Summary
This literature review advocates for greater recognition of the morally and scientifically problematic use of animals in research by reviewing past studies and outlining methods for acknowledging problematic research in citations. The authors review three influential past studies on animals and detail how their research practices harmed the animals involved, deteriorating the moral and scientific credibility of the research. Various ways that scientists could include mention of problematic research practices in citations, such as in parentheticals or references, are outlined so that the history of animal exploitation in research is not ignored. The authors advocate for a universal standard for animal treatment in research that presents all research practices transparently (e.g., by describing living conditions and treatment of animals), respects animals as autonomous individuals (by e.g. referring to them by name), looks for animals’ assent or dissent through behavior, and views positive welfare as positive science.
Modern behavioural scientists have come to acknowledge that individual animals may respond differently to the same stimuli and that the quality of welfare and lived experience can affect behavioural responses. However, much of the foundational research in behavioural science lacked awareness of the effect of both welfare and individuality on data, bringing their results into question. This oversight is rarely addressed when citing seminal works as their findings are considered crucial to our understanding of animal behaviour. Furthermore, more recent research may reflect this lack of awareness by replication of earlier methods – exacerbating the problem. The purpose of this review is threefold. First, we critique seminal papers in animal behaviour as a model for re-examining past experiments, attending to gaps in knowledge or concern about how welfare may have affected results. Second, we propose a means to cite past and future research in a way that is transparent and conscious of the abovementioned problems. Third, we propose a method of transparent reporting for future behaviour research that (i) improves replicability, (ii) accounts for individuality of non-human participants, and (iii) considers the impact of the animals' welfare on the validity of the science. With this combined approach, we aim both to advance the conversation surrounding behaviour scholarship while also serving to drive open engagement in future science.