The topic of invertebrate sentience is a growing focus of research studies and moral arguments. In addition to considering the ethical implications of using these animals, scientists must also consider the general public’s thoughts on the matter.

Scientists operate under a social license. This means they’re expected to carry out research while respecting the values of the community they serve. Since research is publicly funded in many countries, scientists owe it to the public to abide by their values. As individuals grow more concerned about animal welfare in areas such as agriculture and entertainment, failing to treat invertebrates ethically for research could threaten the public’s confidence in science.

With this in mind, a Canadian study measured public perceptions of the scientific oversight of invertebrate animals used in research.

Researchers surveyed a representative sample of 959 Canadians via the online survey platform Qualtrics. Participants were presented with one of four vignettes involving a mouse, a fish, a sea star, or a grasshopper. Each animal was undergoing the same procedure of having a piece of tissue removed for genetic research. The vignettes also varied by the level of oversight given to the research: the vertebrate species had local and national oversight, while the invertebrate species had none.

Using a seven-point scale and a series of statements, participants were then asked to:

• Rank their confidence in the level of oversight given
• Rate their trust in scientists
• Indicate how much oversight should be given to invertebrates compared to vertebrates in research studies

For the statements pertaining to oversight, the survey also provided open text fields for participants to explain their reasoning, which the researchers analyzed for themes.

Expectations Of Oversight

Overall, participants believed invertebrates should receive less oversight than vertebrates — about two-thirds as much on average. In general, expectations for oversight were higher for mice, fishes, and sea stars than for grasshoppers.

Participants who didn’t identify as women, had household incomes below $35,000 or above $150,000, or resided in the Prairie provinces had lower expectations for oversight.

Four themes emerged in regards to expectations:

1. Value of life centered: Some participants expressed that all animals are equal, regardless of what degree of sentience they possess. Others voiced a general repulsion towards invertebrates, using the open text fields to share dismissive statements like “Grasshoppers are yucky.”
2. Animal experience centered: Opinions were divided over whether invertebrates experience suffering or other negative feelings. Some felt that all animals should be treated humanely, regardless of pain responses.
3. Participant reflection: Some participants admitted they were unfamiliar with the form of research presented in the study. Others noted they had little interest in the topic.
4. Oversight system centered: Participants either criticized the lack of oversight, expressing that “due diligence has to be applied,” or stated that allowing invertebrates more oversight would be wasteful.

Trust In Scientists

Trust in scientists was generally neutral, with an average score of just over four out of seven, regardless of the level of oversight indicated. Participants who identified as women, lived with companion animals, didn’t eat meat, or had no opinion about politics had less trust in scientists.

Confidence In Oversight

Responses varied based on what animal the participants had been assigned. Those who were shown the mouse and fish vignettes had the most confidence, followed by those shown the grasshopper vignette. Those shown the sea star vignette were the least confident. Participants who identified as female, lived with companion animals, or didn’t eat meat were the least confident in current regulations.

Similar themes emerged for participants who explained their confidence, or lack thereof, in the oversight of scientists:

1. Animal centered: Participants expressed concerns over the possibility of animals experiencing unpleasant feelings within the system as it currently is. Others trusted scientists to reduce any unnecessary pain or distress. Some participants saw little value in invertebrates, commenting that “insects don’t really matter.”
2. Participant reflection: Some participants admitted to having little familiarity with animal research, or felt they needed more information to make informed decisions.
3. Oversight system centered: Some trusted that the current system was fine as is, while others found it problematic. A few worried that increasing oversight would result in “an excessive regulatory burden.”
4. Science centered: Some participants questioned how necessary the research was, with several suggesting that alternatives should be considered.

Since the study was limited to Canada, the results may not generalize to other countries. Additionally, the language used in the survey was limited to English only, thus shutting out any French-speaking Canadians.

Regardless of these limitations, the study presents fundamental evidence that the Canadian public expects a significant amount of oversight of scientists using invertebrates in research studies. The lack of confidence in scientists to honor this expectation poses a threat to their social license and risks sabotaging the public’s trust in science. To keep up with the growing focus on invertebrate welfare, scientists should consider adequate oversight for all creatures, even those with inner lives that may differ greatly from our own. The public and advocates can do their part by keeping invertebrates in mind when arguing for better animal welfare standards across all industries, including scientific research.