majority of them saw differences between the human and the other animals, mainly the rationality (Table 1), although they also had mentioned other differences such as: basic necessities, defense, morphology, intra and inϐ ǡ Ǥ interviewees pointed that human being has rights to use animals, mainly as food (24.8%) (x 2 (7) α ͵͵ǤͳǢ δ ͲǤͲͳȌǤ ͳͺΨ the human doesn't have any rights on animals, being ϐ ǡ recognized that they are using animals.Nevertheless, they claimed that the respect in the relationship between man and other animals is necessary between the man and other animals (63.2%) (x 2 (2) α ͺͺǤͷǢ δ ͲǤͲͳȌǤ ϐ ȋͷͻǤΨȌ and negative (40.2%) answers was obtained for the question about if they witnessed an animal being mistreated.The physical aggression was the most mentioned mistreatment (71.1%) (x 2 (8) α ʹͳǤǢ δ ͲǤͲͳȌǡ but they also mentioned: nonfood (5.8%), pulling load (5.8%), abandonment (3.8%), kicks (3.8%), putting the animal in microwaves (3.8%), training (1.9%), jokes (1.9%) and castration (1.9%).The dog was the most mentioned animal suffering maltreatment (67%) (X 2 (3 ) α ʹͺǤǢ δ ͲǤͲͳȌǡ horse (16.1%) and the cat (11.5%).On the other hand, 98.8% of the respondents witnessed animals being well treated, being the dog the animal most mentioned too (67%) (x 2 (4) α ͳʹͷǤͶǢ δ ͲǤͲͳȌǡ by their tutors (80.5%) (x 2 (3) α ͳͶ͵ǤͷǢ δ ͲǤͲͳȌǤ situations of aggressions witnessed by the interviewees, 71.1% said that did not do anything to prevent their use for different purposes, with a special tolerance for food production, teaching and research.However, it should be considered that the attitudes toward animal welfare vary and were mediated by a combination of factors.
According to Knight et al. (2003), the animal use for entertainment and decoration, for example, is considered unnecessary, because the human being has choice.On the other hand, the animal use for

Discussion
The characterization of the interviewee's proϐǡ ǡ showed positive attitudes toward animal welfare, they still present the inheritance of the mechanistic view, once they use the rationality a mean of differencing men from the other animals.This view gives ϐ    with consciousness and respect.In our study we also evidence that the students obtain the perceptiveness of ethical issues about animal welfare, but they have ϐ Ǥroborates Coleman and Hay (2004), who related that the Australian community considers animal welfare to be an important issue, although it is associated with a willingness to engage in community behavior such as donating to animal welfare groups, writing to newspaǡ ϐ of animal product (Knight et al., 2003).The interview analysis indicated differences of perceptions about animal welfare related to empathy to some species, as dogs and cats, probably due to the affection nearness.
In the same way, they perceived social problems in using horses to work in urban areas.The data of this study supports the view that psychological features can be a determinant factor to perception and attitudes toward animal welfare.
teaching and research is tolerated, once it brings a ϐ Ǥ research published by Knight et al. (2003) is that the participants avoid information concerning animal use because it leads to feelings of discomfort and psyǡ ϐ Ǥ ϐǡ people often weigh the cost of the animal use versus ϐǡ less important than human suffering.
The comparison of the answers among the academϐ are more conscious of ethical issues than the students Ǥ ǡ ϐant with animal use because of the demands of their careers.The new ethical paradigms which confront with the traditional view and the small possibility to abandon of animal use in short and medium periods, take the expectative that animal use should be lead  importance, related to more species of animals, academic courses and aims, agreeing with traditional utilitarian views.According to Fischer and Oliveira (2012), the ideas cultivated by the mechanistic perspective of the 15 th century, permeated the men's history, subsiding the animal use in teaching, once they endorsed the Our results highlight the obvious acceptance of the animal use for educational purposes, including the nonrestriction in using them.However the respondents ϐǤϐ about animal use in teaching and also extended their  political or philosophical convictions.For this reason, some judges are releasing the student of the practical class and they are requiring alternative methods for learning.According to Kinze et al. (1996), Biology stu-Ǣ some students believe dissection is the only way to appreciate the intricacies of the body.On the other hand, Biology teachers perceive computer based alternatives to be unacceptable (Bar & Herzog, 2000).An interesting fact is presented by Philips (2007), in a study which 97% of students interviewed by them, despite avoid unnecessary pain, they did not believe the systems needed changing, because it was considered acceptable and necessary.Villiers and Sommerville (2005) recorded the preference of the Biology students for discovering more about an animal during dissection trainings, rather than by using alternative sources such as models and videotapes.
Sometimes the alternatives are met with resistance by both teachers and students, and learning goals could not be achieved with alternative methods (Deguchi et al., 2012).According to Villiers and animal use without guilt, as it does not to have consciousness nor physical or mental pain.In our studies the interviewees showed little knowledge about alternative methods, even if the majority agreed with the non-utilization of animals in education.The students believe that the live animal is necessary for learning.Today, numerous ethical debates have been promoted the need of respect in this practical for the profession- It is clear that there is a Lack in information regarding about legislation that regulates the use of animals ȋ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͷǢ et al., 2012), as the existence of alternative methods, and the right of choosing to participate or not in classes or practical demonstration (Balcombe, 1997).The Brazilian constitution guarantees that nobody will be deprived of their rights neither due their belief nor  however super-exploitation and personal collection are considered as causes of many species extinction (New, 1995).Other animals didactically used and widely debated are the rats in Psychology experimental class.The defenders justify the importance of this subject due to the epistemology, cognitive and motivational views (Lopes, Miranda, Nascimento & ʹͲͲͺȌǢ ǡ Ǧϐǡ disability in working with an animal, mainly the rats, could cause aversion and lead the students to support the use of animals in teaching, but they are opposed to an animal laboratory requirement for the psychology major (Plous, 1996).Alternatives such as the software "Sniffy: the virtual rat" must be viewed with attention due to the high costs and didactic limitation (Alloway, Wilson & Graham, 2006).Miranda, Gonçalves, Miranda, Cirino et al. (2011) alert for the illegality in the animal use when the results are well known, and they suggest the searching for new didactic laboratories.ϐ ϐ ϐvelopment justify the costs for their welfare and that the practice was acceptable provided that it caused ȋ ǡ ͳͻͻ͵Ǣ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲǢ ǡ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲǡ ǡ 2008).Then, the biomedical research is widely supȋǡ ʹͲͲ͵Ǣ al., 2007), being the acceptance of the use affected by different factors as medical importance, species and animal suffering (Hageli, Hans-Erik & Hau, 2003).According to Knigth et al. (2003) animal in research ϐ knowledge about this issue, people tend to reduced support for animal use.ϐ the research with animal results in concrete appliȋǡ ͳͻͺͺǢ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͲǢ ǡ ʹͲͲȌǡ ϐferences in Anatomy, Physiology, Immunology and Genetics.Nevertheless, animals were perceived to Ǣliefs that they are more mentally similar to humans (Knight et al., 2003).In this situation the absence of worry about alternatives can be viewed as negative, once the human health is considered more important.This view is supported by the community position about cosmetic industry considered the ǡ ϐǤ ǡ these segments have been looking for alternatives, Sommerville (2005) the educator is responsible for sensitizing the pro-animal dissection students to ethical, epistemological and physical issues to precede the best education and to encourage the greatest possible learning, to dissect or not to dissect is a quesϐ learning outcomes of the curriculum.On the other hand, Saucier and Cain (2006)  and that it has to create its own ethical committee (Tinoco, 2011) which, according to Fischer and Oliveira (2012), promoted improvement in the ϐ and searching for alternatives.Our results indicate that the student doesn't have an option, if they could Ǣ classes without animals, but they believe it is the importance for their learning.ϐ (2005) who showed that more than two-third of the students had positive attitudes regarding animal dissection for learning the structure and function of the organisms and despite numerous educational alternatives, animal dissection is included in many Physiology, Anatomy, Biology and Zoology programs.The didactic collections are requested in environmental courses, where hundreds of animals are killed, without ethical procedures and worry about the pain.The pain in invertebrates is very controversial and little understood (Phillips, 2007), for this they are not regulated with the welfare laws.The teachers insist in the importance of the collection for both museum (Zaher & Young, 2003) and education (Walewski, 2007), however didactic collection promotes the unnecessary collection of animals which are poorly maintained and often discarded.The scientists have statistically shown that this collection is irrelevant in terms of population impacts, it seems that knowledge leads to reduce support for such practices.The fact that the other interviewees hold less attention for this question can not be jusϐ ϐǤ ǡ boosters of the legal, moral and ethics procedures that structure the society.
The data of this study underlie the hypothesis that the perception of the ethics on animal use is related to ǡ ϐ certain animals as rodents, also found by other auȋǡ ͳͻͻ͵Ǣ Ƭ ǡ ͳͻͻͶǢ ǡ ʹͲͲͶǢ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͷǢ ǡ ǡ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ ϐcreases as the animals are related to minor taxonomic position, it is known as "hierarchy of privilege" (Plous, 1993).Once, people hold different attitudes toward animal use depending on the species to be ǡ ϐsis of this discrimination often depends on where the animal was perceived to be on the phylogenetic level, that is in terms of their perceived closer to the human being because of their behavior, physiology and mental abilities as cognition and capacity for senȋǡ ͳͻͻ͵Ǣ Ƭ ǡ ͳͻͻǢ ǤǢ ʹͲͲ͵ǡ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲͷǢ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͷǢ ǡ ʹͲͲȌ absence of anatomical or physiological evidence to support it (Philips, 2007).This behavior, not always conscious, leads to a non-recognition of the basic necessity of other animals, as insects (Costa-Neto & Pacheco, 2004).According to Colleman (2008), the basis of the perceived mental capacity is the familiar experience, which is limited knowledge of animal use procedures and practice.However, we could wait different positions from the respondents of biologiϐǡ ǡ of knowledge about nervous system in all animals (Purves, 2002).On the contrary, the Humanity area students were more aware in not using animals for this purposes and the Technological ones cited more than one answer for alternative uses.Awareness is important for both students and teachers, mainly the existence and use of alternatives, which are already applied in European and north-American countries.
The data of our study showed few differences ϐǤ ϐ ϐǤϐ awareness, which are essentials for changes in attitudes.and today the use of the tests have been reduced (Moore, 2003).Knigth et al. (2003) and Davey (2006) reported in their studies that the use of animals for testing the safety of cosmetics and household products was rejected, but the participants of the research could rarely think of a replacement for animals that medical research could use, that are the most approved (Colemman, 2004).The problem ϐdures require the tests with animals.
The empathy is considered an important point for animal welfare promotion (Broida, Tingley, Kimball Ƭ ǡ ͳͻͻ͵Ǣ ǡ ͳͻͻͷǢ ǡ ͳͻͺͳǢ ǡ ͳͻͺ͵Ǣ Coleman, 2008), being intuitive and felling types the most opposed to animal experimentation than sensate and thinking types (Broida et al., 1993), although Mathews and Herzog (1997) found that a few personality traits were related to attitudes towards animal welfare.According to Herzog and Golden (2009), animal activists were more sensitive to visceral disgust than scientists.But the authors point that it is necessary to understand that the moral deciϐ ǣ intuition and the reason, and that the activist and the animal researcher have different values on the cost in ϐentists more skeptical (Broida et al., 1993).Other authors registered effects of nationality (Pifer, Shimzu & Pifer, 1994), gender and age, being women with more positive attitudes about animal welfare (Pifer Ǥǡ ͳͻͻͶǢ ǡ ͳͻͻǢ ǡ ͳͻͻǢ ǡ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͷǢ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͷǢ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͷǢ ǡ ʹͲͲͺǢ Ƭ Golden, 2009) whilst men and women seem to have similar attitudes in relation to the sentience capaciȋ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲͷǢ Ǥǡ ͳͻͻ͵ȌǤ ϐ students to support the animal use in research, probably due the characteristic career.However, these reϐ Ǥ ϐ on perception and attitudes about animal welfare is controversy.While authors as Broida et al. (1993) show that students who are more likely to encounter animal experimentation in their academic carrier (as Psychology, Biology and Medicine) are more likely to oppose animal research than other students, Knight et al. (2003) believe that science students are more likely to propose improvement in animal research procedures, omitting information for public, because Legend: Tot = Total (n = 87); SHB = School of heath and biosciences (n = 26); PS = Polytechnic school (n = 27); SHE = Scholl of education and humanities (n = 19); BS = Business school (n=10); SCA = School of communication and arts (n = 5).Source: Research data.Note: The absolute values related to the option of each question were compared using the qui-square test as means to test the homogeneity of the answers.The signi cantly di erent values (p < 0.05) are accompanied by the asterisk (*) and the signi cantly higher values are underlined.
= Total (n =87); SHB = School of heath and biosciences (n = 26); PS = Polytechnic school (n = 27); SHE = Scholl of education and humanities (n = 19); BS = Business school (n = 10); SCA = School of communication and arts (n = 5).Source: Research data.Note: The absolute values related to the option of each question were compared using the qui-square test as means to test the homogeneity of the answers.The signi cantly di erent values (p < 0.05) are accompanied by the asterisk (*) and the signi cantly higher values are underlined.
= Total (n = 87); SHB = School of heath and biosciences (n = 26); PS = Polytechnic school (n = 27); SHE = Scholl of education and humanities (n = 19); BS = Business school (n = 10); SCA = School of communication and arts (n = 5).Source: Research data.Note: The absolute values related to the option of each question were compared using the qui-square test as means to test the homogeneity of the answers.The signi cantly di erent values (p < 0.05) are accompanied by the asterisk (*) and the signi cantly higher values are underlined.
Legend: Tot = Total (n = 87); SHB = School of heath and biosciences (n = 26); PS = Polytechnic school (n = 27); SHE = Scholl of education and humanities (n = 19); BS = Business school (n = 10); SCA = School of communication and arts (n = 5).Source: Research data.Note: The absolute values related to the option of each question were compared using the qui-square test as means to test the homogeneity of the answers.The signi cantly di erent values (p < 0.05) are accompanied by the asterisk (*) and the signi cantly higher values are underlined.
= Total (n = 87); SHB = School of heath and biosciences (n = 26); PS = Polytechnic school (n = 27); SHE = Scholl of education and humanities (n = 19); BS = Business school (n = 10); SCA = School of communication and arts (n = 5).Source: Research data.Note: The absolute values related to the option of each question were compared using the qui-square test as means to test the homogeneity of the answers.The signi cantly di erent values (p < 0.05) are accompanied by the asterisk (*) and the signi cantly higher values are underlined.

Table 5
5HODWLYH IUHTXHQF\ RI DIÀUPDWLYH DQVZHUV UHODWHG WR WKH RSLQLRQ RI WKH VWXGHQWV DERXW WKH XVH RI DQLPDOV LQThey demand to know if the clothes of that they use was tested in animals