animal science research projects

Optimizing animal health, welfare, and performance through the study of basic and applied animal science.

The Department of Animal Science conducts critical research targeting animal health, reproduction, nutrition, their relationship with people and the environment, and more. We are proud to be part of a Tier 1 Research University, devoting the resources needed to maintain world-class facilities and attract world-class people.

Animal Science Research Areas

Animal Well-Being

Research in animal well-being is typically incorporated within other focus areas such as genetics or physiology. Students pursuing this emphasis have investigated everything from the effect of breeding behavior on the reproductive efficiency of swine to the impact of housing conditions on stress-related hormones in captive primates.

Faculty in Animal Well-Being 

Biotechnology

Biotechnology is considered a support discipline and can be included in graduate programs in a variety of areas including physiology, nutrition, genetics/genomics and production management.

Faculty in Biotechnology 

Genetics and Genomics

Students can choose to major in Animal Science with a co-major in Genetics or Functional Genomics. Students pursuing research in genetics and genomics use a variety of animal models including beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine and mice in their thesis projects.

Faculty in Genetics and Genomics 

Our nutrition program focuses on a range of topics, from basic molecular nutrition approaches to studies with direct practical applications in the target species. Students can work with a variety of animal species, including cattle, swine, horses, sheep, goats, mice, companion animals and exotic animals.

Nutrition Research Faculty 

The physiology group conducts activities in two major areas: reproductive physiology and lactational physiology. Student research projects range from basic molecular studies to applied research projects in a variety of animal systems. Students use a variety of animal models including cattle, swine, mice, goats, horses, domestic cats and exotic cats in their research.

Physiology Research Faculty 

Production Agriculture

Students in production management investigate problems that involve applied research within their particular discipline (genetics, nutrition, physiology). Research can include assessment of the usefulness of early pregnancy detection by real-time ultrasonography in swine, the effectiveness of specific feed additives on growth and nutrient utilization of beef steers, or the effect of grazing-based dairy cattle management on the onset of puberty in heifers.

Production Agriculture Research Faculty 

• Visit the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Apply to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Give to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Search Form

The Animal Science research program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln is conducted through some 30 externally and internally funded projects managed under the Agricultural Research Division of IANR. Research activity ranges from basic molecular biology aspects of genetics/genomics/functional genomics and physiology to applied aspects of breeding and genetics, nutrition, meat science and processing, growth, heat and cold stress, production and management strategies and integrated interdisciplinary beef systems projects. Significant collaborative research is conducted in the areas of pre-harvest food safety, nutrient and waste management, animal health, and beef production systems. Interdisciplinary research is encouraged and support is provided for joint projects across departments and between multi-state project participants. Research is conducted in vivo in small animal, poultry and livestock housing laboratories in Animal Science, at all of the animal units managed by the Department, and at facilities owned and managed by cooperating producers. Cell, embryo, and tissue culture work is also conducted.

For more information on some of the research conducted in the Department of Animal Science, visit the following areas:

Research Areas

Animal Biology Program

Examples of experiments.

Each animal biology experiment that Space Biology supports is designed to build our understanding of how the novel environment(s) of spaceflight affect complex multicellular organisms at the molecular, physiological, and systemic levels. Below are some examples of Space Biology-funded Animal research projects that are still in progress or have recently been completed.

Novel Facility Developed for Testing Moon and Mars Effects

In a first-of-its-kind study, investigators developed and tested an experimental analog facility designed to re-create the partial gravity environments of the Moon and Mars. Using rats as human analogs, the quadrupedal unloading model involved partial-suspension of the animals with a harness system. The facility induced similar muscle disuse atrophy and bone mineral density reductions seen in traditional hind limb unloading studies that have been employed to study the effects of microgravity. Being able to simulate Moon-like gravity conditions on Earth is particularly challenging given that we aren’t on the Moon. Researchers in this investigation devised and demonstrated a novel system to mimic the partial gravity effects of these deep space environments by rigging a harness system to partially unload the limbs at several levels of unloading. The study showed after 2 weeks of partial weight bearing at 20%, 40%, or 70% of normal loading that the musculoskeletal health of the animals experienced decreased trabecular bone density, hind limb muscle mass, and impaired muscle function as reduced-gravity analogue facility is well suited for long-duration studies. It can be used to assess impacts of re-loading, as well as testing any countermeasures that could potentially be used for deep space missions. For humans to explore deeper into space, it will be important to understand the effects of long-term exposure to partial gravity environments, such as those on the Moon or Mars.

Mortreux M, Nagy JA, Ko FC, Bouxsein ML, Rutkove SB. A novel partial gravity ground-based analogue for rats via quadrupedal unloading. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2018 Mar 22.

Spaceflight Changes Protein Expression in the Brain

Space Biology-funded researchers Dr. Michael Pecaut and Dr. Xiao Wen Mao at Loma Linda University recently published an article in International Journal of Molecular Sciences (IF 3.687) reporting the results of a proteomic analysis of brains of mice flown in space for 13 days on STS-135. Proteomic analysis identifies the proteins present in tissues, providing a direct look at cell metabolism and function. The study reported in the article was the first to examine changes in brain proteins induced by spaceflight, and found significant changes related to neuron structure and metabolic function that could, in time, lead to injury and neurodegeneration. This suggests that spaceflight affects the brain negatively at a cellular level, and that countermeasures to protect brain function may be needed.

Mao XW, Sandberg LB, Gridley DS, Herrmann EC, Zhang G, Raghavan R, Zubarev RA, Zhang B, Stodieck LS, Ferguson VL, Bateman TA, Pecaut MJ. Proteomic analysis of mouse brain subjected to spaceflight. Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Dec 20;20(1):E7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30577490

Short Durations of Daily Loading Prevent Some Detrimental Effects of Simulated Microgravity

A major risk facing astronauts on long-duration spaceflight missions is bone loss, and the accompanying increase in risk of bone fracture upon return to gravity. Astronauts exposed to microgravity for six months can lose as much as 10% of their bone mineral density, and this bone loss may not be recovered upon return to gravity. Effective countermeasures that prevent bone loss in microgravity are still needed.

A study recently published by a research team including Dr. Bloomfield, a NASA Space Biology-supported researcher at Texas A&M University, provides a piece of the puzzle. The study measured bone volume and structure in mice exposed to four weeks of simulated microgravity, some of which were exposed to normal gravity conditions for 75 minutes a day, three out of every four days. Microgravity was simulated using the technique of hindlimb unloading, in which mice are suspended by their tails so that their forelimbs bear their entire body weight. Mice in both simulated microgravity groups lost overall bone mass compared to control mice that were not exposed to simulated microgravity. However, unlike the mice exposed to simulated gravity continuously, the mice exposed to simulated microgravity, but also to short periods of normal gravity, did not lose spongy (cancellous) bone mass from their femurs.

Though daily exposure to normal gravity did not “rescue” the mice in this study from all deleterious effects of simulated microgravity, it prevented some – bringing researchers one step closer to understanding the complex web of biological processes linking microgravity and bone loss, and one step closer to a solution.

Bokhari RS, Metzger CE, Allen M, Bloomfield S. Daily Acute Bouts of Weightbearing During Hindlimb Unloading Mitigate Disuse-Induced Deficits in Cancellous Bone. Gravitational and Space Research. 2018 Dec 17; 6(2).

Experimental Drug Treatment Prevents Bone Loss in Mars Simulation

As NASA prepares for the Journey to Mars it is particularly challenging to understand and test the effects of the partial gravity environment on humans before actually going there. At approximately one third of Earth’s gravity there is nowhere on our home planet that can approximate the partial gravity of Mars. To address that challenge, some resourceful Space Biology researchers have developed a unique partial-gravity model to test rodents in a Moon and Mars analog simulation. To investigate the effects on bones that have been subjected to partial gravity mice were assigned to one of four loading groups: normal weight-bearing controls, or weight-bearing at 20%, 40%, or 70% of normal. Mice in each experimental group received a treatment previously shown to be effective in preventing bone loss in a ground-based unloading experiment – sclerostin antibody. This experiment was primarily designed to further test the effectiveness of sclerostin in mice exposed to different levels of unloading that astronauts would encounter on long-duration terrestrial spaceflight mission.

Results of this investigation suggest that greater weight bearing leads to greater benefits of the sclerostin treatment on bone mass, particularly the trabecular bone. Altogether, these results demonstrate the efficacy of sclerostin antibody therapy in preventing astronaut bone loss during terrestrial solar system exploration.

Spatz JM, Ellman R, Cloutier AM, Louis L, van Vliet M, Dwyer D, Stolina M, Ke HZ, Bouxsein ML. Sclerostin antibody inhibits skeletal deterioration in mice exposed to partial weight-bearing. Life Sci Space Res. 2017 Feb;12:32-8. Epub 2017 Jan 12.

Effects of Spaceflight on Gastrointestinal Microbiota in Mice: Mechanisms and Impact on Multi-System Physiology (RR-7)

Five integrated projects will examine the impact of the space environment on the population structure of the intestinal microbiota of mice, and how multiple physiological systems involving the gastrointestinal (GI), immune, metabolic, circadian, and sleep systems, known to be affected by the microbiota, are impacted by the space environment. The proposed studies will elucidate mechanisms underlying interactions between GI, immune, metabolic, and sleep functions and specifically the role of the microbiota in these interactions. The impact of this study extends beyond understanding the mechanisms at play in the unique stresses of spaceflight. Results from the proposed RR-7 investigation have the potential for guiding development of dysbiosis-targeted interventions for disorders in all of these systems.

Organism: Mouse Principal Investigator: Fred Turek, Ph.D., Northwestern University Instrument: Rodent Habitat

Rodent Research-7: Inner space

Current research tells us that changes in the gut microbiome (the collective populations of microbial species living in the gastrointestinal tract) affect areas of physiology in the heart, the immune system, and gastro-intestinal health. The Rodent Research 7 mission will examine, from a whole-animal perspective, how diet and circadian rhythm impact the health of mice and the microbiome of the gut, from individual tissues and physiological response down to the cellular and molecular level. The experiment will seek to understand on a molecular level how changes in circadian rhythm affect the immune system and metabolome (how the body metabolizes food and waste).

Rodent Research-9: Multisystem studies

Mice provide an important animal model that has been used by NASA scientists to increase our understanding of how spaceflight affects the mammalian musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, immune, and central nervous systems. On the recent Rodent Research mission, three Space Biology investigations shared mice flown to the ISS to characterize how microgravity impacts these systems during extended stays in space. A major objective of one of these ongoing investigations is to determine how long-duration spaceflight effects vascular function and structure in the central nervous system, specifically in response to spaceflight-induced changes in fluid pressure. Another important goal of these experiments is to characterize the impact of oxidative stress within the eye on vascular remodeling in the retina, as well as on the function of the blood retinal barrier; factors that could potentially contribute to visual impairment. A final objective is to determine how long-duration spaceflight impacts knee and hip joint degradation. The researchers conducting these investigations are currently investigating biological changes in these mice, as well as their recovery from spaceflight, now that they have returned to Earth.

Fruit Fly Lab-3 (FFL-3): Does Spaceflight Alter the Virulence of a Natural Parasite of Drosophila?

Drosophila melanogaster , the fruit fly, has been used extensively to study biological processes, including genetics and physiology. Experiments using this model organism have generated useful information that had provided helpful insights for both human physiology and disease. One important area of study is fruit fly immunity. Fruit flies have an innate immune system similar to that of humans, which acts as the “first responder” to defend an organism from initial infection by a foreign pathogen. NASA-funded studies of immune cells have shown that spaceflight alters immune function.

The FFL-3 mission studies the impact of spaceflight on host/pathogen dynamics, with fruit fly larva acting as the host organism, and a natural parasite of the flies, Leptopilina wasp larva, as the pathogen. These wasps lay their eggs into the fly larvae, which induce a fly larval innate immune response against the wasp larvae and eggs, similar to a response to bacterial infection. The experiment has three main objectives. Based on measuring the amount of fly survival against wasp survival, the first objective is to characterize whether the host innate immunity will protect the fly larvae or if the wasp infection process will “defeat” the immune response. The second objective will characterize how the space environment affects the fruit fly’s anti-parasitic immune response to the wasp pathogen. The third objective will determine if the parasitic virulence of the space-cultured wasps is different from ground control wasps. The results of this investigation will provide important knowledge of how long-duration spaceflight impacts a key immune response mechanism and pathogen infection. This may lead to greater understanding of how the spaceflight environment alters human innate immunity and pathogen interactions.

Extreme Survival

Experiments designed to narrow down key stress pathways may help us understand the critical stress response mechanisms that maintain life in space.

A new Animal Biology study at NASA will examine the omics and molecular biology of cellular adaptions to the extremes of space. Using comparative transcriptomics, genomics, and proteomics coupled with reverse genetics, this new flight experiment seeks to identify genes that respond to and are required for tardigrades to survive different stress conditions. Investigators will examine both immediate and long-term, multigenerational changes in gene expression in tardigrades cultured onboard the International Space Station.

Tardigrades are microscopic, multicellular animals that can live for decades without food or water, and survive temperature extremes from near absolute zero to well above the boiling point of water. Tardigrades have been known to survive a number of abiotic stresses, including desiccation, freezing and boiling temperatures, intense ionizing radiation, and extremes in pressure—including the vacuum of outer space.

One day these experiments may lead to the development of drought- and temperature-resistant crops and new methods for stabilizing sensitive pharmaceuticals and other biological materials.

Additional Resources

Search nasa task book.

To learn more about current and upcoming research projects in the NASA Space Biology program, search the Task Book: Biological and Physical Sciences Division and Human Research Program . Our online database of research projects includes project descriptions, annual research results, research impacts, and a listing of publications resulting from this NASA-funded research.

Life Sciences Data Archive

A searchable archive of NASA Life Sciences research is available at the Life Sciences Data Archive .

GeneLab Data Repository

Experiments that explore the molecular response of terrestrial biology to spaceflight have generated vast amounts of genomics data that are now publicly available for download from GeneLab .

More about our Animal Biology program:

Overview What We Study Experiments Hardware Publications

Discover More Topics From NASA

James Webb Space Telescope

Perseverance Rover

Parker Solar Probe

Department of

Animal Science

• Graduate Students
• Graduate Seminars
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Locations/Facilities
• Student Judging Teams
• Student Organizations
• Prospective Students
• Animal Science Major
• Animal Science Minor
• Scholarships
• Program Emphases
• Prospective Graduate Student
• Current Graduate Students
• Services and Resources
• Graduate Faculty Directory
• Graduate Program Contacts
• Genetics Overview
• Genetics Research
• Animal Gene Mapping
• Crossbreeding of Dairy Cattle
• Production Systems Overview
• Animal Production Research
• Meat Science
• Growth Biology Research
• Biofuels Co-Products in Feeds
• Integrated Animal Systems Biology
• Meat Laboratory/Sales Room
• U of MN Extension Programs
• Youth Programs
• Minnesota Nutrition Conference
• Precision Dairy Conference
• Quality Count$
• W. E. Petersen Symposium
• Alumni Overview
• Animal Science Showcase

Animal production research in the Department of Animal Science focuses on improving livestock production systems, management practices, animal health and welfare, and food quality and safety. Animal production research topics include:

• Organic dairy production
• Precision dairy technologies including robotic milking, automated calf feeders and cow behavior sensors
• Transition dairy cow health, management and welfare
• Cow-calf and beef feedlot management
• Pre- and/or post-weaning management practices that enhance meat quality and safety
• Automated monitoring of behavioral indicators of swine welfare
• Reducing piglet mortality in alternative farrowing systems
• Statistical process control principles in dairy and swine
• Sustainable poultry production
• Management, health and stress interactions in market turkeys
• Decision making processes for evaluating management at the farm level for options across all species with implications to environmental impact and food quality/safety

Animal Science Fair Project Ideas

• Projects & Experiments
• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Scientific Method
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

Animals are great subjects for science fair projects, particularly if you have a pet or an interest in zoology. Do you want to do a science fair project with your pet or another type of animal? Here is a collection of ideas that you can use for your project.

• Are insects attracted to/repelled by a magnet? Does the presence of a magnetic field affect egg hatching rates of insect or other animal eggs?
• Do pet fish have a color preference for their food? (This assumes you can separate out the colors of a food.) Do pet birds have a color preference for their toys?
• What type of soil do earthworms prefer?
• What natural substances repel insect pests? Examples of insects to test include mosquitoes, ants or flies.
• On a related note, what substances might be used to attract and trap flies, beetles or other pests?
• Do animals display handedness (right-handed, left-handed) like humans? You can test this with a cat and a toy, for example.
• Are cockroaches (or other insects or creatures) attracted to or repelled by light? You probably already suspect cockroaches prefer dark. What other stimuli could you test? Does it matter if it is white light or would you get the same response from specific colors of light? You could test other types of stimuli, such as music, noise, vibration, heat, cold. You get the idea.
• An advanced version of the cockroach project is to select insects that don't run from light (for example). If you allow these insects to mate and keep selecting progeny that doesn't evade light, can you obtain a culture of cockroaches that don't mind light?
• Test household insect repellents . Are there any species against which they are ineffective?
• Can dogs or cats or birds hear ultrasonic insect and rodent repellent devices?
• Can cats hear a dog whistle?
• Are cats equally interested in different laser colors besides the "red dot"?
• What methods serve to disrupt the chemical trail that ants follow?
• How many nematodes (roundworms) are there in a soil sample from your backyard? What are the pros and cons of having these organisms in the soil?
• Do hummingbirds have a color preference for their food?
• What type of light attracts the most moths?
• Does catnip repel insects? If so, which types?
• Which types of animal fossils are present in your area? What does this tell you about the climate and ecology in the past?

Know the Rules

Before you start any science fair project involving animals, make sure it is okay with your school or whoever is in charge of the science fair. Projects with animals may be prohibited or they may require special approval or permission. It's better to make sure your project is acceptable before you get to work! Some animals may be allowed on school grounds, but most either won't be allowed or shouldn't be brought in because they may pose a risk to students or the facility. Even organisms that aren't dangerous may causes allergies in some students.

A Note on Ethics

Science fairs that allow projects with animals will expect you to treat the animals in an ethical manner . The safest type of project is one which involves observing natural behavior of animals or, in the case of pets, interacting with animals in a usual manner. Don't do science fair project that involves harming or killing an animal or puts an animal at risk for injury. As an example, it may be fine to examine data on how much of an earthworm can be cut before the worm becomes unable to regenerate and dies. Actually performing such an experiment probably won't be allowed for most science fairs. In any case, there are lots of projects you can do that don't involve ethical concerns.

Take Pictures and Video

You may be unable to bring your animal science fair project to the school or otherwise put it on display, yet you'll want visual aids for your presentation. Take lots of pictures of your project . Video is another great way to document animal behavior. For some projects, you may be able to bring in preserved specimens or examples of fur or feathers , etc.

• Chemistry Science Fair Project Ideas
• Biology Science Fair Project Ideas
• Animal Studies and School Project Ideas
• How to Select a Science Fair Project Topic
• 5th Grade Science Fair Projects
• Middle School Science Fair Project Ideas
• Second Grade Science Fair Projects
• Elementary School Science Fair Projects
• 8th Grade Science Fair Project Ideas
• Grade School Science Fair Project Ideas
• High School Science Fair Projects
• What Judges Look for in a Science Fair Project
• 5 Types of Science Fair Projects
• Crystal Science Fair Projects
• Science Fair Project Ideas
• 6th Grade Science Fair Projects

Department of Animal Science

Undergraduate research.

Why Complete Undergraduate Research?

Undergraduate research helps students develop skills that employers value. While research opportunities vary by species and discipline, a common element is starting with an interesting question that has an unknown answer. Many different careers will present students with challenges they don’t know how to solve. Completing an undergraduate research project helps students mature as thinkers and doers.

What Qualifies as Undergraduate Research?

The nonprofit Council on Undergraduate Research defines it as “a mentored investigation or creative inquiry conducted by undergraduates that seeks to make a scholarly or artistic contribution to knowledge”. For many Animal Science undergraduates, that may involve working as a research assistant in a faculty member’s program, participating in a group research project in the Animal Science Undergraduate Research Student Association (ASURSA) or working independently on a research project with guidance from a faculty mentor.

To complete undergraduate research and satisfy the experiential learning requirement in the Animal Science degree, students must enroll in ANS 492 Undergraduate Research (3 credits) and present the results of their research at an undergraduate or faculty research forum, scientific meeting or in a peer-reviewed publication.

Identifying Opportunities for Undergraduate Research

Students can seek out opportunities on their own, or with the help of an academic advisor or faculty member who specializes in the species or discipline of interest. Faculty web pages provide helpful information on the species and discipline focus of their research programs. Students can complete undergraduate research with a professor in Animal Science or in another discipline.

Students should plan to acquire initial experience in a faculty member’s research program prior to undertaking their own undergraduate research project. Participating in an ASURSA research project can provide initial experience to the scientific method used in conducting research. Getting that experience early in an academic program can help students identify or refine goals in your degree and career. There is no specific time in your program to complete undergraduate research, although prior research experience is helpful. Many students conduct research during their junior or senior years.

Earning Credit for ANS 492 Undergraduate Research

Undergraduate research must be approved by the ANS 492 coordinator, Dr. Miriam Weber Nielsen, before enrollment. Once you have identified an undergraduate research opportunity with a faculty mentor, complete the online application form at https://msu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6lBgeycjL59tNJA . Your project will be reviewed and processed for enrollment within about one week.

Funding for Undergraduate Research

The faculty mentor will provide the project idea and research funding for students completing undergraduate research in his or her program. Additional funding is available through the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources ( https://www.canr.msu.edu/academics/undergraduate/undergraduateresearch/ ). Funding for dairy-related projects is available through the G.C. and Gwendolyn Graf Memorial Student Enhancement Program managed by Dr. Miriam Weber Nielsen.

More questions?

Please contact the ANS 492 Undergraduate Research coordinator, Dr. Miriam Weber Nielsen ( [email protected] ) for more information.

Experiential Learning

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Committee on Considerations for the Future of Animal Science Research; Science and Technology for Sustainability Program; Policy and Global Affairs; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Division on Earth and Life Sciences; National Research Council. Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015 Mar 31.

Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

6 Recommendations

Animal production and the science that informs it are confronted by an emerging and globally complex set of conditions in the 21st century that generate new challenges for sustainable animal production, which in turn requires rethinking about the overall nature of animal science. These challenges include, but are not limited to, growing demand for animal products by an increasingly affluent, global population approaching 10 billion people; the globalization of food systems that cross continents with consequences for individual country and regional concerns about food security; the intensification of production systems in the context of societal and environmental impacts; the development and maintenance of sustainable animal production systems in the face of global environmental change; and the multidecadal stagnation in research funding for animal production. As described throughout this report, a new roadmap for animal science research is required. The findings and recommendations described below will help to inform this new roadmap.

The breadth of the committee's task led to many recommendations being developed. The committee twice deliberated on prioritization of these recommendations. Early in the process the committee chose a limited number of broad and high-level overarching recommendations, which were then refined in subsequent meetings and are described immediately below. At its last meeting, the committee chose its highest priorities from among all of the possible recommendations. These recommendations appear after the overarching recommendations and are specific to what the committee identified as key areas in animal agriculture in both the United States and globally. In addition to its recommendations, the committee identified complementary priorities for research, research support, and infrastructure, which can be found in Chapters 3 - 5 .

Ideally, NRC committee recommendations should include an action statement specifying the specific agency or organization that should follow up. This works well if there is an individual sponsor with a single short-term task; however, the breadth of the tasks and the multiplicity of overlapping national and international public and private organizations involved in sponsoring or performing animal research limited the committee's ability to specify action pathways. Sorting out responsibilities for moving ahead is part of the reason that the committee has recommended the development of a U.S. Animal Science Strategic Plan under the leadership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

• Overarching Recommendations

Two central issues have guided National Research Council and other reports regarding the setting of research agendas for animal agriculture in recent years: productivity and sustainability. The committee built on these reports and emphasized the importance of research to sustainably and efficiently increase animal agricultural productivity. The committee's deliberations resulted in the following overarching recommendations:

• To achieve food security, research efforts should be improved through funding efforts that instill integration rather than independence of the individual components of the entire food chain. Success can only be achieved through strong, overarching, and inter- and transdisciplinary research collaborations involving both the public and private sectors. Animal science research should move toward a systems approach that emphasizes efficiency and quality of production to meet food security needs. The recently created Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research (FFAR) needs to incorporate holistic approaches to animal productivity and sustainability ( Chapter 5 ).
• Continuing the research emphasis on improving animal productivity is necessary; however, concomitant research on the economic, environmental, and social sustainability nexuses of animal production systems should also be enhanced. Both public and private funding agencies should incorporate inter- and transdisciplinary approaches for research on animal productivity and sustainability ( Chapters 3 and 5 ).
• There is a need to revitalize research infrastructure (human and physical resources), for example, through a series of strategic planning approaches, developing effective partnerships, and enhancing efficiency. In the United States, the committee recommends that USDA and the newly created FFAR spearhead the formation of a coalition to develop a U.S. Animal Science Strategic Plan or Roadmap for capacity building and infrastructure from 2014 to 2050. The coalition should be broad based and include representation from relevant federal agencies; colleges and universities that are involved in research, teaching, and outreach activities with food animals; NGOs; the private sector; and other relevant stakeholders. Areas of focus should include assessment of resource needs (human and physical infrastructure) to support the current and emerging animal science research enterprise; strategies to increase support for research, outreach, and instructional needs via formula funding, competitive funding, and public-private partnerships; curriculum development and delivery; evaluation of factors affecting hiring, retention, and diversity in the animal sciences; and mechanisms for research, priority setting to meet emerging, local, regional, national, and global needs ( Chapter 5 ).
• Socioeconomic/cultural research is essential to guide and inform animal scientists and decision makers on appropriately useful and applicable animal science research as well as communication and engagement strategies to deal with these extensive challenges. Engagement of social scientists and researchers from other relevant disciplines should be a prerequisite as appropriate for integrated animal science research projects, such as National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Coordinated Agricultural Project grants, to secure funding and approval of such projects ( Chapters 3 and 5 ).
• For research in sustainable intensification of animal agriculture to meet the challenge of future animal protein needs, it is necessary to effectively close the existing broad communication gap between the public, researchers, and the food industries. This will require research to better understand the knowledge, opinions, and values of the public and food system stakeholders, as well as the development of effective and mutually respectful communication strategies that foster ongoing stakeholder engagement. A coalition representing universities, federal agencies, industry, and the public should be formed to focus on communications research with the goals of enhancing engagement, knowledge dissemination, stakeholder participation, and informed decision making. Communications programs within agriculture schools, or in collaboration with other university components, such as schools of public health, could conduct this type of research ( Chapters 3 and 5 ).
• The United States should expand its involvement in research that assists in the development of internationally harmonized standards, guidelines, and regulations related to both the trade in animal products and protection of the consumers of those products ( Chapter 4 ).

Many of the recommendations and priorities discussed in each of the chapters are based on a central theme of the need for strategic planning to meet the challenges of the increased animal agricultural demand that is projected through 2050. These recommendations and priorities include planning for research in the United States and in developing countries and reconsideration of education and training in animal agriculture in the United States, particularly at the university level. These strategic planning activities should be guided by the need for systems approaches that integrate the many scientific disciplines and governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders involved in achieving the goal of food security based on sustainable animal agriculture.

• Recommendations for U.S. Animal Agriculture

The committee developed several recommendations that are of high priority for reinvigorating the field of animal agriculture in the United States.

Public Funding

In view of the anticipated continuing increased demand for animal protein, growth in U.S. research related to animal agricultural productivity is imperative. Animal protein products contribute over $43 billion annually to the U.S. agricultural trade balance. Animal agriculture accounts for 60 to 70 percent of the total agricultural economy. In the past two decades, public funding, including formula funding and USDA Agricultural Research Service/National Institute of Food and Agriculture funding, of animal science research has been stagnant in terms of real dollars and has declined in relation to the research inflation rate. A 50 percent decline in the rate of increase in U.S. agricultural productivity is predicted if overall agricultural funding increases in normative dollars continue at the current rate, which is less than the expected rate of inflation of research costs. If funding does meet the rate of research cost inflation, however, a 73 percent increase in overall agricultural productivity between now and 2050 is projected and a 1 percent increase in inflation-adjusted spending is projected to lead to an 83 percent increase.

Despite documenting the clear economic and scientific value of animal science research in the United States, funding to support the infrastructure and capacity is evidently insufficient to meet the needs for animal food; U.S.-based research will be needed to address sustainability issues and to help developing countries sustainably increase their own animal protein production and/or needs. Additionally, animal science research and practices in the United States are often adopted, to the extent possible, within developing countries. Thus, increases in U.S. funding will favorably impact animal production enterprises in developing countries.

With the lack of increase in public funding of animal science research, private/industry support has increased. The focus of industry funding is more toward applied areas that can be commercialized in the short term. Many of these applications are built on concepts developed from publicly funded basic research. With the increased animal protein demands, especially poultry, more publicly funded basic research is needed.

RECOMMENDATION 3-1: To meet current and future animal protein demand, and to sustain corresponding infrastructure and capacity, public support for animal science research (especially basic research) should be restored to at least past levels of real dollars and maintained at a rate that meets or exceeds the annual rate of research inflation. This is especially critical for those species (i.e., poultry) for which the consumer demand is projected to significantly increase by 2050 and for those species with the greatest opportunity for reducing the environmental impact of animal agriculture (Section 3-1 in Chapter 3 ).

Productivity and Production Efficiency

Regarding productivity and production efficiency, the committee finds that increasing production efficiency while reducing the environmental footprint and cost per unit of animal protein product is essential to achieving a sustainable, affordable, and secure animal protein supply. Technological improvements have led to system/structural changes in animal production industries whereby more efficient food production and less regional, national, and global environmental impact have been realized.

RECOMMENDATION 3-2: Support of technology development and adoption should continue by both public and private sectors. Three criteria of sustainability—(1) reducing the environmental footprint, (2) reducing the financial cost per unit of animal protein produced, and (3) enhancing societal determinants of sustainable global animal agriculture acceptability—should be used to guide funding decisions about animal agricultural research and technological development to increase production efficiency (Section 3-2 in Chapter 3 ).

Breeding and Genetic Technologies

Further development and adoption of breeding technologies and genetics, which have been the major contributors to past increases in animal productivity, efficiency, product quality, environmental, and economic advancements, are needed to meet future demand.

RECOMMENDATION 3-3: Research should be conducted to understand societal concerns regarding the adoption of these technologies and the most effective methods to respectfully engage and communicate with the public (Section 3-3 in Chapter 3 ).

Nutritional Requirements

The committee notes that understanding the nutritional requirements of the genetically or ontogenetically changing animal is crucial for optimal productivity, efficiency, and health. Research devoted to an understanding of amino acid, energy, fiber, mineral, and vitamin nutrition has led to technological innovations such as production of individual amino acids to help provide a diet that more closely resembles the animal's requirements, resulting in improved efficiency, animal health, and environmental gains, as well as lower costs; however, much more can be realized with additional knowledge gained from research.

RECOMMENDATION 3-4: Research should continue to develop a better understanding of nutrient metabolism and utilization in the animal and the effects of those nutrients on gene expression. A systems-based holistic approach needs to be utilized that involves ingredient preparation, understanding of ingredient digestion, nutrient metabolism and utilization through the body, hormonal controls, and regulators of nutrient utilization. Of particular importance is basic and applied research in keeping the knowledge of nutrient requirements of animals current (Section 3-4 in Chapter 3 ).

Feed Technology

Potential waste products from the production of human food, biofuel, or industrial production streams can and are being converted to economical, high-value animal protein products. Alternative feed ingredients are important in completely or partially replacing high-value and unsustainable ingredients, particularly fish meal and fish oil, or ingredients that may otherwise compete directly with human consumption.

RECOMMENDATION 3-6.1: Research should continue to identify alternative feed ingredients that are inedible to humans and will notably reduce the cost of animal protein production while improving the environmental footprint. These investigations should include assessment of the possible impact of changes in the protein product on the health of the animal and the eventual human consumer, as well as the environment (Section 3-6.1 in Chapter 3 ).

Animal Health

The subtherapeutic use of medically important antibiotics in animal production is being phased out and may be eliminated in the United States. This potential elimination of subtherapeutic use of medically important antibiotics presents a major challenge.

RECOMMENDATION 3-7: There is a need to explore alternatives to the use of medically important subtherapeutic antibiotics while providing the same or greater benefits in improved feed efficiency, disease prevention, and overall animal health (Section 3-7 in Chapter 3 ).

Animal Welfare

Rising concern about animal welfare is a force shaping the future direction of animal agricultural production. Animal welfare research, underemphasized in the United States compared to Europe, has become a high-priority topic. Research capacity in the United States is not commensurate with respect to the level of stakeholder interest in this topic.

RECOMMENDATION 3-8: There is a need to build capacity and direct funding toward the high-priority animal welfare research areas identified by the committee. This research should be focused on current and emerging housing systems, management, and production practices for food animals in the United States. FFAR, USDA-AFRI, and USDA-ARS should carry out an animal welfare research prioritization process that incorporates relevant stakeholders and focuses on identifying key commodity-specific, system-specific, and basic research needs, as well as mechanisms for building capacity for this area of research (Section 3-8 in Chapter 3 ).

Climate Change

Although there is uncertainty regarding the degree and geographical variability, climate change will nonetheless impact animal agriculture in diverse ways, from affecting feed quality and quantity to causing environmental stress in agricultural animals. Animal agriculture affects and is affected by these changes, in some cases significantly, and must adapt to them in order to provide the quantity and affordability of animal protein expected by society. This adaptation, in turn, has important implications for sustainable production. The committee finds that adaptive strategies will be a critical component of promoting the resilience of U.S. animal agriculture in confronting climate change and variability.

RECOMMENDATION 3-11.2: Research needs to be devoted to the development of geographically appropriate climate change adaptive strategies and their effect on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and pollutants involving biogeochemical cycling, such as that of carbon and nitrogen, from animal agriculture because adaptation and mitigation are often interrelated and should not be independently considered. Additional empirical research quantifying GHG emissions sources from animal agriculture should be conducted to fill current knowledge gaps, improve the accuracy of emissions inventories, and be useful for improving and developing mathematical models predicting GHG emissions from animal agriculture (Section 3-11.2 in Chapter 3 ).

Socioeconomic Considerations

Although socioeconomic research is critical to the successful adoption of new technologies in animal agriculture, insufficient attention has been directed to such research. Few animal science departments in the United States have social sciences or bioethics faculty in their departments who can carry out this kind of research.

RECOMMENDATION 3-12: Socioeconomic and animal science research should be integrated so that researchers, administrators, and decision makers can be guided and informed in conducting and funding effective, efficient, and productive research and technology transfer (Section 3-12 in Chapter 3 ).

Communications

The committee recognizes a broad communication gap related to animal agricultural research and objectives between the animal science community and the consumer. This gap must be bridged if animal protein needs of 2050 are to be fulfilled.

RECOMMENDATION 3-13: There is a need to establish a strong focus on communications research as related to animal science research and animal agriculture, with the goals of enhancing knowledge dissemination, respectful stakeholder participation and engagement, and informed decision making (Section 3-13 in Chapter 3 ).

Recommendations for Global Animal Agriculture

Overall, the committee strongly supports an increase in funding of global animal research both by governments and the private sector. The committee also identified several recommendations directed toward global animal agriculture.

Infrastructural Issues

The committee notes that per capita consumption of animal protein will be increasing more quickly in developing countries than in developed countries through 2050. Animal science research priorities have been proposed by stakeholders in high-income countries, with primarily U.S. Agency for International Development, World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, and nongovernmental organizations individually providing direction for developing countries. A program such as the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) demonstrates progress toward building better planning in agricultural development in developing countries, through the composite inclusion of social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.

In addition, for at least the last two decades, governments worldwide have been reducing their funding for infrastructure development and training for animal sciences research. Countries and international funding agencies should be encouraged to adapt an integrated agriculture research system to be part of a comprehensive and holistic approach to agriculture production. A system such as CAADP can be adapted for this purpose.

RECOMMENDATION 4-1: To sustainably meet increasing demands for animal protein in developing countries, stakeholders at the national level should be involved in establishing animal science research priorities (Section 4-1 in Chapter 4 ).

Technology Adoption

The committee finds that proven technologies and innovations that are improving food security, economics, and environmental sustainability in high-income countries are not being utilized by all developed or developing countries because in some cases they may not be logistically transferrable or in other ways unable to cross political boundaries. A key barrier to technological adoption is the lack of extension to smallholder farmers about how to utilize the novel technologies for sustainable and improved production as well as to articulate smallholder concerns and needs to the research community. Research objectives to meet the challenge of global food security and sustainability should focus on the transfer of existing knowledge and technology (adoption and, importantly, adaptation where needed) to nations and populations in need, a process that may benefit from improved technologies that meet the needs of multiple, local producers. Emphasis should be placed on extension of knowledge to women in developing nations.

RECOMMENDATION 4-5.2: Research devoted to understanding and overcoming the barriers to technology adoption in developed and developing countries needs to be conducted. Focus should be on the educational and communication role of local extension and advisory personnel toward successful adoption of the technology, with particular emphasis on the training of women (Section 4-5.2 in Chapter 4 ).

Zoonotic diseases account for 70 percent of emerging infectious diseases. The cost of the six major outbreaks that have occurred between 1997 and 2009 was $80 billion. During the last two decades, the greatest challenge facing animal health has been the lack of resources available to combat several emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. The current level of animal production in many developing countries cannot increase and be sustained without research into the incidence and epidemiology of disease and effective training to manage disease outbreaks, including technically reliable disease investigation and case findings. Infrastructure is lacking in developing countries to combat animal and zoonotic diseases, specifically a lack of disease specialists and diagnostic laboratory facilities that would include focus on the etiology of diseases. There is a lack of critical knowledge about zoonoses presence, prevalence, drivers, and impact. Recent advances in technology offer opportunities for improving the understanding of zoonoses epidemiology and control.

RECOMMENDATION 4-7.1: Research, education (e.g., training in biosecurity), and appropriate infrastructures should be enhanced in developing countries to alleviate the problems of animal diseases and zoonoses that result in enormous losses to animal health, animal producer livelihoods, national and regional economies, and human health (Section 4-7.1 in Chapter 4 ).

In addition to the recommendations presented in this chapter, the committee identified complementary priorities for research, research support, and infrastructure that can be found in Chapters 3 through 5 .

• Cite this Page Committee on Considerations for the Future of Animal Science Research; Science and Technology for Sustainability Program; Policy and Global Affairs; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Division on Earth and Life Sciences; National Research Council. Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015 Mar 31. 6, Recommendations.
• PDF version of this title (4.1M)

In this Page

Recent activity.

• Recommendations - Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and ... Recommendations - Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content

M.S. in Animal Science

The Master of Science program in the Department of Animal Science offers preparation for a future in teaching, research, extension, livestock and dairy production, and in industries involving food technology, livestock products, and livestock management. The curriculum and individual student degree plan are designed to develop new understanding through research and creativity. Courses are selected by the student and his/her advisory committee to develop skills and expertise in specific academic areas to meet each student’s career objectives. Students conduct research, write a thesis on original research as directed by the student’s advisory committee and undergo a final examination. The student’s thesis seminar will be announced for public attendance prior to the final exam.

Program Details

• Degree: Master of Science in Animal Science
• Credit Hours: 32 total credit hours

Graduate Admissions

Texas A&M University is the premier choice to gain a graduate degree, thanks to our national academic ranking and high financial value. Joining the Aggie Family and gaining an advanced degree from Texas A&M puts students in the highest class of job candidates.

International Students

Official TOEFL scores are required for international applicants. Official scores must be sent by ETS directly to Texas A&M University using the school code: 6003. Visit the Graduate and Professional School website for a list of requirements, exemptions, and other useful information regarding the TOEFL/IELTS Exams.

Admissions Decisions

Students will receive an admissions decision either in a letter from the Texas A&M University Office of Admissions or from the department.

Scholarships and Financial Aid

By submitting an application through Texas A&M Scholarships and Financial Aid , students are reviewed for all the types of financial aid that they are eligible for. Remember: each student’s financial aid eligibility may vary. The types of financial aid students are offered are based on the data provided on their financial aid and/or scholarship application.

Carissa Beamon

Senior Academic Advisor

979-845-7616

[email protected]

Kleberg 114F

A member of Texas A&M AgriLife

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service | Texas A&M AgriLife Research | Texas A&M Forest Service | Texas A&M AgriLife Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab | College of Agriculture & Life Sciences

Loading metrics

Open Access

Essays articulate a specific perspective on a topic of broad interest to scientists.

See all article types »

A guide to open science practices for animal research

Contributed equally to this work with: Kai Diederich, Kathrin Schmitt

Affiliation German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), Berlin, Germany

* E-mail: [email protected]

• Kai Diederich, 
• Kathrin Schmitt, 
• Philipp Schwedhelm, 
• Bettina Bert, 
• Céline Heinl

Published: September 15, 2022

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810
• Reader Comments

Translational biomedical research relies on animal experiments and provides the underlying proof of practice for clinical trials, which places an increased duty of care on translational researchers to derive the maximum possible output from every experiment performed. The implementation of open science practices has the potential to initiate a change in research culture that could improve the transparency and quality of translational research in general, as well as increasing the audience and scientific reach of published research. However, open science has become a buzzword in the scientific community that can often miss mark when it comes to practical implementation. In this Essay, we provide a guide to open science practices that can be applied throughout the research process, from study design, through data collection and analysis, to publication and dissemination, to help scientists improve the transparency and quality of their work. As open science practices continue to evolve, we also provide an online toolbox of resources that we will update continually.

Citation: Diederich K, Schmitt K, Schwedhelm P, Bert B, Heinl C (2022) A guide to open science practices for animal research. PLoS Biol 20(9): e3001810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810

Copyright: © 2022 Diederich et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: All authors are employed at the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and part of the German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R) which developed and hosts animalstudyregistry.org , a preregistration platform for animal studies and animaltestinfo.de, a database for non-technical project summaries (NTS) of approved animal study protocols within Germany.

Abbreviations: CC, Creative Commons; CIRS-LAS, critical incident reporting system in laboratory animal science; COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease 2019; DOAJ, Directory of Open Access Journals; DOI, digital object identifier; EDA, Experimental Design Assistant; ELN, electronic laboratory notebook; EU, European Union; IMSR, International Mouse Strain Resource; JISC, Joint Information Systems Committee; LIMS, laboratory information management system; MGI, Mouse Genome Informatics; NC3Rs, National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research; NTS, non-technical summary; RRID, Research Resource Identifier

Introduction

Over the past decade, the quality of published scientific literature has been repeatedly called into question by the failure of large replication studies or meta-analyses to demonstrate sufficient translation from experimental research into clinical successes [ 1 – 5 ]. At the same time, the open science movement has gained more and more advocates across various research areas. By sharing all of the information collected during the research process with colleagues and with the public, scientists can improve collaborations within their field and increase the reproducibility and trustworthiness of their work [ 6 ]. Thus, the International Reproducibility Networks have called for more open research [ 7 ].

However, open science practices have not been adopted to the same degree in all research areas. In psychology, which was strongly affected by the so-called reproducibility crisis, the open science movement initiated real practical changes leading to a broad implementation of practices such as preregistration or sharing of data and material [ 8 – 10 ]. By contrast, biomedical research is still lagging behind. Open science might be of high value for research in general, but in translational biomedical research, it is an ethical obligation. It is the responsibility of the scientist to transparently share all data collected to ensure that clinical research can adequately evaluate the risks and benefits of a potential treatment. When Russell and Burch published “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique” in 1959, scientists started to implement their 3Rs principle to answer the ethical dilemma of animal welfare in the face of scientific progress [ 11 ]. By replacing animal experiments wherever possible, reducing the number of animals to a strict minimum, and refining the procedures where animals have still to be used, this ethical dilemma was addressed. However, in recent years, whether the 3Rs principle is sufficient to fully address ethical concerns about animal experiments has been questioned [ 12 ].

Most people tolerate the use of animals for scientific purposes only under the basic assumption that the knowledge gained will advance research in crucial areas. This implies that performed experiments are reported in a way that enables peers to benefit from the collected data. However, recent studies suggest that a large proportion of animal experiments are never actually published. For example, scientists working within the European Union (EU) have to write an animal study protocol for approval by the competent authorities of the respective country before performing an animal experiment [ 13 ]. In these protocols, scientists have to describe the planned study and justify every animal required for the project. By searching for publications resulting from approved animal study protocols from 2 German University Medical Centers, Wieschowski and colleagues found that only 53% of approved protocols led to a publication after 6 years [ 14 ]. Using a similar approach, Van der Naald and colleagues determined a publication rate of 60% at the Utrecht Medical Center [ 15 ]. In a follow-up survey, the respective researchers named so-called “negative” or null-hypothesis results as the main cause for not publishing outcomes [ 15 ]. The current scientific system is shaped by publishers, funders, and institutions and motivates scientists to publish novel, surprising, and positive results, revealing one of the many structural problems that the numerous efforts towards open science initiatives are targeting. Non-publication not only strongly contradicts ethical values, but also it compromises the quality of published literature by leading to overestimation of effect sizes [ 16 , 17 ]. Furthermore, publications of animal studies too often show poor reporting that strongly impairs the reproducibility, validity, and usefulness of the results [ 18 ]. Unfortunately, the idea that negative or equivocal findings can also contribute to the gain of scientific knowledge is frequently neglected.

So far, the scientific community using animals has shown limited resonance to the open science movement. Due to the strong controversy surrounding animal experiments, scientists have been reluctant to share information on the topic. Additionally, translational research is highly competitive and researchers tend to be secretive about their ideas until they are ready for publication or patent [ 19 , 20 ]. However, this missing openness could also point to a lack of knowledge and training on the many open science options that are available and suitable for animal research. Researchers have to be convinced of the benefits of open science practices, not only for science in general, but also for the individual researcher and each single animal. Yet, the key players in the research system are already starting to value open science practices. An increasing number of journals request open sharing of data, funders pay for open access publications and institutions consider open science practices in hiring decisions. Open science practices can improve the quality of work by enabling valuable scientific input from peers at the early stages of research projects. Furthermore, the extended communication that open science practices offer can draw attention to research and help to expand networks of collaborators and lead to new project opportunities or follow-up positions. Thus, open science practices can be a driver for careers in academia, particularly those of early career researchers.

Beyond these personal benefits, improving transparency in translational biomedical research can boost scientific progress in general. By bringing to light all the recorded research outputs that until now have remained hidden, the publication bias and the overestimation of effect sizes can be reduced [ 17 ]. Large-scale sharing of data can help to synthesize research outputs in preclinical research that will enable better decision-making for clinical research. Disclosing the whole research process will help to uncover systematic problems and support scientists in thoroughly planning their studies. In the long run, we predict that the implementation of open science practices will lead to the use of fewer animals in unintentionally repeated experiments that previously showed unreported negative results or in the establishment of methods by avoiding experimental dead ends that are often not published. More collaborations and sharing of materials and methods can further reduce the number of animal experiments used for the implementation of new techniques.

Open science can and should be implemented at each step of the research process ( Fig 1 ). A vast number of tools are already provided that were either directly conceptualized for animal research or can be adapted easily. In this Essay, we provide an overview of open science tools that improve transparency, reliability, and animal welfare in translational in vivo biomedical research by supporting scientists to clearly communicate their research and by supporting collaborative working. Table 1 lists the most prominent open science tools we discuss, together with their respective links. We have structured this Essay to guide you through which tools can be used at each stage of the research process, from planning and conducting experiments, through to analyzing data and communicating the results. However, many of these tools can be used at many different steps. Table 1 has been deposited on Zenodo and will be updated continuously [ 21 ].

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Application of open science practices at each step of the research process can maximize the impact of performed animal experiments. The implementation of these practices will lead to less time pressure at the end of a project. Due to the connection of most of these open science practices, spending more time in the planning phase and during the conduction of experiments will save time during the data analysis and publication of the study. Indeed, consulting reporting guidelines early on, preregistering a statistical plan, and writing down crucial experimental details in an electronic lab notebook, will strongly accelerate the writing of a manuscript. If protocols or even electronic lab notebooks were made public, just citing these would simplify the writing of publications. Similarly, if a data management plan is well designed before starting data collection, analyzing, and depositing data in a public repository, as is increasingly required, will be fast. NTS, non-technical summary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.g001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.t001

Planning the study

Transparent practices can be adopted at every stage of the research process. However, to ensure full effectivity, it is highly recommended to engage in detailed planning before the start of the experiment. This can prevent valuable time from being lost at the end of the study due to careless decisions being made at the beginning. Clarifying data management at the start of a project can help avoiding filing chaos that can be very time consuming to untangle. Keeping clear track of a project and study design will also help if new colleagues are included later on in the project or if entire project parts are handed over. In addition, all texts written on the rationale and hypothesis of the study or method descriptions, or design schemes created during the planning phase can be used in the final publications ( Fig 1 ). Similarly, information required for preregistration of animal studies or for reporting according to the ARRIVE guidelines are an extension of the details required for ethical approval [ 22 , 23 ]. Thus, the time burden within the planning phase is often overestimated. Furthermore, the thorough planning of experiments can avoid the unnecessary use of animals by preventing wrong avenues from being pursued.

Implementing open scientific practices at the beginning of a project does not mean that the idea and study plan must be shared immediately, but rather is critical for making the entire workflow transparent at the end of the project. However, optional early sharing of information can enable peers to give feedback on the study plan. Studies potentially benefit more from this a priori input than they would from the classical a posteriori peer-review process.

Most people perceive guidelines as advice that instructs on how to do something. However, it is sometimes useful to consider the term in its original meaning; “the line that guides us”. In this sense, following guidelines is not simply fulfilling a duty, but is a process that can help to design a sound research study and, as such, guidelines should be consulted at the planning stage of a project. The PREPARE guidelines are a list of important points that should be thought-out before starting a study involving animal experiments in order to reduce the waste of animals, promote alternatives, and increase the reproducibility of research and testing [ 24 ]. The PREPARE checklist helps to thoroughly plan a study and focuses on improving the communication and collaboration between all involved participants of the study (i.e., animal caretakers and scientists). Indeed, open science begins with the communication within a research facility. It is currently available in 33 languages and the responsible team from Norecopa, Norway’s 3R-center, takes requests for translations into further languages.

The UK Reproducibility Network has also published several guiding documents (primers) on important topics for open and reproducible science. These address issues such as data sharing [ 25 ], open access [ 26 ], open code and software [ 27 ], and preprints [ 28 ], as well as preregistration and registered reports [ 27 ]. Consultation of these primers is not only helpful in the relevant phases of the experiment but is also encouraged in the planning phase.

Although the ARRIVE guidelines are primarily a reporting guideline specifically designed for preparing a publication containing animal data, they can also support researchers when planning their experiments [ 22 , 23 ]. Going through the ARRIVE website, researchers will find tools and explanations that can support them in planning their experiments [ 29 ]. Consulting the ARRIVE checklist at the beginning of a project can help in deciding what details need to be documented during conduction of the experiments. This is particularly advisable, given that compliance to ARRIVE is still poor [ 18 ].

Experimental design

To maximize the validity of performed experiments and the knowledge gained, designing the study well is crucial. It is important that the chosen animal species reflects the investigated disease well and that basic characteristics of the animal, such as sex or age, are considered carefully [ 30 ]. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provides a collection of resources on the integration of sex and gender in biomedical research with animals, including tips and tools for researchers and reviewers [ 31 ]. Additionally, it is advisable to avoid unnecessary standardization of biological and environmental factors that can reduce the external validity of results [ 32 ]. Meticulous statistical planning can further optimize the use of animals. Free to use online tools for calculating sample sizes such as G*Power or the inVivo software package for R can further support animal researchers in designing their statistical plan [ 33 , 34 ]. Randomization for the allocation of groups can be supported with specific tools for scientists like Research Randomizer, but also by simple online random number generators [ 35 ]. Furthermore, it might be advisable when designing the study to incorporate pathological analyses into the experimental plan. Optimal planning of tissue collection, performance of pathological procedures according to accepted best practices, and use of optimal pathological analysis and reporting methods can add some extra knowledge that would otherwise be lost. This can improve the reproducibility and quality of translational biomedicine, especially, but not exclusively, in animal studies with morphological endpoints. In all animal studies, unexpected deaths in experimental animals can occur and be the cause of lost data or missed opportunities to identify health problems [ 36 , 37 ].

To support researchers in designing their animal research, the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) has also developed the Experimental Design Assistant (EDA) [ 38 , 39 ]. This online tool helps researchers to better structure in vivo research by creating detailed schemes of the study design. It provides feedback on the entered design, drawing researcher’s attention to crucial decisions in the project. The resulting schemes can be used to transparently share the study design by uploading it into a study preregistration, enclosing it in a grant application, or submitting it with a final manuscript. The EDA can be used for different study designs in diverse scenarios and helps to communicate researcher plans to others [ 40 ]. The EDA might be particularly of interest to clarify very complex study designs involving multiple experimental groups. Working with the EDA might appear rather complex in the beginning, but the NC3R provides regular webinars that can help to answer any questions that arise.

Preregistration

Preregistration is an effective tool to improve the quality and transparency of research. To preregister their work, scientists must determine crucial details of the study before starting any experiment. Changes occurring during a study can be outlined at the end. A preregistered study plan should include at least the hypothesis and determine all the parameters that are known in advance. A description of the planned study design and statistical analysis will enable reviewers and peers to better retrace the workflow. It can prevent the intentional use of the flexibility of analysis to reach p -values under a certain significance level (e.g., p-hacking or HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known)). With preregistration, scientists can also claim their idea at an early stage of their research with a citable individual identifier that labels the idea as their own. Some open preregistration platforms also provide a digital object identifier (DOI), which makes the registered study citable. Three public registries actively encourage the preregistration of animal studies conducted around the world: OSF registry, preclinicaltrials.eu, and animalstudyregistry.org [ 41 – 45 ]. Scientists can choose the registry according to their needs. Preregistering a study in a public registry supports scientists in planning their study and later to critically reevaluate their own work and assess its limitations and potentials.

As an alternative to public registries, researchers can also submit their study plan to one of hundreds of journals already publishing registered reports, including many journals open to animal research [ 8 ]. A submitted registered report passes 2 steps of peer review. In the first step, reviewers comment on the idea and the study design. After an “in-principle-acceptance,” researchers can conduct their study as planned. If the authors conduct the experiments as described in the accepted study protocol, the journal will publish the final study regardless of the outcome. This might be an attractive option, especially for early career researchers, as a manuscript is published at the beginning of a project with the guarantee of a future final publication.

The benefits of preregistration can already be observed in clinical research, where registration has been mandatory for most trials for more than 20 years. Preregistration in clinical research has helped to make known what has been tested and not just what worked and was published, and the implementation of trial registration has strongly reduced the number of publications reporting significant treatment effects [ 46 ]. In animal research, with its unrealistically high percentage of positive results, preregistration seems to be particularly worthwhile.

Research data management

To get the most out of performed animal experiments, effective sharing of data at the end of the study is essential. Sharing research data optimally is complex and needs to be prepared in advance. Thus, data management can be seen as one part of planning a study thoroughly. Many funders have recognized the value of the original research data and request a data management plan from applicants in advance [ 25 , 47 ]. Various freely available tools such as DMPTool or DMPonline already exist to design a research data management plan that complies to the requirements of different funders [ 48 , 49 ]. The data management plan defines the types of data collected and describes the handling and names responsible persons throughout the data lifecycle. This includes collecting the data, analyzing, archiving, and sharing it. Finally, a data management plan enables long-term access and the possibility for reuse by peers. Developing such a plan, whether it is required by funders or not, will later simplify the application of the FAIR data principle (see section on the FAIR data principle). The Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group from the Harvard Medical School developed a checklist to assist researchers in optimally managing their data throughout the data lifecycle [ 50 ]. Similarly, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) provides a great research data management toolkit including a checklist for researchers planning their project [ 51 ]. Consulting this checklist in the planning phase of a project can prevent common errors in research data management.

Non-technical project summary

One instrument specifically conceived to create transparency on animal research for the general public is the so-called non-technical project summary (NTS). All animal protocols approved within the EU must be accompanied by these comprehensible summaries. NTSs are intended to inform the public about ongoing animal experiments. They are anonymous and include information on the objectives and potential benefits of the project, the expected harm, the number of animals, the species, and a statement of compliance with the requirements of the 3Rs principle. However, beyond simply informing the public, NTSs can also be used for meta-research to help identify new research areas with an increased need for new 3R technologies [ 52 , 53 ]. NTSs become an excellent tool to appropriately communicate the scientific value of the approved protocol and for meta-scientists to generate added value by systematically analyzing theses summaries if they fulfill a minimum quality threshold [ 54 , 55 ]. In 2021, the EU launched the ALURES platform ( Table 1 ), where NTSs from all member states are published together, opening the opportunities for EU-wide meta-research. NTSs are, in contrast to other open science practices, mandatory in the EU. However, instead of thinking of them as an annoying duty, it might be worth thoroughly drafting the NTS to support the goals of more transparency towards the public, enabling an open dialogue and reducing extreme opinions.

Conducting the experiments

Once the experiments begin, documentation of all necessary details is essential to ensure the transparency of the workflow. This includes methodological details that are crucial for replicating experiments, but also failed attempts that could help peers to avoid experiments that do not work in the future. All information should be stored in such a way that it can be found easily and shared later. In this area, many new tools have emerged in recent years ( Table 1 ). These tools will not only make research transparent for colleagues, but also help to keep track of one’s own research and improve internal collaboration.

Electronic laboratory notebooks

Electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) are an important pillar of research data management and open science. ELNs facilitate the structured and harmonized documentation of the data generation workflow, ensure data integrity, and keep track of all modifications made to the original data based on an audit trail option. Moreover, ELNs simplify the sharing of data and support collaborations within and outside the research group. Methodological details and research data become searchable and traceable. There is an extensive amount of literature providing advice on the selection and the implementation process of an ELN depending on the specific needs and research area and its discussion would be beyond the scope of this Essay [ 56 – 58 ]. Some ELNs are connected to a laboratory information management system (LIMS) that provides an animal module supporting the tracking of animal details [ 59 ]. But as research involving animals is highly heterogeneous, this might not be the only decision point and we cannot recommend a specific ELN that is suitable for all animal research.

ELNs are already established in the pharmaceutical industry and their use is on the rise among academics as well. However, due to concerns around costs for licenses, data security, and loss of flexibility, many research institutions still fear the expenses that the introduction of such a system would incur [ 56 ]. Nevertheless, an increasing number of academic institutions are implementing ELNs and appreciating the associated benefits [ 60 ]. If your institution already has an ELN, it might be easiest to just use the option available in the research environment. If not, the Harvard Medical School provides an extensive and updated overview of various features of different ELNs that can support scientists in choosing the appropriate one for their research [ 61 ]. There are many commercial ELN products, which may be preferred when the administrative workload should be outsourced to a large extent. However, open-source products such as eLabFTW or open BIS provide a greater opportunity for customization to meet specific needs of individual research institutions [ 62 – 64 ]. A huge number of options are available depending on the resources and the features required. Some scientists might prefer generic note taking tools such as Evernote or just a simple Word document that offers infinite flexibility, but specific ELNs can further support good record keeping practice by providing immutability, automated backups, standardized methods, and protocols to follow. Clearly defining the specific requirements expected might help to choose an adequate system that would improve the quality of the record compared to classical paper laboratory notebooks.

Sharing protocols

Adequate sharing of methods in translational biomedical sciences is key to reproducibility. Several repositories exist that simplify the publication and exchange of protocols. Writing down methods at the end of the project bears the risk that crucial details might be missing [ 65 ]. On protocols.io, scientists can note all methodological details of a procedure, complete them with uploaded documents, and keep them for personal use or share them with collaborators [ 66 ]. Authors can also decide at any point in time to make their protocol public. Protocols published on protocols.io receive a DOI and become citable; they can be commented on by peers and adapted according to the needs of the individual researcher. Protocol.io files from established protocols can also be submitted together with some context and sample datasets to PLOS ONE , where it can be peer-reviewed and potentially published [ 67 , 68 ]. Depending on the affiliation of the researchers to academia or industry and on an internal or public sharing of files, protocols.io can be free of charge or come with costs. Other journals also encourage their authors to deposit their protocols in a freely accessible repository, such as protocol exchange from Nature portfolio [ 69 ]. Another option might be to separately submit a protocol that was validated by its use in an already published research article to an online and peer-reviewed journal specific for research protocols, such as Bio-Protocol. A multitude of journals, including eLife and Science already collaborate with Bio-Protocol and recommend authors to publish the method in Bio-Protocol [ 70 ]. Bio-Protocol has no submission fees and is freely available to all readers. Both protocols.io and Bio-Protocol allow the illustration of complex scientific methods by uploading videos to published protocols. In addition, protocols can be deposited in a general research repository such as the Open Science Framework (OSF repository) and referenced in appropriate publications.

Sharing critical incidents

Sharing critical or even adverse events that occur in the context of animal experimentation can help other scientists to avoid committing the same mistakes. The system of sharing critical incidents is already established in clinical practice and helps to improve medical care [ 71 , 72 ]. The online platform critical incident reporting system in laboratory animal science (CIRS-LAS) represents the first preclinical equivalent to these clinical systems [ 73 ]. With this web-based tool, critical incidents in animal research can be reported anonymously without registration. An expert panel helps to analyze the incident to encourage an open dialogue. Critical incident reporting is still very marginal in animal research and performed procedures are very variable. These factors make a systemic analysis and a targeted search of incidence difficult. However, it may be of special interest for methods that are broadly used in animal research such as anesthesia. Indeed, a broad feed of this system with data on errors occurring in standard procedures today could help avoid critical incidences in the future and refine animal experiments.

Sharing animals, organs, and tissue

When we think about open science, sharing results and data are often in focus. However, sharing material is also part of a collaborative and open research culture that could help to greatly reduce the number of experimental animals used. When an animal is killed to obtain specific tissue or organs, the remainder is mostly discarded. This may constitute a wasteful practice, as surplus tissue can be used by other researchers for different analyses. More animals are currently killed as surplus than are used in experiments, demonstrating the potential for sharing these animals [ 74 , 75 ].

Sharing information on generated surplus is therefore not only economical, but also an effective way to reduce the number of animals used for scientific purposes. The open-source software Anishare is a straightforward way for breeders of genetically modified lines to promote their surplus offspring or organs within an institution [ 76 ]. The database AniMatch ( Table 1 ) connects scientists within Europe who are offering tissue or organs with scientists seeking this material. Scientists already sharing animal organs can support this process by describing it in publications and making peers aware of this possibility [ 77 ]. Specialized research communities also allow sharing of animal tissue or animal-derived products worldwide that are typically used in these fields on a collaborative basis via the SEARCH-framework [ 78 , 79 ]. Depositing transgenic mice lines into one of several repositories for mouse strains can help to further minimize efforts in producing new transgenic lines and most importantly reduce the number of surplus animals by supporting the cryoconservation of mouse lines. The International Mouse Strain Resource (IMSR) can be used to help find an adequate repository or to help scientists seeking a specific transgenic line find a match [ 80 ].

Analyzing the data

Animal researchers have to handle increasingly complex data. Imaging, electrophysiological recording, or automated behavioral tracking, for example, produce huge datasets. Data can be shared as raw numerical output but also as images, videos, sounds, or other forms from which raw numerical data can be generated. As the heterogeneity and the complexity of research data increases, infinite possibilities for analysis emerge. Transparently reporting how the data were processed will enable peers to better interpret reported results. To get the most out of performed animal experiments, it is crucial to allow other scientists to replicate the analysis and adapt it to their research questions. It is therefore highly recommended to use formats and tools during the analysis that allow a straightforward exchange of code and data later on.

Transparent coding

The use of non-transparent analysis codes have led to a lack of reproducibility of results [ 81 ]. Sharing code is essential for complex analysis and enables other researchers to reproduce results and perform follow-up studies, and citable code gives credit for the development of new algorithms ( Table 1 ). Jupyter Notebooks are a convenient way to share data science pipelines that may use a variety of coding languages, including like Python, R or Matlab, and also share the results of analyses in the form of tables, diagrams, images, and videos. Notebooks contain source code and can be published or collaboratively shared on platforms like GitHub or GitLab, where version control of source code is implemented. The data-archiving tool Zenodo can be used to archive a repository on GitHub and create a DOI for the archive. Thereby contents become citable. Using free and open-source programming language like R or Python will increase the number of potential researchers that can work with the published code. Best practice for research software is to publish the source code with a license that allows modification and redistribution.

Choice of data visualization

Choosing the right format for the visualization of data can increase its accessibility to a broad scientific audience and enable peers to better judge the validity of the results. Studies based on animal research often work with very small sample sizes. Visualizing these data in histograms may lead to an overestimation of the outcomes. Choosing the right dot plots that makes all recorded points visible and at the same time focusses on the summary instead of the individual points can further improve the intuitive understanding of a result. If the sample size is too low, it might not be meaningful to visualize error bars. A variety of freely available tools already exists that can support scientists in creating the most appropriate graphs for their data [ 82 ]. In particular, when representing microscopy results or heat maps, it should be kept in mind that a large part of the population cannot perceive the classical red and green representation [ 83 ]. Opting for the color-blind safe color maps and checking images with free tools such as color oracle ( Table 1 ) can increase the accessibility of graphs. Multiple journals have already addressed flaws in data visualization and have introduced new policies that will accelerate the uptake of transparent representation of results.

Publication of all study outcomes

Open science practices have received much attention in the past few years when it comes to publication of the results. However, it is important to emphasize that although open science tools have their greatest impact at the end of the project, good study preparation and sharing of the study plan and data early on can greatly increase the transparency at the end.

The FAIR data principle

To maximize the impact and outcome of a study, and to make the best long-term use of data generated through animal experiments, researchers should publish all data collected during their research according to the FAIR data principle. That means the data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. The FAIR principle is thus an extension of open access publishing. Data should not only be published without paywalls or other access restrictions, but also in such a manner that they can be reused and further processed by others. For this, legal as well as technical requirements must be met by the data. To achieve this, the GoFAIR initiative has developed a set of principles that should be taken into account as early as at the data collection stage [ 49 , 84 ]. In addition to extensively described and machine-readable metadata, these principles include, for example, the application of globally persistent identifiers, the use of open file formats, and standardized communication protocols to ensure that humans and machines can easily download the data. A well-chosen repository to upload the data is then just the final step to publish FAIR data.

FAIR data can strongly increase the knowledge gained from performed animal experiments. Thus, the same data can be analyzed by different researchers and could be combined to obtain larger sample sizes, as already occurs in the neuroimaging community, which works with comparable datasets [ 85 ]. Furthermore, the sharing of data enables other researchers to analyze published datasets and estimate measurement reliabilities to optimize their own data collection [ 86 , 87 ]. This will help to improve the translation from animal research into clinics and simultaneously reduce the number of animal experiment in future.

Reporting guidelines

In preclinical research, the ARRIVE guidelines are the current state of the art when it comes to reporting data based on animal experiments [ 22 , 23 ]. The ARRIVE guidelines have been endorsed by more than 1,000 journals who ask that scientists comply with them when reporting their outcomes. Since the ARRIVE guidelines have not had the expected impact on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications, a more rigorous update has been developed to facilitate their application in practice (ARRIVE 2.0 [ 23 ]). We believe that the ARRIVE guidelines can be more effective if they are implemented at a very early stage of the project (see section on guidelines). Some more specialized reporting guidelines have also emerged for individual research fields that rely on animal studies, such as endodontology [ 88 ]. The equator network collects all guidelines and makes them easily findable with their search tool on their website ( Table 1 ). MERIDIAN also offers a 1-stop shop for all reporting guidelines involving the use of animals across all research sectors [ 89 ]. It is thus worth checking for new reporting guidelines before preparing a manuscript to maximize the transparency of described experiments.

Identifiers

Persistent identifiers for published work, authors, or resources are key for making public data findable by search engines and are thus a prerequisite for compliance to FAIR data principles. The most common identifier for publications will be a DOI, which makes the work citable. A DOI is a globally unique string assigned by the International DOI Foundation to identify content permanently and provide a persistent link to its location on the Internet. An ORCID ID is used as a personal persistent identifier and is recommendable to unmistakably identify an author ( Table 1 ). This will avoid confusions between authors with the same name or in the case of name changes or changes of affiliation. Research Resource Identifiers (RRID) are unique ID numbers that help to transparently report research resources. RRID also apply to animals to clearly identify the species used. RRID help avoid confusion between different names or changing names of genetic lines and, importantly, make them machine findable. The RRID Portal helps scientists find a specific RRID or create one if necessary ( Table 1 ). In the context of genetically altered animal lines, correct naming is key. The Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI) Database is the authoritative source of official names for mouse genes, alleles, and strains ([ 90 ]).

Preprint publication

Preprints have undergone unprecedented success, particularly during the height of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic when the need for rapid dissemination of scientific knowledge was critical. The publication process for scientific manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals usually requires a considerable amount of time, ranging from a few months to several years, mainly due to the lengthy review process and inefficient editorial procedures [ 91 , 92 ]. Preprints typically precede formal publication in scientific journals and, thus, do not go through a peer review process, thus, facilitating the prompt open dissemination of important scientific findings within the scientific community. However, submitted papers are usually screened and checked for plagiarism. Preprints are assigned a DOI so they can be cited. Once a preprint is published in a journal, its status is automatically updated on the preprint server. The preprint is linked to the publication via CrossRef and mentioned accordingly on the website of the respective preprint platform.

After initial skepticism, most publishers now allow papers to be posted on preprint servers prior to submission. An increasing number of journals even allow direct submission of a preprint to their peer review process. The US National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust, among other funders, also encourage prepublication and permit researchers to cite preprints in their grant applications. There are now numerous preprint repositories for different scientific disciplines. BioASAP provides a searchable database for preprint servers that can help in identifying the one that best matches an individual’s needs [ 93 ]. The most popular repository for animal research is bioRxiv, which is hosted by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory ( Table 1 ).

The early exchange of scientific results is particularly important for animal research. This acceleration of the publication process can help other scientists to adapt their research or could even prevent animal experiments if other scientists become aware that an experiment has already been done before starting their own. In addition, preprints can help to increase the visibility of research. Journal articles that have a corresponding preprint publication have higher citation and Altmetric counts than articles without preprint [ 94 ]. In addition, the publication of preprints can help to combat publication bias, which represents a major problem in animal research [ 16 ]. Since journals and readers prioritize cutting-edge studies with positive results over inconclusive or negative results, researchers are reluctant to invest time and money in a manuscript that is unlikely to be accepted in a high-impact journal.

In addition to the option of publishing as preprint, other alternative publication formats have recently been introduced to facilitate the publication of research results that are hard to publish in traditional peer-reviewed journals. These include micro publications, data repositories, data journals, publication platforms, and journals that focus on negative or inconclusive results. The tool fiddle can support scientists in choosing the right publication format [ 95 , 96 ].

Open access publication

Publishing open access is one of the most established open science strategies. In contrast to the FAIR data principle, the term open access publication refers usually to the publication of a manuscript on a platform that is accessible free of charge—in translational biomedical research, this is mostly in the form of a scientific journal article. Originally, publications accessible free of charge were the answer to the paywalls established by renowned publishing houses, which led to social inequalities within and outside the research system. In translational biomedical research, the ethical aspect of urgently needed transparency is another argument in favor of open access publication, as these studies will not only be findable, but also internationally readable.

There are different ways of open access publishing; the 2 main routes are gold open access and green open access. Numerous journals offer now gold open access. It refers to the immediate and fully accessible publication of an article. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) provides a complete and updated list for high-quality, open access, and peer-reviewed journals [ 97 ]. Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin offers a specific tool for biomedical open access journals that supports animal researchers to choose an appropriate journal [ 49 ]. In addition, the Sherpa Romeo platform is a straightforward way to identify publisher open access policies on a journal-by-journal basis, including information on preprints, but also on licensing of articles [ 51 ]. Hybrid open access refers to openly accessible articles in otherwise paywalled journals. By contrast, green open access refers to the publication of a manuscript or article in a repository that is mostly operated by institutions and/or universities. The publication can be exclusively on the repository or in combination with a publisher. In the quality-assured, global Directory of Open Access Repositories (openDOAR), scientists can find thousands of indexed open access repositories [ 49 ]. The publisher often sets an embargo during which the authors cannot make the publication available in the repository, which can restrict the combined model. It is worth mentioning that gold open access is usually more expensive for the authors, as they have to pay an article processing charge. However, the article’s outreach is usually much higher than the outreach of an article in a repository or available exclusively as subscription content [ 98 ]. Diamond open access refers to publications and publication platforms that can be read free of charge by anyone interested and for which no costs are incurred by the authors either. It is the simplest and fairest form of open access for all parties involved, as no one is prevented from participating in scientific discourse by payment barriers. For now, it is not as widespread as the other forms because publishers have to find alternative sources of revenue to cover their costs.

As social media and the researcher’s individual public outreach are becoming increasingly important, it should be remembered that the accessibility of a publication should not be confused with the licensing under which the publication is made available. In order to be able to share and reuse one’s own work in the future, we recommend looking for journals that allow publications under the Creative Commons licenses CC BY or CC BY-NC. This also allows the immediate combination of gold and green open access.

Creative commons licenses

Attributing Creative Commons (CC) licenses to scientific content can make research broadly available and clearly specifies the terms and conditions under which people can reuse and redistribute the intellectual property, namely publications and data, while giving the credit to whom it deserves [ 49 ]. As the laws on copyright vary from country to country and law texts are difficult to understand for outsiders, the CC licenses are designed to be easily understandable and are available in 41 languages. This way, users can easily avoid accidental misuse. The CC initiative developed a tool that enables researchers to find the license that best fits their interests [ 49 ]. Since the licenses are based on a modular concept ranging from relatively unrestricted licenses (CC BY, free to use, credit must be given) to more restricted licenses (CC BY-NC-ND, only free to share for non-commercial purposes, credit must be given), one can find an appropriate license even for the most sensitive content. Publishing under an open CC license will not only make the publication easy to access but can also help to increase its reach. It can stimulate other researchers and the interested public to share this article within their network and to make the best future use of it. Bear in mind that datasets published independently from an article may receive a different CC license. In terms of intellectual property, data are not protected in the same way as articles, which is why the CC initiative in the United Kingdom recommends publishing them under a CC0 (“no rights reserved”) license or the Public Domain Mark. This gives everybody the right to use the data freely. In an animal ethics sense, this is especially important in order to get the most out of data derived from animal experiments.

Data and code repositories

Sharing research data is essential to ensure reproducibility and to facilitate scientific progress. This is particularly true in animal research and the scientific community increasingly recognizes the value of sharing research data. However, even though there is increasing support for the sharing of data, researchers still perceive barriers when it comes to doing so in practice [ 99 – 101 ]. Many universities and research institutions have established research data repositories that provide continuous access to datasets in a trusted environment. Many of these data repositories are tied to specific research areas, geographic regions, or scientific institutions. Due to the growing number and overall heterogeneity of these repositories, it can be difficult for researchers, funding agencies, publishers, and academic institutions to identify appropriate repositories for storing and searching research data.

Recently, several web-based tools have been developed to help in the selection of a suitable repository. One example is Re3data, a global registry of research data repositories that includes repositories from various scientific disciplines. The extensive database can be searched by country, content (e.g., raw data, source code), and scientific discipline [ 49 ]. A similar tool to help find a data archive specific to the field is FAIRsharing, based at Oxford University [ 102 ]. If there is no appropriate subject-specific data repository or one seems unsuitable for the data, there are general data repositories, such as Open Science Framework, figshare, Dryad, or Zenodo. To ensure that data stored in a repository can be found, a DOI is assigned to the data. Choosing the right license for the deposited code and data ensures that authors get credit for their work.

Publication and connection of all outcomes

If scientists have used all available open science tools during the research process, then publishing and linking all outcomes represents the well-deserved harvest ( Fig 2 ). At the end of a research process, researchers will not just have 1 publication in a journal. Instead, they might have a preregistration, a preprint, a publication in a journal, a dataset, and a protocol. Connecting these outcomes in a way that enables other scientists to better assess the results that link these publications will be key. There are many examples of good open science practices in laboratory animal science, but we want to highlight one of them to show how this could be achieved. Blenkuš and colleagues investigated how mild stress-induced hyperthermia can be assessed non-invasively by thermography in mice [ 103 ]. The study was preregistered with animalstudyregistry.org , which is referred to in their publication [ 104 ]. A deviation from the originally preregistered hypothesis was explained in the manuscript and the supplementary material was uploaded to figshare [ 105 ].

Application of open science practices can increase the reproducibility and visibility of a research project at the same time. By publishing different research outputs with more detailed information than can be included in a journal article, researchers enable peers to replicate their work. Reporting according to guidelines and using transparent visualization will further improve this reproducibility. The more research products that are generated, the more credit can be attributed. By communicating on social media or additionally publishing slides from delivered talks or posters, more attention can be raised. Additionally, publishing open access and making the work machine-findable makes it accessible to an even broader number of peers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.g002

It might also be helpful to provide all resources from a project in a single repository such as Open Science Framework, which also implements other, different tools that might have been used, like GitHub or protocols.io.

Communicating your research

Once all outcomes of the project are shared, it is time to address the targeted peers. Social media is an important instrument to connect research communities [ 106 ]. In particular, Twitter is an effective way to communicate research findings or related events to peers [ 107 ]. In addition, specialized platforms like ResearchGate can support the exchange of practical experiences ( Table 1 ). When all resources related to a project are kept in one place, sharing this link is a straightforward way to reach out to fellow scientists.

With the increasing number of publications, science communication has become more important in recent years. Transparent science that communicates openly with the public contributes to strengthening society’s trust in research.

Conclusions

Plenty of open science tools are already available and the number of tools is constantly growing. Translational biomedical researchers should seize this opportunity, as it could contribute to a significant improvement in the transparency of research and fulfil their ethical responsibility to maximize the impact of knowledge gained from animal experiments. Over and above this, open science practices also bear important direct benefits for the scientists themselves. Indeed, the implementation of these tools can increase the visibility of research and becomes increasingly important when applying for grants or in recruitment decisions. Already, more and more journals and funders require activities such as data sharing. Several institutions have established open science practices as evaluation criteria alongside publication lists, impact factor, and h-index for panels deciding on hiring or tenure [ 108 ]. For new adopters, it is not necessary to apply all available practices at once. Implementing single tools can be a safe approach to slowly improve the outreach and reproducibility of one’s own research. The more open science products that are generated, the more reproducible the work becomes, but also the more the visibility of a study increases ( Fig 2 ).

As other research fields, such as social sciences, are already a step ahead in the implementation of open science practices, translational biomedicine can profit from their experiences [ 109 ]. We should thus keep in mind that open science comes with some risks that should be minimized early on. Indeed, the more open science practices become incentivized, the more researchers could be tempted to get a transparency quality label that might not be justified. When a study is based on a bad hypothesis or poor statistical planning, this cannot be fixed by preregistration, as prediction alone is not sufficient to validate an interpretation [ 110 ]. Furthermore, a boom of data sharing could disconnect data collectors and analysts, bearing the risk that researchers performing the analysis lack understanding of the data. The publication of datasets could also promote a “parasitic” use of a researcher’s data and lead to scooping of outcomes [ 111 ]. Stakeholders could counteract such a risk by promoting collaboration instead of competition.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen an explosion of preprint publications. This unseen acceleration of science might be the adequate response to a pandemic; however, the speeding up science in combination with the “publish or perish” culture could come at the expense of the quality of the publication. Nevertheless, a meta-analysis comparing the quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles showed that the quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is at most slightly lower on average compared to peer-reviewed articles [ 112 ]. Additionally, preprints and social media have shown during this pandemic that a premature and overconfident communication of research results can be overinterpreted by journalists and raise unfounded hopes or fears in patients and relatives [ 113 ]. By being honest and open about the scope and limitations of the study and choosing communication channels carefully, researchers can avoid misinterpretation. It should be noted, however, that by releasing all methodological details and data in research fields such as viral engineering, where a dual use cannot be excluded, open science could increase biosecurity risk. Implementing access-controlled repositories, application programming interfaces, and a biosecurity risk assessment in the planning phase (i.e., by preregistration) could mitigate this threat [ 114 ].

Publishing in open access journals often involves higher publication costs, which makes it more difficult for institutes and universities from low-income countries to publish there [ 115 ]. Equity has been identified as a key aim of open science [ 116 ]. It is vital, therefore, that existing structural inequities in the scientific system are not unintentionally reinforced by open science practices. Early career researchers have been the main drivers of the open science movement in other fields even though they are often in vulnerable positions due to short contracts and hierarchical and strongly networked research environments. Supporting these early career researchers in adopting open science tools could significantly advance this change in research culture [ 117 ]. However, early career researchers can already benefit by publishing registered reports or preprints that can provide a publication much faster than conventional journal publications. Communication in social media can help them establish a network enabling new collaborations or follow-up positions.

Even though open science comes with some risks, the benefits easily overweigh these caveats. If a change towards more transparency is accompanied by the implementation of open science in the teaching curricula of the universities, most of the risks can be minimized [ 118 ]. Interestingly, we have observed that open science tools and infrastructure that are specific to animal research seem to mostly come from Europe. This may be because of strict regulations within Europe for animal experiments or because of a strong research focus in laboratory animal science along with targeted research funding in this region. Whatever the reason might be, it demonstrates the important role of research policy in accelerating the development towards 3Rs and open science.

Overall, it seems inevitable that open science will eventually prevail in translational biomedical research. Scientists should not wait for the slow-moving incentive framework to change their research habits, but should take pioneering roles in adopting open science tools and working towards more collaboration, transparency, and reproducibility.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable input and comments from Sebastian Dunst, Daniel Butzke, and Nils Körber that have improved the content of this work.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 6. Cary Funk MH, Brian Kennedy, Courtney Johnson. Americans say open access to data and independent review inspire more trust in research findings. Pew Research Center Website: Pew Research Center; 2019. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/americans-say-open-access-to-data-and-independent-review-inspire-more-trust-in-research-findings/ .
• 7. International Reproducibility Networks. International Networks Statement UK Reproducibility Network Website: UK Reproducibility Network. 2021. Available from: https://cpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.bristol.ac.uk/dist/b/631/files/2021/09/International-Networks-Statement-v1.0.pdf .
• 13. Article 36 of Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 amended by Regilation (EU) 2019/1010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019. OJEU. 2010;L276:36.
• 19. American Association for Cancer Research. Editorial Policies. 2021. Available from: https://aacrjournals.org/content/authors/editorial-policies .
• 21. Diederich K, Schmitt K, Schwedhelm P, Bert B, Heinl C. Open Science Toolbox for Animal Research. Zenodo. 2022. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/6497560 .
• 29. NC3R. ARRIVE guidelines. NC3R Website. Available from: https://arriveguidelines.org/ .
• 31. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. How to integrate sex and gender into research. Website of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 21]. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50836.html .
• 33. Simon T, Bate RAC. InVivoStat. Available from: https://invivostat.co.uk/ .
• 35. Urbaniak G, Plous S. Research randomizer (version 4.0) [computer software]. 2013.
• 47. Medical Research Council’s. Data sharing policy. UK Research and Innovation Website 2021. Available from: https://www.ukri.org/publications/mrc-data-sharing-policy/ .
• 48. University of California Curation Center. DMPTool. 2021. Available from: https://dmptool.org/ .
• 49. Digital Curation Centre. DMPOnline. Available from: https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ . Digital Curation Centre; 2021.
• 50. Harvard Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group. Biomedical Data Lifecycle. Harvard Medical School Website: Harvard Medical School; 2021. Available from: https://datamanagement.hms.harvard.edu/about/what-research-data-management/biomedical-data-lifecycle .
• 51. Joint Information Systems Committee. Research data management toolkit JISC Website: JISC; 2018. Available from: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/rdm-toolkit .
• 54. German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R). NTPs—Nicht Technische Projektzusammenfassungen 3R-SMART; 2020. Available from: https://www.3r-smart.de/index.php?id=6895 .
• 55. Understanding Animal Research. Guide to writing non-technical summaries concordat on openness on animal research in the UK2018. Available from: https://concordatopenness.org.uk/guide-to-writing-non-technical-summaries .
• 56. Gerlach B, Untucht C, Stefan A. Electronic Lab Notebooks and Experimental Design Assistants. In: Bespalov A, Michel MC, Steckler T, editors. Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 257–75.
• 58. Adam BL, Birte L. ELN Guide: electronic laboratory notebooks in the context of research data management and good research practice–a guide for the life sciences. Cologne, Germany: ZB MED–Information Centre for Life Sciences; 2021.
• 59. AgileBio. LabCollector Website https://labcollector.com/labcollector-lims/features/modules/animals-module/2022 . Available from: https://labcollector.com/labcollector-lims/features/modules/animals-module/ .
• 61. Harvard Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group. Electronic Lab Notebook Comparison Matrix. Zenodo. 2021.
• 70. Bio-protocol. Collaborating Journals bio-protocol website2021. Available from: https://bio-protocol.org/default.aspx?dw=Collaborating .
• 76. Dinkel H. anishare: GitHub; [updated June 2018]. Available from: https://github.com/hdinkel/anishare .
• 89. O’Connor AM. MERIDIAN: Menagerie of Reporting guidelines Involving Animals. Iowa State University; 2022. Available from: https://meridian.cvm.iastate.edu/ .
• 90. The Jackson Laboratory. Mouse Nomenclature Home Page at the Mouse Genome Informatics website World Wide Web: The Jackson Laboratory,Bar Harbor, Maine. Available from: http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/index.shtml .
• 97. Directory of Open Access Journals. Find open access journals & articles. Available from: https://doaj.org/ . Directory of Open Access Journals, [DOAJ]; 2021.
• 98. Gold Open Access research has greater societal impact as used more outside of academia [press release]. Springer Nature Website: Springer. Nature. 2020;30:2020.
• 104. Franco NH. Can we use infrared thermography for assessing emotional states in mice?—A comparison between handling-induced stress by different techniques. Available from: animalstudyregistry.org . German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR); 2020. https://doi.org/10.17590/asr.0000224

National Geographic content straight to your inbox—sign up for our popular newsletters here

How do animals respond to eclipses? Help NASA find out.

A massive citizen science project will study how the animal kingdom reacts to April 8’s total solar eclipse. Here’s how and where to partake.

Tens of millions of sky-gazers are expected to watch the total solar eclipse above North America on April 8. Cheers, shrieks, and cries will welcome totality—the few fleeting minutes when day turns to haunting dusk. But humans won’t be the only species affected.  

The early onset of darkness disrupts animals’ circadian rhythms, sparking a possible chorus of owl hoots, cricket chirps, or even coyote calls, depending on the eclipse-viewing location. For centuries, biologists and spectators have shared stories about how animals respond to eclipses , yet few formal studies have tested this. NASA hopes to change that this year—and you could help.

Through the citizen-science project Eclipse Soundscapes , NASA is studying how these interstellar marvels impact the animal kingdom. Eclipse enthusiasts have a host of ways to participate : recording data, analyzing audio, or submitting their own multisensory observations, says Henry Trae Winter III, co-lead on the Eclipse Soundscapes project and chief scientist and co-founder of the ARISA Lab .

The project, inspired by a similar citizen-science study from the 1932 eclipse over New England, centers on how crickets respond to the event’s false dusk. These insects, which are largely dispersed across the U.S.’s path of totality from Texas to Maine , provide an ideal opportunity for widespread comparison. “If there’s something different in the south than the north, we can pull out why,” says Winter, noting they can analyze everything from temperature differences to eclipse duration (which will begin approximately 1:45 p.m. to about 4:30 p.m. EST) to analyze varying reactions. This intel could help scientists model how future weather events like storms could impact animals.

( 2024 will be huge for astrotourism—here’s how to plan your trip .)

While Eclipse Soundscapes focuses on crickets, which Winter says eclipse-chasers could hear any place that’s above 55 degrees Fahrenheit on eclipse day, the team’s massive data set—expected to be among the largest soundscapes recordings in history—will be free and open to the public.

To partake as an Eclipse Soundscapes observer, Winter suggests avoiding large-scale eclipse gatherings where crowd chatter will drown out critter sounds. Instead, eavesdrop on the animal kingdom via wild and more remote natural spaces—such as these five wildlife-packed getaways along April 8’s path of totality.

Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas

Arkansas ’ stretch of the 1.8-million-acre Ouachita National Forest , a mosaic of streams, peaks, rivers, and dense pine forests, brims with wildlife, including many species that could audibly respond to the area’s four minutes of totality. Listen for the barred owl, known for its “ who cooks for you ” call, or the long-eared owl, which often communicates via low hoots . Crickets will likely also join the eclipse symphony, as could the forest’s numerous bands of coyotes .

Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois

This swampy, 18,000-acre getaway in southern Illinois is known for its frogs , which experts say could get particularly noisy on eclipse day. Listen for bird-voiced tree frogs, southern leopard frogs, and bullfrogs, or watch for foxes and opossums , which could make unusual midday appearances. Travelers may enjoy these sounds throughout the park, but for a particularly unique totality seat, join Cache Bayou Outfitters’ solar-eclipse kayak trip .

Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio

Cuyahoga Valley National Park’s thick oak, hickory, and beech forests will see roughly 3.5 minutes of totality on April 8. These dusky skies could kick off a harmony of animal calls, from frogs and toads, which reappear here in the early spring months, to the barn, barred, or great horned owls. For a multisensory perch, hit the Beaver Marsh , a former trash heap turned biodiverse wetland habitat with numerous frogs, turtles, birds, and its namesake and nocturnal beavers—which scientists say could skitter out from their daytime abodes as the skies dim.

( It was a toxic wasteland. Now it’s a national park .)

Letchworth State Park, New York

Birds are among the most boisterous animals during solar eclipses . The darkness may stimulate their urge to roost, increase their activity levels, or alter their song patterns. Watch and listen to the avian eclipse responses from one of New York State’s best birding locales, Letchworth State Park , which will experience around three minutes of totality. This patchwork of soaring cliffs, maples and beeches, and thunderous waterfalls, known as the “Grand Canyon of the East,” is a state Bird Conservation Area , as well as an Audubon Important Bird Area . It’s home to dozens of avian species, including turkey vultures and great horned owls, as well as beavers and river otters, which may emerge during totality near the Genesee riverbanks.

Congress Avenue Bridge, Austin

For a unique eclipse-response experiment, head to Congress Avenue Bridge in Austin . From spring to late fall, this concrete link over Lady Bird Lake is home to an estimated 1.5 million Mexican free-tailed bats—the largest urban bat population in North America. Experts say the area’s nearly two minutes of totality’s darkness could see throngs of the winged mammals swooping out to the east for their feasts.

( Bats are the real superheroes of the animal world. Here's why .)

Related Topics

• CITIZEN SCIENCE
• SOLAR ECLIPSES
• ANIMAL BEHAVIOR
• EDUCATIONAL TRAVEL

You May Also Like

Surprising ways animals react to solar eclipses

Will bats fly during the solar eclipse? We’re about to find out.

Free bonus issue.

A total solar eclipse is coming. Here's how to photograph it.

What is a solar eclipse—and when is the next one?

20 of the coolest travel adventures for 2024

How to watch a solar eclipse safely

9 spectacular night sky events to see in 2024

• History & Culture
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Site Search

• About ARPA-E
• Team Directory
• ARPA-E History
• Annual Reports
• Budget Requests
• Apply For Funding
• Authorization
• View Active Programs
• Search Our Programs
• Search Individual Projects
• Interactive Project Map
• Exploratory Topics
• The SCALEUP Program
• OPEN Programs
• Project Guidance
• ARPA-E Technology-to-Market
• Technology Commercialization
• External Engagement Model
• Investor Updates
• ARPA-E News & Media
• Press Releases
• ARPA-E Disruptors
• Publications
• ARPA-E Events
• Energy Innovation Summit
• Careers at ARPA-E
• Job Opportunities
• Life at ARPA-E
• ARPA-E FAQs
• General Questions
• Current Funding Opportunities
• Closed Funding Opportunities

Meet the Program Director: Dr. Charles Werth

Dr. Charles Werth is a new ARPA-E Program Director. His research prior to joining ARPA-E focused on the intersection of mass transport, fluid flow, interfacial and geo-chemistry, redox reactions, microbial physiology, and material science for the development of sustainable water treatment, groundwater remediation, and geological carbon sequestration technologies.

What brought you to ARPA-E?

I came to ARPA-E because of the opportunity to help advance early-stage technologies that address water-energy challenges. I’ve worked on research related to water supply and treatment for most of my career, and I have a strong interest in how water impacts energy use and vice versa. As an academic, however, I was more focused on fundamental research than technology development and commercialization. ARPA-E presents an entirely new challenge and opportunity to think about moving research to the next level, and to have a more direct impact on water-energy challenges. I think addressing these challenges is particularly important because many cities in the U.S. are struggling to provide clean water economically. Also, we expect energy demands for water supply and treatment to grow with increasing water scarcity as we treat and use increasingly compromised or distant water sources. Additionally, I came to ARPA-E to learn about and contribute to the development of new technologies for other energy challenges, including carbon sequestration and subsurface resource recovery. 

Tell us about your background.

I received my graduate training in environmental engineering, focusing on physical and chemical processes that affect the reactive transport of pollutants in groundwater. After graduating, I entered academia, and have been a professor for the past 27 years, first at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and since 2014 at the University of Texas at Austin. My interests have expanded since graduate school, and I’ve guided interdisciplinary research projects that focus on sustainable water treatment, groundwater remediation, and geological carbon sequestration. Most of my research has been funded by federal agencies, including the DOE, DOD, NSF, EPA, and USGS. I’ve advised 27 Ph.D. students who graduated and went on to careers in academia, industry, and consulting. I’ve served on a number of review and advisory panels. Among them, I served on the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board from 2014-2017, where I enjoyed contributing to addressing environmental challenges at the intersection of science and policy. I also served as a Chief Editor for the Journal of Contaminant Hydrology from 2014-2023, where I enjoyed helping to expand the journal scope and broadening my exposure to great research.

How does your past work drive your current work supporting ARPA-E’s mission of developing entirely new ways to generate, store, and use energy?

In my prior work on water and wastewater treatment, I learned that energy represents a large fraction of treatment costs, and that wastewater contains many valuable materials that we remove during treatment for disposal. This drives my efforts to develop a new program area on innovative technologies to recover high energy-value materials from wastewater. In my prior work on geological carbon sequestration, I learned about mechanisms that affect the flow, transport, and reaction of various fluids in deep subsurface formations, including CO 2 , hydrocarbons, and hydrogen. This motivates and informs my efforts to contribute to programs in carbon capture, storage, and subsurface resource recovery.

What’s it been like to work at ARPA-E now that you’ve got a few months under your belt to reflect?

Working at ARPA-E has been great. My colleagues are engaged, smart, and supportive. They have very different backgrounds, and I’m learning about so many new energy challenges and technologies from them. To build my first ARPA-E research program, I’ve been engaging with lots of different people. This includes engineers and scientists, as well as CEOs, CTOs, and Technology-to-Market experts. These engagements have broadened my perspective and knowledge of energy challenges and possible solutions and are helping me better understand the bottlenecks that can derail technology commercialization.

In what innovative ways would you like to explore carbon sequestration technologies and mitigating the environmental impacts of energy production?

Carbon sequestration technologies are advancing at an amazing pace. Last year, the DOE announced $1.2 billion for development of two commercial-scale direct air capture facilities. Despite these advancements, carbon sequestration technologies are still in their infancy. We need early-stage applied research to discover new materials and material properties that will enable us to more selectively sequester CO 2  from air and other mixed gas streams, and we need new and less energy-intensive processes to permanently store CO 2 . I look forward to working with my colleagues at ARPA-E to identify and support projects that target the most promising materials and processes to address these fundamental challenges.

What new program areas or technical whitespaces are you interested in exploring?

I’ve been working in water my entire adult life and am interested in substantially decreasing energy demands and carbon emissions associated with water supply and treatment. As I mentioned earlier, my first efforts at ARPA-E are focused on developing a new program on high energy-value materials recovery from wastewater, where wastewater is broadly defined to include municipal, animal, industry, and reverse osmosis concentrate sources. Two other areas I’m interested in are electrification of chemical oxidation technologies in water and wastewater treatment and using artificial intelligence for long-range water planning. The latter area would have broad implications for how municipalities and cities plan for future water resources and treatment, and could have immense energy implications when cities have to choose between pumping a cleaner source water from further away or treating a more compromised source water closer to home.