Table 3. Importance of, knowledge about arguments for and against, and ability to make informed decisions about using animals in research.

Respondent characteristics	Importance X (SD), (1–5 scale)1		Arguments X (SD), (1–5 scale)2		Decisions X (SD), (1–5 scale)3
	Students	Faculty	Students	Faculty	Students	Faculty
All	3.2 (1.0)	3.6 (1.2)	3.0 (1.0)	3.4 (1.0)	2.8 (1.2)	3.4 (1.2)
Male	2.9 (1.0)	3.6 (1.2)	2.9 (1.0)	3.4 (1.1)	3.0 (1.1)	3.5 (1.2)
Female	3.4 (1.0)	3.6 (1.1)	3.0 (0.9)	3.2 (1.0)	2.7 (1.2)	3.1 (1.2)
Odds Ratio vs. male	2.3***	0.76 ns	0.92 ns	0.66 ns	0.58*	0.57*
Biological Science	3.4 (1.0)	4.3 (1.0)	3.2 (1.0)	4.0 (0.9)	3.0 (1.2)	4.1 (1.0)
Physical Science	3.0 (1.0)	3.1 (1.2)	2.8 (0.9)	2.9 (1.0)	2.7 (1.1)	3.0 (1.2)
Odds Ratio vs. Bio	0.82 ns	0.10***	0.41***	0.09***	0.47**	0.12***
Social Science	3.2 (1.0)	3.1 (1.1)	2.8 (0.9)	3.0 (0.9)	2.5 (1.2)	2.9 (1.2)
Odds Ratio vs. Bio	0.85 ns	0.11***	0.27***	0.14***	0.37**	0.14***
Arts and Humanities	3.3 (1.0)	3.2 (1.0)	2.9 (0.9)	2.9 (0.8)	2.7 (1.2)	2.7 (1.0)
Odds Ratio vs. Bio	1.1 ns	0.14***	0.84 ns	0.12***	0.77 ns	0.10***
I do not think that there is anything wrong with using animals in medical research.4
Agree	3.0 (1.1)	3.7 (1.2)	3.2 (1.0)	3.6 (1.0)	3.1 (1.2)	3.7 (1.2)
Odds Ratio vs. N	1.2 ns	2.1***	2.9***	2.4***	3.0***	2.9***
Neither (N)	2.9 (0.8)	3.1 (1.0)	2.6 (0.8)	2.9 (0.9)	2.4 (1.0)	2.8 (1.2)
Disagree	3.7 (0.9)	3.6 (1.0)	3.0 (0.9)	3.2 (1.0)	2.7 (1.1)	2.9 (1.2)
Odds Ratio vs. N	4.3***	2.4***	2.5***	1.9***	1.7*	1.5*

ns, not significant

* p<0.05

** p<0.01

*** p<0.001. From S1, S2 and S8 Tables.

¹Higher numbers indicate greater self-reported importance.

²Higher numbers indicate greater self-reported knowledge of arguments for and against.

³Higher numbers indicate greater self-reported knowledge to make informed decisions; excludes those answering “Don’t know”, which was 12% of students and 9% of faculty.

⁴Agree = strongly agree and agree; N = neither agree nor disagree; Disagree = strongly disagree or disagree.