.jpg)
Imagine a near future where humans could deeply understand what nonhuman animals are saying. A world where we could translate while whales coordinate their complex social lives or comprehend the busy communication among elephants in the wild. Once the realm of science fiction, studies using nonhuman animal communications technologies (NACTs) are today a dynamic scientific field. Just like artificial intelligence (AI) is being applied to translate human languages, leading scientific collectives like Project CETI (Cetacean Translation Initiative) are deploying cutting-edge ideas and tools from biology, AI, linguistics, robotics, and other fields to record, identify hidden patterns within, and uncover the fundamental elements of nonhuman animal communication, such as a whale phonetic alphabet.
The positive potential of NACTs is enormous. They could help to generate curiosity and empathy with nonhuman animals, as Roger and Katy Payne’s “Songs of the Humpback Whale” catalyzed a global movement 50 years ago. They could prevent human-wildlife conflicts and collisions by providing insight into nonhumans’ migration patterns, informing conservation and protection strategies, and helping researchers to better understand the impacts of human activity on wild nonhuman populations and ecosystems. NACTs could support legal battles for animal rights by providing evidence of nonhuman animals’ health, preferences, suffering, and social lives. They could even elevate and amplify nonhuman species voices, and perhaps our translations of their communication systems could be used in human legal decision-making processes. Picture a flourishing ecosystem restored based on what trained scientists “overheard” its inhabitants discussing, or a courtroom where messages of distress from whales about noise pollution that upends their highly auditory lives prompts changes to shipping routes.
But NACTs also pose serious threats to the well-being of nonhumans and the nature of human relationships with the more-than-human world. Past technologies offer cautionary tales. While cameras, drones, microphones, and hydrophones have been used to identify, understand, and protect nonhuman animals, they have also been used to track, exploit, harm, and experiment with them. Digital technologies and machine learning could exponentially increase the scale and speed of these harms. As NACTs attract more attention and funding, those risks may be compounded by pressures on actors in the field to accelerate data collection or monetize their findings.
As with AI and social media, the paucity of government rules or widely shared ethical and legal standards on NACTs has created a regulatory vacuum that needs to be urgently addressed. To help fill this gap, the More-Than-Human Life (MOTH) Program at NYU School of Law undertook a research project that will culminate in the publication of a proposed set of Legal & Ethical Principles for the Responsible Development of NACTs. Given the field’s novelty and interdisciplinarity, there are no ready-made standards that can be easily adapted and applied to NACTs. At present, no laws or principles govern the use of NACTs beyond oversight of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). Therefore, MOTH’s study included deep dives into and interviews with experts from a broad range of fields, including animal welfare, human and animal research ethics, environmental law, data governance, and artificial intelligence.
To discuss the resulting draft principles, MOTH partnered with Project CETI to convene a workshop with leading scientists and practitioners from those fields. Held at NYU School of Law in November 2024, the workshop yielded a plan of action that includes the publication of a MOTH report with the proposed principles. In the remainder of this article, we outline the key principles that the forthcoming MOTH report proposes.
The principles are built atop a foundation of certain core values. In line with animal rights (and, more broadly, more-than-human rights), the starting point is the assertion that nonhuman animals are subjects and not objects. Moreover, the principles take as a point of departure the need to prevent the use of technologies as a tool of dominion over nature; in other words, NACTs should be used to facilitate a sense of kinship with—not domination over—the more-than-human world.
From the foundation laid by these values, the draft principles proceed according to five pillars:
- procedural responsibilities to be honored throughout the lifeycle of NACTs;
- interests of the animal, or the robust incorporation and prioritization of nonhuman animal interests in decision-making regarding NACTs;
- prevention of the risks and harms associated with the use of NACTs;
- implementation of these principles in NACT processes; and;
- the remediation of harms.
These five pillars are meant to establish an integrated framework which addresses the risks raised by NACTs to nonhuman animals as well as human communities with longstanding relations with them. The framework proposes 18 principles in all, organized according to the five pillars listed above. While each principle makes a contribution to the overall framework, here we focus on four in particular — the precautionary, best interests of the animal, autonomy, and data governance principles.
The precautionary principle, rooted in the 1992 Rio Declaration, backs preventative measures in response to foreseeable harms, even where scientific certainty may be lacking. As applied to NACTs, this principle calls for the anticipation and mitigation of direct and indirect harms arising from the use of NACTs. Ultimately, actors must refrain from using NACTs where there are threats of serious or irreversible harm to an individual nonhuman animal, a group of nonhuman animals, or an ecosystem. Stressing prevention over after-the-fact remediation, this principle may preclude the development of some NACTs entirely — but it will help to ensure that the NACTs which are developed promote inspiration and flourishing, not exploitation or regret.
Borrowed from the ‘best interests of the child’ standard in children’s rights law, the best interests of the animal principle provides that the wellbeing of nonhuman animals should be a foremost priority throughout the lifecycle of any NACT. Given the vulnerability of nonhuman animals and their relative inability to advocate for themselves, nonhuman animals’ physical, psychological, and communal interests must be carefully weighed before any NACT-related action is taken. NACT actors are required to map the full range of these nonhuman interests, considering independent expert knowledge, species- and population-specific needs, and both short-term and long-term effects. If a proposed course of conduct risks harm to these interests, the conduct should be modified or halted. Transparency in decision-making and ongoing monitoring are also critical to ensure the effective implementation of this principle.
The autonomy principle emphasizes that NACTs must not restrict nonhuman animals’ ability to direct their own lives, free from undue human interference, manipulation, or control. Consequently, this principle directs NACT actors to protect the dignity, wild sovereignty, and autonomy of nonhuman animals by premising NACT activities on voluntary nonhuman participation. Species-specific guidelines and behavioral observation protocols will help NACT actors determine when to cease activities where signs of coercion, unwillingness, or distress arise. Additionally, because a respect for privacy flows from a respect for autonomy, this principle requires that NACT actors prioritize the least intrusive means of data-gathering and observation possible.
In this vein, the framework’s data governance principle provides that NACT actors must proactively establish clear, robust, and protective data governance and security protocols to safeguard the privacy and wellbeing of nonhuman animal subjects. These protocols should safeguard data against misuse, including biopiracy and cyber-poaching, while also balancing the benefits of transparent and open data with risks of further exploitation. Additionally, this principle stresses respect for existing intellectual property rights, particularly those of Indigenous and traditional communities. Ultimately, decisions regarding data— like all NACT actions — should align with the best interests of the nonhuman animal, ensuring that data governance and use prioritizes their security, dignity, and wellbeing.
A Call for Collaboration
The proposed guardrails seek to provide guidance to shape conduct and decision-making and can be tailored to fit the specificities of different factual scenarios. They are intended for a wide range of stakeholders and are specifically applicable to those scientists, practitioners, engineers, designers, funders, and other actors involved in the design, construction, and deployment of NACTs. Their adoption and application, therefore, are collaborative endeavors. As noted, MOTH and Project CETI recently held a workshop with leading animal scientists and collectives who are developing and using NACTs to obtain feedback on these principles. The report outlining the principles will soon be published and will remain open for other NACT actors to endorse, adapt, or develop, in the hopes that the positive potential of NACTs are realized and the risks minimized.