02571nas a2200265   4500000000100000000000100001008003900002260001600041653001200057653000900069653002200078653001600100653001800116653001200134653001000146653001400156100002100170700002000191245007100211856007800282300001300360490000700373520191100380022001402291       0                             d  cDec 1, 202110aMonkeys10aPain10aParkinson Disease10aSkin tumors10aSocial policy10aSurveys10aSwine10aZebrafish1 aMichael W. Brunt1 aDaniel M. Weary00aPublic consultation in the evaluation of animal research protocols  uhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260114  ae02601140 v163 aOne response to calls for increased openness in animal research is to make protocols publicly accessible, but it is unclear what type of input the public would provide if given this opportunity. In this study we invited public responses to five different research projects, using non-technical summaries intended for lay audiences. Our aim was to assess the potential for this type of public consultation in protocol review, and a secondary aim was to better understand what types of animal research people are willing to accept and why. US participants (n = 1521) were asked (via an online survey) “Do you support the use of these (insert species) for this research”, and responded using a seven-point scale (1 = “No”, 4 = “Neutral”, and 7 = “Yes”). Participants were asked to explain the reasons for their choice; open-ended text responses were subjected to thematic analysis. Most participants (89.7%) provided clear comments, showing the potential of an online forum to elicit feedback. Four themes were prevalent in participant reasoning regarding their support for the proposed research: 1) impact on animals, 2) impact on humans, 3) scientific merit, and 4) availability of alternatives. Participant support for the proposed research varied but on average was close to neutral (mean ± SD: 4.5 ± 2.19) suggesting some ambivalence to this animal use. The protocol describing Parkinson’s research (on monkeys) was least supported (3.9 ± 2.17) and the transplant research (on pigs) was most supported (4.9 ± 2.02). These results indicate that public participants are sensitive to specifics of a protocol. We conclude that an online forum can provide meaningful public input on proposed animal research, offering research institutions the opportunity for improved transparency and the chance to reduce the risk that they engage in studies that are out of step with community values.  a1932-6203