The term “volunteering” is typically associated with free will and agency — concepts usually reserved for human participants. This study critically examines how this term is applied to animals in scientific research, and reveals that the use of “volunteering” in animal research is highly variable and often misleading, as it does not always align with the ethical connotations typically associated with the term.

The study starts by analyzing a broad range of scientific literature where animals’ participation in research is described as “voluntary.” The authors conducted a qualitative textual analysis, examining how the term “voluntary” and related terms were employed in animal behavioral and psychological research papers. This analysis uncovers that “voluntary” is frequently used to indicate a lack of physical restraint. However, it often fails to account for other forms of control, such as captivity, training, breeding, or environmental manipulation, all of which can significantly influence an animal’s participation.

For example, the paper discusses scenarios where animals are “trained” to voluntarily participate in certain tasks. In such cases, this training often involves rewards, such as food, or conditioning that limits true freedom of choice. The study provides examples from the literature, such as chimpanzees being trained to move voluntarily between enclosures or rodents engaging in “voluntary exercise” on wheels, where the animals’ choices are heavily influenced by the setup of their environment and the rewards offered.

One of the key areas of concern highlighted by the authors is the use of “volunteering” in behavioral and psychological research. In these studies, animals are often given a choice to participate in tasks, which is then labeled as “voluntary.” However, this so-called voluntariness is undermined by the conditions imposed on the animals, such as food deprivation or confinement, which can coerce them into participation. For example, rhesus macaques in cognitive tests might appear to volunteer for tasks, but their participation is often driven by the rewards they receive, such as food, which they may be deprived of otherwise.

The researchers also looked into the concept of animal agency and the ethical implications of using animals in research more broadly. They argue that while some animals may exhibit behaviors that suggest agency, the controlled environments in which they are kept often constrain their choices, making it difficult to genuinely classify their actions as voluntary. This issue is particularly problematic in cases where animals are bred or trained specifically for research purposes, as these practices further limit their autonomy. The study gives the example of animals selectively bred for traits that make them more likely to engage in certain research activities, such as rodents bred for high levels of voluntary wheel-running, which raises ethical questions about the authenticity of their “voluntary” participation.

The study points out that the language of volunteering is sometimes used as a rhetorical tool to present research in a more ethically favorable light. By framing animals’ participation as voluntary, researchers may be attempting to mitigate ethical concerns and promote the acceptability of their studies. This framing can be seen in research where animals are described as “willingly” participating in tasks that involve aversive stimuli, such as mild electric shocks or food restriction, in exchange for rewards. The study warns that this use of language can be deceptive, as it glosses over the complex realities of animal research and the constraints placed on the animals involved. The authors argue that this rhetoric may be employed to align the research more closely with ethical standards expected in human research, despite the significant differences in the conditions and contexts of participation.

The authors call for greater transparency and critical reflection on the use of the term “volunteering” in animal research contexts. They suggest that researchers should be more explicit about the conditions under which animals participate in studies and avoid using language that implies a level of autonomy that does not exist. The authors also emphasize the need for ongoing ethical debates about the treatment of animals in research, particularly concerning their ability to consent and the true nature of their participation. The paper concludes by advocating for a more nuanced understanding of what “voluntary” participation means in the context of animal research, urging for a re-evaluation of practices that are currently accepted as ethically sound.

Animal advocates and policymakers are encouraged to push for stricter guidelines and more ethical practices in animal research. This includes advocating for the recognition of animal agency and the development of research methods that minimize harm and respect the autonomy of non-human animals as much as possible.