Varying Degrees of Animal Reification by Stakeholders in Experimental Research

Abstract

The attitude towards animals in research depends on both the role of the stakeholder and their personal characteristics. Most studies on the subject have been carried out on stakeholders from biomedical research institutes with comparatively few sociological studies on stakeholders from agricultural research centers. Previous findings suggest that animal caretakers at agricultural research centers felt undervalued by the hierarchy, and that animal reification was present in the sector. This may indicate that a lack of consideration for the animal subjects correlates with an inadequate sensitivity towards humans. Since these findings were published twenty years ago, there has been an increasing emphasis on the importance and actions of ethics committees in research, animal welfare bodies, and public concern for animals, which may have impacted the current perspective. To better understand current degrees of animal reification amongst stakeholders of agricultural research, we conducted semi-directive interviews at a leading agricultural research institute in France (INRAE). The interviews targeted both animal caretakers and researchers who were involved in the study of infectious diseases in livestock, or the behavior of horses and quails. After having transcribed the recorded interviews into text, semi-automatized analyses were carried out to categorize them into distinct groups, from which the most characteristic words and sentences were extracted. Three groups of stakeholders were identified: (i) animal caretakers involved in invasive infectious disease research; (ii) animal caretakers involved in behavioral research; and (iii) researchers. The findings show that animal caretakers felt acknowledged by their hierarchy. It is possible the increased skill criteria for people recruited into this position over the years, combined with greater prospects for continuous learning and development in the profession, may have fostered a more respectful regard across the hierarchy. The animal caretakers clearly expressed that their primary objective was to successfully execute the research protocols and that the animals were viewed as prototypes for research, with which they could, on occasion, develop a bond with. The bond was more important for animal caretakers involved in behavioral studies than for those involved in the study of infectious diseases, where invasive biological sampling and restraining of the animals is required. Researchers prioritized the procurement of robust data to test hypotheses, analyze phenomena, and publish their results. Their concern for the animals rather reflected the views of the general public opposed to thought-out personal opinions on the matter; this is possibly due to their comparatively limited interaction with the animals. They considered the animals in abstract terms that were indicative of reification. This study concludes that animal reification is still present, albeit to varying degrees amongst the stakeholders.

Perceptions of 3R implementation in European animal research: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-synthesis of barriers and facilitators

“…Indeed, some publications report a dual detachment, where researchers appear unresponsive to both the animals’ needs and the concerns of animal technologists and other workers responsible for their welfare [ 27 , 28 , 30 ]. These conversations surrounding the reification process extend to considerations specific to each species, with certain animals generating more emotional attachment and ethical concern than others [ 25 , 28 ]. Therefore, the sentiments and attitudes toward laboratory animals are influenced by factors such as species, exposure levels, and broader societal perceptions of animal sentience [ 28 ].…”

“…Another aspect of workplace culture affecting 3R implementation is how animal technologists are appreciated. Researchers are becoming more aware of their practical, in depth knowledge of animal husbandry [ 25 ]. With this understanding, animal technologists are able to identify impediments to animal welfare such as inadequate care or problematic breeding schemes [ 26 ].…”

“…It is, for example, seen as crucial that animal stress is kept at a minimum to obviate it as a confounding variable in experiments [ 24 ]. Animal use is only considered justified when it occurs within a properly designed study [ 24 ] which involves the use of a so-called “good question” (or scientifically valid question) and appropriate means of addressing it [ 25 ]. Data from prior animal studies that successfully incorporated 3Rs measures are also an effective driver of change.…”

“…Further reduction could result from better sharing of organs and tissues between research projects [ 24 ]. This may involve harvesting several organs from one animal to be shared between several projects [ 25 ].…”

“…Positive attitudes towards 3R, as well as an enthusiastic and compassionate staff, act as strong catalysts for implementing 3R practices [ 23 ]. This ability to care for animals may vary based on factors such as species, the nature of the procedures involved, and the duration of interaction with the animals [ 25 ]. Particularly crucial in the context of refinement, these humane resources play a pivotal role in shaping the unique bond between caregivers and animals.…”