Animal behavior research has significantly advanced our understanding of animals as sentient, behaviorally complex, and often highly social beings. It has also deepened our knowledge of their needs and laid important foundations for how to treat them and their environments ethically and respectfully. It is paradoxical that bureaucratic hurdles and a political push to replace or drastically reduce animal experimentation now increasingly impede this research field. A group of established researchers working in the field of animal behavior covering topics from animal welfare, the consequences of individuality, chemical communication, and behavioral development has now highlighted the urgent need for a more nuanced perspective on animal experiments (Richter et al. 2025).
The debate between proponents, emphasizing the necessity of animal experiments in research, and opponents, raising animal welfare concerns, has led to entrenched positions and a polarized, black-and-white view of the issue. Close to 8 million animals are used in approved experiments across the European Union every year—comprising the ~7.5% being used in animal behavior studies, but also in a wide range of fields, from cancer research to drug testing and more. Here, at the latest, it should become obvious that animal experiments do not fit in just one drawer. They range from simply observing a fish swimming in a tank (a procedure with no burden to the animal) to attaching a small geolocator on a stork to understand its migration route, to conducting highly invasive procedures, for example, in testing cancer drugs or testing the safety of chemicals. While the severity (a measure to estimate the burden to the animals) of these examples greatly differs, all experiments are subject to the same rigorous and extensive ethical approval process. However, the vast majority of animal behavior and welfare studies impose at most only mild stress (the lowest of the severity classes) on the experimental animals. The authors therefore propose that the European severity classification of experimental procedures (Mild, Moderate, Non-recovery, and Severe) should also inform the permitting process, suggesting that lower severity levels correspond to expedited approvals (Richter et al. 2025). Our focus, like that of Richter et al. (2025), is solely on the European situation. However, expanding the discussion to include regulations and procedures in other countries and continents could provide valuable insights.
Placing behavioral research in one category with more intrusive investigations, and the rigorous permitting procedures attached to it, causes serious problems in the field of education: School teachers find it almost impossible to introduce their pupils to live animals and it becomes increasingly difficult—even at the university level—to teach the correct handling of animals to zoology students and to induce a healthy empathy with animals. This