Methods in Ecology and Evolution editorial on animal and plant ethics in research

Since its launch in 2010, Methods in Ecology and Evolution has promoted methodological innovation while remaining attentive to the evolving philosophical foundations of research ethics in ecology and evolutionary biology. From the beginning, there has been an expectation that new methods meet ethical standards in place at the time the methods were developed and tested. As ethical standards, expectations and policies continue to develop, the research community faces new questions not only about compliance but also about fundamental values: What constitutes harm? Who or what deserves moral consideration? These are not merely regulatory or procedural issues but rather are deeply philosophical questions that animate ongoing debates such as the extension of ethical review to previously overlooked taxa (e.g. invertebrates) and the ethical integration of traditional and Indigenous knowledge (Contador et al., 2023; Epstein et al., 2023; Reid et al., 2024; Rozzi, 2019). Moreover, as new technologies alter the scope and practice of research, the ethical landscape shifts, raising questions of unintended consequences (Schad Young et al., 2022). Evolving standards thus can lead to confusion and misunderstanding about what the journal expects from authors when they report in their manuscript how ethical concerns with their work were addressed and, if need be, mitigated. In this editorial, we start by calling attention to the British Ecological Society's editorial policy on ethical use of animals, plants and field studies in research. We then discuss in more detail what this policy means for authors, editors and reviewers of manuscripts submitted to this journal. We emphasize that this is a snapshot of current policies and expectations, and we point to areas where ethical norms and oversight of the research we publish continue to develop and evolve. We conclude this editorial with an ‘ethics checklist’ for authors submitting papers to the journal. All manuscripts submitted to any British Ecological Society (BES) journal (including Methods in Ecology and Evolution) must adhere to the Society's editorial policy on ethical use of animals, plants and field studies in research. This policy includes proper consideration for animal welfare, conservation and protection at all stages of research, from planning (PREPARE guidelines; Smith et al., 2018) to reporting experiments on animals (ARRIVE guidelines; du Percie Sert et al., 2020). Authors also must comply with in-country regulations and legislation regarding ethical use of animals, plants or field studies in research. Authors are encouraged to follow best practices presented by other relevant scientific societies, such as the Study of Animal Behaviour/Animal Behavior Society Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research (ASAB, 2026). Finally, the BES editorial office and Senior Editors may seek additional advice from experts in ethics. If the submitted work does not meet the requirements of the BES's guidelines on ethics, the Editors may reject a manuscript even if the study has formal approval from an in-country ethical review board. Ethical use of any organisms or environments that are under study should adopt strategies that mitigate, minimize or eliminate entirely harm to the study organisms and disturbance to their habitats. For ecologists and evolutionary biologists ‘organisms’ is more inclusive than those that historically have been the subject of ethical and regulatory approval: wildlife mammals, model organisms and human subjects. For example, research on invertebrate sentience and pain has expanded ethical frameworks to organisms not traditionally covered by ethics review and legislation, such as decapod crustaceans and insects (e.g. Birch et al., 2021; Farnsworth Gibbons et al., 2022; Kasiouras et al., 2024; Putman, 1995). These discoveries have changed perceptions among broader constituencies about ethical use of a wider range of organisms in research, and influenced legislation (e.g. in New Zealand and Italy, Drinkwater et al., 2019). Growing attention to cultural inclusivity also means there often is a disconnection between gazetted regulatory systems of ethical review (e.g. institutional animal use and care committees, general ethical standards for handling animals, plants, human subject committees) and ethical approaches of Indigenous communities (e.g. Epstein et al., 2023; Reid et al., 2024). Virtual and remote technologies (e.g. artificial intelligence, remote sensing, passive acoustic monitoring, drones, trail cameras) are becoming more pervasive and can continuously collect massive amounts of data on individuals and populations at finer spatiotemporal scales (Young et al., 2022). These technologies may create new kinds of disturbance and harm: anxiety, stress, invasion of privacy, etc., all of which could be subject to ethical review (Kline et al., 2025). Finally, even though ecologists and evolutionary biologists rarely quantify the broader (economic) costs and benefits of their research, cost–benefit statements should be provided to clearly state that the costs of habitat disturbances, or collection, injury or death of study organisms are outweighed by the benefits of the research—even research done to the highest ethical standards. We recognize that there is no single, universal standard for ethical treatment of organisms in research. Ethical standards and the values that underpin them vary widely and depend on the organism studied (typically research on humans, vertebrates and cephalopods requires a higher scrutiny of experimental procedures than on most invertebrates, plants, fungi, bacteria or viruses), study setting (laboratory vs. field), legislative and regulatory requirements, and cultural norms. Perspectives from researchers in different countries and regions also vary. For example, researchers establishing a Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) network in Latin America incorporated environmental ethics and values to the list of socioeconomic and ecological values already considered by Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) networks (Rozzi et al., 2012). In many countries, researchers may face structural barriers to applying ethical frameworks to their research. In most African countries, for example, ethical training is required for capacity building to ensure that the ‘One Health’ approach is used in ethics review (Belaynehe et al., 2024). One Health research ethics moves beyond anthropocentric ethics to accommodate the inherent value of non-human life and ecosystems. However, when socio-economic implications of research under the One Health umbrella are uncertain, ethical dilemmas can arise. Such dilemmas could be around beliefs about how to deal with animal, plant and environmental health issues that conflict with the importance people attach to animal, plant and environmental welfare. To be effective, One Health research must be based on fundamental ethical questions about what is valuable, what is to be protected and what is dispensable. Most academic institutions around the world historically have excluded Indigenous perspectives and values, creating disconnections between ethical systems enshrined in national legislation and regulatory codes and ethical approaches of Indigenous communities. These disconnections can extend to other aspects of research ethics, such as data ownership and access. FAIR data and ‘open’ science standards may not be easily or appropriately applied to data collected or stewarded by Indigenous communities, who may retain rights to restrict access by others to their data. The recent rapid development of new technologies and methods may raise novel ethical considerations (Kline et al., 2025). For example, AI-enabled unmanned autonomous vehicles (UAVs) are increasingly used for wildlife monitoring and studying animal behaviour in the field (Schad Sharma et al., 2020). Drones often are seen as a more ethical substitute for more invasive human activity, but they also can have negative impacts on wildlife if used improperly (Pedrazzi et al., 2025). A comprehensive ethical review of a research project should consider the potential for unintended outcomes of the intended use of a specific method or technology. Journals play a key role in continually improving and stewarding ethical standards to ensure transparency and trust in research (Field et al., 2019; Parker, 2026; Soulsbury et al., 2020). Methods in Ecology and Evolution has led the development of standards for reporting about ethical use of organisms and field sites, and these standards will continue to evolve. We are asking authors of papers submitted after the publication of this editorial to expand on the information in their submissions about ethics and ethical review in three ways: Graziella Iossa: Conceptualization and writing—original draft. Tamara Contador, Eleanor Drinkwater, Jennifer Meyer, Joseph Mwanzia Nguta, Huijie Qiao, Elva J. H. Robinson, Ricardo Rozzi, Lynne U. Sneddon, Carl D. Soulsbury, Baojun Sun and Aaron M. Ellison: Conceptualization and writing—reviewing and editing. Our editorial brings together authors from a number of different countries, expertise and stage of career. All authors were engaged early on with the editorial concept to ensure that the diverse sets of perspectives they represent was considered from the onset. Jennifer Meyer, Huijie Qiao and Aaron Ellison are compensated by the BES for their work at Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Graziella Iossa is an unpaid editor at Methods in Ecology and Evolution. The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/2041-210x.70290. This editorial contains no data or code.