Introduction and Context
Scientific research involving animals is carried out in laboratories and clinics, zoos and aquaria, and wild and semiwild environments to achieve a wide range of goals, such as advancing conservation efforts for threatened species; improving treatments for diseases in pets, livestock, or other animals; uncovering insights about fundamental biological processes; and developing new treatments to alleviate disease and improve human health. However, this involvement of animals in scientific research can elicit strong emotions and responses from members of the public, in part because the information they receive is inadequate. There is therefore an urgent need for scientists who conduct research involving animals to communicate more effectively about their work. To identify strategies for effective communication, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) organized a workshop focused on enhancing public understanding of scientific research with animals, how research animals are cared for and treated, the ethical considerations that are involved in these activities, and how research with animals has contributed to improvements in animal and human health.
The workshop, titled Effective Communication with the General Public About Scientific Research That Requires the Care and Use of Animals, was hosted by the National Academies on December 19–20, 2023. The event convened 27 speakers and over 531 academic and industry researchers, veterinarians, educators, communication specialists, and other participants. Participants explored characteristics of effective communication, ways to integrate information from scientists into media for diverse public audiences, and opportunities to address challenges in understanding research with animals.
The workshop Statement of Task and agenda are provided in Appendixes A and B, respectively. Alice Huang, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (retired), chaired the planning committee, and Margaret Landi, GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals (retired), served as planning committee vice chair. After welcoming remarks to set the stage, planning committee members shared results from a survey commissioned by the Roundtable on Science and Welfare in Laboratory Animal Use that explored public opinions on research involving animals, which motivated the questions that the workshop was designed to address. The event was organized into a series of presentations and discussions that covered a range of topics, including openness, increasing the effectiveness of communications, and considering and communicating about ethics. Other sessions focused on the needs of particular audiences, including the media, other nonscientists, science writers, and institutional leadership. To demonstrate certain challenges that scientists may encounter in communicating with the public and illustrate strategies for effectively handling them, some sessions included role-playing exercises, both scripted/prerecorded and improvised live. Attendees were encouraged to participate in the discussions by responding to several informal audience polls and submitting questions to speakers and panelists.
This Proceedings of a Workshop summarizes the presentations and discussions that occurred during each of the workshop sessions.1 It was produced by rapporteurs on behalf of the National Academies based on recordings, slides, and transcripts from the event. It is intended as a factual reflection of the discussions at the workshop and does not represent consensus views or recommendations of the National Academies.
WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION
Welcoming participants and setting the stage for the workshop, Huang said that it was intended to provide those who are involved in research that requires the care and use of animals with information and
___________________
1 For recordings and additional information, see the event website at https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/41345_12-2023_effective-communication-with-the-general-public-about-scientific-research-that-requires-the-care-and-use-of-animals-a-workshop.
tools for communicating more effectively with the general public about what such research involves and why it occurs. In simple terms, the workshop focused on helping scientists communicate with the public, and Huang defined who was considered to be included within each of these groupings. The term “scientists” encompassed all the people who are involved in any of a broad range of roles related to research with animals, including those who conduct the research, take care of the animals, or oversee the research. For those with whom the scientists communicate, Huang outlined three main groups: individual members of the general public who are not scientists; people who are regarded by those nonscientists as reliable sources of information, such as journalists, veterinarians, and community leaders; and those in institutional leadership and communication positions where the research is conducted.
Across all of these audiences, Huang explained, communication is likely to be most effective when it is a two-way dialogue in which both parties are engaged, respect each other’s unique perspectives, listen actively, expect to learn something new, and recognize that complete agreement is not always possible or even necessarily the goal. Effective communication is an important skill for scientists to master, especially if many in the public have concerns about their research. Important general principles apply to all effective communication, but the workshop was designed to focus specifically on aspects of research with animals that are essential to decisions about what work to support, such as how the animals are treated, why animal models are valuable, the role of nonanimal models, and ethical considerations.
In outlining the goals for the workshop, Huang expressed the planning committee’s hope that it would provide scientists with tools that they can customize to improve the effectiveness of their conversations about their specific research and the animal species involved, to address the perspectives of their audiences. The goal of this communication is to improve understanding of animal research among individuals in the general public in order to inform decision making that is reflective of their individual values and concerns. “For people to make informed decisions about whether to support research with animals, it’s crucial for them to have access to accurate information, in context, that addresses their individual concerns and reflects understanding of their individual values,” Huang said. She noted that the planning committee came from a wide range of personal and professional backgrounds and experiences, and she conducted a short informal poll to get a sense of the diversity of viewpoints among participants. The results showed that the majority of respondents were scientists, with journalists, leaders, and other nonscientists also attending in smaller numbers, and that most respondents considered themselves to be familiar with research involving animals and had some experience talking about it with the general public. Huang emphasized the intention for the event to truly be a “workshop,” with attendees working together with the presenters, engaging actively in the polls and discussions as much as possible. In that spirit, attendees are generally referred to as “participants” in this proceedings; those identified in the agenda are referred to as “speakers” or “presenters.”
PUBLIC OPINION REGARDING ANIMALS INVOLVED IN RESEARCH: FINDINGS OF 2023 SURVEY
In early 2023, the National Academies Institute of Laboratory Animal Research, (now the Board on Animal Health Science Conservation and Research [BAHSCR]) Roundtable on Science and Welfare in Laboratory Animal Use (now the Roundtable on Science and Welfare of Animals Involved in Research) proposed a formal survey about scientific research with animals because roundtable members were concerned about misinformation among members of the public. The proposal led to commissioning a formal survey whose responses were used to gain a more detailed understanding of the general public’s perceptions of scientific research with animals and inform the Effective Communication with the General Public About Scientific Research That Requires the Care and Use of Animals workshop. More than 2,000 U.S. adults representing a cross section of the general population participated in the survey. Planning committee and BAHSCR roundtable members Sally Thompson-Iritani, University of Washington, and Joseph Newsome, University of Pittsburgh, provided an overview of key findings, focusing for simplicity on research with laboratory animals, although the survey also included questions specifically about research with wild animals. Key themes from the survey that this workshop addressed were (1) views about the acceptability of different types of interactions between humans and other animals, (2) how knowledgeable the respondents
felt about research with animals and the sources of information about it that they rely on, (3) opinions about the treatment of animals in research, and (4) how views about research with animals are influenced by its purpose and the messaging to which respondents were exposed.
The survey started with general questions about different ways humans and animals interact, then went on to more detailed questions about research with animals. At the start of the survey, more people expressed negative views, with 48 percent indicating that they considered it unacceptable in most or all cases to conduct scientific research with animals in laboratories and 44 percent indicating that they considered it acceptable in most or all cases. A much greater proportion of respondents (67 percent) felt that it was acceptable to conduct research with wildlife in the animals’ natural habitats, with 26 percent deeming it unacceptable. Overall, gender and education level appeared to be more closely associated with the respondents’ opinions than their political leanings did; men and those with college degrees were more likely to find research with animals acceptable than women or those without college degrees did.
Another portion of the survey focused on how knowledgeable the respondents felt and their sources of information. Thompson-Iritani and Newsome explained that very few respondents indicated that they knew a lot about research with animals, about 40 percent knew some, and nearly half felt that they had little or no knowledge. Respondents indicated that they would trust information about research with animals from veterinarians, medical doctors, and scientists over information from the news media, government officials, or social media. However, people were more likely to rely on documentaries, podcasts, traditional media, and science-focused social media, which are the sources they described as less trustworthy.
Another section of the survey focused on the treatment of animals in research. Most respondents expressed concern and were more likely to support research when it is humane. The survey asked respondents which factors they would consider “absolutely necessary” for treatment to be humane; top-ranked factors included enough nutritious food and clean water, clean living conditions, and appropriate veterinary care and living spaces. Opinions were split on how research animals are actually treated. About half of respondents expressed belief that animals used in research are given adequate food, water, and veterinary care, but more than half believed that they live in cramped conditions and are subjected to unnecessary pain.
The purpose of the research also appeared to influence perceptions, as noted by Thompson-Iritani and Newsome. When asked whether they considered research with animals to be acceptable or unacceptable for various purposes (e.g., to develop treatments for animals or for humans or for general scientific purposes) with the caveat that the animals are treated humanely, a substantially greater proportion of respondents indicated that they considered it acceptable than when the question was asked without reference to research goals or humane treatment. The gender gap in opinions also narrowed substantially, with a greater share of women expressing positive views when the question included the purpose of the research and the caveat that the animals are treated humanely.
Additional survey findings on views of regulations, particular animal species, and nonanimal models revealed mixed opinions and self-reported levels of knowledge. Further questions demonstrated how messaging can change people’s attitudes: positive outcomes that focus on the benefit to humans and animals led to more favorable responses, and negative stories, especially ones focused on poor treatment of animals, elicited more negative responses, Thompson-Iritani and Newsome said.
At the end of the survey, participants were again asked about their views on the acceptability of research with animals. Their opinions had changed—55 percent now found it acceptable, and those finding it unacceptable dropped to 35 percent. The speakers attributed this shift to the survey providing new information—including the benefits for animals and humans, consideration for the importance of humane treatment, context, and range of animal species involved—perhaps because respondents had thought more deeply about the issue and come to a new understanding.
Thompson-Iritani and Newsome expanded on several aspects of the survey findings in response to audience questions. Asked what factors might explain the gender gap in results, Thompson-Iritani said that it is important to look beyond outdated stereotypes and suggested that more in-depth survey analysis or future surveys could shed light. She added that it would be useful to examine the role of geographic differences and noted that differences in views between those with and without college degrees points to the importance of scientific literacy, underscoring how crucial effective scientific communication can be.
In response to other questions, Newsome confirmed that the survey asked about animal nutrition, research in zoos, and conservation work but said that it did not ask whether people want more openness about research with animals, which could be considered for a future survey. Noting that about one-third of respondents said that the relevant regulations are insufficient, Thompson-Iritani added that Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees could play a larger role as a resource for the public and clear up misconceptions about oversight and how it is carried out. Newsome agreed, reiterating that so many respondents reporting that they lack knowledge presents an opportunity for scientists to address that by learning and practicing more effective communication. In response to another question, Thompson-Iritani highlighted the importance of effectively communicating with K–12 students, as what they learn often reaches their parents as well. Newsome noted that surveying minors poses additional challenges, such as obtaining parental permission, but could be worth considering.
