It is a privilege to work with animals, but this is particularly true if we use animals in research. Our work with research animals is generally conducted on the assumption that the benefits arising from the work outweigh the harms placed upon the animals. In the context of Animals, much of the published work addresses animal welfare, work that in many cases provides solutions that show clear improvements for the animals’ quality of life. Given that most of the research published in our journal involves animals, this brings a responsibility on the part of the scientists that submit their work to us to ensure that the work is conducted to the highest ethical standards.

We do also recognize that using animals as research subjects is especially contentious given that some people prefer that no animals are used for research, whereas others, including many of the scientists who have published in Animals, condone the use of animals, regardless of the purpose of the research study.

Faced with these views, somehow, we have to ensure that animals are ethically cared for. The easiest research to defend is the one from which the animals themselves are likely to benefit, testing a cure for an illness that they have acquired, for example. Research in which animals of the same species may benefit, but not the actual animals involved, is easier to defend than if only other species, especially humans, are likely to benefit. Much animal research only has the human end user, manager, or consumer in mind to benefit. These considerations of the beneficiary of the research must be taken into account in any ethical evaluation of whether the work should be allowed to proceed.

How does Animals decide whether the ethical standards used in an experiment were acceptable? As a starting point, we ask that all authors, if they work in a jurisdiction that has an animal ethics review system, seek ethical approval before engaging in the animal-based work. We do recognize that not all researchers, including those working in developing countries, have access to an ethical oversight body. Given that Animals is also committed to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusivity it would be unethical, and discriminatory, if we prevented such scientists from submitting their work in the absence of an appropriate certifying body. All articles submitted with or without ethical approval are expected to conform with ARRIVE guidelines. Those submitted without ethical approval are expected to request retrospective approval, or if an approval was not required, authors are requested to provide a certificate from the body that shows that ethical approval was not necessary for this study. For those who are able to reasonably justify that there is no approving body available, this will be checked by the Editorial Office. The authors should fill in the ARRIVE checklist and include clear justification of their research in their manuscript. The checklist, together with the manuscript, will be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief. The checklist will be available in the Supplementary Material of the published article.

We also recognize that there is variation across jurisdictions as to whether a specific animal-based study requires ethical oversight or not. For example, observational studies on animals, that do not risk their welfare, require evaluation in some jurisdictions but not others. Other challenges also exist, such as understaffing of committees, many of which are often staffed by volunteers who have limited time to review applications. Even if there are pan-national standards that require such work to be evaluated, e.g., the EU or the World Animal Health (OIE) standards, researchers may believe that national standards do not require the research to be submitted for approval. Lastly, even when subjected to review by a local ethics committee, the standards which they adopt can vary considerably between committees and may even depend on the membership of the committee. Many committees include animal scientists, veterinarians, with some also including members from the institution that do not work with animals, members of the public, and members of animal advocacy groups. However, in some approval processes only government scientists are involved. Each of these scenarios brings about its own unique set of challenges, including committee decisions that are inappropriate because of personal relationships between animal scientists within an organisation, good or bad, power issues between individual committee members, or inadequate requirements or training of members of the committee. In many jurisdictions, decisions are based on a utilitarian assessment of harm vs. benefit, i.e., is any harm caused to the animals superseded by benefits to other animals, or as is often the case benefits to humans. These trade-offs are often difficult to judge, and the currency is not always clear. Critics of this approach argue that, given that animals do not have a choice in their involvement, this approach is invalid. Interestingly, in human ethics evaluation, humans, or their designates, must almost always provide consent. Animals respects these differing values and encourages future discussion within the scientific community on this topic.

A common failing of the committee approach is that the members of the committee, and particularly the scientists, focus not on whether the study should proceed, but on the scientific methods proposed to be used. Scientists often fail to take into account the commonly held viewpoint that some animal research should not be allowed because of the animals’ right to avoid the research which severely compromises their welfare.

These difficulties in the “approval by committee” for animal research have encouraged us to adopt even more stringent and standard approaches when evaluating the work that is presented to us. As well as requiring animal ethics approval if it can reasonably be given, we require authors, reviewers, and editors to consider and evaluate for themselves whether the work is ethical. Animals is committed to aid in the development of training to help us achieve this in an equitable way. At all stages of the work the ethical impact on the animals used must be considered, but especially so during the planning stage. If it is not, then our editors, and hopefully reviewers, will challenge it. To our readers, please note that many submitted manuscripts have been rejected because of animal ethics issues, but for the animals involved in those studies it was too late, and we regret that they were subjected to unnecessary harms.

Whoever benefits from the research, the standards of animal welfare should be at the highest possible level; we owe this to the animals used in the pursuit of science. We recognize that this may result in welfare provisions in experimental settings that are above those of the same animals kept for other purposes (i.e., for food production). It is in no-one’s interest to conduct research with laboratory animals whose welfare is poor, not the animals, not the scientists, because the results will not reflect good conditions, and not the members of the public, who are often demonstrably opposed to the use of animals in such research. As animal scientists, therefore, it is desirable for us to do research that benefits the animals, and in this respect it is Animals’ policy not to accept any submissions where animals are used as a model for any type of research where humans are the only beneficiary.

Acknowledgments: I am grateful to the Associate Editors (Prof. Dr. Marina Von Keyserlingk, Dr. Gareth Pearce and Dr. Mandy Paterson) for their comments.