Table 1.

Three value judgments and their premises according to the Value Judgment Model.

Value Judgment		Evaluative Premises	Descriptive Premises
“Alternative method A has less serious consequences (especially for animals) if the experiment fails than animal experiment B” *	Premise	Serious consequences (especially for animals) when experiments fail are bad (should be avoided) °	If experiments fail, alternative method A has consequences Z (especially for animals) °
	Backing Premise	Animal welfare (value), efficiency (value) °	The animal experiments in this kind of research imply problematic consequences °
Alternative method A is not cruel (compared to the animal experiment B) °	Premise	“The animal experiments (in this kind of research) were cruel” *	Alternative method A does not imply that Z has to be done to animals (e.g., inducing strokes in rats) °
	Backing Premise	Animal welfare (value) °	For investigating this topic, it is necessary to do Z to animals (epistemic processes) °
Alternative method A better complies with the demands of the society, and/or better avoids societal criticism °	Premise	To comply with what the society demands more, and/or to avoid societal criticism, is favourable °	Alternative method A is accepted better by society (fulfils its demands), and/or is less/not criticized °
	Backing Premise	Democracy/participation (value), alignment with society (interest), avoidance of criticism (emotion) °	“Society demands more alternatives, and animal experiments are criticized even more as before” *

* Quote from interviews (abstracted for anonymization purposes) ° Reconstructed by the authors.