Occupational stress,ethical conflicts,and job satisfaction in animal research environments in Korea

Abstract

German

Spanish

French

Professionals engaged in animal experimentation within laboratory animal facilities face a range of practical hardships, including emotional distress, professional stress, ethical conflicts, and work environment-related challenges. To address these issues, it is crucial to systematically identify the psychological and emotional burdens, as well as the specific stressors, experienced by individuals in this field. This study examines the ethical conflicts and compassion fatigue encountered by personnel working with laboratory animals in Korea. An online survey was conducted with 165 participants, including animal researchers (laboratory technicians, postdoctoral researchers, and graduate students), principal investigators, animal facility managers, and attending veterinarians. The results indicated that animal researchers experienced lower levels of stress and fewer ethical dilemmas than other occupational groups, including principal investigators, attending veterinarians, and animal facility managers. Female respondents reported a higher frequency of ethical dilemmas than male respondents, regardless of occupational role. Participants with less than six years of work experience reported fewer ethical dilemmas than those with longer tenure, suggesting that ethical sensitivity might increase with prolonged exposure to animal experimentation. Euthanasia and animal pain were identified as the primary sources of ethical stress. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that experiences of ethical dilemmas, years of employment, and occupational role were significantly associated with stress levels. These findings underscore the need for organizational-level interventions to mitigate ethical stress and promote a healthier research environment. Strengthening emotional resilience and supporting the overall well-being of personnel working with laboratory animals are essential goals of such efforts.

Keywords

Animal research compassion fatigue ethical conflicts job satisfaction occupational stress

Introduction

Personnel involved in animal experimentation within Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) facilities are exposed to a wide range of occupational stressors that span emotional, ethical, regulatory, physical, and social dimensions.^1,2 These challenges are compounded by the unique nature of their work, which often entails direct engagement with live animals under highly controlled scientific protocols. The resulting burden can significantly affect both their psychological well-being and professional performance.^1,3

One of the most salient stressors experienced by laboratory animal professionals is the ethical dilemma inherent in their work. Researchers frequently develop emotional bonds with laboratory animals, yet are required to perform procedures that cause distress, pain, or euthanasia. This ethical dissonance has been identified as a major contributor to compassion fatigue, a form of occupational stress characterized by emotional exhaustion and moral distress.⁴ Repetitive exposure to animal suffering, often in the absence of institutional support systems, can intensify emotional burnout.

In addition to ethical stress, researchers must adhere to complex legal and regulatory frameworks.^5,6 GLP standards mandate rigorous documentation and strict procedural compliance, placing considerable pressure on professionals to maintain legal and ethical accountability.^7,8 Any deviation from protocol could result in administrative or legal repercussions, contributing to chronic occupational stress.

The demanding physical and cognitive nature of animal experimentation also contributes to researcher fatigue. Precise, repetitive tasks require sustained attention and physical labor, particularly in the handling and care of animals. These factors are often exacerbated by understaffing and extended working hours, which diminish overall job satisfaction and increase the risk of burnout.¹ Moreover, the social stigma surrounding animal testing imposes an additional psychosocial burden. Researchers might be subjected to public scrutiny, criticism from animal rights organizations, or ethical disagreements with peers and family members.¹ These external pressures can further isolate individuals and heighten the moral weight of their professional responsibilities. Another significant source of stress involves the growing demand to reconcile scientific rigor with animal welfare. While alternative testing methods are being explored, they are not universally applicable, and researchers often face constraints in balancing research objectives with ethical obligations.

International literature has documented the psychological toll of such environments. Studies conducted among veterinarians and laboratory animal professionals have identified compassion fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and ethical stress as prevalent issues.^9–11 These findings have prompted calls for institutional interventions, including psychosocial support programs and improved welfare policies for both animals and research personnel.^3,12 In particular, potentially morally injurious events—situations where individuals feel that their actions violate deeply held moral beliefs—have been recognized as critical contributors to occupational stress. Evidence from veterinary medicine in the UK highlights high suicide rates and elevated PTSD symptoms linked to emotional exhaustion, moral distress, and excessive workloads.^13,14 Research has also shown that euthanasia-related responsibilities are a frequent source of moral conflict and emotional strain.¹⁵ During the pandemic, working condition changes to maintain essential animal care resulted in employees’ feelings of isolation and helplessness, which accelerated compassion fatigue, while workplace and supervisor intervention did not help.¹⁶

Despite the global relevance of these issues as described above, there is a dearth of empirical data on the psychological and occupational well-being of animal research professionals in Korea. Although approximately three million laboratory animals—mainly rodents—are used annually in Korea,^2,17 few studies have investigated the prevalence of compassion fatigue or occupational stress among researchers in domestic GLP facilities. Given the potential mental health risks and ethical burdens faced by this workforce, it is imperative to understand their lived experiences and stressors more comprehensively.

The present study aims to address this gap by systematically investigating the occupational stress and compassion fatigue experienced by animal research professionals in Korean GLP facilities. We conducted a cross-sectional survey with optional free-text responses; a small number of written comments are presented to illustrate common stressors experienced across occupational groups. This study seeks to elucidate the complex psychological landscape of individuals engaged in laboratory animal research and to inform the development of targeted support mechanisms to improve their well-being and professional sustainability.

Methods

Study subjects

The study population comprised professionals actively engaged in animal experimentation-related occupations in the year 2024. Participants included animal researchers, principal investigators, animal facility managers, and attending veterinarians working in various institutional settings. Animal researchers included laboratory technicians, postdoctoral researchers, and graduate students. Principal investigators were defined as group leaders or project supervisors who design and oversee research programs but are not primarily engaged in hands-on animal procedures on a daily basis. It should be noted that while principal investigators primarily fulfill supervisory and administrative roles, some might occasionally engage in direct animal procedures. However, as their primary role is oversight and project management rather than routine hands-on experimentation, they were categorized separately from animal researchers in this study. This distinction was the basis for separating principal investigators from the animal researcher category. For the purpose of statistical analysis, principal investigators, attending veterinarians, and animal facility managers were grouped into a single ‘Others’ category, based on their shared supervisory or managerial roles and limited direct involvement in hands-on animal procedures. This grouping was determined a priori before data collection and analysis, and was not based on outcome data. A total of 200 individuals were invited to participate in the study who could verify their contacts, institution and positions, of whom 165 provided complete responses with consent form, yielding a response rate of 82.5%. Before data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Graduate School of Dentistry at Seoul National University (IRB No.: S-D20240027). All procedures were conducted by the approved protocol and researchers were unable to access what response a particular respondent had.

Survey methods

In this study, data were collected through an online questionnaire distributed via Google Forms. The questionnaire consisted of two parts: a standardized measure and a specialized section. The standardized section utilized the Korean version of the Professional Quality of Life Scale (K-ProQOL 5, 30 items; Supplemental material Table 1 online) to assess dimensions of professional well-being, including compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress.¹⁸ This instrument has demonstrated robust psychometric properties within the Korean context, including satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.89 for compassion satisfaction, 0.74 for burnout, and 0.80 for secondary traumatic stress), good test–retest reliability, and confirmed three-factor structure, while preserving the reliability and structural integrity of the original scale.¹⁸ The specialized section comprised custom-developed questions designed to capture compassion fatigue and context-specific stressors unique to animal research environments. The content validity of the specialized items was ensured through review by three professors in the field with more than 10 years of experience and pilot testing.

Assessment of work–life quality among animal researchers

Given the inherently high-stress nature of animal research environments, the K-ProQOL 5 was selected to comprehensively evaluate both adverse outcomes—namely, burnout and secondary traumatic stress—and positive dimensions such as job satisfaction.^4,19 Its use in this study enabled a nuanced understanding of occupational stress and emotional well-being among the target population.

This survey assesses three standardized subscales of the K-ProQOL 5 related to occupational well-being: specifically, Compassion satisfaction was evaluated by averaging items 3, 6, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, and 30; Burnout was evaluated by averaging items 1, 4, 8, 10, 15, 17, 19, 21, 26, and 29; and Secondary traumatic stress was evaluated by averaging items 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 23, 25, and 28 (Supplemental Table 1). All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (never—one point, rarely—two points, sometimes—three points, often—four points, and very often—five points).

Assessment of compassion fatigue

To assess compassion fatigue specific to professionals involved in animal research, an eight-item questionnaire was developed, drawing upon established PTSD and compassion fatigue scales validated in comparable occupational groups. The instrument incorporated a variety of question formats, including multiple-choice items rated on five-point Likert scales, open-ended questions, a dichotomous (Yes/No) item, and a multiple-response checklist. These items were designed to capture domain-specific emotional stressors, such as emotional attachment to laboratory animals, moral distress associated with euthanasia procedures, and the cumulative psychological burden resulting from prolonged caregiving responsibilities. Content validity was established through a structured review process involving three veterinarians and two occupational psychologists. Additionally, a pilot test was conducted with a sample of 20 animal researchers to ensure item clarity, contextual relevance, and overall comprehensibility before full-scale administration.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics, including frequency analyses, were used to examine the general characteristics of the study participants. Independent samples t-tests and one-way analysis of variance were conducted to explore differences in perceived job quality among professionals engaged in animal experimentation. Associations between reported stress levels and experiences of ethical dilemmas were analyzed using Chi-square tests. The analysis of the relationship between experiences of ethical dilemmas and stress levels was conducted using logistic regression analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), with the level of statistical significance set at 0.05.

Results

Demographic characteristics of participants

The study utilized an online survey via Google Forms, targeting professionals such as animal researchers, principal investigators, laboratory animal facility managers, and veterinarians, yielding 165 valid responses. Participants were mostly aged 20–49 years (69.1% in their 20s and 30s), with 61.9% male and 38.1% female. Over half held postgraduate degrees (58.2%) and 98.8% had at least a university education. Research/testing institutions were the primary workplace (64%), followed by universities (23%), with animal researchers accounting for 59.4%. Work experience was split, with 47.3% having ⩽ 5 years and 52.7% > 6 years. Years of employment were categorized as 0–5 years and six years or more, based on the natural distribution of the sample. This categorization was determined before statistical analysis and was not based on outcome data. Daily animal-related task time varied: 27.9% spent 3–6 h, 26% spent 1–3 h, and 15% spent > 6 h. Rats (42%) and mice (29%) were the most used experimental animals, together accounting for over 70% (Table 1).

Table 1.

General characteristics of study participants.

Characteristic	Number	%
Gender
Male	102	61.9
Female	63	38.1
Age group (years)
20–29	55	33.4
30–39	59	35.7
Over 40	51	30.9
Education level
High school	2	1.2
Undergraduate (university)	67	40.6
Postgraduate (Master, PhD)	96	58.2
Occupation
Animal researcher	98	59.4
Others	67	40.6
Institutions
University	38	23
Research/testing institution	106	64
Public/non-profit organization	9	5
Government department	4	2
Hospital	4	2
Private company/other	4	2
Time spent on animal experiments
Less than 1 h or upon request (intermittent)	41	24.85
1–3 h	43	26.06
3–6 h	46	27.88
6+ h	25	15.15
Not applicable	7	4.24
Had experience but currently not conducting animal experiments	3	1.82
Animals mainly used in experiments
Mouse	51	29.31
Rat	72	41.38
Rabbit, guinea pig, hamster	9	5.17
Farm animals	11	6.32
Dog	9	5.17
Other (e.g. fish, insects, etc.)	12	6.9
No animal handling	10	5.75
Years of employment
0–5	78	47.3
6+	87	52.7

Values are presented as numbers and percentages.

Assessment of job quality

Job satisfaction and stress levels were assessed by measuring three key components: Compassion satisfaction, Burnout, and Secondary traumatic stress. No statistically significant differences were observed across gender, occupation, or years of service. However, individuals aged 30–39 years exhibited relatively higher emotional burnout, and researchers aged 40 years and above reported higher compassion satisfaction. In addition, animal researchers showed slightly lower compassion satisfaction than support staff and managers (Table 2).

Table 2.

Burnout, Secondary traumatic stress, and Compassion satisfaction by general characteristics of the participants (N = 165).

Characteristics	Numbers	Burnout		Secondary traumatic stress		Compassion satisfaction
Characteristics	Numbers	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Gender^a
Male	102	24.61	4.96	23.53	6.51	34.18	7.74
Female	63	24.44	4.24	23.7	5.74	34.22	7.22
Test statistics (t/F. df), p		t(163) = 0.283, 0.77		t(163) = −0.179, 0.85		t(163) = −0.046, 0.96
Age group (years)^b
20–29	55	23.76	4.73	23.05	6.17	34.11	7.27
30–39	59	25.81	4.25	23.86	6.19	31.92	7.09
Over 40	51	24.02	4.83	23.84	6.33	36.9	7.37
Test statistics (t/F. df), p		F(2,162) = 0.658, 0.77		F(2,162) = 0.302, 0.73		F(2,162) = 0.783, 0.77
Occupation^a
Animal researcher	98	24.21	4.6	23.06	6.08	33.6	7.03
Others	67	25.1	4.75	24.36	6.34	35.04	8.07
Test statistics (t/F. df), p		t(163) = 1.204, 0.23		t(163) = 1.322, 0.18		t(163) = 1.218, 0.22
Years of employment^a
0–5	78	24.24	4.62	23.28	6.38	33.63	7.57
6+	87	24.87	4.72	23.86	6.06	34.69	7.4
Test statistics (t/F. df), p		t(163) = −0.864, 0.38		t(163) = −0.598, 0.55		t(163) = −0.909, 0.36

Statistically significant at p < 0.05.

Values are presented as the mean ± the standard deviation.

By independent t-test.

By one-way analysis of variance test.

Customized survey evaluation for animal researcher

Stress levels experiences and resolution methods

The study found that animal researchers experienced less stress (33.7%) compared with other workers such as principal investigators, attending veterinarians, and animal facility managers (53.7%, p = 0.008). The main stressors were compassion stress from euthanasia and animal pain (31.8%), necropsy (12.5%), management itself (9.1%), and staff shortages (8.0%). For stress relief, exercise and physical activities (27.6%) followed by “open and honest conversations” (25.1%) and “alcohol consumption and smoking” (18.7%). Notably, none of the respondents reported seeking help from professional counselors (Table 3).

Table 3.

Experience of suffering, stress factors, and coping strategies among the participants.

Variables		Experience of suffering and stress				p
Variables		No stress or suffering		Experiencing stress or suffering		p
		Number	%	Number	%
Gender						0.393
	Male	58	56.9	44	43.1
	Female	38	60.3	25	39.7
Age group (years)						0.581
	20-29	35	63.6	20	36.4
	30-39	32	54.2	27	45.8
	Over 40	29	56.9	22	43.1
Occupation						0.008
	Animal researcher	65	66.3	33	33.7
	Others	31	46.3	36	53.7
Years of employment						0.252
	0-5	48	61.5	30	38.5
	Over 6	48	55.2	39	44.8
Type of stress					Number of responses	%
Euthanasia and observing animal reactions and pain (compassion stress)					28	31.8
Necropsy					11	12.5
General management of laboratory animals and animal facilities					8	9.09
Staff shortages and weekend work					7	7.95
Experimental procedures and processes					6	6.81
Fur, animal dander (including allergies), and microbial contamination					5	5.68
Direct and indirect threats from animals (behavior, noise, escape, etc.)					5	5.68
Errors in experimental design or failure to obtain results					3	3.41
Collaboration with others					2	2.27
Pressure from supervisors					2	2.27
Administrative procedures including animal protocol preparation					1	1.13
Lack of understanding from outsiders					1	1.13
None					9	10.23
Stress relief methods					Number of responses	%
Participation in mental health programs (mindfulness, meditation, etc.)					7	3.45
Exercise and physical activities					56	27.59
Religious activities					8	3.94
Travel and Hobby Activities					4	1.97
Alcohol and smoking					38	18.72
Caring for pets					16	7.88
Honest and open conversations					51	25.12
Emotional catharsis (crying, shouting, etc.)					4	1.97
Emotional eating					7	3.45
Rest (zoning out, sleeping, doing nothing, etc.)					5	2.46
Seeking help from a counselor					0	0
Other (just enduring, focusing on work)					2	0.99
No stress					5	2.46

Bold values denote statistical significance at p < 0.05.

Ethical dilemma experiences and resolution methods

The analysis showed significant differences in experiencing ethical dilemmas based on gender, occupation, and years of employment. Female respondents reported more ethical dilemmas (52.4%) than males (33.3%), and animal researchers experienced fewer dilemmas (33.7%) than others such as facility managers, attending veterinarians, and principal investigators (50.7%). Employees with less than six years of experience encountered fewer dilemmas (30.8%) than those with longer tenure (49.4%), indicating that ethical awareness might intensify with career longevity. For resolving dilemmas, consulting colleagues (36.7%) and searching literature (27.8%) were common strategies, but a notable proportion (34.4%) ignored the issues (Table 4).

Table 4.

Prevalence of ethical dilemma experiences and methods for resolution among the participants.

Variable		Experienced		Not experienced		p
Variable		Number	%	Number	%	p
Gender						0.012
	Male	34	33.3	68	66.7
	Female	33	52.4	30	47.6
Age group (years)						0.874
	20–29	21	38.2	34	61.8
	30–39	24	40.7	35	59.3
	Over 40	22	43.1	29	56.9
Occupation						0.021
	Animal researcher	33	33.7	65	66.3
	Others	34	50.7	33	49.3
Years of employment						0.011
	0–5	24	30.8	54	69.2
	>6	43	49.4	44	50.6
Methods for resolving ethical dilemmas					Number of responses	%
Consulting professors, seniors, and colleagues					33	36.7
Simply ignoring it					31	34.4
Searching related literature or the internet					25	27.8
Discussing with non-laboratory acquaintances					12	13.3
Other (including no solution)					4	3.75

Bold values denote statistical significance at p < 0.05.

Compassion fatigue by research animal species

The analysis revealed mice and rats as the most frequently reported source of compassion fatigue (30%), followed by dogs (27.5%) and non-human primates (15%). However, this finding should be interpreted in light of the fact that mice and rats were also the most commonly used species in our sample (rats 42%, mice 29%) and no statistical adjustment was made to account for species-specific frequency of use (Table 5).

Table 5.

Laboratory animals most associated with compassion fatigue.

Animal species	Number of responses	%
Mouse, rat	24	30
Dog	22	27.5
Primate	12	15
Guinea pig, rabbit	6	7.5
Mini pig	3	3.75
Bird	1	1.25
All animals	2	2.5
Other (including none or unknown)	10	12.5

Values are presented as number of responses and percentages.

Analyzing stress risk factors: a multivariate logistic regression

In this study, a logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the effects of ethical dilemma experience (0 = No, 1 = Yes) and control variables—gender (1 = male, 2 = female), age (1 = 20s, 2 = 30s, 3 = 40 years and above), occupation (1 = other workers, 2 = animal laboratory researchers), and years of employment (1 = 1–5 years, 2 = six years or more)—on the presence of stress (dependent variable: 1 = stress present, 0 = stress absent). The results indicated that individuals who experienced ethical dilemmas were approximately 1.99 times more likely to report stress compared with those who did not experience such dilemmas (B = 0.688, p = 0.049, odds ratio (OR) = 1.990), suggesting a significant association between ethical dilemma experience and elevated stress levels. Regarding years of employment, participants with 1–5 years were about 74% less likely to experience stress than those with six years or more (B = −1.337, p = 0.008, OR = 2.63), indicating that shorter years of employment is linked to relatively lower stress prevalence. In terms of occupation, other workers were approximately 2.33 times more likely to experience stress than animal laboratory researchers (B = 0.846, p = 0.029, OR = 2.33), highlighting occupational differences in stress exposure. Conversely, no statistically significant differences in stress were observed across gender and age groups (p > 0.05) (Table 6). These findings suggest that ethical dilemma experience, years of employment, and occupation are closely related to stress levels. In particular, they underscore the need for organizational psychological support targeting ethical dilemma situations, as well as tailored stress management programs for employees in early service periods and specific occupational groups.

Table 6.

Logistic regression analysis of the effect of ethical dilemma experience and control variables on stress levels.

Variable	B	SE	Wald χ²	df	p	OR	95% CI for OR
Ethical dilemma experience (yes vs no)	0.688	0.35	3.864	1	0.049	1.99	(1.003, 3.948)
Gender (male vs female)	0.175	0.353	0.246	1	0.62	1.192	(0.612, 2.321)
Age (20s vs 30s+)	0.039	0.597	0.004	1	0.947	1.04	(0.344, 3.139)
Age (20s vs 40s+)	0.34	0.437	0.605	1	0.437	1.405	(0.624, 3.160)
Years of employment (1–5 years vs 6+ years)	−1.337	0.506	6.993	1	0.008	2.63	(0.502, 3.315)
Occupation (other vs animal researcher)	0.846	0.388	4.742	1	0.029	2.33	(1.091, 4.974)

B = regression coefficient, SE = standard error of the coefficient, OR = odds ratio comparing the predictor group with the reference group. Reference groups are shown in parentheses in each variable label. Bold values denote statistical significance at p < 0.05. 95% CI for OR is calculated based on the standard error assuming normal approximation. Significant p-values (p < 0.05) indicate variables with statistically meaningful association with the dependent variable (stress presence).

CI: confidence interval

Discussion

Millions of laboratory animals are used every year for various research purposes, including high-risk experiments in Korea.²⁰ Personnel involved in animal experiments work with different species of animals depending on the purpose of the study, and in doing so, they often witness the pain and sacrifice of these animals. This exposure induces feelings of guilt and internal conflict, and even when they attempt to suppress their emotions, long-term emotional fatigue and stress accumulate, ultimately impacting job satisfaction negatively.^1,11 Many studies have reported that physical and mental symptoms such as high blood pressure, depression, suicidal thoughts, and substance abuse are higher than those of other occupations after performing euthanasia, including veterinarians.^21–24 However, various personalized support and coping strategies for animal facility managers and laboratory animal professionals have recently been proposed to alleviate such mental stress.^3,25 This is because the higher the quality of life of animal researchers through appropriate coping, the higher the long-term work rate and job satisfaction.²⁶

In the present study, individuals aged 30–39 years exhibited relatively higher emotional burnout, likely due to career-related pressures whereas the researchers aged 40 years and above reported higher compassion satisfaction, potentially due to reduced direct animal contact and increased job stability. Lower compassion satisfaction among animal researchers might be partly explained by the fact that a significant proportion consisted of graduate students or postdoctoral researchers with shorter work experience. Notably, as both shorter work experience and animal researcher status were independently associated with lower stress levels in our logistic regression analysis, the observed occupational differences in stress should be interpreted with caution, as they might partly reflect differences in career stage rather than occupational role per se. Ethical concerns and stress levels were influenced by experience, job roles, and gender, highlighting the need for targeted support strategies. Notably, the higher stress and suffering levels among support staff and managers—rather than researchers—might stem from the psychological demands of daily tasks in animal facility management, including animal care, veterinary duties, and other forms of experimental technical supports. These roles involve broader institutional responsibilities, including regulatory compliance and the overseeing of others’ procedures, which might impose greater cumulative stress. Furthermore, cultural factors specific to Korea, such as hierarchical workplace structures and limited institutional psychological support, might amplify these pressures among senior staff and managers. In addition, the mental health management among animal researchers currently remains at an individual level, without institutional support, and this highlights the need for institutional interventions to address compassion fatigue and improve mental health support.

We also found significant differences in experiencing ethical dilemmas based on gender, occupation, and years of employment. Interestingly, animal researchers experienced fewer dilemmas than others, such as facility managers, attending veterinarians and principal investigators. This suggests that animal facility managers, attending veterinarians, or long-term project supervisors who are continuously exposed to animal research environments face greater ethical conflicts than researchers focused on achieving specific experimental outcomes. For resolving dilemmas, a notable proportion ignored the issues, highlighting the need for structured ethical guidance. The most frequent source of compassion fatigue was rodents, the most commonly used laboratory animals. This suggests a strong correlation between the frequency/scale of animal use and the development of compassion fatigue among researchers. Researchers dealing with dogs or primates, which are relatively less frequently used in experiments than mice and rats, are thought to have very high compassion fatigue. It should be noted that no statistical adjustment was made to account for the frequency of use of each species. Therefore, the higher compassion fatigue reported for rodents might reflect their predominant use rather than a species-specific effect.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis of this study further clarified the relationship between key occupational factors and stress. Individuals who had experienced ethical dilemmas were approximately 1.99 times more likely to report stress compared with those without such experiences, suggesting that professional ethical conflicts can translate into substantial psychological burdens. Participants with 1–5 years of work experience had a 74% lower risk of stress than those with more than six years of experience, reflecting the relative stability of the early career stage, and possibly due to unfamiliarity with the emotional toll of the work. In addition, animal researchers showed 2.33 times lower stress risk compared with other occupational groups. This implies that most researchers understand the nature of their work before engaging in it. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution, as the lower stress among animal researchers might also reflect their shorter career duration rather than occupational role per se. High compassion fatigue often develops over time owing to chronic disillusionment and might also be linked to inadequate compensation for mentally demanding labor. Therefore, a detailed evaluation of labor intensity and proper compensation and staffing must be prioritized. These findings are consistent with prior research which has shown that ethical dilemmas tend to increase occupational stress,²⁷ that individuals in the early stages of their careers often show lower stress prevalence, potentially because they have not yet accumulated sufficient exposure to reach the threshold for clinically significant stress effects rather than demonstrating inherent resistance to stress,²⁸ and that stress levels can differ across professional groups.⁴ The results underscore the need for strengthened ethical support systems and proactive, preventive stress management programs for early-career personnel, given that stress accumulates over time and might reach clinically significant levels with prolonged exposure, and tailored interventions for specific occupational groups. However, as this study was limited to a single population, follow-up research including diverse professions and cultural contexts is necessary to enhance the generalizability of stress management strategies and inform practical interventions.

Although the written responses were not collected as part of a systematic qualitative analysis, one volunteer representative per occupational group provided written comments to illustrate common stressors. These remarks are presented for illustrative purposes only and should not be interpreted as representative of all individuals within each occupational group (Supplemental Table 2). They all mentioned education to alleviate the conflicts. Animal researchers, principal investigators, and animal facility managers emphasized strengthening education on animal ethics, whereas attending veterinarians emphasized training support on animal pain management for researchers. Respondents also mentioned the need for psychological support to manage emotional fatigue and ethical conflicts, and various measures for emotional well-being were suggested, such as laboratory animal memorial services or psychological counseling in most occupations. Customized education will contribute to enhancing job satisfaction and alleviating ethical conflicts.

As observed in this study, researchers experience the most stress from euthanasia, necropsy, and procedures that inflict pain. To address this, it is essential to ensure the proper use of anesthetics and analgesics and conduct thorough reviews of related protocols during the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee review process. Euthanasia and necropsy procedures may be associated with psychological stress, and efforts should be made to minimize unnecessary burden through appropriate training, support, and institutional practices. As found in earlier studies, those working closely with animals often suffer from grief similar to “pet loss” when animals they handle die.^{14,15,29–31} Therefore, such procedures could be performed by a minimum number of personnel in designated spaces, and institutionalization of these practices is necessary. While private services already exist for necropsy diagnostics, they should be more actively promoted and utilized. Similarly, euthanasia could be performed by specialized staff rather than the researcher who experimented. If institutions lack such resources, regional services could dispatch veterinarians or laboratory animal professionals could be sent to carry out these procedures. Government agencies could also provide public services of this nature to research institutions. A similar shift could be adopted for animal research in terms of role separation, just as fish and poultry were once slaughtered in public markets by sellers but are now processed by trained professionals in designated facilities. To achieve this, an adequate number of qualified professionals, such as attending veterinarians, must be allocated. While delegating euthanasia and necropsy to trained professionals might reduce psychological burden for individual researchers, it is acknowledged that this approach carries its own ethical considerations, including the risk of concentrating compassion fatigue in a single professional group and potentially diminishing the sense of ethical responsibility among animal researchers. Any such structural changes should therefore be implemented thoughtfully, with appropriate support systems for all personnel involved.

In Korea, although some preliminary studies have investigated the emotional and ethical stressors faced by animal experiment personnel,^2,17 there remains a lack of systematic research and supportive programs to address these issues. Before developing and implementing mental health programs, it is crucial to understand the situation of animal researchers and animal facility managers. Animal experimentation involves interaction between humans and animals and, as such, longstanding practices of using animals for ritual or economic purposes could be appropriately interpreted and applied within the context of laboratory animal uses.

A cross-cultural perspective could help contextualize these findings. Studies from the United States, Europe, China, and Japan consistently report compassion fatigue, ethical conflicts, and occupational stress among laboratory animal professionals.^10,11 However, the expression and management of these stressors appear to vary across cultural and institutional contexts. In Western settings, structured organizational supports such as counseling and well-being programs are more commonly reported,^3,25 whereas our findings suggest that such systems remain limited in Korea, where coping tends to rely on informal peer support or individual efforts. Cultural factors, including hierarchical workplace structures and low utilization of professional mental health services, might further shape these experiences. Similar patterns have been noted in other Asian contexts.¹¹ Overall, while the sources of stress might be shared globally, their management is influenced by sociocultural context, highlighting the need for culturally tailored interventions.

By applying coping strategies observed in other industries, such as livestock farming for food or leather production, several approaches can be considered to help manage the emotional distress experienced by animal research personnel. One strategy focuses on emotional relief through rituals—such as memorial services for laboratory animals—that offer workers opportunities for emotional purification and reinforce their sense of ethical responsibility, thereby reducing internal conflict and promoting emotional stability. Emotional management can also be supported by spatial separation, wherein locating animal facilities in isolated areas limits direct exposure to animal sacrifice and helps alleviate psychological burdens. In addition to these emotion-centered strategies, alleviating animal pain through the use of analgesics and sedatives addresses animal suffering directly. By reducing distressing responses in animals, this approach not only eases the ethical burden on personnel but also provides immediate emotional relief, ultimately enhancing job satisfaction and emotional well-being.

Among the coping strategies identified, emotional relief through rituals such as memorial services, seeking social support from colleagues, and the use of analgesics and sedatives to reduce animal suffering are considered the most ethically appropriate and constructive approaches. Spatial separation might also provide some psychological relief. In contrast, strategies that involve emotional detachment or objectification of animals are not recommended, as they might undermine ethical responsibility and are inconsistent with current animal welfare principles.

This study has several limitations. The targeted sampling approach, restricted to professionals with verified institutional affiliations, might limit the generalizability of the findings to all animal research personnel in Korea. The sample was also skewed toward individuals aged in their 20s–40s and those working in research-focused institutions, potentially underrepresenting other groups. In addition, the cross-sectional and self-reported nature of the survey limits causal interpretation and might introduce response bias. Finally, while the survey items were informed by prior literature and expert review, they might not have captured all relevant aspects of occupational stress across diverse animal research settings.

Several additional methodological limitations should be noted. The six-year cut-off used to categorize years of employment was based on the natural distribution of the sample rather than an established literature-based threshold, which might limit the comparability of findings with other studies. The qualitative component consisted of written responses from a single volunteer representative per occupational group and cannot be considered a systematic qualitative analysis; it is not possible to determine whether these comments reflect typical experiences or idiosyncratic perspectives. Additionally, the potential confounding effects of career stage and age on occupational stress were not fully controlled for in this study, as animal researchers were predominantly graduate students and postdoctoral researchers with shorter work experience. The observed differences in stress levels between occupational groups might therefore partly reflect differences in career stage rather than occupational role.

Future research should incorporate more robust qualitative methodology, employ stratified analyses or multivariate approaches to disentangle the effects of career stage and occupational role, and include diverse professional and cultural contexts to enhance the generalizability of findings.

In the Korean context, society’s perception of animals is rapidly evolving. Nonetheless, sacrificing animals in research is, to some extent, inevitable and legally, socially, and scientifically sanctioned. Thus, it is appropriate to support management of stress and guilts. While they might feel compassion fatigue from inflicting pain on animals, those unable to mentally endure such work typically do not enter this field in the first place. Supporting the mental health of animal researchers should not involve instilling guilt only to provide ways to relieve it. Rather, fostering pride in their contribution to human health and happiness as “frontline pioneers” would be a more rational approach. If there is social consensus to reduce animal experiments, then institutional reinforcement of alternative methods to animal experiments must follow.³² From a management perspective, all stakeholders should recognize that animal experiments are inherently high-cost. It would be ideal to establish a review and post-management system that evaluates whether animal experiments are necessary during project selection and, if so, ensures proper budgeting and justification. On a public level, opportunities should be provided for researchers and civil society to share perspectives on animal ethics. Government and institutions must prioritize these discussions as such dialogue contributes more to researchers’ mental health than any other measure.

Supplemental Material

sj-xlsx-1-lan-10.1177_00236772261443573 – Supplemental material for Occupational stress, ethical conflicts, and job satisfaction in animal research environments in Korea

Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-1-lan-10.1177_00236772261443573 for Occupational stress, ethical conflicts, and job satisfaction in animal research environments in Korea by Na Ahn, Eun-Jeong Kim, Vincent J. Shim, Jungjoon Ihm and Sangho Roh in Laboratory Animals

Supplemental Material

sj-xlsx-2-lan-10.1177_00236772261443573 – Supplemental material for Occupational stress, ethical conflicts, and job satisfaction in animal research environments in Korea

Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-2-lan-10.1177_00236772261443573 for Occupational stress, ethical conflicts, and job satisfaction in animal research environments in Korea by Na Ahn, Eun-Jeong Kim, Vincent J. Shim, Jungjoon Ihm and Sangho Roh in Laboratory Animals

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank those participating in the survey and interview for their contribution.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Korea Environment Corporation (Research grant to design a mental health program for animal researchers funded to Roh S).

Ethical considerations

Before data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Graduate School of Dentistry at Seoul National University (IRB No.: S-D20240027).

ORCID iD

Sangho Roh

Data availability statement

The only data presented in the report itself are on the attendees’ overall results and summary responses to the anonymous questionnaires. Any enquiries including individual questionnaire responses which might violate personal information should be directed to the corresponding author (sangho@snu.ac.kr).

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Murray

Bauer

Vilminot

, et al. Strengthening workplace well-being in research animal facilities. Front Vet Sci 2020; 24: 15–23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.57310

Min

. A pilot study on psychological stress in laboratory animal researchers. Asia Pac J Health Law Ethics 2016; 9: 133–159. https://doi.org/10.38046/apjhle.2016.9.3.005

Randall

Moody

Turner

. Mental wellbeing in laboratory animal professionals: A cross-sectional study of compassion fatigue, contributing factors, and coping mechanisms. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2021; 60: 54–63. https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-20-000039

LaFollette

Riley

Cloutier

, et al. Laboratory animal welfare meets human welfare: A cross-sectional study of professional quality of life, including compassion fatigue in laboratory animal personnel. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7: 114. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00114

Laboratory Animal Act and Enforcement Decree of the Act. The Korean Law Information Center, https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=70347&lang=EN (2025, accessed 9 December 2025).

Ministry of Government Legislation. Animal Protection Act and Enforcement Decree of the Animal Protection Act, https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawTwoView.do?hseq=50163 (2025, accessed 9 December 2025).

Ahn

Park

Ihm

, et al. Improvement plans on the operation of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee: Focusing on the case of Seoul National University. Lab Anim Res 2022; 38: 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42826-022-00137-0

Ahn

Park

Roh

. Use of laboratory animals and issues regarding the procurement of animals for research in Korea. Lab Anim Res 2023; 39: 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42826-023-00161-8

Newsome

Clemmons

Fitzhugh

, et al. Compassion fatigue, euthanasia stress, and their management in laboratory animal research. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2019; 58: 289–292. https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-18-000092

10.

Schlanser

Rabinowitz

Thompson-Iritani

. Compassion fatigue and satisfaction in US army laboratory animal medicine personnel. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2021; 60: 422–430. https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-20-000080

11.

O’Malley

Moody

Foster

, et al. Compassion fatigue and coping mechanisms of laboratory animal professionals from Europe, China, and Japan. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2022; 61: 634–643. https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-22-000078

12.

Pohl

Botscharow

Böckelmann

, et al. Stress and strain among veterinarians: A scoping review. Ir Vet J 2022; 75: 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13620-022-00220-x

13.

Bartram

Baldwin

. Veterinary surgeons and suicide: Influences, opportunities and research directions. Vet Rec 2008; 162: 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.162.2.36

14.

Williamson

Murphy

Greenberg

. Experiences and impact of moral injury in U.K. veterinary professional wellbeing. Eur J Psychotraumatol 2022; 13: 2051351. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2022.2051351

15.

Batchelor

CEM

McKeegan

DEF

. Survey of the frequency and perceived stressfulness of ethical dilemmas encountered in UK veterinary practice. Vet Rec 2012; 170: 19. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.10026

16.

Thurston

Chan

Burlingame

, et al. Compassion fatigue in laboratory animal personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2021; 60: 646–654. https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-21-00003

17.

Ahn

Park

Roh

. Mental stress of animal researchers and suggestions for relief. J Anim Reprod Biotechnol 2022; 37: 13–16. https://doi.org/10.12750/JARB.37.1.1

18.

Joo

Cho

Ahn

. Validation of the Korean version of Professional Quality of Life Scale 5(K-ProQOL 5) for mental health professional. CBT Korea 2016; 16: 269–298.

19.

Jensvold

. A preliminary assessment of compassion fatigue in chimpanzee caregivers. Animals 2022; 12: 3506. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani1224350

20.

Ahn

Roh

Park

. The status and issues of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Seoul National University: From its establishment to the present day. Exp Anim 2021; 70: 532–540. https://doi.org/10.1538/expanim.21-006

21.

Arluke

. Coping with euthanasia: A case study of shelter culture. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1991; 198: 1176–1180.

22.

Arluke

. Uneasiness among laboratory technicians. Occup Med 1999; 14: 305–316.

23.

White

Shawhan

. Emotional responses of animal shelter workers to euthanasia. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1996; 208: 846–849.

24.

Rohlf

Bennett

. Perpetration-induced traumatic stress in persons who euthanize nonhuman animals in surgeries, animal shelters, and laboratories. Soc Anim 2005; 13: 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853005492775

25.

Pavan

O’Quin

Roberts

, et al. Using a staff survey to customize burnout and compassion fatigue mitigation recommendations in a lab animal facility. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2020; 59: 139–147. https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-19-000080

26.

Young

Ferrara

Kelly

, et al. Professional quality of life in animal research personnel is linked to retention & job satisfaction: A mixed-methods cross-sectional survey on compassion fatigue in the USA. PLoS One 2024; 19: e0298744. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298744

27.

Plouffe

Nazarov

Forchuk

, et al. Impacts of morally distressing experiences on the mental health of Canadian health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur J Psychotraumatol 2021; 12: 1984667. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2021.1984667

28.

Halimi

Rowett

Whitfield

, et al. How early career pharmacists understand resilience – a qualitative study of experiences, challenges and strategies. Res Social Adm Pharm 2023; 19: 486–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2022.10.012

29.

Arluke

. Managing emotions in an animal shelter. In: Manning

Serpell

(eds) Animals and Human Society. London: Routledge, 1994, pp.145–165.

30.

Reeve

Rogelberg

Spitzmüller

, et al. The caring-killing paradox: Euthanasia-related strain among animal-shelter workers. J Appl Soc Psychol 2005; 35: 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02096.x

31.

Williamson

Murphy

Greenberg

. Veterinary professionals’ experiences of moral injury: A qualitative study. Vet Rec 2023; 192: e2181. https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.2181

32.

Hartung

. Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature 2009; 460: 208–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/460208a

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.01 MB

0.00 MB

0.01 MB