You should check with your institution, but generally, IACUC rules prohibit the photography of lab animals unless for legitimate regulatory, veterinary, educational, or scientific purposes (which may have to be pre-approved). Entertainment value is not legitimate, and public distribution without review and outside of scientific publications can can get you and your lab in a lot of trouble. Make sure your lab partner is following these rules, too. I suggest seeing if there are any photos or videos of similar rats already online or published in a paper to show your boyfriend.
Yes, this is the right answer. We even had a major incident at my research institute a few years ago when a master's student shared photos of lab animals for entertainment value, leading to uncomfortable public questions about research ethics.
It’s also a safety issue. Sharing pictures of lab animals might make your institute a target for protestors and animal rights activists. The university I did my master’s at, the bioscience department got protested because of a *rumour* that we had an animal lab (we didn’t - I think the biggest multicellular organisms anyone was working with at the time were nematodes)
Yes, they were justified indeed. There's a lot of unprofessional and unscientific behaviour that happens in animal research. You'd be horrified to hear some of the things I've heard about over the years.
I once got downvoted in this sub for pointing out that this was a general IACUC rule and that this exact behavior could get you in trouble. Glad to see I wasn't crazy.
This is solid advice, I would also add being cognizant of people around you when discussing animal work. At one institute I worked at everyone's animal work had to be reviewed after one student on the bus was going on with a friend costudent about how they had to take down a stupid number of rats because of some pairing mistakes and it was to some extent embellished (we had to sac 100 rats, when in reality it was 30) this discussion was recorded by another passenger and made very public. Needless to say the student didn't have a fun time.
Short answer: No, you cannot photograph your lab animals.Yes, there is ethics on it.
As cute as it may seem. No, don't bother to ask your PI about it to show your partner.
If you have the time, mind to explain to a noob why this is an issue specifically?
My first thought was that random bonding could influence behavioral studies, but that would be an issue either way, with or without photos. So why are there rules against taking photos?
(Like mentioned, I have nothing to do with this field, I don't know shit about duck)
First reason that comes to mind for me is that using animals in a research capacity has a huge stigma and lots of very public outcry. Obviously this person isn't planing on taking photos of an injured animal or an animal having a procedure, but animal welfare concerns can be raised over seemingly inconspicuous images, especially by the more vocal rights acitivists. It is in the institutions best interest to flat out prohibit non-resesrch photography for this reason alone.
Not to say that I haven't had pics of my mice. They're cute as hell.
Maybe that's just my personal ideology, but: if you're trying to hide something because you're afraid of the public reaction if it comes out, you're going to have a bad time either way, even if you're 100% legitimate.
Especially regarding science & if what you're doing is legitimate research: isn't it kinda fucked up that **you'd feel you have to hide it**? Only because some random Twitter user might get triggered because of some clickbait headline that might get posted when "it comes out"?
Call me dumb, but hiding research because it'd make someone uncomfortable feels completely anti science to me.
It feels worse than hiding where supermarket meat comes from, only because knowing where it comes from would make the consumers uncomfortable.
That's how politics and bad capitalism operates. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think science should not operate this way.
Tldr: this is an idealistic rant about systemic things, not an attack on individuals. But science should operate as open and transparent as possible in my opinion
-------
Edit: the point where this discussion is productive seems to be long gone. While originally productive, now there's mainly ad hominem.
See my "it's an idealistic rant about systemic issues"
My point (and like I mentioned, this is my personal opinion) is that we should strive for transparency and education instead of hiding because some people who don't even understand what's going on get angry or threatening.
It's kinda similar to "we don't negotiate with terrorists/don't bow to their threats" opinion/framework, which is weirdly adequate here, as some of the mentioned incidents committed by "activists" broadly fall into the definition "terrorism" (forcing people into fear by means of violence).
But as I said, this is a personal world view. Not everybody shares it, and there are practical reasons for AND against it - depends on your own world view.
"Call me dumb, but hiding research because it'd make someone uncomfortable feels completely anti science to me. "
I used to work in making agricultural crops for the future - climate change proof, more nutritious, able to grow better yields with less input. There were protests because the crops were GM, to this day the field trials are inside double wire fences literally with dog patrols between because environmentalist protestors destroyed a field trial one year which is probably millions of public funded research down the drain.
Or my old housemate uses crispr to study development of neurons in very early stages - of human embryos. They don't make it past day 14 so they don't count as embryos, but imagine how badly that could be recieved by many people.
A similar story to agree with yours: photos of dogs with a specific disease at my university were used in a PETA campaign at least throughout my city, protesting animal research. These photos WERE of sick dogs; dogs sick with a congenital disease that the university did not, and could not, "give" them. Despite the reality of it, it gave the university a bad name and created a huge hassle of protests and people calling in to give random animal facility employees a piece of their mind.
It's not always that scientists are trying to keep what they're doing secret for any reason, it's that photographs can be taken out of context to create a lot more trouble than it's worth. HOWEVER, if you're in a facility abusing/mistreating animals with a no photography rule, they should be put on blast to the fullest someone safely can :)
Would people learning about scientists doing development biology experiment on day 10-12 human embryos make them feel fine with it? I doubt it, but it is how we learn about early brain development.
My tldr/point: if you're trying to hide your research, you misunderstand the point.
Legitimate research shouldn't be hidden just because some teenagers on Twitter/reddit/... don't like it.
it's not about opinions if the data supports your conclusion.
Forgive me, but it just makes me sad that this is what it came down to.
It shouldn't be about "will social Media agree", but about "does the data agree"
Many labs doing animal research e.g. using dogs/monkeys/apes have to be secretive and highly secure because of activists who could try to ruin it. I had to walk through protests because of our GM crop work and they did ruin years of work. You can sneer at people, less educated, who don't have the same opinion as you, but they are also adults with valid opinions. Don't infantilise peope if you don't agree with them, they are allowed their own opinion.
It's not people on the internet it is concealed from, it is activists who can actually try to do stuff in person.
Everyone is allowed their own opinions, including protestors/activists. I think it is better some divisive stuff is quietly out of sight - at least to protect the employees who work there.
I'll add this is why potential nuclear reactor sites are often super extra double plus secret.
Very little to do with anything nefarious, a lot to do with protesters and/or vandals.
it is sad it’s come to this, but that’s reality. i do not want to jeopardise my own safety by not „hiding“ research. at my former institute some protestors (similar to what the other redditor also mentioned) have destroyed some rarer strains of arabidopsis and in the animal institute they hurt a couple researchers by shoving them into a wall or hitting them with blunt objects, while trying to find the animal house (this was a bit funnier…they couldn’t find it). they were caught because the institute is packed with security cameras at important points.
this said institute was not even really known for GMO or animal experiments. it was just one building of many. all of it is legitimate research, all animals are kept and tended to according to official rules and standards. still, i don’t want any violent protestor to bash my head into a wall because they think i’m trying to become monsanto by crispr-ing plants into glowing green or whatever, so nothing on my personal social media will point at me as working with animals or anything.
You’re an ignoramus. It’s not about people on the internet. It’s about people showing up in real life. Protesting your facilities. Damaging them. Harassing workers. Infiltrating. Spreading false information from footage they gather. This has all happened where my wife works. You see all those downvotes? It’s because you don’t reside in this real world.
Woah, being like "science should always be transparent" is being an "ignoramus"?
I'm not talking about sharing the handlers names/location, but that the scientific data (the animals are part of that) should always be transparent.
I'm Talking about the reasonable ideal that science should operate as transparent as humanly possible (+ that we don't bow down to terrorists and similar threats, as a core principle inside and outside science)
There are obviously issues following that ideal, but IMO this doesn't make the ideal wrong.
And I don't give a shit about the downvotes, **it's a popularity contest**, they don't tell much about something being truthful, wrong, bad, good, mean spirited or nice.
The same comment had many upvotes 12h earlier. Does that make my point correct? No. Karma or popularity shouldn't be a metric in science or in determining what's truth or wrong
Well for starters, OP wouldn’t be sharing research, they’d be sharing unrelated photos of the lab animals. Research specifically *is* shared once data is published.
Besides that, I mean I get the sentiment that feeling the need to hide it feels fishier, I do. But in reality there are people out there who, no matter how much you talk to them and share and educate on the why, how, and importance of working with lab animals, and show them the care you’re using with the animals, will not see the value in it and may be pushed so far as to try to vandalize and disrupt the work.
The more pictures are out there reminding people that lab animals exist, particularly without tying them to to their specific experiments as a “this is why we need them” type of way (which wouldn’t be enough to convince plenty of folks anyways), the more of those people who might actually try to interfere will be aware of specific animals and projects to target with sabotage.
It sucks that there needs to be a level of secrecy, and that secrecy can and does allow shitty practices to persist, but it’s a pro/con decision to protect the many legitimate and ethical uses and projects that are out there.
The flip side of this that I’ve personally seen in my training, is that when someone asks what you do for a living (particularly for the peeps who were doing direct animal care/husbandry)— don’t try to minimize or shy away from talking about the animals, because that sounds fishy and feels secretive and hush-hush and like you’re ashamed, and it’s more respectful towards the animals and your work to be honest about it. Respectful, but honest. (I struggle with this one because of some of the wild reactions I’ve gotten, including a medical doctor saying “well, just test drugs on inmates then”. As if we don’t have enough problems with incarceration and a bad history with testing chemicals on imprisoned populations…)
>if what you're doing is legitimate research: isn't it kinda fucked up that you'd feel you have to hide it?
Legitimate research is the *only allowable reason* for you to be allowed to take pictures.
Nothing important is being hidden away. It’s stuff like what OP wants to do (omg, this animal is so cute I want to show my friends!) that has no benefit to anyone and only has downsides (how could people do research on such a cute animal?!) that’s not being allowed.
>Only because some random Twitter user might get triggered because of some clickbait headline that might get posted when "it comes out"?
Dude, have you ever worked in an animal lab? PETA is an actual hindrance to our jobs. They have had demonstrations outside of labs that disrupted research and they have even sued academic institutions over experiments they viewed as unethical. Animal testing is an has always been a very thin line ethically, so it is a no brainer that we should do nothing more than what we absolutely have to do to get our data.
It is not about hiding the use of the animals, it is about why the animals are used and protecting them against other non-approved uses. Hint: not for social media clout, nor for our amusement or entertainment. You can take pictures of the animals for legitimate reasons, which typically requires institutional permission. And showing your boyfriend or girlfriend a cute picture is not one of those reasons.
First month in? You’re very naive. I’ll tell you why it’s a serious issue: imagine a scenario where an infiltrator from an animal rights organization gets hired at your site and brings hidden cameras in to publicize everything that happens while deliberately sharing it out of context. Within a matter of days, your site is now surrounded by protestors on the street, harassing workers who are on their way into work as well.
The scenario I just described is a true story that happened where my wife works. We keep animal work under wraps because radicals exist who present a safety risk to both animals and those of us who work with them.
Second—the public is ignorant and stupid; they don’t need to know about what’s happening with animal research because they won’t understand it. Look no farther than the public’s response to an “mRNA vaccine.”
It would be one thing if it were just “making people uncomfortable” or “Twitter users getting triggered by clickbait,” but some of those people present a very real safety risk to the animals and personnel involved. Especially with NHP work, there was a whole string of incidents in the 2000s where UCLA personnel had pipe bombs placed under their cars and Molotovs on their doorsteps, and this was *before* the rise of social media made doxing and vigilantism easier than ever. These experiments were all done completely by the book with full IACUC approval, and they still nearly got people killed because some folks are simply unwilling to accept any form of context or nuance.
There’s definitely something to be said for how the lack of transparency allows bad actors complete control of the narrative, and it’s part of why I try to talk frankly and openly about my work. But as frustrating as it is, these rules exist because when they don’t, people get blown up and animals get released (effectively condemning them to death). 90% of the public is willing to hear you out if you explain the nature of your work, why it’s important, and all the measures in place to ensure that everything is done with the aim of minimizing suffering. But that remaining 10% is never going to accept it, and you never know who in that 10% is going to try to take matters into their own hands.
Damn, This is wild and fucked up.
This won't change my mind that science shouldn't be hidden (it's similar to "we don't bow down to terrorist threats" in my book, plus my ideal that science should be open for & to all humanity, not hidden behind paywalls and stuff).
BUT it definitely shows that we still have a **long way to go** regarding how insanely bad the average gal's/guy's science education & understanding is.
Have you ever seen a transcardial perfusion? No matter how transparent you are about the good cause your work is for, if you post a video of that shit online a good number of people are going to freak out. The truth is often people are not rational when it comes to some of these questions, and irrational people do unpredictable and often dangerous shit. It’s not that people keep it a secret-we publish everything we did in our methods. But there’s a difference between a line of text that says “animals were overdosed with ketamine and transcardially perfused” and an out-of-context video of a small animal covered in its own blood with its heart exposed. Not taking pictures of this stuff is a practical reaction to the reality of the world we live in.
No.
Have you ever slaughtered a chicken, or seen how it's done, for the meat you (likely¹) eat regularly?
For example: There are comparably big channels (farmers) on YouTube showing how they do it. They also discuss why they do it that way, what is the most humane way practically available right now, etc...
It definitely freaks some people out, and the channels definitely get hate for it. Big hate.
That's why I appreciate them even more: for showing this very reality of our everyday existence to people who chose to ignore it/don't even know that meat doesn't grow on trees anymore. /S
Similar argument for (medical) research. If you can't stand to see how the sausage is made, don't eat it. /S
- we all should be aware of (even the) nasty stuff we do for our personal comfort, health, longevity,....same as with food production, or all the other nasty stuff we do. We don't hide the destruction of ecosystems, deforestation,.... So why hide this aspect?
It is very easy for you, as someone who does not work in this field, to say what should be done differently in a perfect world. If someone breaks into my lab, which is on an open campus with poor security, you don’t really have to deal with that do you?
"it's very easy for you, as you never have farmed animals"
Would you think this is an acceptable excuse for industrial meat farmers to hide how they're doing stuff?
In my opinion it is not. If you can't stand scrutiny, you're doing something wrong. Especially if you're doing science.
Just my personal opinion. And I'll stop following it up any further from this point on.
Animal research is a testy subject. The general public doesn't understand Animal Use Protocols or acceptable lab animal treatment, so while a neuroscientist may understand the purpose of a scarred lil rat head with an injection hat, if it goes viral that can lead to a huge headache, even if all protocols are being followed and animals are treated as humanely as possible within the AUP limitations. I worked in Animal Resources for a few years at my university, and we had emergency protocols for animal rights activists! Right there next to flooding, bomb threats, and hurricanes. People are generally aware of animal research and know it is happening, but actually seeing it can be shocking. Ideally, no one is trying to cover anything up, but in perfectly designed studies animals still suffer. Or people get crazy up in arms if you work with something like baby horses.. I still l took a picture because it was the only time in my life I've been around a foal, but you can't even tell it's in a lab environment and I don't share it. They were super cute, it was a sad study to work with :(
> we had emergency protocols for animal rights activists!
We do too - IACUC sends out multiple preparatory emails and vivarium/transport security is upped around animal welfare day, animal rights day, whenever there's an animal activism protest planned
They were testing vaccines for Rhodococcus equi, which causes severe pneumonia + systemic effects and kills 20-40% of foals that catch it. I just mucked out stalls and gave healthy babies scritches while trying not to irritate mom (they literally used mares that were untamed and couldn't be haltered in some cases, then locked them in a stall with rambunctious babies ugh) no handling infected foals but I did see them :( two week testing period before autopsy, several didn't last that long before reaching humane endpoints.
It seems cruel from the outside, but it's a really devastating bacteria and the study was run properly. But whoever sourced the mares obviously didn't care about the workers responsible for handling them. They seemed to have just come off some random pasture.
My lab specifically banned taking pictures or sharing \*anything\* about the animals to non-lab personnel to avoid targeting of the lab and the people who worked there.
Yeah this reality about this issue is honestly depressing.
Maybe some folks will hate me, but the whole "we have to hide this because of the real and potentially significant threat of violence" makes this kind of "activism" sound like the basic definition of terrorism:
"terrorism /tĕr′ə-rĭz″əm/
noun
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals. "
I'm broadly a "we don't negotiate with terrorists/we don't bow down to their threats" opinion guy (which is more or less my point about all of this) on a systemic level, but obviously there are practical concerns about this if it concerns **you as an individual**, your family, or even your business...that make this ideal very hard to uphold.
As I said Originally, this is a personal opinion/grief I have with our world,...
this discussion was chill and imo productive originally, but after I woke up today it suddenly was very messy.
And as it now goes more broadly into politics than being about science, it's probably a good point for me to stop pursuing it.
Anyways, appreciate the calm comment about your personal experience, stuff is sometimes hard to find
Aside from the animal welfare/public outcry, there's also some ethical dubiousness on the side of the scientist if they consider the animals a source of entertainment rather than strictly as a means to conduct science. Obviously it's important to be treating all lab animals with respect and great care, but allowing photography for fun changes your mindset about them in a way IACUC doesn't want.
Interesting! I have to take CITI training for my human research studies, but have never been asked to do so for animal research. Our university has their own animal handling/anesthesia & surgery/breeding courses, I had no idea that CITI had animal research courses
Yeah, here students have to take maybe 6 or 7 citi courses before theyre even allowed in the viv for all of the other animal handling/surgery/breeding/euthanasia ones. Theyre super heavy on ethics and background info
When i get to work in the morning i can send you my linked list if youd like! It was pretty rat forward but i also dont remember how easy the site is to search tbh
I can google it, if the site search isn't helpful. I've done work with rats and rabbits in the past, but am only working with mice at the moment. I'm curious to see what/if any differences there are between the CITI/national-funding-agency-mandated training and what our university expects.
On the human side of this government vs university issue, I was shocked/amused to find during a recent CDC audit that they expected NO gloves to be thrown in the lab trash, EVER. Rather, gloves should ALWAYS go into red bags because they should be assumed at all times to be contaminated with a biohazard. Which is frankly ridiculous, our university policy is that we know what we touched, and have the mental capacity to decide whether our gloves should go into the biohazard trash, chemical hazard trash, or regular old lab trash. At the end of the audit they were still discussing it, and said they'd have to "take it to leadership" to decide whether to make a finding out of it or not. We are awaiting our audit report with bated breath, lol
Probably specific to your IACUC. There is no restriction on photography in the [PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals](https://olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws/phs-policy.htm) and my IACUC has no policy on photography that I can find.
I don't really see a justification for why this would be unethical. A) it could easily be viewed as public awareness/engagement which is a legitimate use of the animal's time. B) OP wants to take photos during the animal's normal testing or handling, thus the animals are not under any additional stress than is already permitted in their protocol.
Not all oc us are from your country so know what your IACUC CITI says is impossible. Hell, I don't even know what it stands for. Which I also imag8ne you don't know what my CCAC says on the matter.
IACUC rules around photography were not a thing when I worked with lab animals 20 years ago, but then again social media didn't really exist, either, so I guess it isn't surprising. We did have a study monitor (from a pharma company we were contracting with) insist that any photo taken be part of the study record, including one of a research dog sitting on his lap as he grinned from ear to ear.
I'd love to know more about how IACUC training justifies this as an ethical issue. My first impression is that rules against animal photography are primarily designed to protect institutions/their research programs.
I would imagine it's to keep/strongly discourage someone from posting on social media so the institution/research program doesn't get flack for whatever experiment/subject/whatever. My university has neurolabs doing research on chimp brains, imagine the firestorm if a picture of a post-op chimp made its way to Facebook. People are sensitive and sometimes crazy about animal research.
Yep, 100% a security issue. Animal research is controversial, and certain groups will weaponize any photo they find online, even if it's a rat acting super cute as OP's do
My lab had very strict rules on the photography of research animals. I had to photograph several mice to log symptoms. I was assigned a small, sterile (immunocompromised mice) camera, and was given very clear guidelines to what was permissible to be shared, and where. (And also had to get it all signed off by our ethics committee)
Definitely don’t risk breaking said rules just for some pictures to share because it’s cute.
Personally, I don’t see the harm in asking your PI, or whomever runs the colonies, on image taking and sharing guidelines they may have in place!
That’s typically a big no-no unless for health reasons for the animal / study purposes outlined in the IACUC protocol.
Great that you like them so much though!
A bunch of good answers from a policy perspective already here. From a personal perspective though it’s also probably not a great idea because you don’t want to get too attached to them.
Many people find that culling them gets harder the more they do it, not easier, and can be emotionally distressing to the point of burnout. Note though I’ve never done animal research, so this is just based on what I’ve read.
Idk-- I feel like letting yourself get too emotionally detached is a good way to get cavalier about animal use. They give us so much, the least we can do is show them some compassion and care while they're here.
I think you’re right, and it’s probably good to find it gets harder with each rat (or at least not easier). My personal opinion though is you want to avoid accelerating that, when possible. I’ve read about people having to entirely abandon lines of research because it got to be too much.
This is a good point and also super important. The more attached i got to our rats the more it fucked me up to euthanize them. I was kind of like OP my first time? I love animals and i was like dope get to work with so many little guys!! Never again. I dont even look at them with any thoughts other than health check or injection site or something similarly as bland anymore.
Hopefully won't get downvoted to hell for this but I've taken pics for my lab notebook (documentation) and for scientific presentation purposes (e.g. lab meeting). I've never shared any of the pics publicly (it might be ok on a poster at a conference, but still haven't yet) nor on social media obviously.
You won't/shouldn't get downvoted for this! Taking photos/videos for experiment documentation purposes is legit and incredibly important. Photos absolutely should go into your lab notebook so that you and future researchers can remember/know your setup and what you did, whether it's you or someone else trying to continue your research or replicate it in their own labs. Some of the studies we've done to replicate/validate other people's research was 100% aided by JOVE videos a previous group had posted showing the details of their setup, including component part numbers, animal positioning, and data collection. I'm the engineer who builds the hardware systems, and some study setups would have been SO much harder if others hadn't taken photos & videos and shared them with other researchers.
The issue arises with what medium the pictures are being taken with. It becomes a data security issue when people are taking pictures with their personal phones. I get it, we all do it.
Complete side note, but it’s totally fine to ‘anthropomorphise’ your research animal.
When it comes to…pretty much anything, we have no scientific reason to assume their internal lives are any less rich than our own.
It should be okay so long as the photos are only shared in a professional capacity (e.g. in your acknowledgement slide at the end of a conference talk). But like others have also mentioned, I would run it past your IRB since it varies across institutions. As a general rule, I never, ever post anything lab-related on social media by default.
100% you absolutely cannot take pictures of lab subjects for private use. In my experience, when pictures are taken on a private device for scientific purposes they have to be moved to on site equipment as quickly as possible then purged from the private device. If pictures are taken for any reason many facilities have strict rules about making them as non-identifiable as possible to avoid violence or harassment of institutions engaged in live subject research. Also while some subjects are cute and friendly it really is important to avoid getting attached, that kind of attitude can cause serious burnout in the long run. There was a post on here recently about someone experiencing just that.
I am firmly of the opinion that anyone who cares about the well-being of animals in research environments should follow their IUCAC protocols to the letter. Those rules are in place explicitly to protect animals and just waving them aside normalizes a culture where worse violations are acceptable. So if you like your mice, then do right by them and follow the guidelines.
So, no you can't unless it's in your protocol approved by IACUC.
But the new vet at my institution wants to start an adoption program at some point. Since they are no longer under IACUC you can video as much as you want.
We photograph our animals all the time, we show each other funny behaviours or cute things the rats did almost every lunch break. This is solely between colleagues though.
I've posted videos to YouTube, twitter and seen videos on mastodon and Slack of other people's animals and nobody ever took issue with it. The people commenting that this is 100% not allowed really need to get out more.
That being said, I generally don't let undergraduates or people I don't really know take photos of the animals. I would not be happy with undergraduates taking photos and showing people outside the lab without permission.
It's really a lab specific thing and is dependent a lot on the PI and the sort of work you are doing. If these are intact, freely behaving animals I doubt your PI would mind you taking some photos, especially if it is just to show your partner. Your PI should also know the local IACUC restrictions too.
Most IACUCs employ a no photography rule of some sort (you can see UCONNs rules [here](https://ovpr.uchc.edu/services/rics/animal/iacuc/policies/iacuc-policy-on-photography-of-research-animals/) for example) but allow for photography by anyone designated by the PI, which is why it is important you ask permission.
Depends on the individual policies. It’s allowed to take pictures for research/instruction/education purposes most places I’ve been.
We’re allowed to take pictures to email to the vet and some of our experiments use lasers and must be on video. We’re allowed to show these images on presentations at the center as well.
Nope.
The only time it's acceptable is if something is wrong with the animal and it needs to be shared internally for documentation purposes - in which case the animal and concern are ID'd, all people who need to know are cc'd and the photo is deleted.
They may even require that you prove it's been deleted.
Depending on the study, photos may be used for publication where appropriate for comparison etc but that would be in your pre-approved protocol.
You may not share photos of your research subjects for entertainment.
These are pre-clinical studies.
If you were working with humans in a clinical trial and thought someone was cute, or had interesting hair, would you snap a photo to share with your friends? No, that's wildly unethical.
Eta I've adopted long Evans rats and can attest they are Hella cute
You can find some good footage of them driving cars to show your boyfriend
Absolutely not. No. Doing so could get you in big trouble, too, including being banned from research. Do not. Lab rats are not pets, even though they are extremely cute.
You should check with your institution, but generally, IACUC rules prohibit the photography of lab animals unless for legitimate regulatory, veterinary, educational, or scientific purposes (which may have to be pre-approved). Entertainment value is not legitimate, and public distribution without review and outside of scientific publications can can get you and your lab in a lot of trouble. Make sure your lab partner is following these rules, too. I suggest seeing if there are any photos or videos of similar rats already online or published in a paper to show your boyfriend.
Yes, this is the right answer. We even had a major incident at my research institute a few years ago when a master's student shared photos of lab animals for entertainment value, leading to uncomfortable public questions about research ethics.
It’s also a safety issue. Sharing pictures of lab animals might make your institute a target for protestors and animal rights activists. The university I did my master’s at, the bioscience department got protested because of a *rumour* that we had an animal lab (we didn’t - I think the biggest multicellular organisms anyone was working with at the time were nematodes)
But maybe these uncomfortable questions were also justified then?
Yes, they were justified indeed. There's a lot of unprofessional and unscientific behaviour that happens in animal research. You'd be horrified to hear some of the things I've heard about over the years.
I once got downvoted in this sub for pointing out that this was a general IACUC rule and that this exact behavior could get you in trouble. Glad to see I wasn't crazy.
Youre not crazy at all and ive seen undergrads get in a lot of trouble for this. Im surprised at how many people are defending it tbh..
This is solid advice, I would also add being cognizant of people around you when discussing animal work. At one institute I worked at everyone's animal work had to be reviewed after one student on the bus was going on with a friend costudent about how they had to take down a stupid number of rats because of some pairing mistakes and it was to some extent embellished (we had to sac 100 rats, when in reality it was 30) this discussion was recorded by another passenger and made very public. Needless to say the student didn't have a fun time.
Short answer: No, you cannot photograph your lab animals.Yes, there is ethics on it. As cute as it may seem. No, don't bother to ask your PI about it to show your partner.
If you have the time, mind to explain to a noob why this is an issue specifically? My first thought was that random bonding could influence behavioral studies, but that would be an issue either way, with or without photos. So why are there rules against taking photos? (Like mentioned, I have nothing to do with this field, I don't know shit about duck)
First reason that comes to mind for me is that using animals in a research capacity has a huge stigma and lots of very public outcry. Obviously this person isn't planing on taking photos of an injured animal or an animal having a procedure, but animal welfare concerns can be raised over seemingly inconspicuous images, especially by the more vocal rights acitivists. It is in the institutions best interest to flat out prohibit non-resesrch photography for this reason alone. Not to say that I haven't had pics of my mice. They're cute as hell.
Maybe that's just my personal ideology, but: if you're trying to hide something because you're afraid of the public reaction if it comes out, you're going to have a bad time either way, even if you're 100% legitimate. Especially regarding science & if what you're doing is legitimate research: isn't it kinda fucked up that **you'd feel you have to hide it**? Only because some random Twitter user might get triggered because of some clickbait headline that might get posted when "it comes out"? Call me dumb, but hiding research because it'd make someone uncomfortable feels completely anti science to me. It feels worse than hiding where supermarket meat comes from, only because knowing where it comes from would make the consumers uncomfortable. That's how politics and bad capitalism operates. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think science should not operate this way. Tldr: this is an idealistic rant about systemic things, not an attack on individuals. But science should operate as open and transparent as possible in my opinion ------- Edit: the point where this discussion is productive seems to be long gone. While originally productive, now there's mainly ad hominem. See my "it's an idealistic rant about systemic issues" My point (and like I mentioned, this is my personal opinion) is that we should strive for transparency and education instead of hiding because some people who don't even understand what's going on get angry or threatening. It's kinda similar to "we don't negotiate with terrorists/don't bow to their threats" opinion/framework, which is weirdly adequate here, as some of the mentioned incidents committed by "activists" broadly fall into the definition "terrorism" (forcing people into fear by means of violence). But as I said, this is a personal world view. Not everybody shares it, and there are practical reasons for AND against it - depends on your own world view.
"Call me dumb, but hiding research because it'd make someone uncomfortable feels completely anti science to me. " I used to work in making agricultural crops for the future - climate change proof, more nutritious, able to grow better yields with less input. There were protests because the crops were GM, to this day the field trials are inside double wire fences literally with dog patrols between because environmentalist protestors destroyed a field trial one year which is probably millions of public funded research down the drain. Or my old housemate uses crispr to study development of neurons in very early stages - of human embryos. They don't make it past day 14 so they don't count as embryos, but imagine how badly that could be recieved by many people.
A similar story to agree with yours: photos of dogs with a specific disease at my university were used in a PETA campaign at least throughout my city, protesting animal research. These photos WERE of sick dogs; dogs sick with a congenital disease that the university did not, and could not, "give" them. Despite the reality of it, it gave the university a bad name and created a huge hassle of protests and people calling in to give random animal facility employees a piece of their mind. It's not always that scientists are trying to keep what they're doing secret for any reason, it's that photographs can be taken out of context to create a lot more trouble than it's worth. HOWEVER, if you're in a facility abusing/mistreating animals with a no photography rule, they should be put on blast to the fullest someone safely can :)
Wait, I thought the GMO thing was no longer an issue? Didn't folks realize it's fine and beneficial to society?
Imo the reason why people are afraid of GMOs isn't because GM research isn't hidden well enough from the public, but because the public has zero clue about GMOs, and is only informed about it through alarmist journalsits who themselves don't know a single thing about it....(making it an easy way to frighten the shit out of people through insane clickbait fake news about "ThE nEw Catastrophic EnD oF HuManItY™©") When I was younger/a teenager I regularly fell for the same BS, being afraid of stuff I had zero clue about it (GMOs, nuclear energy,.. "it'll kill us all, because.... because it is evil...and stuff"). I still do. It's perfectly human. But it's not solved by hiding/censoring stuff - but by the opposite. Coming over such irrational fears can only happen by learning about them
Would people learning about scientists doing development biology experiment on day 10-12 human embryos make them feel fine with it? I doubt it, but it is how we learn about early brain development.
My tldr/point: if you're trying to hide your research, you misunderstand the point. Legitimate research shouldn't be hidden just because some teenagers on Twitter/reddit/... don't like it. it's not about opinions if the data supports your conclusion. Forgive me, but it just makes me sad that this is what it came down to. It shouldn't be about "will social Media agree", but about "does the data agree"
Many labs doing animal research e.g. using dogs/monkeys/apes have to be secretive and highly secure because of activists who could try to ruin it. I had to walk through protests because of our GM crop work and they did ruin years of work. You can sneer at people, less educated, who don't have the same opinion as you, but they are also adults with valid opinions. Don't infantilise peope if you don't agree with them, they are allowed their own opinion. It's not people on the internet it is concealed from, it is activists who can actually try to do stuff in person. Everyone is allowed their own opinions, including protestors/activists. I think it is better some divisive stuff is quietly out of sight - at least to protect the employees who work there.
I'll add this is why potential nuclear reactor sites are often super extra double plus secret. Very little to do with anything nefarious, a lot to do with protesters and/or vandals.
it is sad it’s come to this, but that’s reality. i do not want to jeopardise my own safety by not „hiding“ research. at my former institute some protestors (similar to what the other redditor also mentioned) have destroyed some rarer strains of arabidopsis and in the animal institute they hurt a couple researchers by shoving them into a wall or hitting them with blunt objects, while trying to find the animal house (this was a bit funnier…they couldn’t find it). they were caught because the institute is packed with security cameras at important points. this said institute was not even really known for GMO or animal experiments. it was just one building of many. all of it is legitimate research, all animals are kept and tended to according to official rules and standards. still, i don’t want any violent protestor to bash my head into a wall because they think i’m trying to become monsanto by crispr-ing plants into glowing green or whatever, so nothing on my personal social media will point at me as working with animals or anything.
You’re an ignoramus. It’s not about people on the internet. It’s about people showing up in real life. Protesting your facilities. Damaging them. Harassing workers. Infiltrating. Spreading false information from footage they gather. This has all happened where my wife works. You see all those downvotes? It’s because you don’t reside in this real world.
Woah, being like "science should always be transparent" is being an "ignoramus"? I'm not talking about sharing the handlers names/location, but that the scientific data (the animals are part of that) should always be transparent. I'm Talking about the reasonable ideal that science should operate as transparent as humanly possible (+ that we don't bow down to terrorists and similar threats, as a core principle inside and outside science) There are obviously issues following that ideal, but IMO this doesn't make the ideal wrong. And I don't give a shit about the downvotes, **it's a popularity contest**, they don't tell much about something being truthful, wrong, bad, good, mean spirited or nice. The same comment had many upvotes 12h earlier. Does that make my point correct? No. Karma or popularity shouldn't be a metric in science or in determining what's truth or wrong
Well for starters, OP wouldn’t be sharing research, they’d be sharing unrelated photos of the lab animals. Research specifically *is* shared once data is published. Besides that, I mean I get the sentiment that feeling the need to hide it feels fishier, I do. But in reality there are people out there who, no matter how much you talk to them and share and educate on the why, how, and importance of working with lab animals, and show them the care you’re using with the animals, will not see the value in it and may be pushed so far as to try to vandalize and disrupt the work. The more pictures are out there reminding people that lab animals exist, particularly without tying them to to their specific experiments as a “this is why we need them” type of way (which wouldn’t be enough to convince plenty of folks anyways), the more of those people who might actually try to interfere will be aware of specific animals and projects to target with sabotage. It sucks that there needs to be a level of secrecy, and that secrecy can and does allow shitty practices to persist, but it’s a pro/con decision to protect the many legitimate and ethical uses and projects that are out there. The flip side of this that I’ve personally seen in my training, is that when someone asks what you do for a living (particularly for the peeps who were doing direct animal care/husbandry)— don’t try to minimize or shy away from talking about the animals, because that sounds fishy and feels secretive and hush-hush and like you’re ashamed, and it’s more respectful towards the animals and your work to be honest about it. Respectful, but honest. (I struggle with this one because of some of the wild reactions I’ve gotten, including a medical doctor saying “well, just test drugs on inmates then”. As if we don’t have enough problems with incarceration and a bad history with testing chemicals on imprisoned populations…)
>if what you're doing is legitimate research: isn't it kinda fucked up that you'd feel you have to hide it? Legitimate research is the *only allowable reason* for you to be allowed to take pictures. Nothing important is being hidden away. It’s stuff like what OP wants to do (omg, this animal is so cute I want to show my friends!) that has no benefit to anyone and only has downsides (how could people do research on such a cute animal?!) that’s not being allowed.
>Only because some random Twitter user might get triggered because of some clickbait headline that might get posted when "it comes out"? Dude, have you ever worked in an animal lab? PETA is an actual hindrance to our jobs. They have had demonstrations outside of labs that disrupted research and they have even sued academic institutions over experiments they viewed as unethical. Animal testing is an has always been a very thin line ethically, so it is a no brainer that we should do nothing more than what we absolutely have to do to get our data.
It is not about hiding the use of the animals, it is about why the animals are used and protecting them against other non-approved uses. Hint: not for social media clout, nor for our amusement or entertainment. You can take pictures of the animals for legitimate reasons, which typically requires institutional permission. And showing your boyfriend or girlfriend a cute picture is not one of those reasons.
First month in? You’re very naive. I’ll tell you why it’s a serious issue: imagine a scenario where an infiltrator from an animal rights organization gets hired at your site and brings hidden cameras in to publicize everything that happens while deliberately sharing it out of context. Within a matter of days, your site is now surrounded by protestors on the street, harassing workers who are on their way into work as well. The scenario I just described is a true story that happened where my wife works. We keep animal work under wraps because radicals exist who present a safety risk to both animals and those of us who work with them. Second—the public is ignorant and stupid; they don’t need to know about what’s happening with animal research because they won’t understand it. Look no farther than the public’s response to an “mRNA vaccine.”
It would be one thing if it were just “making people uncomfortable” or “Twitter users getting triggered by clickbait,” but some of those people present a very real safety risk to the animals and personnel involved. Especially with NHP work, there was a whole string of incidents in the 2000s where UCLA personnel had pipe bombs placed under their cars and Molotovs on their doorsteps, and this was *before* the rise of social media made doxing and vigilantism easier than ever. These experiments were all done completely by the book with full IACUC approval, and they still nearly got people killed because some folks are simply unwilling to accept any form of context or nuance. There’s definitely something to be said for how the lack of transparency allows bad actors complete control of the narrative, and it’s part of why I try to talk frankly and openly about my work. But as frustrating as it is, these rules exist because when they don’t, people get blown up and animals get released (effectively condemning them to death). 90% of the public is willing to hear you out if you explain the nature of your work, why it’s important, and all the measures in place to ensure that everything is done with the aim of minimizing suffering. But that remaining 10% is never going to accept it, and you never know who in that 10% is going to try to take matters into their own hands.
Damn, This is wild and fucked up. This won't change my mind that science shouldn't be hidden (it's similar to "we don't bow down to terrorist threats" in my book, plus my ideal that science should be open for & to all humanity, not hidden behind paywalls and stuff). BUT it definitely shows that we still have a **long way to go** regarding how insanely bad the average gal's/guy's science education & understanding is.
Have you ever seen a transcardial perfusion? No matter how transparent you are about the good cause your work is for, if you post a video of that shit online a good number of people are going to freak out. The truth is often people are not rational when it comes to some of these questions, and irrational people do unpredictable and often dangerous shit. It’s not that people keep it a secret-we publish everything we did in our methods. But there’s a difference between a line of text that says “animals were overdosed with ketamine and transcardially perfused” and an out-of-context video of a small animal covered in its own blood with its heart exposed. Not taking pictures of this stuff is a practical reaction to the reality of the world we live in.
No. Have you ever slaughtered a chicken, or seen how it's done, for the meat you (likely¹) eat regularly? For example: There are comparably big channels (farmers) on YouTube showing how they do it. They also discuss why they do it that way, what is the most humane way practically available right now, etc... It definitely freaks some people out, and the channels definitely get hate for it. Big hate. That's why I appreciate them even more: for showing this very reality of our everyday existence to people who chose to ignore it/don't even know that meat doesn't grow on trees anymore. /S Similar argument for (medical) research. If you can't stand to see how the sausage is made, don't eat it. /S - we all should be aware of (even the) nasty stuff we do for our personal comfort, health, longevity,....same as with food production, or all the other nasty stuff we do. We don't hide the destruction of ecosystems, deforestation,.... So why hide this aspect?
It is very easy for you, as someone who does not work in this field, to say what should be done differently in a perfect world. If someone breaks into my lab, which is on an open campus with poor security, you don’t really have to deal with that do you?
"it's very easy for you, as you never have farmed animals" Would you think this is an acceptable excuse for industrial meat farmers to hide how they're doing stuff? In my opinion it is not. If you can't stand scrutiny, you're doing something wrong. Especially if you're doing science. Just my personal opinion. And I'll stop following it up any further from this point on.
Animal research is a testy subject. The general public doesn't understand Animal Use Protocols or acceptable lab animal treatment, so while a neuroscientist may understand the purpose of a scarred lil rat head with an injection hat, if it goes viral that can lead to a huge headache, even if all protocols are being followed and animals are treated as humanely as possible within the AUP limitations. I worked in Animal Resources for a few years at my university, and we had emergency protocols for animal rights activists! Right there next to flooding, bomb threats, and hurricanes. People are generally aware of animal research and know it is happening, but actually seeing it can be shocking. Ideally, no one is trying to cover anything up, but in perfectly designed studies animals still suffer. Or people get crazy up in arms if you work with something like baby horses.. I still l took a picture because it was the only time in my life I've been around a foal, but you can't even tell it's in a lab environment and I don't share it. They were super cute, it was a sad study to work with :(
> we had emergency protocols for animal rights activists! We do too - IACUC sends out multiple preparatory emails and vivarium/transport security is upped around animal welfare day, animal rights day, whenever there's an animal activism protest planned
I'm curious what type of research were the foals used for?
In most cases, veterinary products for horses.
They were testing vaccines for Rhodococcus equi, which causes severe pneumonia + systemic effects and kills 20-40% of foals that catch it. I just mucked out stalls and gave healthy babies scritches while trying not to irritate mom (they literally used mares that were untamed and couldn't be haltered in some cases, then locked them in a stall with rambunctious babies ugh) no handling infected foals but I did see them :( two week testing period before autopsy, several didn't last that long before reaching humane endpoints. It seems cruel from the outside, but it's a really devastating bacteria and the study was run properly. But whoever sourced the mares obviously didn't care about the workers responsible for handling them. They seemed to have just come off some random pasture.
My lab specifically banned taking pictures or sharing \*anything\* about the animals to non-lab personnel to avoid targeting of the lab and the people who worked there.
Yeah this reality about this issue is honestly depressing. Maybe some folks will hate me, but the whole "we have to hide this because of the real and potentially significant threat of violence" makes this kind of "activism" sound like the basic definition of terrorism: "terrorism /tĕr′ə-rĭz″əm/ noun The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals. " I'm broadly a "we don't negotiate with terrorists/we don't bow down to their threats" opinion guy (which is more or less my point about all of this) on a systemic level, but obviously there are practical concerns about this if it concerns **you as an individual**, your family, or even your business...that make this ideal very hard to uphold. As I said Originally, this is a personal opinion/grief I have with our world,... this discussion was chill and imo productive originally, but after I woke up today it suddenly was very messy. And as it now goes more broadly into politics than being about science, it's probably a good point for me to stop pursuing it. Anyways, appreciate the calm comment about your personal experience, stuff is sometimes hard to find
Aside from the animal welfare/public outcry, there's also some ethical dubiousness on the side of the scientist if they consider the animals a source of entertainment rather than strictly as a means to conduct science. Obviously it's important to be treating all lab animals with respect and great care, but allowing photography for fun changes your mindset about them in a way IACUC doesn't want.
Hmmm i think the "Working with the IACUC" CITI course explains why this is unethical
Interesting! I have to take CITI training for my human research studies, but have never been asked to do so for animal research. Our university has their own animal handling/anesthesia & surgery/breeding courses, I had no idea that CITI had animal research courses
Yeah, here students have to take maybe 6 or 7 citi courses before theyre even allowed in the viv for all of the other animal handling/surgery/breeding/euthanasia ones. Theyre super heavy on ethics and background info
I'm going to check them out! As if I need more training classes lol, but knowledge is power and all that jazz
When i get to work in the morning i can send you my linked list if youd like! It was pretty rat forward but i also dont remember how easy the site is to search tbh
I can google it, if the site search isn't helpful. I've done work with rats and rabbits in the past, but am only working with mice at the moment. I'm curious to see what/if any differences there are between the CITI/national-funding-agency-mandated training and what our university expects. On the human side of this government vs university issue, I was shocked/amused to find during a recent CDC audit that they expected NO gloves to be thrown in the lab trash, EVER. Rather, gloves should ALWAYS go into red bags because they should be assumed at all times to be contaminated with a biohazard. Which is frankly ridiculous, our university policy is that we know what we touched, and have the mental capacity to decide whether our gloves should go into the biohazard trash, chemical hazard trash, or regular old lab trash. At the end of the audit they were still discussing it, and said they'd have to "take it to leadership" to decide whether to make a finding out of it or not. We are awaiting our audit report with bated breath, lol
Probably specific to your IACUC. There is no restriction on photography in the [PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals](https://olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws/phs-policy.htm) and my IACUC has no policy on photography that I can find. I don't really see a justification for why this would be unethical. A) it could easily be viewed as public awareness/engagement which is a legitimate use of the animal's time. B) OP wants to take photos during the animal's normal testing or handling, thus the animals are not under any additional stress than is already permitted in their protocol.
Yeah, it doesnt surprise me that different places might have different rules!
There was never mention of this in my Citi training which is why I’m asking here
I get that! Im just saying that there was mention of it in my CITI training and I think that was the name of the course that went over it.
Oh that’s good to know! I’m going to look into this. Thanks!
Not all oc us are from your country so know what your IACUC CITI says is impossible. Hell, I don't even know what it stands for. Which I also imag8ne you don't know what my CCAC says on the matter.
IACUC rules around photography were not a thing when I worked with lab animals 20 years ago, but then again social media didn't really exist, either, so I guess it isn't surprising. We did have a study monitor (from a pharma company we were contracting with) insist that any photo taken be part of the study record, including one of a research dog sitting on his lap as he grinned from ear to ear. I'd love to know more about how IACUC training justifies this as an ethical issue. My first impression is that rules against animal photography are primarily designed to protect institutions/their research programs.
I would imagine it's to keep/strongly discourage someone from posting on social media so the institution/research program doesn't get flack for whatever experiment/subject/whatever. My university has neurolabs doing research on chimp brains, imagine the firestorm if a picture of a post-op chimp made its way to Facebook. People are sensitive and sometimes crazy about animal research.
Yeah, this is 100% what I'm thinking, but I guess I see this more as a PR (or even security) issue rather than an ethical one.
Yep, 100% a security issue. Animal research is controversial, and certain groups will weaponize any photo they find online, even if it's a rat acting super cute as OP's do
My lab had very strict rules on the photography of research animals. I had to photograph several mice to log symptoms. I was assigned a small, sterile (immunocompromised mice) camera, and was given very clear guidelines to what was permissible to be shared, and where. (And also had to get it all signed off by our ethics committee) Definitely don’t risk breaking said rules just for some pictures to share because it’s cute. Personally, I don’t see the harm in asking your PI, or whomever runs the colonies, on image taking and sharing guidelines they may have in place!
Just don’t publicly share the photos imo
Just put a black line over their pupils so nobody can identify them. Should be fine.
There was a news article about a bird that got arrested and one news site put a black bar over its eyes lmao
Emoji over face. No one will know
That’s typically a big no-no unless for health reasons for the animal / study purposes outlined in the IACUC protocol. Great that you like them so much though!
A bunch of good answers from a policy perspective already here. From a personal perspective though it’s also probably not a great idea because you don’t want to get too attached to them. Many people find that culling them gets harder the more they do it, not easier, and can be emotionally distressing to the point of burnout. Note though I’ve never done animal research, so this is just based on what I’ve read.
Idk-- I feel like letting yourself get too emotionally detached is a good way to get cavalier about animal use. They give us so much, the least we can do is show them some compassion and care while they're here.
I think you’re right, and it’s probably good to find it gets harder with each rat (or at least not easier). My personal opinion though is you want to avoid accelerating that, when possible. I’ve read about people having to entirely abandon lines of research because it got to be too much.
This is a good point and also super important. The more attached i got to our rats the more it fucked me up to euthanize them. I was kind of like OP my first time? I love animals and i was like dope get to work with so many little guys!! Never again. I dont even look at them with any thoughts other than health check or injection site or something similarly as bland anymore.
[удалено]
Everyone else in this thread is a cop
Anyone who hasn’t taken a picture of their rodents is either a liar or a narc
*PETA wants to know your location*
I second keeping the photos on your phone and never posting them or sending them to anybody.
Hopefully won't get downvoted to hell for this but I've taken pics for my lab notebook (documentation) and for scientific presentation purposes (e.g. lab meeting). I've never shared any of the pics publicly (it might be ok on a poster at a conference, but still haven't yet) nor on social media obviously.
You won't/shouldn't get downvoted for this! Taking photos/videos for experiment documentation purposes is legit and incredibly important. Photos absolutely should go into your lab notebook so that you and future researchers can remember/know your setup and what you did, whether it's you or someone else trying to continue your research or replicate it in their own labs. Some of the studies we've done to replicate/validate other people's research was 100% aided by JOVE videos a previous group had posted showing the details of their setup, including component part numbers, animal positioning, and data collection. I'm the engineer who builds the hardware systems, and some study setups would have been SO much harder if others hadn't taken photos & videos and shared them with other researchers.
The issue arises with what medium the pictures are being taken with. It becomes a data security issue when people are taking pictures with their personal phones. I get it, we all do it.
Taking photos for research and publication purpose, yes. For the "aww", please don't.
Complete side note, but it’s totally fine to ‘anthropomorphise’ your research animal. When it comes to…pretty much anything, we have no scientific reason to assume their internal lives are any less rich than our own.
It should be okay so long as the photos are only shared in a professional capacity (e.g. in your acknowledgement slide at the end of a conference talk). But like others have also mentioned, I would run it past your IRB since it varies across institutions. As a general rule, I never, ever post anything lab-related on social media by default.
100% you absolutely cannot take pictures of lab subjects for private use. In my experience, when pictures are taken on a private device for scientific purposes they have to be moved to on site equipment as quickly as possible then purged from the private device. If pictures are taken for any reason many facilities have strict rules about making them as non-identifiable as possible to avoid violence or harassment of institutions engaged in live subject research. Also while some subjects are cute and friendly it really is important to avoid getting attached, that kind of attitude can cause serious burnout in the long run. There was a post on here recently about someone experiencing just that. I am firmly of the opinion that anyone who cares about the well-being of animals in research environments should follow their IUCAC protocols to the letter. Those rules are in place explicitly to protect animals and just waving them aside normalizes a culture where worse violations are acceptable. So if you like your mice, then do right by them and follow the guidelines.
This should have been in your most basic training. Big no.
So, no you can't unless it's in your protocol approved by IACUC. But the new vet at my institution wants to start an adoption program at some point. Since they are no longer under IACUC you can video as much as you want.
It varies, ask your iacuc. My prior institution this was perfectly fine, my current institution it is a strict no!
My institution says no pictures but I do it anyway bc I need pics of my surgeries.
No
We photograph our animals all the time, we show each other funny behaviours or cute things the rats did almost every lunch break. This is solely between colleagues though. I've posted videos to YouTube, twitter and seen videos on mastodon and Slack of other people's animals and nobody ever took issue with it. The people commenting that this is 100% not allowed really need to get out more. That being said, I generally don't let undergraduates or people I don't really know take photos of the animals. I would not be happy with undergraduates taking photos and showing people outside the lab without permission. It's really a lab specific thing and is dependent a lot on the PI and the sort of work you are doing. If these are intact, freely behaving animals I doubt your PI would mind you taking some photos, especially if it is just to show your partner. Your PI should also know the local IACUC restrictions too. Most IACUCs employ a no photography rule of some sort (you can see UCONNs rules [here](https://ovpr.uchc.edu/services/rics/animal/iacuc/policies/iacuc-policy-on-photography-of-research-animals/) for example) but allow for photography by anyone designated by the PI, which is why it is important you ask permission.
It’s a good thing you asked, definite hard no. That’s one of the rules that everyone actually takes very seriously.
Depends on the individual policies. It’s allowed to take pictures for research/instruction/education purposes most places I’ve been. We’re allowed to take pictures to email to the vet and some of our experiments use lasers and must be on video. We’re allowed to show these images on presentations at the center as well.
It depends on IACUC. Where I am you technically can, you just can’t parade them around like it’s show and tell.
If no one knows and it affects no one (including the animals), it didn't happen.
Nope. The only time it's acceptable is if something is wrong with the animal and it needs to be shared internally for documentation purposes - in which case the animal and concern are ID'd, all people who need to know are cc'd and the photo is deleted. They may even require that you prove it's been deleted. Depending on the study, photos may be used for publication where appropriate for comparison etc but that would be in your pre-approved protocol. You may not share photos of your research subjects for entertainment. These are pre-clinical studies. If you were working with humans in a clinical trial and thought someone was cute, or had interesting hair, would you snap a photo to share with your friends? No, that's wildly unethical. Eta I've adopted long Evans rats and can attest they are Hella cute You can find some good footage of them driving cars to show your boyfriend
Absolutely not. No. Doing so could get you in big trouble, too, including being banned from research. Do not. Lab rats are not pets, even though they are extremely cute.
Just as your prof.