Invertebrate research without ethical or regulatory oversight reduces public confidence and trust

Ethical considerations in animal research predominantly focus on vertebrates, largely overlooking invertebrates despite growing evidence of sentience in many invertebrate species. This exclusion is problematic, particularly given the increasing societal concern for animal welfare across various sectors (agriculture, hunting, entertainment). The concept of a "social license" for research—the public's acceptance of research practices—is crucial. If public expectations concerning invertebrate animal welfare in research diverge significantly from current regulatory oversight (which largely excludes invertebrates), this social license could be threatened. This study aimed to determine if public expectations for the oversight of invertebrate research differ from current practice and whether the lack of such oversight impacts public confidence and trust in scientists.

Existing research highlights multi-dimensional public views on vertebrate animal research, influenced by factors like research purpose, species involved, and procedures used. While ethical guidelines exist for vertebrate animals, invertebrates are largely excluded, leading to ethical concerns. Scientific evidence of sentience in various invertebrate taxa fuels the debate on their moral consideration in research. The study draws upon existing literature on public perception of animal research and the importance of a social license for scientific activities.

A 2x2 experimental design was used, with vignettes describing tissue removal experiments in either terrestrial or aquatic environments, using either vertebrate (mice, zebrafish) or invertebrate (grasshoppers, sea stars) animals. A census-matched sample of 959 Canadian participants, recruited via Prolific, was randomly assigned to one of four vignette conditions. Participants rated their confidence in the oversight of scientists and their trust in scientists on a 7-point Likert scale. Open-ended questions explored reasons for their responses. Data analysis included ANOVA, linear regressions, and thematic analysis of qualitative data. Demographic factors were considered in the analysis to account for potential confounding variables. Inter-coder reliability was established for qualitative data analysis.

Participants expected some level of oversight for invertebrates, but significantly less than for vertebrates (Fig. 1). Confidence in oversight was highest for vertebrate research and lowest for invertebrate research lacking explicit oversight (Fig. 2). Four themes emerged explaining participants' expectations for invertebrate oversight: value of life, animal experience, participant reflection, and oversight system (Table 3). Trust in scientists was similarly higher for vertebrate research compared to invertebrate research, especially when oversight was absent (Fig. 3). Demographic factors like gender, pet ownership, and meat consumption influenced both confidence and trust (Tables 4, 6). Qualitative analysis revealed further nuances in participants' reasoning; some participants emphasized the value of all life, others focused on animals' capacity for pain and suffering, while others expressed uncertainty or ambivalence.

The findings indicate a significant gap between public expectations and the current lack of oversight for invertebrate animal research. Lower confidence and trust scores associated with the absence of oversight highlight the importance of addressing public concerns. The ambivalence expressed by some participants might reflect the complexity of the issue and the need for clearer communication about research practices. The study underscores the need for more inclusive ethical frameworks that address public concerns about invertebrate welfare in research. The impact of demographic factors on public opinion further emphasizes the importance of considering diverse perspectives in developing and implementing ethical guidelines.

This study provides crucial evidence that the public expects some level of ethical oversight for invertebrate animals used in research, a level currently lacking. The resulting decrease in public confidence and trust highlights the potential risks of ignoring public expectations and underscores the need for a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to animal welfare in scientific research. Future research should explore detailed invertebrate research protocols and public perspectives, particularly focusing on regional and socio-economic factors to further refine ethical guidelines.

The study's sample was limited to Canadian participants, potentially restricting the generalizability of findings. Underrepresentation of low-income participants and those from Quebec (due to the survey's English-only format) might have influenced the results. While statistical models accounted for some demographic differences, further qualitative research could provide deeper insights into regional and socio-economic variations in public attitudes.