An ethical assessment of the use of old and new methods to study sociality in wild animals

Abstract

The current scientific era is probably the one that sees the most pressure to include an ethical aspect to research, particularly in the most invasive fields of biomedical research (Panksepp, 2011), but not only.While ethical approaches to the treatment of animals used in the medical sciences have a long history (Russell & Burch, 1959), the last decades have seen a change in culture in fields that did not necessarily consider these aspects, such as in human behavioural studies (e.g. psychology: Asiedu et al., 2021). As an illustration, the psychological impact of experiments is now evaluated and controls are being implemented for controversial experimental paradigms (e.g. Haney et al., 1973), taking the well-being of participants and possible longterm consequences of the experiments on the former into account.This move is also seen in the animal behavioural sciences where both authors and journals have taken upon looking at the ethical aspects of their work with respect to the animal populations, often wild, that they study (Soulsbury et al., 2020). As an illustration, the ethical

Striking pay dirt: Contemporary methods for studying animal sociality in the wild

“…This is not to say that new technologies should be the sole drive for researchers to adopt ethical measures in the field. As exemplified by Gruber (2022) in this Feature, as well as Soulsbury et al (2020) in a recent primer article, ethical issues arise as soon as we deal with wild animals. In particular, Gruber outlines the multiple ways that, similar to biomedical research, field research can be seen as invasive; he introduces the concepts of body invasiveness and none‐body invasiveness to tackle these issues.…”

“…Similarly, wearing a tag can represent a burden that will affect an individual's fitness (Soulsbury et al, 2020). New technologies, in line with other older direct manipulations of the environment, are likely to elicit stress, fear, or be potential carriers of human diseases (Gruber, 2022). But this is not new and should not be a reason to forbid any reliance on such paradigms to study wild animals.…”

Lab cognition going wild: Implementing a new portable touchscreen system in vervet monkeys

“…We believe that touchscreen testing with wild populations has the potential to provide a step forward in studying non-human cognition. However, the potential ethical implications of this type of research must be carefully considered (Gruber, 2022). Like other types of field experiment, providing touchscreens for testing animals in their natural habitat removes the need to bring animals into captivity for testing, opening up the possibility of testing animals for which capturing would be unethical.…”

A multicomponent approach to studying cultural propensities during foraging in the wild

“…Field experiments allow opportunities for such behaviour to develop, while bringing as much control as possible in the field (Gruber et al, 2010). While this article is a review and does not require ethical approval, all proposed experiments should be reviewed by the relevant ethical bodies, even when deemed non‐invasive to the study animals (Gruber, 2022). Here, we consider two classes of field experiments focused on cultural tendencies such as foraging behaviour, which is easily studied in many species and explores social learning and conformity.…”

“…Field experiments allow opportunities for such behaviour to develop, while bringing as much control as possible in the field (Gruber et al, 2010). While this article is a review and does not require ethical approval, all proposed experiments should be reviewed by the relevant ethical bodies, even when deemed non-invasive to the study animals (Gruber, 2022).…”