Navigating ethical challenges in online wildlife trade research

The surge in internet accessibility has transformed wildlife trade by facilitating the acquisition of wildlife through online platforms. This scenario presents unique ethical challenges for researchers, as traditional ethical frameworks for in-person research cannot be readily applied to the online realm. Currently, there is a lack of clearly defined guidelines for appropriate ethical procedures when conducting online wildlife trade (OWT) research. In response to this, we consulted the scientific literature on ethical considerations in online research and examined existing guidelines established by professional societies and ethical boards. Based on these documents, we present a set of recommendations that can inform the development of ethically responsible OWT research. Key ethical challenges in designing and executing OWT research include the violation of privacy rights, defining subjects and illegality, and the risk of misinterpretation or posing risks to participants when sharing data. Potential solutions include considering participants' expectations of privacy, defining when participants are authors versus subjects, understanding the legal and cultural context, minimizing data collection, ensuring anonymization, and removing metadata. Best practices also involve being culturally sensitive when analyzing and reporting findings. Adhering to these guidelines can help mitigate potential pitfalls and provides valuable insights to editors, researchers, and ethical review boards, enabling them to conduct scientifically rigorous and ethically responsible OWT research to advance this growing field.

Trading Animal Lives: Ten Tricky Issues on the Road to Protecting Commodified Wild Animals

Wildlife commodification can generate benefits for biodiversity conservation, but it also has negative impacts; overexploitation of wildlife is currently one of the biggest drivers of vertebrate extinction risk. In the present article, we highlight 10 issues that in our experience impede sustainable and humane wildlife trade. Given humanity's increasing demands on the natural world we question whether many aspects of wildlife trade can be compatible with appropriate standards for biodiversity conservation and animal welfare, and suggest that too many elements of wildlife trade as it currently stands are not sustainable for wildlife or for the livelihoods that it supports. We suggest that the onus should be on traders to demonstrate that wildlife use is sustainable, humane, and safe (with respect to disease and invasion risk), rather than on conservationists to demonstrate it is not, that there is a need for a broad acceptance of responsibility and, ultimately, widespread behavior change. We urge conservationists, practitioners, and others to take bold, progressive steps to reach consensus and action.

Ethics and governance for internet-based conservation science research

Internet-based research is increasingly important for conservation science and has wide-ranging applications and contexts, including culturomics, illegal wildlife trade, and citizen science. However, online research methods pose a range of ethical and legal challenges. Online data may be protected by copyright, database rights, or contract law. Privacy rights may also restrict the use and access of data, as well as ethical requirements from institutions. Online data have real-world meaning, and the ethical treatment of individuals and communities must not be marginalized when conducting internet-based research. As ethics frameworks originally developed for biomedical applications are inadequate for these methods, we propose that research activities involving the analysis of preexisting online data be treated analogous to offline social science methods, in particular, nondeceptive covert observation. By treating internet users and their data with respect and due consideration, conservationists can uphold the public trust needed to effectively address real-world issues.

Post COVID-19: a solution scan of options for preventing future zoonotic epidemics

The crisis generated by the emergence and pandemic spread of COVID-19 has thrown into the global spotlight the dangers associated with novel diseases, as well as the key role of animals, especially wild animals, as potential sources of pathogens to humans. There is a widespread demand for a new relationship with wild and domestic animals, including suggested bans on hunting, wildlife trade, wet markets or consumption of wild animals. However, such policies risk ignoring essential elements of the problem as well as alienating and increasing hardship for local communities across the world, and might be unachievable at scale. There is thus a need for a more complex package of policy and practical responses. We undertook a solution scan to identify and collate 161 possible options for reducing the risks of further epidemic disease transmission from animals to humans, including potential further SARS-CoV-2 transmission (original or variants). We include all categories of animals in our responses (i.e. wildlife, captive, unmanaged/feral and domestic livestock and pets) and focus on pathogens (especially viruses) that, once transmitted from animals to humans, could acquire epidemic potential through high rates of human-to-human transmission. This excludes measures to prevent well-known zoonotic diseases, such as rabies, that cannot readily transmit between humans. We focused solutions on societal measures, excluding the development of vaccines and other preventive therapeutic medicine and veterinary medicine options that are discussed elsewhere. We derived our solutions through reading the scientific literature, NGO position papers, and industry guidelines, collating our own experiences, and consulting experts in different fields. Herein, we review the major zoonotic transmission pathways and present an extensive list of options. The potential solutions are organised according to the key stages of the trade chain and encompass solutions that can be applied at the local, regional and international scales. This is a set of options targeted at practitioners and policy makers to encourage careful examination of possible courses of action, validating their impact and documenting outcomes.

Evaluating a large-scale online behaviour change intervention aimed at wildlife product consumers in Singapore

Interventions to shift the behaviour of consumers using unsustainable wildlife products are key to threatened species conservation. Whether these interventions are effective is largely unknown due to a dearth of detailed evaluations. We previously conducted a country-level online behaviour change intervention targeting consumers of the Critically Endangered saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica) horn in Singapore. To evaluate intervention impact, we carried out in-person consumer surveys with >2,000 individuals pre- and post-intervention (2017 and 2019), and 93 in-person post-intervention surveys with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) shopkeepers (2019). The proportion of self-reported high-usage saiga horn consumers in the target audience (Chinese Singaporean women aged 35-59) did not change significantly from pre- to post-intervention (24.4% versus 22.6%). However, post-intervention the target audience was significantly more likely than the non-target audience to accurately recall the intervention message and to report a decrease in saiga horn usage (4% versus 1% reported a behaviour change). Within the target audience, high-usage consumers were significantly more likely than lower-usage consumers to recall the message and report a behaviour change. Across respondents who reported a decrease in saiga horn usage, they cited the intervention message as a specific reason for their behaviour change significantly more than other reasons. Additionally, across all respondents, the belief that saiga is a common species in the wild decreased significantly from pre- to post-intervention. TCM shopkeepers, however, cited factors such as price and availability as the strongest influences on saiga horn sales. In sum, the intervention did significantly influence some consumers but the reduction of high-usage consumer frequency was not significant at the population level. We explore reasons for these findings, including competing consumer influences, characteristics of the intervention, and evaluation timing. This work suggests our intervention approach has potential, and exemplifies a multi-pronged in-person evaluation of an online wildlife trade consumer intervention.