Putting Animals First To Improve Science

Research on animal behavior has taught us how animals perceive the world and communicate with others. Unfortunately, some early studies involved poor treatment of animals — including physical and psychological trauma. Despite this, some of these problematic studies have become foundational to our understanding of animal (and human) behavior and are still highly cited today without mention of what the animals experienced. 

The authors of this review argue that animals should be recognized as participants in studies in order to advance science. Their goal in recommending this is to improve replicability, account for the individuality of animals, and consider the impact of animal welfare on the validity of results. First, they critique several influential studies on animal behavior and suggest a model for citing previous work that calls attention to its problems. With that, they propose an improved method for conducting and presenting future research that prioritizes animal participants.

The authors describe three key experiments, including Pavlov’s research on “classical conditioning” using dogs, Harlow’s experiments on maternal care using infant rhesus macaques, and Seligman’s animal research on learned helplessness. Although today’s scholars commonly cite and build upon the findings of these studies, the authors point out that the animals’ experiences are largely overlooked. For example, Pavlov’s dogs experienced repeated, painful surgeries, while Harlow’s monkeys suffered ongoing psychological trauma and social isolation. Furthermore, historical animal research often failed to report important facts such as the living conditions of animals and what happened to them after the research concluded. 

Ethical concerns aside, the authors argue that the findings from these early studies are brought into question because poor welfare can impact an animal’s behavioral response. Similarly, with such poor welfare, it’s questionable whether the findings can be generalized to humans. Learning abilities are also influenced by factors like genetics, upbringing, and personality, which were often overlooked in previous research. Combined with the fact that some of these studies failed to clearly assess what was done to the animals and how, the authors claim that they would likely not be approved by ethical review boards today. Thus, how can we be confident that their results are robust and reliable?

In the authors’ view, it’s important for scholars to stop passively citing this so-called “foundational” research. By doing this, we are allowing the ongoing misconception that such research is robust. Instead, innovative but unethical research should be cited, but also noted as problematic. This would prompt the reader to reassess the cited information, refer directly to the paper, and evaluate the issues themselves. 

The authors consider several options to mark citations as such, but ultimately recommend applying one of the following indicators after a citation:

• Deficient Description (DD) — The study lacks detailed descriptions of methods, animal welfare, and/or validity; the research may not be replicable from the details given.
• Welfare Validity Concerns (WVC) — The study’s results may be affected by animals’ pain, fear, and/or distress.
• Ecological Validity Concerns (EVC) — Aspects of an animal’s natural behavior were overlooked when designing the research.

Improving the way that animal research is presented also means addressing future studies. When it comes to human studies, it’s common for ethical research standards to change with the times. The same thing should be true for animal research, in the authors’ opinion. They feel it’s also important to create standardized ethical protocols across nations and animal taxa, as well as recognizing animal subjects as individuals by giving them names and identifiers. This will encourage researchers to track an individual animal’s progress and to account for their unique personalities and life experiences. Finally, when it comes to behavioral research, they say that animals should be given a choice whether they want to participate. (Editor’s note: This is an issue that Farm Sanctuary is pioneering.)

While this review focused specifically on behavior research using animals, future work should consider whether or not these ideas can be applied to other fields. For scholars interested in prioritizing animal welfare, it may help to establish a global database of agreed-upon markers to cite past and future animal research; journals could then include this system in their submission guidelines. For research animal advocates, perhaps the most important takeaway is that previous unethical research shouldn’t be ignored, disregarded, or minimized. Instead, scholars should be encouraged to call attention to unethical studies, what they did wrong, and how things can be improved in the future.