This is an example of conscientious researchers addressing the issue head on:

> Insects collected from these experiments were used to compare imidacloprid concentrations and parasitoid lifespan. There are no guidelines for the ethical treatment of invertebrates. All insects were treated humanely and efforts were taken to minimize the suffering of animals used in this research.

Taylor SV, Burrack HJ, Roe RM, Bacheler JS, Sorenson CE (2015) Systemic Imidacloprid Affects Intraguild Parasitoids Differently. PLoS ONE 10(12): e0144598. 

¶

Much research has been done into the attitudes of people regarding animals!

ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS 

Naturalistic- Primary interest in and affection for wildlife and the outdoors.

Ecologistic- Primary concern for the environment as a sys- tem, for interrelationships between wildlife species and natural habitats. 
Humanistic- Primary interest in and strong affection for indi- vidual animals, principally pets.

Moralistic- Primary concern for the right and wrong treat- ment of animals, with strong opposition to exploitation of and cruelty toward animals. 
Scientistic- Primary interest in the physical attributes and biological functioning of animals.

Aesthetic- Primary interest in the artistic and symbolic char- acteristics of animals. 
Utilitarian- Primary concern for the practical and material value of animals. 
Dominionistic- Primary satisfactions derived from mastery and control over animals, typically in sporting situations. 
Negativistic- Primary orientation an active avoidance of animals due to dislike or fear. 
Neutralistic- Primary orientation a passive avoidance of animals due to indifference and lack of interest. 

The most common attitudes toward animals in contemporary American society, by a large margin, are the humanistic, moralistic, utilitarian, and negativistic attitudes. 

Among animal activity groups, humane and environmental protection organization members, zoo visitors, anti-hunters, and scientific study hobbyists scored very high on the humanistic scale. In contrast, livestock producers, nature hunters, and surprisingly, birdwatchers had much lower scores. 

Those demographic groups expressing the greatest moralistic concern were Pacific Coast residents, the highly educated, those engaged in clerical occupations, females, persons who rarely or never attended religious services, and respondents under 35 years of age. Groups least troubled by animal welfare and cruelty issues were rural residents, farmers, respondents from Alaska and the South, and males. 

Livestock producers, meat hunters and fishermen displayed an especially strong utilitarian orientation in contrast to members of humane, wildlife protection and environmental protection organizations, and, to a somewhat lesser degree, scientific study hobbyists, backpackers, and birdwatchers.

No animal activity group revealed marked disinterest or dislike of animals, as measured by the negativistic attitude scale. Interestingly, anti-hunters had comparatively high scores on this dimension, suggesting that broad principles concerning the ethical treatment of animals were more salient considerations in opposition to hunting than general interest in animals. 

The national sample was queried on its feelings about 33 species ranked on a seven point like/dislike scale. The most preferred were two common domestic animals- the dog and the horse- followed by two familiar and highly aesthetic bird species and one insect order-the robin, swan and butterfly. The trout- a popular and highly attractive game species- was the best-liked fish, and the most preferred wild predator was the eagle. The most favored wild mammalian species was the elephant. On the other hand, three of the four least-liked animals were biting, stinging invertebrates- the cockroach, mosquito and wasp.

Kellert, Stephen R. "American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: an update." Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1984. Springer Netherlands, 1985. 177-213.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html