There is increasing evidence of the psychological impact of COVID-19 on various population groups, with concern particularly focused on young people’s mental health. However, few papers have engaged with the views of young people themselves. We present findings from a study into young people’s discussions on social media about the impact of COVID-19 on their mental health. Real-time, multi-platform online ethnography was used to collect social media posts by young people in the United Kingdom (UK), March 2020–March 2021, 1033 original posts and 13,860 associated comments were analysed thematically. Mental health difficulties that were described as arising from, or exacerbated by, school closures, lost opportunities or fraught family environments included depression, anxiety and suicidality. Yet, some also described improvements to their mental health, away from prior stressors, such as school. Young people also recounted anxiety at the ramifications of the virus on others. The complexities of the psychological impact of COVID-19 on young people, and how this impact is situated in their pre-existing social worlds, need recognising. Forging appropriate support necessitates looking beyond an individualised conceptualisation of young people’s mental health that sets this apart from broader societal concerns. Instead, both research and practice need to take a systemic approach, recognising young people’s societal belonging and social contexts. Throughout the pandemic there has been cross-sectoral concern about the short- and long-term psychological impact of COVID-19 and the societal measures put in place to curtail its spread. In the United Kingdom (UK) this included a series of local and national lockdowns between 2020 and 2021, as well as school closures, compulsory mask wearing, social distancing, isolation and quarantining. Whilst the psychological impact of the pandemic has been seen across society, COVID-19 has been argued to have particularly affected young people’s mental health , depressIn young people this mental health impact has been attributed to various causes, notably disrupted schooling, online teaching, and social isolation ,11. Yet,These contrasting findings point to “the need to now examine what accounts for variability in individuals’ mental health experiences during the pandemic” . UnderstCOVID-19 precipitated a widespread move to increased time online, whether for work or socialising. In the UK 97% of children aged 5–15 went online in 2020, an increase on 2019 ,17. ThisResearch has explored the link between frequent social media exposure during COVID-19 and anxiety, , with thThe aim of this research was to explore young people’s discussions on social media about the impact of COVID-19 on their mental health in the UK. We sought to investigate how young people described this impact online and analyse both their attributions of causality and their statements regarding support needs.Study One explored UK-based online discussions of the pandemic, tracking across the diverse conversations that developed on social media as events in the UK unfurled. Study Two was a focused exploration of relationships between the pandemic and online self-harm and suicide discussions.This paper draws on two real-time ethnographic studies conducted across a range of social media platforms during COVID-19 (2020–2021). Throughout both these studies, we were able to listen to a range of voices across demographic groups and at multiple temporal moments. This facilitated an engagement with the similarities and divergences between the experiences and needs of different groups of young people and at various timepoints during the pandemic.Underpinned by the interpretive qualitative framework of medical anthropology, which engages with the social, cultural and structural dimensions of a given phenomenon, online ethnography is a well-established method . It is aReddit, and Twitter. Online forums are spaces where people meet with each other and have, often in-depth, discussions; we focused on ones about mental health. Subreddits on Reddit are similar to these forums and comprise online communities with a shared interest in a given topic. Twitter posts, given their character limit, are shorter expressions. We collected 1033 original posts across these spaces, both textual and visual, and 13,860 associated comments between March 2020 and March 2021. To keep a contextual understanding of discussions, comments were never removed from the original post. Instead, threads of conversations were collected and analysed. Data collection was supplemented by ethnographic fieldnotes of observations and emerging analyses.Across the two studies, data for this analysis were collected in 23 online spaces by both authors; these included online forums, Study One was broad; our data collection responded to societal and political events around COVID-19 happening in real-time in the time in the UK, such as the instigation of lockdown or the mandating of mask wearing. Preliminary analysis of data showed that people were also contributing to discussions on such subjects by talking about the relationship between the pandemic and their mental health. Study Two built on these preliminary findings by conducting focused research into the relationship between COVID-19 and online self-harm and suicide discussions.The scope of Study One dataset, we systematically collated the key terms that were being used by young people in the conversations we had collected so far, both to describe how they were feeling and to denote causality. These first terms included, for example, ‘COVID’, ‘virus’, ‘lockdown’, ‘mental health’, ‘anxiety’ and ‘depression’, as well as broader, non-clinical terms, such as ’stressed’ and ‘lonely’. We then also collated the key terms related to the pandemic that was being linked to self-harm or suicidal feelings by young people in our Study Two dataset. This first combined list of key terms was then used to conduct focused data collection and analysis on the topic of young people’s mental health and COVID-19, which was situated within each of the two studies.In response to emerging data on young people’s mental health in our Reddit and Twitter). At this step and all subsequent ones in the process of data collection and analysis, only posts in which young people spoke about their mental health and explicitly linked this to COVID-19 were included. The inclusion criteria for posts were: written by young people; in English; centred on mental health; included mention of COVID-19 or COVID-19 restrictions; based in the UK.The first step was to re-input these search terms into social media . In the UK, 42% of 5- to 12-year-olds were found to use social media in 2021 . Yet, itWhilst the majority of data collected were textual, the dataset also included memes, photographs, emojis and gifs, which were used in both posts and comments. We included all these forms of expression within our data analysis. Emojis and gifs, for instance, can aid understanding of the emotional tone of a post and so their inclusion helped to contextualise posts and the meanings behind them. Both the multi-media nature of the data and the iterative relationship between data collection and analysis noted above required an adaptable analytic technique. Reflexive thematic analysis  was therTo increase the validity of the findings and reduce researcher bias, both researchers individually analysed the data and met regularly to discuss findings. Reflective diaries were also kept, in which both authors were able to consider any personal biases they may have had with regards to data collection and analysis, before then discussing these as a team. Throughout data collection we also continually analysed the ethnographic notes collected alongside the posts and comments that were gathered.Study One and Study Two received ethical approval from the University of Birmingham’s Science, Technology and Engineering Ethics Committee.Both Twitter, Reddit and forums where a log-in was not required. However, in addition to posts being public, it is vital to respect the anonymity, traceability and confidentiality of their authors. Therefore, there are no direct quotations or usernames in this paper. Any quotations presented are either common phrases that cannot be attributed or traceable to a single person or they are an amalgamation of more than one similar quotation. In presenting the findings in this way, we have not altered the terminology that young people themselves used to describe their mental health or attribute causality. In addition, this paper does not mention any specific search terms, other than the example keywords noted above in the overview of data collection, or any hashtags. These strategies for reporting data ethically were developed in consultation with an Advisory Group of young people with lived experiences of mental ill-health or distress.There are continual debates about what ‘public’ and ‘private’ mean in relation to social media data ,30. PublThis section presents four key themes: the virus: loss, fear and other people; isolation and life inside the home; education at a distance; and thinking about the future.“I’m scared about getting COVID”“I’m scared because I’ve tested positive for COVID”“I got COVID and now I’m panicking”In relation to the virus itself, young people primarily spoke of fear and being “anxious”. Across online spaces, statements, such as these elucidated this:“I keep getting anxious about my family and friends getting COVID”.However, this anxiety was less pronounced than that evidenced by young people’s discussions of seeing or hearing about how unwell others were. Many wrote about loved ones who had underlying health conditions for example, or who had already caught COVID-19, and they spoke of their fear of relatives becoming severely ill or “getting worse”. Across conversations, thus, young people described their anxiety at the threat posed to others’ health by COVID-19:Other young people described having experienced the loss of a loved one due to COVID-19, and explicitly linked both depression and suicidal ideation to this bereavement. Of particular note were accounts of loss at a distance, with descriptions of being “depressed” at having been unable to say goodbye to a dying relative due to COVID-19 restrictions. Our ethnographic fieldnotes from July 2020 noted that: “the grief is starkly apparent when we read stories related to not being able to see a loved one when they were in hospital either dying from COVID or another illness.”“What if I give COVID to my (elderly family member) and they die from it?”Frequent in conversations about the anxiety provoked by the virus itself were accounts of the fear of being the person who might transmit the virus to vulnerable relatives:Many responded to this fear of being a threat by writing, “I wear a mask for/because…” noting vulnerable relatives or friends.“Schools aren’t safe”.In the UK this fear was heightened by the reopening of schools post-lockdown when secondary school students turned to social media to write about being “stressed” and “crying all the time” because they felt schools were opening “too soon”. They wrote for example:These narratives were replete with fear at the anticipation of returning to school. But, tracking these discussions past school reopening also demonstrated how for some young people these fears grew once in school and how, again, they related to the health of others. Statements, such as “people in my class/school have COVID”, were followed by “I’ve been near (family member/friend) I’m worried I might give it them”.“Teachers and other students have COVID”.“People don’t wear masks correctly”.Young people, therefore, spoke about ensuring that they followed government guidance to reduce the spread of the virus and described how this alleviated some of their “anxiety” or fear. Alongside these conversations were those in which young people spoke about tensions between themselves and their family or friends, when the latter groups were not, for instance, wearing masks. They described feeling frustration towards those not working towards reducing infection spread.Across all these discussions, young people demonstrated both their affective responses to the virus itself, most notably fear and anxiety, and also how these were profoundly shaped by altruism and a situated concern for others; young people’s mental health during the pandemic was not only linked to concerns for their own health and wellbeing but embedded in their existing social worlds and networks.Lockdowns meant that the lives of UK young people moved into the home, causing physical isolation from friends. Conversations on social media throughout 2020 and into 2021 demonstrated the impact of this through frequent statements, such as “I miss my friends”. Young people described struggling to adapt to virtual socialising, a lack of face-to-face interaction and also the loss of friendships, with some writing that the loneliness they were experiencing was causing them to feel “depressed” and “suicidal”.“I am now stuck with them (my family) with nowhere to go”However, conversations also revealed stark differences in coping with isolation and these were often explicitly linked by young people to their home environment, family relationships and/or level of support. Posts described living in what some called “toxic environments” and cited tensions between themselves and their families:This sense of entrapment was clearly heightened when young people lived in fraught or abusive family environments, which were explicitly linked in these discussions to depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicidal thoughts.Ethnographic fieldnotes, May 2020: “Young people talk to each other about how they are “stuck” with the people who made them suicidal from before the pandemic. Isolation is causing increased exposure to the verbal abusive and aggressive interactions they experience at home.”These findings highlight that even early on in the pandemic young people were describing being “suicidal” due to being “trapped” and “stuck”. Such conversations were frequent into 2021 and intensified in each period of lockdown. Suicidality was also described as exacerbated by the closure of spaces to which young people had previously “escaped”, such as with friends.Against this background of difficult or dangerous home environments and/or increased isolation, many young people described experiencing a lack of support for their mental health during lockdown. Those whose mental health difficulties had preceded the pandemic recounted how access to school or community mental health services had decreased during isolation. They wrote of finding services overwhelmed when they tried to reach out. Many of those describing pre-existing mental health difficulties explicitly related reduced support with severe depressive episodes and suicidal thoughts, saying that they felt “disappointed”, “abandoned” or “had nowhere to turn”, all of which then exacerbated feelings of isolation, in a looping effect.In the UK, schools moved between online and offline learning, apart from vulnerable children and those of keyworkers. Throughout the pandemic, social media was replete with statements, such as “I hate online school”. But, against that wider background, young people who described having previously had mental health challenges, such as depression or anxiety, recounted going “back” to these after having previously recovered, and attributing this to online schooling.“I’ve not been this suicidal for years”“I’ve relapsed” (referring to self-harm)In turn, young people without a history of mental illness echoed these statements, describing how online education had caused them to experience “depression”, “anxiety” and “thoughts of suicide” for the first time.“School is expecting the same level of work despite COVID”.Young people, with and without pre-existing mental health conditions, described finding it challenging to engage with online lessons and self-directed study and yet widely felt that:Across conversations, school-related mental health difficulties were often focused on school performance and perceptions of “failing”. Many young people drew an explicit link between their grades and mental health, with poorer mental health and falling grades described as going hand in hand, with bi-directional causality. Many wrote that they had “no more motivation or energy” for studying and learning, which led to grades lowering and a trajectory from a “grade A star” student to “barely passing”. As such, the challenges posed by online schooling led many young people to turn to social media to describe “losing their grip” on both their school grades and mental health in tandem.For those young people with pre-existing mental health difficulties, some wrote that their “previously controlled depression and anxiety” had now returned because of this sense of failure. Struggling to pass assignments was described as causing them to feel “suicidal” or had led to self-harm relapses. Such affective challenges contributed to lowered motivation to work and engage with online teaching, and therefore, lower grades. Across both groups of young people, this cycle was described from the initial months of lockdown but worsened as the pandemic continued.“I don’t know about others but my suicidal thoughts have improved being away from school”.As noted above in relation to isolation, some young people described being “lonely” due to school closures. Yet, others felt their mental health had benefitted specifically from these:This was not an isolated experience, with conversations across platforms noting an improvement in mental health. Such posts were usually from young people who described a history of depression, anxiety, self-harm and/or suicide. They wrote about the advantages of being away from a space where they were “bullied” or surrounded by “cliques”. Therefore, they expressed fear at schools reopening.However, there was a further way in which school closures impacted mental health; they meant that young people missed experiences they had been looking forward to or working towards.Ethnographic fieldnotes, August 2020: “‘COVID stole prom/graduation away from me’: In the comments it’s clear that this is a shared experience, with people feeling that COVID had stolen different moments from each individual, the result, they write, is feeling depressed or suicidal, as something which they were looking forward to has been taken away.In addition to articulating the loss of events that had been imminent, such as proms, young people used social media to write of their hopelessness about the longer-term future. Across conversations this was linked with experiencing suicidal thoughts, depression and anxiety.Many young people discussed how prior to the pandemic they had imagined their lives would be better than they were now or that they now could be in the future. Linked to expressions of suicidality in particular, young people’s discussions of how they had thought they would leave school or university and get a flat, move out of their parents’ house, or have a job, were replete with articulations of fear that these would all be less viable during and after the pandemic. This worry about the future was something that many young people described continually thinking about.This sense of hopelessness, fear and “feeling anxious” increased as the pandemic unfurled, with discussions of the social and economic repercussions of COVID-19 becoming more frequent across social media platforms. Articulations of fear about how the economic consequences of COVID-19 would curtail future job prospects were clearly associated with descriptions of feeling “depressed” and, again, “suicidal”. These employment fears were mentioned by both university students and those at school. The latter also feared that lower grades due to online schooling would impact:Ethnographic fieldnotes, March 2021: “Across all the social media spaces we are exploring, young people are discussing the economy, predicting how many years it’ll be before it recovers. We’ve seen anything from a year to several decades. Secondary school children to graduates keep saying that there is no hope of ‘good’ jobs or working in the field they want because of a recession. ‘I might as well give up now’ is frequently echoed alongside thoughts of suicide.”Threading through these discussions were young people’s descriptions of how they had witnessed parents losing their jobs during the pandemic or experiencing reduced family finances; both compounded the hopelessness felt about their own employment prospects.This paper has highlighted the myriad ways in which the pandemic has impacted young people’s mental health, which they frequently described in ways that echoed diagnostic nosology. By applying terms like “depression” and “anxiety” to their experiences, young people across social media made an explicit causal link between COVID-19 and poor mental health, citing experiences of depression, anxiety, self-harm and, crucially, suicidality. However, social media also comprised discussions of how changes to young people’s social environments resulting from the pandemic had improved their mental health. Therefore, our findings align with recent research that has argued that COVID-19 control measures have had no singular or universal impact on individuals’ mental health ,32; the Throughout the pandemic, there have been concerns and growing evidence that school and university closures ,33 and sDisrupted education, in terms of both schools and universities, has also been cited as a cause of poorer mental health during the pandemic ,38. ThroSocial media conversations have also highlighted the urgent need to recognise that some young people fear catching COVID-19 from school or university and that the removal of infection control measures, such as masks caused some anxiety and fear. Our data indicated that young people have had differing levels of “health anxiety”,  during tYoung people have also experienced numerous forms of grief and loss due to COVID-19. With regards to bereavement, the dataset evidenced the combined grief of both losing someone and not being able to say goodbye due to restrictions in hospitals. Bereavement in adolescence is a known risk factor for depression , with paAdded to this complex grief is the collective grief that resonated through young people’s descriptions of how COVID-19 has “stolen” important events, such as graduation or prom. This sense of mourning the loss of life events tallies with other research  and was Concern has been raised about the potential impact of COVID-19 on suicide rates. However, to date in the UK, there is no evidence to suggest a rise in the number of completed suicides . There iAcross platforms and conversations, depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts were described in ways that showed them to be new experiences provoked by the pandemic for some young people, and also as previous difficulties that had recently returned for others. Whilst there were clear themes around causality, such as related to schooling, fear of giving the virus to others, and the long-term economic impact of COVID-19, the way in which each of these impacted a particular young person depended on their social context and support networks. For instance, poorer educational attainment through lowered grades during the pandemic caused some to feel anxious but others to feel suicidal. As such, online conversations about COVID-19 and mental health show the messy and entangled nature of causality and illustrate the multiple and cumulative causes of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts and self-harm. This finding aligns with Scott, McGowen and Visram  diary-baCrucially, young people’s narratives on social media have shown their mental health to be profoundly connected to the wellbeing of others. Many described experiencing depression at isolation, for example, whilst also understanding and supporting the need for virus control measures. In turn, whilst some discussed concerns about personally catching COVID-19, our data support Widnall et al.’s finding  that a sWhilst social media offers crucial insights into the lifeworlds and experiences of young people, we recognise that not all use social media and, of those that do, only some will be doing so to discuss their mental health experiences. This paper has, therefore, only engaged with the voices of those who have written about these topics online. In addition, this paper has been less able to present the narratives of those young people whose mental health was not affected during the pandemic.Due to our ethical approval and protocol, we only collected data from platforms that did not require a log-in to access posts. This means that there may be conversations in closed or private spaces which do not align with those that were analysed in this study.Part of the first round of data collection included (but was not limited to) searches for conversations that mentioned mental health specifically in diagnostic terms, as directed by the search terms identified through our prior preliminary analysis. As such, this round of data collection risked missing out on conversations amongst young people who did not describe their experiences in this way. However, analysis of that first round iteratively directed the next round of search terms and data collection, which challenged or contextualized the earlier data that were collected using more clinical terminology. Furthermore, by analysing the comments accompanying all the collected posts we were able to explore the diverging ways in which mental health experiences were expressed, with comments often differing from the original post.In social media data collection, it can be challenging to determine the age of individuals. Not everyone writes their age, and demographics are not always reliable on social media as young people sometimes lie about their age to gain access to platforms. Therefore, there is a small chance that data not written by young people have been included in the dataset. For instance, in relation to posts about university or describing being in their first year, we acknowledge that these may have been written by mature students. However, due to the comprehensive and contextual nature of our data collection, with comments as well as posts included in the analysis, we do not envisage that this small potential has jeopardized the findings.This paper has highlighted the range of ways that COVID-19 has impacted young people’s mental health. Difficulties that were described as arising from, or exacerbated by, school closures, lost opportunities or fraught family environments included depression, anxiety and suicidality. Young people also recounted anxiety at the virus’s impact on others. Yet, some described improvements to their mental health, away from prior stressors, such as school. It is evident that, in moving beyond the pandemic, mental health services will need to take account of the many diverse experiences of young people. Support may be required not only for those whose mental health deteriorated during the pandemic but also for those who felt that being away from educational institutions improved their mental health and who were profoundly anxious about returning to school or university. For mental health services, thus, the study has further emphasised the need for “investment in online and face to face psychological counselling services”  post-panEnsuring that priorities for recovery are driven by the needs of young people themselves necessitates recognising that solutions lie in complex and connected reflections on causation and context. Forging appropriate support necessitates looking beyond an individualised conceptualisation of young people’s mental health that sets this apart from broader societal concerns. As we move through, and out of the pandemic, thus, supporting young people will require whole systems thinking and, as Holmes et al.  have sug


Background: While the challenges for psychological well-being for Australian healthcare workers have been documented, there has been a dearth of qualitative research on the sources of resilience that sustained workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study identified sources of resilience that clinicians used to cope with frontline challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 frontline health professionals, across five Australian hospitals, between October 2020 and April 2021. The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the results were analysed using thematic analysis based on a phenomenological approach. Results: Three sources of resilience were identified by respondents: personal, relational, and organisational. A positive mindset, sense of purpose, and self-care behaviours emerged as key sources of personal resilience. Teamwork, altruism, and social support from family and friends contributed to relational resilience. Leadership, effective communication, and effective implementation of COVID-19 policies were associated with resilience at the organisational level. Frontline healthcare workers also voiced the need for the implementation of further strategies to support personal resilience whilst nurturing resilience within clinical teams and across entire healthcare organisations. Conclusions: Trust in healthcare systems, organisation leaders, colleagues, and personal support teams was an overarching theme supporting resilience. Frontline healthcare workers in Australia, and internationally, have faced unprecedented demands during the COVID-19 pandemic that have tested their resilience. Resilience refers to responding to a potentially highly disruptive event adaptively so that psychological and physical functioning is preserved and personal growth occurs ,3.There has been a rapid accumulation of questionnaire-based quantitative research showing that healthcare worker resilience during COVID-19 has been shaped by a range of demographic, psychological, and work-related factors ,5,6,7. TTo date, two qualitative studies have specifically aimed to investigate frontline clinician experiences of resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic . These sDespite limited interview-based research on clinician resilience, COVID-19 policy recommendations have been made to protect clinician well-being during the pandemic . FurtherGiven the lack of qualitative research specifically focused on clinician sources of resilience during the pandemic globally, and also in Australia, the aim of this investigation was to explore sources of resilience among Australian frontline healthcare workers. Sources of resilience included factors that facilitated physical and emotional functioning and meaningful personal growth during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted individual in-depth interviews with medical practitioners, nurses, and allied health practitioners to elicit their views about sources of resilience that optimised functioning and well-being during the COVID-19 crisis.The use of thematic analysis, an inductive, phenomenological approach ,21, enabParticipants provided informed consent electronically via REDCap software, completed a demographic questionnaire and self-report measures of stress and resilience, and were then scheduled for an interview via videoconference or telephone. Interviews followed a pre-prepared interview guide and were conducted by the first author, a registered clinical psychologist (LB). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participation was voluntary and not incentivised.We adhered to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines and received ethics approval from La Trobe University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC20385). It was prospectively registered on the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000921987p).Frontline healthcare workers were recruited between October 2020 and March 2021. Prospective participants were informed about the study via email or in person at staff meetings at eligible hospital sites. Those who were interested in participating provided informed consent electronically via the REDCap system and completed a short demographic questionnaire as well as tests of stress and resilience. Participants were then contacted via email to arrange an interview via videoconference or telephone. Semi-structured interviews followed a pre-prepared interview guide see  and wereThe demographic data and self-report measures of stress and resilience were captured using REDCap software. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), a widely used, valid and reliable measure , was useInterview transcriptions were independently coded using NVivo, and thematic analysis was used to analyse the coded interview data, based on the methods described by Braun and Clarke , CastlebWe minimised the risk of bias and ensured study rigor by (i) documenting our methodology prior to data collection; (ii) ensuring that at least two healthcare professionals from our research team conducted the data analysis; (iii) putting in place a protocol to verify accurate recording and transcription of the interview recordings; (iv) checking that recruitment was confined to health professionals who had worked on the COVID-19 frontlines; (v) collecting data until saturation was reached; (vi) utilising participant quotes to generate themes ,26.n = 14, 70%) worked full-time. Participants reported low to moderate perceived stress  relative to a large sample of frontline medical personnel working in the COVID-19 setting [Participating frontline healthcare professionals included eight nurses, five physicians, and seven allied health clinicians. The allied health clinicians were physiotherapists (3), occupational therapists (2), and psychologists (2). Fifteen (75%) had worked or were currently working with COVID-19-positive patients. They were highly experienced, with 17 (85%) working for at least 10 years in their profession. Most  reported that self-care behaviours and routines or rituals, including exercise and contemplative practices, helped them cope and foster mental balance during the pandemic. Going for walks and other physical activity was often noted as a helpful behaviour, even for those who did not typically exercise: “I’m not a very big exercise person, I don’t work out much, but this time walking really helped me”; “having to just take care of myself physically, I think, helps as well because if I don’t feel like I’ve got the physical energy, I’m not going to have the emotional energy.” Contemplative practices such as meditation, yoga, and prayer were also used by a number of participants to foster mental balance: “I have meditated off and on over the years and that’s something I have reintroduced during this time, just to help me calm down a little bit.”Teamwork was a central and recurring theme: “Everyone looked after each other. Everyone had each other’s back.” The participants reflected on the necessity of trusting their colleagues to work together and carefully follow infection control procedures: “For the most part, the team were so close-knit and so onto their PPE... I felt very strong in my PPE, and I felt very strong working as part of a team that were on the COVID ward.” Some indicated that teamwork was in excess of what they were accustomed to outside of the pandemic, and it strengthened over time: “as the time went on, it just changed so dramatically, to the point where it was just such comradery between the nursing staff and everybody who was in that team, and the patients.” They indicated a deep emotional connection to their teammates, related to bonding through trauma: “I think that experience will bond us forever in a way, the team there. You do bond in trauma, and it was trauma for us.” The reported connection often transcended professional boundaries, and some participants found their colleagues became more like family: “So we went out to ward and we experienced a lot together and it just connected us. And we were still very connected every time we see each other. We’re like family now.”Many described acts of altruism or transcendence where they or their teammates went above and beyond the call of duty to help others during the pandemic: “when the chips are down, people usually just jump in and do what they can do to help.” Frontline healthcare professionals often provided emotional support to patients in lieu of family. They were forced to manage end-of-life issues with patients in a way that was beyond the regular provision of emotional support. “One resident was passing, and the daughter said to me, “Somebody must sit behind my mom.” … I said, “They come in and they sit.” She says, “I can see by the chairs.” The chair is pulled up so she can see the sides. Because they knew the room so well. And I said to her, “The night nurse that was on,” I said, “I know she’s held your mom’s hand.” I said, “Granted she’s had to hold it through a glove, but she’s held your mom’s hand and your mom knows she’s there.” And to that daughter that just meant everything.”Medical, nursing and allied health practitioners acknowledged the dual medical and emotional needs of COVID-19-positive patients: “There was medical care that was needed, but it was tender, loving care.” Staff also went above and beyond to support each other. For instance, staff who did not have direct contact with infected patients helped in other ways, such as preparing food: “Staff that couldn’t come—food. You know, hospital staff had food. There was just food. They knew that it had to be individually wrapped and there were boxes of individually wrapped food.”Participants drew on social support from family and friends for buoyancy during frontline work of the pandemic. Some found solace in emotionally debriefing: “Having my family, my friends, and my husband to talk to afterwards was really helpful.” Others appreciated family understanding of increased workload: “My family adapted to the fact that I had greater responsibility and greater need to be at work … That did help enormously.”Notably, some participants acknowledged their family’s support of the risk of infection that they were taking on by contributing to the pandemic response: “Regardless, my mother said, ‘If I die because of you, I said yes that you could help. That’s okay by me’; “I could easily think if my family would have said very strongly that they didn’t want me to do it, I don’t know how I would have taken to that situation.”The health professionals discussed the importance of hospital-level organisational factors, with a central theme of the need for trust in the design and implementation of policies and procedures, trust in leadership, and effective communication platforms across different levels of management and practice.Participants in senior positions emphasised a primary focus on establishing infection control policies from the beginning of the pandemic: “From early on, it was really just putting together the pandemic plan.” Participants also discussed the setup of an incident command centre and work to clarify clear lines of command: “I asked him to be the incident commander because I thought that made sense... It allowed me to be involved but not having to control a lot of the mechanics of it in terms of who’s right, who’s got the pen on that policy.”Participants also spoke about the importance of adherence to, and trust in, the procedures established by management: “I felt very strong and very protected by policies and procedures that were developed quickly at the beginning of the pandemic.” Trust in and implementation of procedures helped mitigate staff fear of contagion “when I talked to people on the ward, they didn’t seem afraid, because we felt very strong in our PPE, and we felt very strong in the processes.”Effective leadership was discussed in detail by participants. The five healthcare leaders spoke about the importance of finding ways to be present for their team, often going above and beyond usual practice to help instill a sense of trust and stability: “They knew I was here night and day, so they felt that I was here, and I was a presence, so that was important. I’m fairly present anyway, but it was important for me to do those long days initially, because they needed to know I was here with them.” Staff seemed to appreciate visual leadership: “Our director of nursing … they were on the forefront just as much as we were, so they led from the front, we led from the front, we had to.” In addition to trust, some leaders advised that they could better understand and improve processes by leading from the front: “It sounds sort of paradoxical but going into those hot zones allowed me not only to help redesign them and sort of tweak a lot of it—but also to create tools for the frontline staff to use effectively.” This contributed to the leader’s own resilience during the pandemic, by fostering teamwork and feelings of pride.Leaders also spoke about a responsibility to be a positive role model for their team, despite their own insecurities: “Because I saw my team as looking to me for an example, and to lead them through with integrity, compassion, and honesty. Then I just had to do that. There was no other option, except fall apart, and that wouldn’t have served the people who were looking to me as their leader to lead through the pandemic.”Dovetailing with the theme of effective leadership, communication across different levels of the hospital helped participants to feel supported: “the whole corporate team threw themselves into it as well, so I had all this support, this amazing support and talking to people that I’d only ever seen their names on an email address, talking to people on Zooms.” Communication ensured that people could place their trust in a structured, coordinated pandemic response: “So it was getting structure, it was getting people trusting that structure, so after a while we got into a rhythm and they understood that there was a forum to be heard.”Participants voiced the necessity of utilising new methods of communication to adjust to rapidly changing circumstances and policy changes during the pandemic: “We did set up a lot of different communication tools, the Zoom, Facebook, and any other way we could try and get the messages out. And that became a really powerful tool, all the way through it.” Communication platforms also helped frontline healthcare professionals seek support and guidance from colleagues: “We did have this WhatsApp group where we talk to each other. If we have any difficulty, we share that difficulty.”Trust was a higher-order mechanism that contributed to resilience at each of our nested levels depicted in This study showed the lived experience of resilience of healthcare workers to be shaped by personal, interpersonal, and work-related factors . PositivOur findings respond to a call from Holmes and colleagues  to identOur findings also compliment the work by Shanafelt and colleagues , where UBased on these findings and global research ,7,16,35,There were some limitations of this qualitative study. The data were collected across five Australian hospitals where frontline healthcare professionals had the opportunity to opt out of the frontline COVID-19 response. Thus, while all participants were frontline professionals in that they worked in a COVID-19-positive hospital, a minority of participants (25%) did not directly work with COVID-19-positive patients. For this reason, it is uncertain whether the findings generalise to other countries or settings where frontline work is compulsory.A second important limitation of findings from this study is that data were collected in 2019, during the first phase of the pandemic when the lack of personal protective equipment, lack of confidence in safety measures and fear of infections were predominant. Since this time, the picture of psychosocial factors affecting clinician wellbeing has changed significantly, and new themes such as isolation, compassion fatigue, and monotony have become important . For insTo conclude, frontline healthcare workers perceived a need for organisational, relational, and personal support to build and maintain resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. They identified a need for further strategies to support personal resilience whilst nurturing resilience within clinical teams and across organisational structures.


Reaching conservation objectives while upholding individual animal welfare standards presents a significant challenge for zoos, especially if some individual animal interests conflict with their conservation mission. However, the compassionate conservation movement offers a potential solution for facing such challenges by advocating for the consideration of individual animal interests as central to conservation decision making. Our objective is therefore to determine to what extent zoological parks recognize the intrinsic value of zoo animals, beyond being members of species or ecosystems, and how this recognition manifests. Through discourse analysis, interviews, and relevant printed sources, we analyze the discourses, or concepts and categorizations, by which actors—experts in the conservation, animal rights, welfare, and zoo fields—give meaning to zoo practices. We demonstrate ways in which these discourses shape the captivity, breeding, and culling practices of individual zoo animals in the name of conservation. We found that people justifying these practices within zoos fail to recognize the intrinsic value of individual animals beyond being members of species. However, within the zoo, welfare practices and education objectives increasingly focus on fulfilling individual animal interests.Compassionate conservation advocates for minimizing individual suffering in conservation practice and adheres to the principle “individuals matter”—intrinsically, in and of themselves. Our objective is to determine the extent to which, and how, zoos recognize the intrinsic value of wild individuals beyond their status as members of species or ecosystems. We analyzed discourses surrounding the Smithsonian National Zoo in the U.S.A., the zoos of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in France, and the Seoul Grand Park Zoo in South Korea. Using existing literature on zoos, conservation, animal welfare, and rights, we distilled two discourses (justificatory and abolitionist). Through interviews with professionals in the zoo, conservation, welfare, and animal rights communities, we demonstrate how actors frame individual zoo animals as (1) sentient persons, (2) reproductive components, and (3) species ambassadors. Our analysis shows how actors’ views shape three zoo practices related to ex situ conservation: (1) captivity, (2) captive breeding, and (3) culling. This analysis revealed two significant findings. First, actors representing the justificatory discourse fail to frame animals as intrinsically valuable individuals. Second, within the constraints of the zoo, the intrinsic value of individual animals is recognized through welfare practices and education focused on fulfilling animal interests. Compassionate conservation maintains that, since both conservation and animal welfare ethics care about nature, both should work together to maximize conservation outcomes and minimize harm to individual, non-human animals . This field of conservation attempts to combine two ethical perspectives that conventional conservationists have deemed “conceptually distinct” and “politically separate”  p. 731)13]  captivity, (2) captive breeding, and (3) culling. We selected these three because they are restrictive or invasive to individual animals and represent ex situ conservation practices that zoos claim benefit collective species and ecosystems.This article is structured as follows. We first begin with an overview of our theoretical framework, which represents a discourse analysis approach using discourse as frame. In the next section, we present our methodology. In We apply discourse theory, taking a discourse analysis approach, using discourse as an analytical tool in combination with frame theory to compare how actors within and outside zoos address dilemmas in practices that disregard the intrinsic value of individuals in favor of collectives. Foucault coined discourse as a “system of representation”, where people are trapped within the dominant discourses of the period in which they live  (p. 72).We define discourse as “an ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities”  (p. 67).Nestled within this system of repetition is the way actors frame their reality. We combine discourse theory with frame analysis to determine how actors frame problems or situations within their own minds and within the social networks they comprise. According to Hajer (1995), “Discourse analysis investigates […] how a particular framing of an issue makes certain elements appear fixed or appropriate while other elements appear problematic”  (p. 54).Finally, to identify frames and the discourses they are part of, we distill situated meaning—”an image or pattern that we assemble ‘on the spot’ as we communicate in a given context”—of key words or phrases in language to help identify broader frames and the discourses they are a part of . In thisMethods included interviews, document analysis, and non-participatory observation. Through a review of literature on animal welfare, ethics, conservation, and the evolution of modern zoos, we distilled and renamed two main discourses—the justificatory discourse of zoos, and the abolitionist discourse of animal rights—on the role of individual animals in zoological parks. The literature review provided a broader context in which to place the situated meaning of “conservation”, “welfare”, and “animal rights”, identified in the texts of in-person interviews conducted with actors in the conservation, animal welfare science, animal rights, and zoo communities. Although there are many thoughtful ethical and scientific critiques of zoo practices among a wide variety of intellectual perspectives and approaches such as virtue ethics, ecofeminism, and consequentialism, our interlocutors tended to draw their arguments from these two discourses related to the pro-zoo/anti-zoo debate on captivity and animal rights. We transcribed and subsequently analyzed each interview by distinguishing, coding, and categorizing patterns in their textual content. To guide us through the analysis, we used Gee’s (1999) seven questions for discourse analysis, which focus on the significance, practices, identities, relationships, politics, connections, and knowledge that the interviewees discussed . We orgaInterviewees were selected through the snowball approach, where research participants recruited or recommended other participants for the research. Each interview was free-form and semi-structured. The order of the questions varied, and follow-up questions ensued for clarification, depending on the flow of the interview. The length of the interviews also varied depending on the interviewee’s answers. On average, interviews were one hour in length, with the shortest being forty minutes, and the longest lasting up to three hours. Most interviews were conducted in person, with some interviews conducted remotely by telephone, Skype, or Zoom. Each interview proceeded either in English, French, or Korean, depending on the location and the interviewee’s language preference. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and, when necessary, we used our fluent proficiency in each language to translate relevant citations into English.Qualitative research requires a repeated process of data collection and analysis that must be continuously compared, contrasted, and verified . To assuWe received approval from George Mason University’s Institutional Review Board prior to conducting research in each field site. Most participants agreed to have themselves identified by name in this publication. Those who wished to remain anonymous will be described as representatives of their respective organizations.Fieldwork in the form of non-participatory observation was conducted in each geographical site for several months at a time. In France, the research was hosted by the Centre d’Écologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO) lab at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN) for 15 months. In South Korea, field research was hosted by the EcoScience lab at Ewha Women’s University for 12 months. Finally, in the United States, field research was hosted by George Mason University’s (GMU) department of Environmental Science and Policy. GMU is affiliated with the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI). In each site, we collaborated with local researchers in natural and social scientific research, participated in symposiums on zoo animal welfare, conservation, and reintroductions, connected with animal rights and welfare organizations, and visited local conservation organizations and facilities.Situating this study in three different countries demonstrated how the discourses and dilemmas concerning animal welfare and conservation in zoos flow beyond cultural barriers. This also sheds light on what practices actors deem problematic and what solutions they apply in response to certain issues. Even though each site represents a distinct cultural context, they share many features with each other, as modern zoological parks seeking to balance a set of organizational and public priorities.In France, we focused on MNHN’s three zoological parks: the Ménagerie of the Jardin des Plantes (hereafter referred to as the Ménagerie), the Paris Zoological Park (PZP), and the Haute Touche Zoological Reserve (RZHT). As one of the first public zoos in the world, the Ménagerie rose from the ashes of the royal menagerie of Versailles, with the idea that the nation would benefit from having live animal collections available for scientific instruction. Founded in 1792, this national zoo embodied the values of the French Revolution, which emphasized equality, education, and rationality . PresentIn the Republic of Korea, we focused on the Seoul Grand Park Zoo (SGPZ). Originally founded in 1909 by Japanese colonizers during the occupation of Korea, the Seoul Zoo was moved to the mountains of Makgyedong, Gwacheon in 1984 as part of a large amusement park. A testament to South Korea’s rapid economic growth, this large park was meant to be akin to a Korean Disneyland. Currently, the SGPZ extends over 58 hectares and contains 1810 individual animals representing 132 species. It is the only research-oriented zoo in South Korea  are not even orangutans—they’re prisoners. They don’t express their natural behavior. They are shadows of themselves”. For these animal rights actors, captive animals cannot be effective ambassadors because they are exploited. As Gérôme (FBB) states: “Today we have technologies like television and holograms that allow us to see and learn about species […] We can’t just imprison sentient beings capable of suffering for educational goals while claiming it’s pleasurable to see them”.Anti-zoo animal rights actors representing an abolitionist discourse situated “welfare” as unable to provide captive zoo animals with a life worth living. For these groups, animal welfare is insufficient to make up for the loss of liberty of an individual animal. Sanvisens (PAZ) explains, “The notion of animal welfare has always been put forward by enterprises or institutions that exploit animals. It is not a notion where we recognize ourselves. It’s not just about maintaining an animal alive—we want to go much further than that. For us, the notion of liberty is fundamental and notably for wild animals”. Morette  echoes this, expressing: “I abhor that concept. For me, it’s marketing. We prefer to speak of the animal condition. But animal welfare is a very subjective notion”. Parallel to this, Bachelard (LFDA) views animal welfare as applicable only to domestic animals dependent on human care. Defining welfare as the “positive mental and physical state as related to the fulfillment of [an animal’s] physiological and behavioral needs in addition to [his/her] expectations” ; BachelaHowever, South Korea’s main animal rights organization, Korean Animal Rights Advocates (KARA), stands together with welfare associations, such as Animal Welfare Awareness Research and Education (AWARE) and Action for Animals, taking both a pro-zoo and pro-welfare stance. Jeon (KARA) believes that, “Zoos should focus on native species, research, conservation, inspiring awe about animals, and education. They should have well-done exhibits that look like the wild”. KARA campaigns to “reset and not abolish” zoos, a position that does not completely align with Morette’s  mentality: “We don’t try to improve captivity for animals because we don’t consider this our role. We’re here to be an outside force and a more radical discourse that moves public opinion and political powers. Since we consider that captivity is not, in any case, suitable for animals, placing a bit of glitter to make them a bit better is not really our role”. According to Lee (AWARE) and Ma , Korean animal rights groups—already few—rarely make the distinction between animal welfare and rights, advocating instead for the humane treatment of animals in captive settings. Jeon  describes the basic principle of welfare as “identifying and eliminating risks inherent in using animals from birth until death”. This has been the focus of Korean animal rights campaigns in relation to zoos . As a reZoo actors representing a justificatory discourse situated “animal rights” as idealistic. Chai (Ménagerie) denounces animal rights activists who advocate releasing un-adapted zoo animals into the wild, condemning them to die. This happened at the SGPZ in 2017, when, in response to animal rights campaigns, the zoo released two dolphins into the wild. Having lived 20 years in captivity, these individuals likely did not survive . JacquesDisplaying individual animals in captivity presents zoo actors with the first of two inherent dilemmas: how to truly consider wild animal interests within the constraints of the zoological park. Asking himself, “are anti-speciesists raging madmen, or does their discourse have a certain validity?”, Saint Jalme (Ménagerie) states that the past few years of modern zoo discussions on their environmental conservation mission and responsibilities towards individual animal welfare encouraged him to reflect on “the mosaic relationship of intelligence and consciousness in animals”. For Saint Jalme, knowledge of animal behavior that he had previously used for collectivist goals in conservation was now shedding light on the value of animal individuals. Referring to Nénette, an orangutan at the zoo, Saint Jalme expresses that, “an increasing awareness of animal consciousness led me to question myself regarding the animals we have in captivity and I admit, when we realize that Nénette has spent 50 years in captivity, it touches me somewhere, and, since I can’t do anything other than keep them here, somewhere I put on blinders. So, I will do everything to improve their quality of life”. Kim, B. (SGPZ) also emphasizes, “For these animals sacrificing themselves [for conservation], it is our responsibility to make sure they live with the best welfare possible”.Zoo actors situated positive welfare as an ethical duty to adhere to captive animal interests, giving them opportunities to freely express their natural behavior and effectively represent their wild counterparts. Saint Jalme (Ménagerie) believes that, similarly to anti-zoo organizations, there exists “an individualization of animals at the zoo, like in [animal] rights which demands that animals be considered—that we give them individual rights”. Within the zoo, “we will pay attention to a certain individual and each individual in the group has his or her value”. For Bourgeois (Ménagerie), giving animals the freedom to choose and control changes to their environment is emblematic of the current welfare goals and practices of modern zoos: “Once all the basic needs are met, welfare is to provide the animal with choice and control over his environment. So, stop controlling him and make him in control”. Saint Jalme (Ménagerie) also echoes that “welfare means allowing the animal to master his or her environment”. Using animal welfare science to find possibilities for animals to express control over their own preferences, zoos hope to create “the best possible captive environments: one where animals would choose to stay even if they could leave”  (p. 241)Both the PZP and Ménagerie have evolved to prioritize the welfare and autonomy of animal individuals in their practices and exhibit designs. The PZP, remodeled in 2014, converted most exhibits into multi-species exhibits, providing animals with opportunities to interact with members of other species. The zoo also expanded enclosures to be more spacious and varied with options for animals to hide form the public eye. Unlike the PZP, the historically classified Ménagerie has less flexibility with expanding or remodeling enclosures. As a result, in the past thirty years, it has compensated for lack of space by housing smaller animals and designing enclosures with more vertical space. As stated by Bourgeois (Ménagerie), “the Ménagerie is in perpetual evolution and there is a guideline to make bigger species leave, focus on small to medium sized species with an accent on conservation”. For example, red pandas and binturongs, both small-sized, critically endangered species, have replaced the large bears originally housed in the Ménagerie’s “fosse aux ours” (bear pit).Within the past decade, the SGPZ has also made significant strides to improve animal welfare by expanding enclosures, providing positive reinforcement training, and adding enrichment to animals’ routines ,49. HoweAddressing animal interests, however, reveals a second dilemma for zoo actors, who find themselves balancing these with the interests of their visitors. Bourgeois (Ménagerie) points out that giving animals choices in zoos comes with certain constraints. Although allowing an animal free access to enter and exit their enclosure at will is a priority, “Unfortunately, we cannot do this for all species. For example, we have security restrictions for the panthers. But, in the future, we’ll have to think about giving them permanent free access so that they have the choice to be in the space that they want”. Additionally, to move away from traditional entertainment, such as hand feeding or petting, that occurred up until 2013, the Seoul Zoo teaches about “zoo etiquette”, enrichment, and positive reinforcement training ,49. SimiAs part of their justificatory discourse, modern zoos concern themselves with ex situ conservation, breeding individual animals in captivity to maintain species populations outside their natural environment and exchanging individuals between organizations. Taking up the “millennium ark” role, zoos justify captive breeding as a method of preserving stocks of animals available for in situ conservation in the distant future. Until then, to maintain genetically viable populations in the long term, captive breeding must ensure that these zoo populations maintain 90% of the original wild population’s genetic variation over 100 years ,51. ThisWe found that actors representing an abolitionist discourse considered captive breeding as problematic because of its failure to integrate the intrinsic rights of individual animals—especially that of bodily integrity. This was informed by how actors framed individual animals as sentient persons and supported by their views of animal rights and conservation, which rejected ex situ conservation as a viable way of preserving biodiversity. In contrast, for actors representing a justificatory discourse, the main dilemma inherent in captive breeding was how to maintain genetically viable populations without significantly compromising the welfare of individual animals involved. We found that zoo actors framed individual zoo animals as reproductive components of genetic lineages. This role was reinforced by the situated meanings actors ascribed to the relationship between conservation and animal welfare, with the former perceived as the preservation of genetic patrimonies, and the latter as a means of maintaining individual animals functional in their reproductive roles.Because actors representing an abolitionist discourse framed animals as sentient persons, they focused their concerns on individual animals’ loss of liberty and bodily integrity over species or ecosystem status. As Sanvisens (PAZ) points out, there are “Two things for us that are very important to distinguish: species and individuals. So, for species, the question is, will there be orangutans tomorrow? But what concerns us, are individuals. And, that’s where we seem to have trouble finding an understanding with zoos”. Referring to Nénette, the fifty-year-old orangutan at the Ménagerie, Sanvisens asks, “Does this person, this individual, does she suffer or not? That’s what’s going to interest us”. By calling Nénette a person, Sanvisens applies the abolitionist frame that individual living beings are persons with the basic moral rights to life, liberty, and bodily integrity .Actors representing an abolitionist discourse situated “conservation” as in situ only, and condemned ex situ conservation as ineffective. PAZ presents conservation as a “false alibi” of zoos, stating that conservation politics should only concern itself with “protecting habitats” and the “fight against poaching”. In the declaration of animal rights co-authored by LFDA, Article 8 states that, “Any act compromising the survival of a wild species, and any decision leading to such an act constitutes genocide, meaning a crime against the species”, and that “the massacre of wild animals, pollution, and destruction of biotopes are genocides”  (p. 2). Because abolitionist actors framed individual animals as sentient persons with intrinsic rights and situated effective conservation as in situ only, they condemned captive breeding as a method intent on keeping a supply of captive animals within zoos for profit rather than for conservation in the wild. Gérôme (FBB) recognized that zoos can hold a significant role in in situ conservation projects—many of the NGOs her organization works with are themselves financially supported by zoological parks. However, she believes the conservation mission of zoos is mostly to have a good conscience and that their primary goals are lucrative: “What zoos claim is that they practice conservation. This means they keep endangered species from disappearing habitats, so they don’t disappear. Sure, why not? But we have existing sanctuaries and refuges that already do this, and not for business, since they are non-profit organizations”. Sanvisens (PAZ) views zoo animals as forced to be in a “state of permanent reproduction” to maintain the existence of the organizations. Arguing that animal transfers and forced reproduction places unnecessary stress on animals, Bekoff (University of Colorado) advocates for “no more captive breeding, no more shipping animals around as mating machines to make more animals who are going to be living in captivity”. To facilitate a transition into a world without zoos, Bachelard (LFDA), asks that these organizations “stop reproducing animals. Because, if zoos exist, it’s because there are reproduction programs put in place and zoos exchange animals to continue to sustain themselves. If we stop reproduction, after a time, there won’t be any animals left [in zoos]”.However, zoo actors representing a justificatory discourse identified that the main dilemma inherent in captive breeding was maintaining the genetic integrity of populations, while also providing for the interests of individual animals through positive welfare. Zoo actors recognized that the production and displacement of reproductively functional individuals between institutions inevitably implies going against individual animal interests. Saint Jalme (Ménagerie) reflects that: “Every time we put in place an action that will isolate individuals, put contraception in place, or cull an animal, these are actions that will impact animal welfare and if we want to manage populations in captivity for the long term, then, yes, we find ourselves in conflict between welfare and conservation tradeoffs”. Similarly, Kim, B. (SGPZ) highlights that the most difficult decisions she has encountered involve figuring out how to properly manage species populations: “Unconditional breeding restrictions can lead to species reductions if they can’t reproduce. And if you send them to another zoo, then you need to make sure they have the right amount of habitat space. This is a real dilemma”. Bourgeois (Ménagerie) points out that translocating animal individuals, from one zoo to another, subjects animals to high amounts of stress and impositions detrimental to animal welfare: “For conservation purposes, we will be asked to, for example, stop the reproduction of an animal or we will be asked to translocate animals—such and such an animal must go to this place to reproduce with such and such individual. So, these are things that are imposed—animals can’t choose their partner, they can’t choose the moment when they are in contact with others. They’re raised with their parents and then one day we take them away without warning. We jump on them, put them in a truck, have them travel several kilometers and they arrive in a place they don’t know. So all this is extremely perturbing, and this is completely counterproductive to animal welfare”.To justify captive breeding, zoo actors framed the role of individual animals in zoos as reproductive components of biotic wholes. Articles in journals printed by the Société d’Encouragement pour la Conservation des Animaux Sauvages (SECAS), a charity association partnering with MNHN zoos, refer to several “reproductive couples” of various species housed in zoos. One describes Nénette, the oldest orangutan at the Ménagerie, as, “an excellent mother sociable and gentle, [who] now lives a peaceful retirement”, after having contributed four offspring to the captive orangutan population in European zoos . MonfortWhen justifying captive breeding practices for ex situ conservation, zoo actors, especially zoo managers, situated the meaning of “conservation” in zoos as preserving genetic patrimonies through managing populations ex situ. Joly (MNHN) reflects this mentality: “Well, the word “conserve” says a little about its meaning. It’s to preserve in time, from the erosions and the aggressions that can arise. So, for living populations, it’s a bit more complicated than dead objects. For dead objects, we know to put them in the right lighting, temperature, and humidity. For living populations, we conserve lineages. We are essentially conserving a genetic patrimony”. Saint Jalme (Ménagerie) adds that conservation means managing nature: “Since humanity is expanding, we have to manage nature with humans and reconcile people and nature”. For Monfort (SNZP/SCBI) and Pitt (SCBI), conservation also involves a heavy focus on species management and preserving the genetic integrity of animal populations for the future.To fulfill conservation goals through captive breeding, actors representing a justificatory discourse situated “animal welfare” as a means of keeping animals functionally reproductive. Joly (Jardin des Plantes) recognizes that “Often when animals are not well, they don’t reproduce. They must be well to reproduce well. The connection could be there. Since for me, conservation is a lineage. It’s not the individual”. The role of welfare in conservation, therefore, serves to maintain the individual components of a larger system alive and comfortable at the most fundamental level, such that they are reproductively functional. Song (KNPS) reflects this perception of welfare as instrumental to conservation in his in situ fieldwork with Asiatic black bear conservation: “Restoring the species means getting the bears to reproduce and making sure they disperse. Beyond welfare, if this doesn’t work, then we cannot restore the bears. Caring for the bears’ welfare is part of [conserving them], but it is not more important”. In the world of ecological restoration, giving individual animals good welfare is useful if it enables reproduction, dispersion, and public support for conservation.Actors representing a justificatory discourse, however, tended to situate conservation and animal welfare as fundamentally separate concepts when discussing captive breeding priorities. Smith (SNZP) believes, “Good welfare doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with conservation, and conservation doesn’t have anything to do with welfare”. She explains that one could successfully practice conservation without having to worry about mistreating an animal individual. Joly (Jardin des Plantes) also saw no concrete relationship between welfare and conservation: “Like this, spontaneously, I would say there is not necessarily a connection. That’s to say, you could conserve without being preoccupied by the way you conserve. Since, after all, this is about conserving a lineage. So, if animals are reproducing, that we have these lineages conserved, my goodness, we have achieved the conservation mission, since that is the objective. Honestly, when I think about it, I have never asked myself the question, but I don’t link the two notions. One can very well conserve independently, without worrying about animal welfare, as long as they reproduce”. As an animal welfare and research manager, Herrelko (SNZP), points out, “That’s a question that I haven’t really thought a lot about in terms of the definition of conservation, because I am so focused on welfare, and welfare does tie with conservation. [Conservation] is so broad and I so closely work in welfare that it’s never been something anybody’s ever asked me”. Yet, she underlines, “Everything we do in conservation, in terms of research has a welfare element. I’m hoping we can learn new ways to help beef that up, whether it’s pulling in the expertise of what we learn in animal management and bringing that to field sites”.Le Monde questioning the relevancy of zoos today states that, “Even if no other euthanasia has received as much attention since [Marius’ death], 3000 to 5000 animals continue to be killed every year in Europe for population management reasons in zoos” , what was important was to succeed in nature, to reconstitute the species despite collateral damage. So, if we had to sacrifice an individual to produce three others, I had no qualms”. Duby (Ménagerie), reflects that, “Nobody suffers, except by dying. That’s the dilemma, the central question. Population management is very logical but taking away the life of a healthy animal—I have trouble accepting that. It’s very personal”. Another French veterinarian believes the sacrifice of individuals for the collective aims of conservation serves no concrete purpose: “Conservation is politics, so in the end it’s hollow. Welfare, on the other hand, is real. When I have a sick animal, I could care less if he’s part of some population for conservation, all I want is for him to be well, even if it implies euthanasia”.Third, zoo actors found themselves having to decide between the welfare of individuals or the welfare of the group. In this case, actors situated animal welfare as “the ability to express natural behaviors”. Romain (Akongo) comments that alternative practices to culling, such as isolation or contraception, can, “risk causing a loss of natural behaviors related to reproduction. Do we privilege this behavioral diversity and think in terms of viable populations rather than at the individual level? The choices are complex”. Simon (RZHT) justifies the culling of individual dholes, a species of Asian wild dog, at his zoo, as necessary for the overall welfare of the population. Simon explains the importance of maintaining juveniles in the group, allowing them to express their natural reproductive behaviors, but resulting in an excess of “surplus” individuals: “if we were to suspend, even temporarily, reproduction in those groups, then there would be a carnage, I am convinced of that”. To recreate natural conditions, the EAZA recommends removing individuals at the adult or sub-adult stage, to mimic the dispersal and high mortality that naturally occurs at this stage in the wild. Bourgeois (Ménagerie) explains that, “this favors the group dynamic to allow mothers to continue to raise their young, because sometimes that is something that can be lost in a group and, for animal welfare, social enrichment is very important”.Finally, culling practices involved zoo actors choosing between euthanizing a healthy animal or the potential for that animal to live a life of suffering. In the case of removing a “surplus” animal, sending the individual to a non-EAZA accredited facility, as an alternative, risks placing the individual in questionable welfare conditions for life. Saint Jalme (Ménagerie) describes the internal strife one faces as a manager when making these difficult decisions: “Well, these are part of things that are complicated to manage. Because you are at odds with your values, you are at odds with so many things. So, it’s more than a compromise. Here, you’re in a crisis”. Simon emphasizes that “We can’t allow ourselves to have animals in deplorable situations because we are unable to place them elsewhere”. In 2017, the Seoul Zoo encountered this type of dilemma when they re-homed Taiji, a dolphin who found himself alone in his enclosure after the decision was made to reintroduce the remaining two dolphins in the wild. As a Japanese sub-species, experts were concerned that reintroducing Taiji would disrupt the existing Korean pod of dolphins. Understanding that Taiji needed to be with conspecifics, the zoo decided to transfer him to a sub-par aquarium facility on Jeju island . HoweverThis paper aimed to determine the extent to which, and how, zoological parks recognize the intrinsic value of wild individuals beyond their status as members of collective species or ecosystems. To do so, we analyzed two discourses on the relationships between animal rights, welfare, and conservation in zoos. Actors representing the first abolitionist discourse framed individual animals as sentient persons; whereas, those representing the second, justificatory discourse, framed them as “species ambassadors” and “reproductive components”. The analysis showed how the situated the meanings of conservation, animal welfare, and animal rights informed and supported the different perspectives on dilemmas inherent in zoo practices related to ex situ conservation.First, actors representing an abolitionist discourse condemned zoos for violating the intrinsic rights of individual animals by breeding them in captivity for human enjoyment. These interviewees situated animal welfare as too subjective to fully integrate the needs and interests of “wild” individuals without liberty. This is consistent with the argument that the concept of “’unnecessary suffering’ is insufficiently precise and always makes animal well-being subservient to human interests”  (p. 166)Second, actors representing a justificatory discourse framed zoo animals as instrumentally valuable “ambassadors” and “reproductive components” of larger collectives. This reflects a collectivist approach to nature, which “prioritizes the group over its individual constituents” and is dominant in conservation biology  .Fourthly, although actors representing a justificatory discourse do not portray zoo animals as persons with the right to liberty, the evolution of welfare practices in AZA and EAZA institutions demonstrate that they value their autonomy and interests. Zoos argue that individual animals can flourish in captivity if they are provided with opportunities to practice choice and control over their captive environment. Allard and Bashaw (2018) describe this as a form of empowerment, where an animal can choose to react to and control changes to his or her environment . Choice,In conclusion, this analysis revealed two significant findings. First, actors representing the justificatory discourse of zoos failed to frame zoo animals as intrinsically valuable individuals with respect to ex situ conservation priorities. Second, within the constraints of the zoo, the intrinsic value of individual animals was, however, recognized through welfare practices and educational priorities focused on fulfilling animal interests and promoting an ethic of care.First, because the nature of their organizations requires managing the lives of individual animals from birth until death in captivity, zoos do not fully integrate the intrinsic rights of animal individuals. For actors representing an abolitionist discourse, the moral dilemmas inherent in zoo practices could easily be avoided by abolishing captivity. Many of the ethical challenges between welfare and conservation faced by zoo personnel related to captive breeding and culling involved attempts to recreate “natural” conditions in artificial environments. In addition, to justify ex situ conservation practices, actors representing a justificatory discourse consistently referred to animals as members of collectives—from comprising genetic lineages to representing species. In these practices, welfare therefore became instrumental—a means of ensuring the functionality of these components and improving their effectiveness as ambassadors for their wild counterparts. Moreover, although zoo actors viewed death as neutral with respect to animal welfare, the ethical dilemmas that are inherent in the culling of healthy animals consisted of choices between whose welfare deserves the most consideration, suggesting that this practice also embodies tradeoffs between animal welfare and conservation priorities.Second, although the justificatory discourse and frames make it impossible to see animals as intrinsically valuable individuals in practices such as captive breeding and culling, positive welfare practices, involving enrichment, choice, and control, highlight the intrinsic value of individual animals. Zoo educators also emphasize teaching visitors about respecting animals in their “domain”. Finally, current welfare practices, allowing animals to express their interests and autonomy in an environment that restricts their freedom, suggest that individuals do matter in zoos. The evolution of welfare practices in zoos indicate an emerging animal rights ethic based on interests, that works to bring forward the individual, while maintaining the zoological park as an organization considered necessary for conservation in a non-ideal world.Overall, understanding the extent to which, and how, zoos recognize the intrinsic value of wild individuals can aid these organizations in developing conservation and welfare priorities that align with compassionate conservation principles and avoid intentionally harming animals. Though captivity may be deemed by some as deliberately harmful towards individuals, welfare practices that prioritize providing autonomy to zoo animals demonstrate that individuals do matter in the zoological park. In addition, understanding how zoo individuals matter has the potential to open a dialogue between opposing perspectives on the role of zoos and their duty of care with respect to addressing individual animal interests. Gray (2018) argues that compassionate conservation can help resolve and identify “areas of agreement and areas of dispute” between conservation and welfare priorities  (p. 1).


In recent years, fake scientific news has spread much faster through the Internet and social media within the so-called “infodemic”. African swine fever (ASF) is a perfect case study to prove how fake news can undermine the public health response, even in the veterinary field. ASF is a contagious infective disease exclusively affecting domestic and wild pigs such as wild boars. ASF can cause social damages and economic losses both directly  and indirectly . Although ASF is not a threat to human health, since 2018, newspapers have often reported false or misleading news, ranging from misinterpreted findings/data to fake or alarmistic news. In some cases, fake news was spread, such as the use of snipers at the border of nations to kill wild boars or the possible risks to human health. In order to provide real and fact-based news on epidemics, some organizations have created easy-to-read infographic and iconographic materials, available on their websites, to help the readers identifying the fake news.In recent years, fake scientific news has spread much faster through the Internet and social media within the so-called “infodemic”. African Swine Fever (ASF) is a perfect case study to prove how fake news can undermine the public health response, even in the veterinary field. ASF is a highly contagious infective disease affecting exclusively domestic and wild pigs such as wild boars. ASF can cause social damage and economic losses both directly  and indirectly . Although ASF is not a threat to human health, since 2018 newspapers have often reported false or misleading news, ranging from misinterpreted findings/data to fake or alarmistic news. In some cases, fake news was spread, such as the use of snipers at the border of nations to kill wild boars, or those reports concerning possible risks to human health. In order to provide real and fact-based news on epidemics, some organizations have created easy-to-read infographic and iconographic materials, available on their websites, to help the readers identifying the fake news. Indeed, it is crucial that governments and scientific organizations work against fear and anxiety, using simple and clear communication. The Internet and social media have helped to spread news and information by breaking down geographical and temporal barriers, allowing people to be constantly updated on any topic . Mass meScience topics are often difficult to explain to a large audience and must therefore be simplified for mass communication . MoreoveSuidae family, and is the sole species within the Asfivirus genus, family Asfarviridae [The causative agent of ASF is the African swine fever virus (ASFV), a large double-stranded DNA virus which can infect several members of the rviridae .The ASFV is very stable and shows a very low mutation rate; in addition, the absence of related viruses makes recombination events very unlikely; thus, the risk for ASFV to jump the species barrier is not significant . To dateASF is an ongoing pandemic and an economic emergency as well, since: (i) it can easily spread to pigs in disease-naïve areas and some viral strains have a mortality rate of 100% ; (ii) thChina and Vietnam are countries where the ASF epidemic has hit hard. The ASF has a particularly strong economic impact on smallholders and commercial farmers, since pig meat is a major source of protein in human diets, and the livelihoods of numerous households, which depend on pigs as a source of protein and income, are at risk in several Asian countries ,37.Historically, the disease was present in the African continent but after entering Portugal, in 1957 and again in 1960, it became endemic in the Iberian Peninsula, and several linked outbreaks were observed in some European countries in the following years ,34. AfteDue to recent new outbreaks, fake news, quackeries and conspiracy theories have been spread via social networks and the Internet on ASF and ASFV.ASF outbreaks and restriction measures have caused huge economic losses in China, due to the enormous consumption of pork meat per capita . Thus, iThe example reported following is the news published on the UK online newspaper Express, with the title “Chinese New Year celebrations ‘could spark DEADLY swine fever OUTBREAK’—shock warning” . The scoIn 2018, ASF arrived at the gates of South Korea and an Italian journal, “Il Giornale.it”, published an article with the following title: “South Korea, snipers on the border to kill wild boars” . The papIn a very short time, it was clear that such containment measures were insufficient to control the outbreak and, one year later (12 November 2019), another Italian newspaper “Il Messaggero.it” titled “The river turns red: it is the blood of 47 thousand slaughtered pigs”, with an eloquent and dramatic picture of a huge river whose water had turned red ,49,50. AIn 2019, The Guardian published an article with the following title “No way to stop it: millions of pigs culled across Asia as swine fever spreads”, with a more catastrophic subheading stating “Experts say region is losing the battle to stop the biggest animal disease outbreak the planet has ever faced” . The artIn 2018, when ASF reached Europe, the news was promptly reported by online sources: “African swine fever, fear in Europe: outbreak in Bulgaria, euthanasia of infected pigs” . The jouFar more serious and alarmistic was the news reported by an international newspaper whose headline stated “France deploys ARMY in ferocious battle against WILD BOAR amid swine flu outbreak” . The newIn addition, in this title, the word “flu” was used improperly, and this is another typical misleading news that it is repeated by the media about the ASF disease, with “swine flu” and “swine fever” considered interchangeable. This is totally incorrect, as they refer to different diseases, sustained by different infectious agents.When the ASF reached the Eastern European farms, the online media continued to spread fake news, fueling the confusion of the readers on the potential zoonotic role of the ASFV. Often, in the search for an effective title, this hypothesis is launched, and it is systematically refuted later in the article. For example, the Italian newspaper “Il Fatto Quotidiano” published the following article on 26 July 2019: “African swine fever is epidemic. The risks for humans and the absence of a vaccine” . The titThe possibility that ASFV could spread from pigs to humans was also reported in the 2019 article “African swine fever: What is African swine fever—and could it infect YOU?” , in whicIn addition, in the Guardian “What is African swine fever and how does it spread?” , the autFinally, in the Italian and in the Spanish languages, ASF disease is commonly translated as “peste suina africana” and “peste porcina africana”, respectively, i.e., “African swine plague”. Since in both languages the word “plague” is improperly used, this definition is likely to mislead the public, who believes that ASF is similar to the well-known zoonotic diseases caused by Yersinia pestis, a bacterium responsible for the disease called “bubonic plague”, i.e., the Black Death.During an outbreak, conspiracy theories offer people simple explanations for complex problems; however, they place the blame on others who are often demonized . Those wAn interesting conspiracy theory was spread online, as denounced by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), through the thesis “Kremlin media poisons Baltic debate about African virus”, available in the website “Viral Disinfo” . The papSimilar conspiracy theories were already spread in the 1970s, e.g., “CIA brought ASFV to Cuba to undermine the Cuban economy and the Castro regime”, and again, in 1980, when the quackeries about the HIV/AIDS virus suggested that the HIV was created by the CIA under the executive order of the U.S. President Richard Nixon, to wipe out homosexuals and African Americans. Rumors and fake news could therefore be considered as part of the disinformation during the Cold War .The potential link between HIV and ASFV has even been discussed by Feorino and co-authors in 1986, with the letter entitled “Aids and African swine fever virus”, which rejected the false rumors regarding this possibility .www.paho.org, with special contents to counteract the Infodemic [Fake news released from mass media can be considered as a “virus” that spreads among all those who are subjected to the disinformation , and recnfodemic , and thenfodemic , which hnfodemic . In partnfodemic . In addinfodemic . Furthernfodemic  has beennfodemic , has relnfodemic  to clariThe Internet and social media provide enormous advantages but also serious disadvantages to scientists, journalists and readers. In the last few years, social media such as Twitter or Facebook have become immensely popular even in the science communication; therefore, scientists have started to use them, opening their research to a broader public ; however