Research ethics is often discussed as a set of checkboxes—IRB approvals, IACUC protocols, and data privacy forms. But during the University of Minnesota Research Ethics Week, the College of Veterinary Medicine’s (CVM) RIDE Seminar Series panel titled "Synergizing applied and basic science innovators in the research ecosystem" proved that ethical thinking is the heartbeat of scientific innovation.

Moderated by Caitlin Feiock, CVM assistant professor and manager of the Veterinary Clinical Investigation Center, the panel brought together three distinct perspectives to discuss how we study complex diseases across human, animal, and environmental boundaries:

• Alexandra Armstrong, CVM assistant professor, is a veterinary anatomic pathologist scientist focusing on animal models for pediatric orthopedic disorders.
• Susan Novotny, senior clinical scientist at Gillette Children's and assistant professor in the Medical School, studies congenital pediatric orthopedic conditions.
• Meggan Craft, professor in the College of Biological Sciences, studies infectious disease ecology, including SARS-CoV-2 dynamics in white-tailed deer.

One of the strongest threads of the wide-ranging conversation was the idea that good science is synonymous with reducing the burden on research subjects. For Novotny, who works with rare pediatric populations, this means avoiding the traditional "lone wolf" PI model by collaborating to reduce blind spots that might undermine a study’s design. It also means being strategic about every sample requested. Armstrong mirrored this sentiment from the veterinary perspective, emphasizing the imperative to maximize every single sample to ensure an animal’s contribution to science is never wasted.

In the wild, too, ethics dictates how we handle interaction with research subjects. Meggan Craft discussed the unique challenges of studying SARS-CoV-2 in free-ranging deer—animals that cannot "consent" but still require humane treatment. For Craft, the ethical choice is often found in non-invasive sampling and mathematical modeling to answer big questions without increasing the number of animals handled.

The panelists made it clear that their professional rigor is driven by their personal identities. For Novotny, being a "mom first and a scientist second" is a superpower. "I have a child with a disability," she shared. "I'm less likely to participate in studies that aren't well thought out for my own child. And so, I do say no to a lot of studies based on that." This lived experience allows her to advocate for designs that are easy for families to participate in rather than a burden. Armstrong and Craft echoed this sentiment, describing how their approach to their work is driven at a foundational level by their love for animals.

As the discussion shifted toward the "next frontier"—artificial intelligence—the ethical stakes shifted toward privacy and advocacy. While AI can process imaging like MRIs faster than a human, Novotny warned of the danger of "de-anonymization" for pediatric patients. "Is there a way you can guarantee that they can't tie this back to this child and use it against them in a way that we don't fully understand 10 or 30 years down the road?" she asked. "That's one of my number one things that I'm so concerned about when we talk about AI."

Ultimately, the panel concluded that in an era of increasing scrutiny regarding the necessity of animal models, the best defense against ethical erosion and public misunderstanding is radical transparency. Meggan Craft argued that researchers must become proactive advocates for their work, noting that an essential part of evolving science is “making the community more aware of the good we’re doing.” By grounding high-tech innovation in deeply personal empathy, these scientists are ensuring that the pursuit of discovery remains a collaborative, compassionate, and trusted endeavor.

Watch a recording of the panel below.