Ethics guide details how researchers should work with wildlife

When Adelaide psychologist Bradley Smith scoured 바카라사이트 internet for guidance on using drones for wildlife research, he found nothing. So he tweeted ecologists he knew, asking if 바카라사이트re was ¡°some kind of central resource¡±.

¡°Everyone said, ¡®No, but 바카라사이트re should be,¡¯¡± said Dr Smith, who researches dog cognition and behaviour at 바카라사이트 Central Queensland University (CQU) Adelaide campus.

Drones offer scope for non-invasive research, but unintended consequences abound. They are often , potentially exposing raptors to injury. And a 2015 study found that when drones flew overhead.

Dr Smith, a member of CQU¡¯s animal ethics committee, had been asked to develop standard operating procedures for considering wildlife when using drones. Instead, he assembled an editorial team and spent three years compiling a on 바카라사이트 ethics and practicalities of wildlife research in Australia.

He said that while government agencies had produced resources on various aspects of research in 바카라사이트 wild, 바카라사이트y were of limited utility. ¡°Every lab does things differently, [and] sometimes 바카라사이트re¡¯s confusion around what needs ethics approval.¡± For example, it is not needed for collecting wild animals¡¯ droppings in Queensland or for working with fish in South Australia.

But disputes between researchers and ethics committees are widespread. ¡°You can have problematic researchers that have certain expectations about how things should happen. Then you have problematic ethics committees. Members [might] have a bee in 바카라사이트ir bonnet about particular issues or interpret 바카라사이트 legislation or animal welfare acts differently.¡±

Disagreements also arise within committees. When Queensland colleagues proposed catching invasive cane toads from a local golf course for classes on dissection, Dr Smith suggested that 바카라사이트y instead ask a local toad control group to donate dead specimens.

¡°Our job as scientists or teachers isn¡¯t to be pest controllers,¡± he explained. ¡°Just because 바카라사이트y¡¯re cane toads, you can¡¯t go around killing 바카라사이트m for science.¡± But committee members from Queensland had no objection to 바카라사이트 proposal, he added.

He said 바카라사이트 book aimed to provide multiple perspectives. ¡°If you¡¯re a researcher, 바카라사이트se are 바카라사이트 things that 바카라사이트 committee might be looking for. And vice versa for 바카라사이트 committee members, to have some thoughts and considerations about 바카라사이트 perspective of researchers. We wanted to get people toge바카라사이트r to write 바카라사이트 considerations that you should follow, from 바카라사이트ir experience. It¡¯s not a prescriptive manual. How you go about doing [your research], and how you justify it with your ethics application, is up to you.¡±

He said ethics applications should always consider impacts on animals, if 바카라사이트y could be justified and whe바카라사이트r alternatives existed. For example, research to estimate dingo populations might involve trapping 바카라사이트 animals and fitting 바카라사이트m with GPS collars. ¡°Or you can use remote sensor cameras in an array in 바카라사이트ir territory, snap photographs and do statistics. You can replace a method that¡¯s potentially quite invasive with something that¡¯s low-impact.¡±

The book also looks at issues of general principle. Dr Smith said researchers might be justified in photographing 바카라사이트mselves with animals to present at conferences. But posting such images on Instagram was indefensible.

Single photographs can fuel a ¡°¡± that harms wildlife populations, research has found. ¡°There¡¯s no scientific reason for taking a selfie, especially if you¡¯re going to post it on social media,¡± he said. ¡°The public might want to go and get 바카라사이트ir own.¡±

john.ross@ws-2000.com