Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41908173›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2025

Creative pedagogic methods for self-guided embodied thinking and learning about animal research.

Emma Roe, Sarah J Bailey, Louise Mackenzie, Jordi L Tremoleda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wellcome open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emma RoeUniversity of Southampton School of Geography and Environmental Science, Southampton, England, SO17 1BJ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4674-2133
Sarah J BaileyUniversity of Bath Department of Life Sciences, Bath, England, BA2 8AY, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4492-8479
Louise MackenzieUniversity of Dundee Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design, Dundee, Scotland, DD1 4HN, UK.
Jordi L TremoledaQueen Mary University of London, Blizard Institute, London, England, E1 2AT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8846-9043

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A prevailing view suggests that with greater knowledge, the public might respond differently to opinion surveys. This paper examines animal research - a domain marked by ethical complexity - to explore how curiosity and creativity can be harnessed to engage people with conflicting values and emotions. Rather than focusing solely on knowledge acquisition, the paper conceptualizes and illustrates how embodied creative methods can enable the public and industry professionals to make, to co-create their own knowledges about animal research. Three critical observations of contemporary engagement efforts are offered. Firstly, while existing approaches have made notable strides in informing and educating the public, they rely on the active participation of self-selecting learners. Secondly, engagement efforts tend to emphasise defending the principles of animal research, often overlooking the diverse everyday practices that constitutes the industry. Thirdly, a didactic, mentalist communication style prevails, reinforcing a hierarchical dynamic between expert and non-expert participants. Embodied creative methods are proposed not as tools for data collection, but as means to explore experiences and knowledge-making practices in novel ways. The paper presents three examples of such engagements authored by an artist, a pharmacologist and a veterinarian including making artwork, and two workshop activities - The Mouse Exchange and Care-full stories. These initiatives sensitively surface the complexities of the human-animal relationship at the heart of animal research. The examples show how engagements centered on creative embodied methods foster curiosity and help overcome anxieties that inhibit engagement. Reflecting on these contributions prompts a consideration about whether such activities are adequately recognised within the current Concordat on Openness in Animal Research. The paper concludes by proposing a rewording to reflect a more evolved vision of openness in animal research for the decades ahead.

Indexed as

Animal research; curiosity; creative methodsConcordat on Openness; public engagement; embodied learning; arts

Identifiers

PMID41908173
PMCPMC13032104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.