Getting to grips with wildlife research by citizen scientists: What role for regulation?

Alexandra Palmer,Julie Lane,Beth Greenhough,S James Reynolds,Roger Dickey,Priscilla Wehi

doi:10.1002/pan3.10151

Alexandra Palmer, Julie Lane + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10151

Copy DOI

Abstract

Wildlife research by citizen scientists, involving the capture and handling of animals, provides clear scientific benefits, but also potential risks to animal welfare. We explore debates about how best to regulate such work to ensure that it is undertaken in an ethical manner.We focus on the UK as a case study, drawing on qualitative research and stakeholder engagement events. We show that because trapping and marking of certain species requires minimal licensing, training and justification, some argue for increased formal regulation to minimise risks to animal welfare. However, others have reflected on the already complex regulatory landscape affecting wildlife research, and have expressed concern that introducing additional formal regulations could potentially make citizen science working with wildlife more difficult. Informal regulation could therefore offer a preferable alternative.We set out three steps that could be taken to open up conversations about ethics and regulation of wildlife-focussed citizen science, in the UK and elsewhere: (a) take stock of wildlife-focussed citizen science in terms of numbers and harms to animal welfare; (b) assess the state of formal regulations and consider reforms; and (c) consider informal regulations as alternatives or additions to formal regulations.

Highlights

There is a long history, in the UK and elsewhere, of public participation in data collection for science, including wildlife recording
We show that because trapping and marking of certain species requires minimal licensing, training and justification, some argue for increased formal regulation to minimise risks to animal welfare
We set out three steps that could be taken to open up conversations about ethics and regulation of wildlife-focussed citizen science, in the UK and elsewhere: (a) take stock of wildlife-focussed citizen science in terms of numbers and harms to animal welfare; (b) assess the state of formal regulations and consider reforms; and (c) consider informal regulations as alternatives or additions to formal regulations

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

There is a long history, in the UK and elsewhere, of public participation in data collection for science, including wildlife recording. Regulations intended to promote or enforce ethical behaviour can be thought of as having varying levels of formality, ranging from ‘command and control’ regulations involving law and government enforcement, through to more informal and non-binding forms of regulation (Gorwa, 2019) Examples of the latter include: voluntary codes of conduct, such as those intended to promote ethical behaviour in companies (Gorwa, 2019; Hodges, 2015); internally developed and encouraged standards, within professions (e.g. the legal profession: Wendel, 2001) or institutions, such as via the promotion of ‘cultures of care’ within animal research facilities (Greenhough & Roe, 2018); pressure from communities affected by corporate behaviour, such as in response to pollution (Pargal et al, 1997); and the use of behaviour-change tools such as covert messaging to structure people's choices towards a desired outcome, commonly known as ‘nudge’ (Baldwin, 2014; Jones et al, 2014; Whitehead et al, 2019). The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) issues permits in the UK on behalf of DEFRA

Summary

Findings

Assess the state of formal regulations and consider reforms