When Animal Advocacy Research Is Labeled As Biased
Although the goal of scientific research is to present transparent, objective evidence, that doesn’t mean the scientific process is free from bias. However, this paper points out that claims of “bias” are often weaponized to discredit research, especially when powerful stakeholders (like big business or government officials) are unhappy with the findings.
The authors of this paper dive into the challenges that researchers face in the field of human-animal studies. They note that over time, as researchers set out to produce advocacy research (or whose studies just happen to result in pro-animal data), such scholars often contradict dominant narratives and policies geared toward objectifying animals. In this paper, they explore how accusations of bias are used to discredit animal advocacy research, as well as some of the actual risks of bias within the field.
The authors begin by discussing the Eurasian badger, an animal at the center of a contentious political debate in the U.K. due to its alleged role in spreading bovine tuberculosis (bTB). While the government pushed badger culling as a solution to bTB, a paper was released in 2022 that found minimal evidence that culling works to solve the problem.
In response, representatives of England’s Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (in favor of culling) attempted to discredit the paper by claiming its results were skewed and highlighting the authors’ ties to animal rights NGOs. However, the government’s attempts to “correct” the data ended up confirming the study’s original conclusions.
The authors acknowledge that accusations of bias have been used to discredit animal advocates for centuries. For example, attempts by U.K. activists in the 1800s to establish animal protection policies were written off as being sentimental and womanly. Even today, the authors note that government officials and industry leaders may condemn or attempt to censure research and data collection that aims to protect animals (e.g., ag-gag laws in the U.S. and Australia).
The authors argue that achieving true objectivity can be difficult in any field of research — after all, scientists have their own life experiences and beliefs that can influence their work, and they may also become invested in the communities they’re studying. They also argue that sometimes, taking an “advocacy” approach to research is preferable, as it can produce more meaningful results. However, it’s important for human-animal scholars to do their due diligence by reflecting back on their own subjective points of view and acknowledging how these might impact their work (called “reflexivity”).
The authors then go on to explore three actual sources of bias that are commonly present in human-animal studies. These include the following:
- Centering companion animals: Much human-animal research focuses on companion animals (and especially their “positive” impact on human health), neglecting other animal groups. The authors point out that many of these studies promote the human-centric practice of “owning” animals, while they feel that studies about animal-assisted therapies often rely on inconsistent, unreliable data.
- Conflicts of interest: Even in human-animal research, powerful funders can influence study data (for example, companion animal food companies may sponsor research showing the benefits of their products). Similarly, when scholars work for animal advocacy organizations, they must take steps to ensure they’re not producing skewed data in favor of their organization’s mission.
- “Infighting” within the field: When scholars ideologically disagree on major animal issues (e.g., the impact of free-roaming cats on wild animal populations), they may produce or seek out research to confirm their point of view. In turn, many of these studies can be taken out of context by non-experts including the government and media, which ultimately affects animals. To get around this, the authors argue that journals should encourage editors with conflicting views to examine papers on potentially controversial topics.
By advocating for transparency in funding sources, encouraging diverse perspectives in academic discourse, and actively participating in policy-making processes, animal advocates can contribute to a more objective and inclusive understanding of animal protection issues. Scholar-advocates should focus on producing rigorous, methodologically sound research, preventing accusations of bias from being weaponized against the field, and ensuring that the most reliable evidence is being considered in public health strategies and environmental policies that affect animals.
https://ro.uow.edu.au/asj/vol12/iss1/6/