WHO REVIEWS WHAT HAPPENS AT THE ZOO?
When Research Involves Captive Wildlife, Who Decides What Is Ethical?
Zoos frequently point to scientific research as one of the important contributions they make to animal welfare, conservation and our understanding of wildlife.
But before research involving captive animals begins, there is another question worth asking:
Who decides whether that research is ethical?
A 2023 peer-reviewed paper published in Research Ethics by Eduardo Fernandez and Todd McWhorter examines that very question—and reaches an unusually direct conclusion:
“Yes, your zoo research requires examination by an ethics committee.”
INDEPENDENT REVIEW MATTERS
The authors aren’t arguing that zoo research is inherently unethical. Quite the opposite: they describe research in zoos as an important scientific endeavor.
Their concern is how ethical decisions about that research are made.
Researchers shouldn’t simply be responsible for deciding for themselves whether their own work requires ethical scrutiny. Fernandez and McWhorter argue that all zoo research should receive some form of examination by an independent ethics committee.
Even studies that appear relatively benign—such as simply observing animal behavior—may qualify for an exemption or minimal review.
But there is an important distinction:
The independent ethics committee should make that determination—not the researcher conducting the study.
“OBSERVATIONAL” DOESN’T ALWAYS MEAN NOTHING CHANGED:
The distinction becomes particularly important when research involves changes to an animal’s environment or daily life.
Research can include manipulating feeding schedules, enrichment, social arrangements, environmental conditions or other aspects of an animal’s experience.
And sometimes researchers may observe the effects of a change initiated by the zoo rather than initiating the change themselves.
That may make the research technically observational.
But from the animal’s perspective, something still changed.
Ethical review provides an opportunity to consider those consequences before research proceeds.
MORE THAN SCIENTISTS AT THE TABLE:
Independent animal-ethics committees can include veterinarians, researchers, animal-care professionals, people with animal-welfare expertise—and importantly, members of the public.
Why include people outside the scientific community?
Because ethical acceptability isn’t purely a scientific question.
The authors argue that this broader participation helps maintain the social license necessary to conduct animal research while ensuring that welfare standards reflect societal expectations as well as scientific objectives.
AN IMPORTANT LIMITATION:
This paper does not demonstrate that zoo research routinely occurs without ethical oversight.
In fact, the authors acknowledge that they know of no systematic data establishing how frequently zoo research undergoes ethics review.
One author reports encountering zoo research manuscripts that don’t identify ethics approval—but the paper appropriately recognizes that this could mean approval wasn’t obtained or simply wasn’t reported in the publication.
That distinction matters.
The evidence supports asking for greater transparency and independent review.
It does not support assuming misconduct where none has been demonstrated.
GOOD SCIENCE SHOULD WELCOME GOOD OVERSIGHT:
Perhaps that is the most important lesson from this paper.
Scientific research involving captive wildlife can contribute valuable knowledge about behavior, welfare and animal care.
Independent ethical review doesn’t diminish that science.
It strengthens it.
Before research involving captive wildlife begins, we should be able to ask:
Who evaluated the potential impact on the animals?
Was that evaluation independent?
Were interventions accurately described?
Was animal welfare given appropriate weight?
And was the ethical review transparently reported?
Research shouldn’t only ask whether something can be studied.
It should also ask whether it should be studied—and under what conditions.
Good science requires evidence.
Good animal welfare requires scrutiny.
Both require accountability.
Evidence • Education • Accountability
Research: Fernandez, E. J. & McWhorter, T. J. (2023). Who reviews what you do at the zoo? Considerations for research ethics with captive exotic animals. Research Ethics, 19(4), 419–432.
Complete Research Paper:
