Behavior analysis has a long history of using nonhuman animals in basic research, classroom teaching, and applied practice, yet discipline-specific guidance for competent and ethical animal work remains limited. This paper reviews historical and contemporary trends in animal use within behavior analysis, including the decline of traditional animal laboratories, growing interest in invertebrate models, and expansion of behavior-analytic work into homes, shelters, zoos, and other applied settings. We argue that although behavioral principles are broadly applicable, competence in animal work requires more than general behavior-analytic training. In the absence of integrated guidance for developing and evaluating that competence, behavior analysts may face serious risks to animal welfare, human safety, the relationship between behavior analysis and the broader animal behavior community, and the field’s ability to advance a comprehensive science of behavior. In response, we propose a set of six minimum standards for animal-focused work in behavior analysis: (1) interdisciplinary knowledge of animal behavior, (2) species-specific knowledge, (3) skill fluency, (4) ethical conduct, (5) safe practices, and (6) appropriate mentorship strategies. A practical self-assessment tool accompanies these standards to help professionals determine their scope of competence. We hope these standards initiate a needed conversation about what is required to work with animals competently in behavior analysis and support the development of guidelines as structured, explicit, and carefully maintained as those established for human-focused work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Varnon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: