Date of Award
Fall 1-5-2024
Document Type
Thesis
Degree Name
Master of Arts (MA)
Department
Psychology
First Advisor
Dr. Liv Baker Van de Graaff
Second Advisor
Dr. Diana Reiss
Academic Program Adviser
Dr. Diana Reiss
Abstract
Non-human animals habitually have been treated as a resource in the service of humans and human-driven values. The field of conservation is not immune to this fact. But, because conservation is seemingly dedicated to the saving and protection of species and nature, until recently the field historically has been given a pass for the use and treatment of animals that are done “in the name of conservation”. This treatment is evident in common conservation practices such as capture, captivity, invasive sampling, aversive treatment, experimental manipulation, and intentional killing. A principal question we are asking is how individual animals are impacted by conservation research, with the goal of illuminating the nature of animal use in conservation research. Current transparency standards for animal use in published research are woefully inadequate. Therefore, published research in peer-reviewed journals may appear more ethically justified than a comprehensive description of the animal experience would indicate. Seemingly basic information such as the exact number of individuals used, the length of time spent in traps or in captivity, the conditions of captivity, and the fate of animals are oftentimes absent in papers. For this study, 100 articles involving animal use were sampled across the decades of publication of the peer-reviewed literature in the journal Conservation Biology. I analyzed how often taxonomic classes were used, what types of practices they were subjected to, and how taxonomic class played a role in lethal treatment. To evaluate transparency I analyzed how practice type and taxonomic class influenced the amount and clarity of information provided in papers. To understand the level of ethics disclosure I analyzed papers for the presence of an ethics disclosure statement. I found a minimum of 2,148,632 individuals were used. The majority of use was Aves (25%) and Mammalia (22%), consistent with previous studies. Aves and Mammalia were also more frequently used in observational and secondary data practices. Insecta were the most frequently used in lethal practices. The use trends we observed in both frequency and type of use may be attributed to how social preference, ‘researchability’, funding, and regulations factor into methodological decisions. Transparency was found to be generally low across taxonomic classes. Transparency was lower when invasive, harmful, and lethal practices were used compared to studies using observational or secondary data. The lack of procedural transparency, regarding the nature of animal use discerned in this subset of the literature accords with previous research that has identified a lack of ethics training and education in conservation. The results further indicate undisclosed and implicit taxonomic biases. Thus, it behooves journals to require that authors report animal use, in all instances and for all species. We propose a framework for identifying and reporting animal use in conservation research to encourage greater accountability and transparency from the broader conservation community.
Recommended Citation
Hollmann, Sarah, "Through Their Eyes: Illuminating the Nature of Animal Use in Conservation Research through an Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Literature in the Journal Conservation Biology" (2024). CUNY Academic Works.
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/hc_sas_etds/1111