Ethical and regulatory oversight of research animals is focused on vertebrates and rarely includes invertebrates. Our aim was to undertake the first study to describe differences in public confidence, trust, and expectations for the oversight of scientists using animals in research. Participants were presented with one of four treatments using a 2 by 2 design; terrestrial (T; mice and grasshoppers) vs. aquatic (A; zebrafish and sea stars) and vertebrates (V; mice and zebrafish) vs. invertebrates (I; grasshoppers and sea stars). A representative sample of census-matched Canadian participants (n = 959) stated their confidence in oversight, trust in scientists and expectation of oversight for invertebrates on a 7-point Likert scale. Participants’ open-ended text reasoning for confidence and expectations of oversight were subjected to thematic analysis. Participants believed invertebrates should receive some level of oversight but at two-thirds of that currently afforded to vertebrates. Four primary themes emerged to explain participant expectation: (1) value of life, (2) animal experience, (3) participant reflection, and (4) oversight system centered. Confidence in oversight was highest for TV (mean ± SE; 4.5 ± 0.08) and AV (4.4 ± 0.08), less for TI (3.8 ± 0.10), and least for AI (3.5 ± 0.08), indicating the absence of oversight decreased public confidence. Four themes emerged to explain participant confidence, centered on: (1) animals, (2) participant reflection, (3) oversight system, and (4) science. Trust in scientists was similar for TV (4.3 ± 0.07) and AV (4.2 ± 0.07), but higher for TV compared to TI (4.1 ± 0.07) and TV and AV compared to AI (4.0 ± 0.06); absence of oversight decreased public trust in scientists. These results, provide the first evidence that the public believe invertebrates should receive some level of oversight if used for scientific experiments. The gap that exists between current and public expectations for the oversight of invertebrates may threaten the social licence to conduct scientific research on these animals.

对研究动物的伦理和监管监督主要集中在脊椎动物身上，很少包括无脊椎动物。我们的目标是进行第一项研究，以描述公众对在研究中使用动物的科学家进行监督的信心、信任和期望的差异。使用 2 x 2 设计为参与者提供四种治疗中的一种；陆地（T；老鼠和蚱蜢）与水生（A；斑马鱼和海星）和脊椎动物（V；老鼠和斑马鱼）与无脊椎动物（I；蚱蜢和海星）。与人口普查匹配的加拿大参与者的代表性样本（n = 959) 表示他们对监督的信心，对科学家的信任以及对无脊椎动物监督的期望，采用李克特 7 点量表。对参与者对监督的信心和期望的开放式文本推理进行了主题分析。参与者认为无脊椎动物应该受到一定程度的监督，但只有目前脊椎动物的三分之二。出现了四个主要主题来解释参与者的期望：（1）生命价值，（2）动物体验，（3）参与者反思，以及（4）以监督系统为中心。TV（平均值±SE；4.5±0.08）和AV（4.4±0.08）的监督信心最高，TI（3.8±0.10）较低，AI（3.5±0.08）最低，表明缺乏监督减少了公众信心。出现了四个主题来解释参与者的信心，集中在：（1）动物，(2) 参与者反思，(3) 监督系统，以及 (4) 科学。TV (4.3 ± 0.07) 和 AV (4.2 ± 0.07) 对科学家的信任度相似，但 TV 高于 TI (4.1 ± 0.07)，TV 和 AV 高于 AI (4.0 ± 0.06)；缺乏监督会降低公众对科学家的信任。这些结果提供了第一个证据，表明公众认为无脊椎动物如果用于科学实验，应该受到一定程度的监督。当前和公众对监督无脊椎动物的期望之间存在的差距可能会威胁到对这些动物进行科学研究的社会许可。缺乏监督会降低公众对科学家的信任。这些结果提供了第一个证据，表明公众认为无脊椎动物如果用于科学实验，应该受到一定程度的监督。当前和公众对监督无脊椎动物的期望之间存在的差距可能会威胁到对这些动物进行科学研究的社会许可。缺乏监督会降低公众对科学家的信任。这些结果提供了第一个证据，表明公众认为无脊椎动物如果用于科学实验，应该受到一定程度的监督。当前和公众对监督无脊椎动物的期望之间存在的差距可能会威胁到对这些动物进行科学研究的社会许可。