By Rachel Smith, CEO, Animal-Free Science Advocacy
Presented at ANZCCART Conference 2025
In an age of increasing public scrutiny and ethical accountability, how institutions respond to concerns about animal research matters more than ever. Yet, too often, those responses come in the form of “stock replies”—standardised, predictable, and often superficial formulaic answers that can leave the receiver feeling unheard and frustrated. At the 2025 ANZCCART Conference, I unpacked how these stock responses are hindering genuine dialogue and transparency—and what we can do to change that.
What Are Stock Responses?
A stock response is a standardised, superficial answer that avoids directly engaging with the concerns raised. While they may be legally or technically correct, these replies often lack the depth, compassion, or evidence needed to satisfy a curious or concerned public.
These responses are not inherently malicious—they are often driven by practical pressures like media deadlines, legal advice, or the desire to maintain consistency or manage risk. But their overuse can damage public trust and undermine institutional credibility.
Common Features of Stock Responses
Through real-world examples, AFSA highlighted several recurring features of stock replies in the context of animal research:
- Avoidance: Ignoring or sidestepping the actual question.
- Template language: Using cut-and-paste phrasing rather than tailored responses.
- Deflection: Pointing to regulatory frameworks instead of addressing ethical or scientific concerns.
- Minimisation: Downplaying harm or public concern
One particularly troubling feature is the emotional disconnection. Stock responses can feel cold and bureaucratic, failing to acknowledge the legitimate emotional and ethical weight of the concerns being raised.
Real-World Examples: Australia and Beyond
In Australia, parliamentary questions and official complaints about research practices research often receive replies focused on procedural compliance rather than scientific or ethical justification.
For example, when asked about banning the forced swim test in Victoria—after it was banned in NSW—the response focused on licensing processes and institutional Animal Ethics Committees (AECs), in addition to referencing cosmetic testing regulation, without engaging with the core question: Why is a widely discredited and distressing test still being used and will the Government ban it?
International examples echo this pattern. UK government responses surrounding the use of dogs in research cite regulatory excellence and defend the status quo rather than supplying the specific information requested.
Conversely, positive examples of informative responses were provided, from research institutions, funders and Government Ministers.
Why Are Stock Responses So Common?
There are multiple reasons institutions rely on stock replies:
- Administrative efficiency: Standardised answers save time.
- Risk management: Carefully worded responses reduce legal liability.
- Consistency: Ensures alignment across departments or public statements.
- Media constraints: Time-pressed journalists may only use a sentence or two.
Yet in the process, the opportunity for meaningful public engagement is lost. Worse, these responses can come across as dismissive or patronising—especially when directed at experts, advocates, or concerned citizens.
What Are the Consequences?
Stock responses, when used in place of real dialogue, can:
- Undermine public trust.
- Appear dismissive or robotic.
- Provoke ongoing correspondence or complaints.
- Fail to address the core issue or provide meaningful insights.
Ultimately, they can do more harm than good, by fuelling scepticism and making institutions appear secretive or uncaring.
What Should Be Done?
It’s time to move beyond the stock reply. Some recommendations are:
- Answer the question
- Provide evidence
- Acknowledge harm and concern
- Tailor responses to your audience
- Be honest if you don’t have the answer
Perhaps most importantly, institutions should embrace transparency not just as a compliance measure, but as a core value. Ethical research, by definition, requires public trust—and trust cannot be earned through canned replies.