Who cares about lab rodents?

Gail Davies,Robert G. W. Kirk,Beth Greenhough,Pru Hobson-West,Dmitriy Myelnikov,Emma Roe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adr6151

IF: 56.9

2024-09-21

Science

Abstract:Humanities and social sciences help advance "cultures of care" around laboratory animal science and welfare

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Science, Culture, and Care in Laboratory Animal Research

Gail Davies,Beth Greenhough,Pru Hobson-West,Robert G. W. Kirk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918757034

2018-02-13

Abstract:The principles of the 3Rs—replacement, refinement, and reduction—strongly shape discussion of methods for performing more humane animal research and the regulation of this contested area of technoscience. This special issue looks back to the origins of the 3Rs principles through five papers that explore how it is enacted and challenged in practice and that develop critical considerations about its future. Three themes connect the papers in this special issue. These are (1) the multiplicity of roles enacted by those who use and care for animals in research, (2) the distribution of “feelings that matter” across species and spaces of laboratory animal practice, and (3) the growing importance of “cultures of care” in animal research.
Culture of care in animal research – Expanding the 3Rs to include people

Fabienne Ferrara,Bernhard Hiebl,Peter Kunzmann,Florian Hutter,Freni Afkham,Megan LaFollette,Christian Gruber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772221102238

2022-06-29

Laboratory Animals

Abstract:Laboratory Animals, Ahead of Print. Research on animals is essential for science and medical progress. While it is still necessary to conduct this research, it is essential to apply the highest standards in animal welfare, including animal husbandry and care. Furthermore, it is important to recognize the special relationship between research animals and the people who care for them. Caring for research animals can be extremely fulfilling and meaningful, but it also comes with challenges, particularly when caring for animals experiencing pain or distress. These challenges can lead to work-related mental stress. To get more insight into the challenges of working in animal research, we organized a panel discussion at the GV-SOLAS (German Society for Laboratory Animal Science) and IGTP (Interest Group Animal Caretakers) conference 2021 about work wellbeing. This discussion was the first of its kind in Germany. The active panel contributions included the view of an ethical philosopher, a scientist, a lecturer for laboratory animal science, an animal facility manager and an animal caretaker. They gave insights from their perspective into key factors that can affect human wellbeing in animal research. Keys ideas included stigmatization of work, tension between research aims and animal wellbeing, and the importance of supportive culture to overcome work-related strains, as well as lack of education and supportive environments to cope with emotional stress in the workplace. Overall, the discussion has shown that we must also promote human wellbeing when promoting culture of care in animal research, because there is strong relationship between culture of care and individual performance.

zoology,veterinary sciences
Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare

Gail F. Davies,Beth J Greenhough,Pru Hobson-West,Robert G. W. Kirk,Ken Applebee,Laura C. Bellingan,Manuel Berdoy,Henry Buller,Helen J. Cassaday,Keith Davies,Daniela Diefenbacher,Tone Druglitrø,Maria Paula Escobar,Carrie Friese,Kathrin Herrmann,Amy Hinterberger,Wendy J. Jarrett,Kimberley Jayne,Adam M. Johnson,Elizabeth R. Johnson,Timm Konold,Matthew C. Leach,Sabina Leonelli,David I. Lewis,Elliot J. Lilley,Emma R. Longridge,Carmen M. McLeod,Mara Miele,Nicole C. Nelson,Elisabeth H. Ormandy,Helen Pallett,Lonneke Poort,Pandora Pound,Edmund Ramsden,Emma Roe,Helen Scalway,Astrid Schrader,Chris J. Scotton,Cheryl L. Scudamore,Jane A. Smith,Lucy Whitfield,Sarah Wolfensohn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158791

IF: 3.7

2016-07-18

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

multidisciplinary sciences
A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research

Emma Roe,Beth Greenhough

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2021.1901977

2021-03-23

Abstract:Laboratory animal science represents a challenging and controversial form of human-animal relations because its practice involves the deliberate and inadvertent harming and killing of animals. Consequently, animal research has formed the focus of intense ethical concern and regulation within the UK, in order to minimize the suffering and pain experienced by those animals whose living bodies model human diseases amongst other things. This paper draws on longitudinal ethnographic research and in-depth interviews undertaken with junior laboratory animal technicians (ATs) in UK universities between 2013 and 2015, plus insights from interviews with key stakeholders in laboratory animal welfare. In our analysis, we examine four key dimensions of care work in laboratory animal research: (i) the specific skills and sensitivities required; (ii) the role of previous experiences of animal care; (iii) the influence of institutional and affective environments and (iv) experiences of killing. We propose that different notions of care are enacted alongside, not only permitted levels of harm inflicted on research animals following research protocols, but also harms to ATs in the processes of caring and killing animals. Concluding, we argue for greater articulation of the coexistence of care and harms across debates in geography about care and human-animal relations.

geography
Culture of care: the question of animal agency in laboratory animal science

Katharina Ameli,Stephanie Krämer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1373778

2024-09-10

Abstract:Background: A majority of the current debates in experimental animal science research focus to a large extent on the significance and implementation of the 3Rs principle according to Russell and Burch. In this context, not least due to the EU Directive 2010/63/EU, the concept of a culture of care has become more prevalent. Although animals are essential actors in the field of laboratory science, the discussion around animal agency, as well as the resulting consequences for laboratory animal science, is currently unconsidered. Methods: The purpose of this qualitative survey was to identify the perception and understanding of professional workers in laboratory animal science regarding the culture of care in general and aspects of animal agency in particular. Using a non-standardized qualitative survey method (topic-oriented, guideline-based expert interviews), persons involved in animal experimentation in different groups (management, science, regulation, and care) were interviewed. Results: Overall, the results of the qualitative survey showed that animal agency plays a subordinate role in the question of a culture of care in animal research. Although not all groups explicitly applied the construct of animal agency or comparable terminology for this, there were links to the theoretical construct. Overall, the interviews showed a recognized network between humans and animals and that animals can interact dialogically in research. This is justified, for example, by the transfer of emotions from carers or scientists to animals. Nevertheless, a differentiated reflection of an animal's agency remains disregarded. Conclusion: The present qualitative survey approached the understanding of a culture of care among experts in the field of animal research. Animal agency does occur in the theoretical reception of the culture of care model. However, it is not conclusively established in everyday practice. Rather, the results lead to the assumption that strategies are being implemented to largely fade out animal agency.
Impulse for animal welfare outside the experiment

Lars Lewejohann,Kerstin Schwabe,Christine Häger,Paulin Jirkof

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677219891754

2020-02-12

Laboratory Animals

Abstract:Animal welfare is a growing societal concern and the well-being of animals used for experimental purposes is under particular scrutiny. The vast majority of laboratory animals are mice living in small cages that do not offer very much variety. Moreover, the experimental procedure often takes very little time compared to the time these animals have been bred to the desired age or are being held available for animal experimentation. However, for the assessment of animal welfare, the time spent waiting for an experiment or the time spent after finishing an experiment has also to be taken into account. In addition to experimental animals, many additional animals (e.g. for breeding and maintenance of genetic lines, surplus animals) are related to animal experimentation and usually face similar living conditions. Therefore, in terms of improving the overall welfare of laboratory animals, there is not only a need for refinement of experimental conditions but especially for improving living conditions outside the experiment. The improvement of animal welfare thus depends to a large extent on the housing and maintenance conditions of all animals related to experimentation. Given the current state of animal welfare research there is indeed a great potential for improving the overall welfare of laboratory animals.

zoology,veterinary sciences
The culture of care to enhance laboratory animal personnel well-being: a scoping review

Heidi L Morahan,Shari Cohen,Lisa Bero,Kieron B Rooney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772241259089

2024-09-03

Abstract:There has been intense focus on improving the quality of animal research in recent times. An emerging concept of a 'culture of care' has been proposed as another important pillar to enhance scientific quality, with staff well-being being a critical aspect. Professionals working with research animals can face moral and psychological burdens and are at risk of experiencing work-related stress. However, data on the global prevalence of stress in this population is limited. Equally, it is not clear how these stresses manifest, and what impact they might have on an individual's workplace performance and research quality. The purpose of this review was to identify work-related stress, its prevalence, and map evidence on strategies to mitigate stresses. We also set out to identify studies assessing the association between work-related stress and research quality. A systematic search was conducted across four databases, in addition to hand searching relevant references. We included peer-reviewed publications describing work-related stress, culture of care and laboratory animal professionals. A total of 49 publications were included for data mapping. Compassion fatigue was the most frequently described work-related stress, and its prevalence across Europe and North America is likely to be widespread. Multiple strategies to mitigate compassion fatigue and work-related stress were put forward, however, limited empirical evidence was available to assess success. Moreover, no studies reported empirical data linking work-related stress with research quality, despite several publications stating the case. Further population-specific research and measured assessments are urgently needed to deliver culture of care programmes to improve human well-being, animal welfare and research quality.
Societal views and animal welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories

D M Weary,B A Ventura,M A G von Keyserlingk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001160

IF: 3.73

animal

Abstract:The innovations developed by scientists working on animal welfare are often not adopted in practice. In this paper, we argue that one important reason for this failure is that the solutions proposed do not adequately address the societal concerns that motivated the original research. Some solutions also fail because they do not adequately address perceived constraints within the industry. Using examples from our own recent work, we show how research methods from the social sciences can address both of these limitations. For example, those who persist in tail-docking cattle (despite an abundance of evidence showing that the practice has no benefits) often justify their position by citing concern for cow cleanliness. This result informs the nature of new extension efforts directed at farmers that continue to tail dock, suggesting that these efforts will be more effective if they focus on providing producers with methods (of proven efficacy) for keeping cows clean. Work on pain mitigation for dehorning shows that some participants reluctant to provide pain relief believe that the pain from this procedure is short lasting and has little impact on the calf. This result informs the direction of new biological research efforts to understand both the magnitude and duration of any suffering that result from this type of procedure. These, and other examples, illustrate how social science methodologies can document the shared and divergent values of different stakeholders (to ensure that proposed solutions align with mainstream values), beliefs regarding the available evidence (to help target new scientific research that meets the perceived gaps), and barriers in implementing changes (to ease adoption of ideas by addressing these barriers).
Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures

David Fraser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1591(99)00090-8

IF: 2.569

1999-12-01

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Abstract:Since the 1970s, scientists studying animal welfare and philosophers writing about animal ethics have worked toward the common goal of understanding and articulating our proper relationship to animals of other species. However, the two groups approached this task using such different concepts, assumptions, and vocabulary that they functioned as two distinct “cultures” with little mutual understanding or communication. Some of the best known ethical writing created barriers for scientists because it tended (1) to focus only on the level of the individual rather than making some decisions at the level of the population, ecosystem or species, (2) to advocate single ethical principles rather than balancing conflicting principles, (3) to ignore or dismiss traditional ethics based on care, responsibility, and community with animals, (4) to seek solutions through ethical theory with little recourse to empirical knowledge, (5) to lump diverse taxonomic groups into single moral categories, and (6) to propose wholesale solutions to diverse animal use practices. Meanwhile, some of the scientists alienated the ethicists by taking the view that suffering and other subjective experiences of animals are not amenable to scientific enquiry, and by the claim that science could “measure” animal welfare as if it were a purely empirical concept. However, other (often less well known) work in animal ethics creates links with animal welfare science and looks to empirical research to help resolve animal ethics issues. Some of this work (1) expresses moral concern about animals using concepts that lend themselves to scientific analysis, (2) attaches value to traditional care for and community with animals, (3) recognizes the importance of empirical analysis for discriminating between good and bad animal use practices, and (4) sees different taxonomic groups as meriting different types and levels of ethical concern. At the same time, animal welfare science has grown more compatible with the approaches used by some ethicists. Some scientists have recognized and tried to clarify the interplay of normative and empirical elements in the assessment of animal welfare, and many are attempting to understand ethically relevant subjective experiences of animals. The increasing convergence of the scientific and philosophical approaches may lead to a more integrated field of study and to a greater awareness that neither empirical information nor ethical reflection can, by itself, answer questions about our proper relationship to animals of other species.

agriculture, dairy & animal science,veterinary sciences,behavioral sciences
Animal research nexus: a new approach to the connections between science, health and animal welfare

Gail Davies,Richard Gorman,Beth Greenhough,Pru Hobson-West,Robert G W Kirk,Reuben Message,Dmitriy Myelnikov,Alexandra Palmer,Emma Roe,Vanessa Ashall,Bentley Crudgington,Renelle McGlacken,Sara Peres,Tess Skidmore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2019-011778

2020-02-19

Medical Humanities

Abstract:Animals used in biological research and testing have become integrated into the trajectories of modern biomedicine, generating increased expectations for and connections between human and animal health. Animal research also remains controversial and its acceptability is contingent on a complex network of relations and assurances across science and society, which are both formally constituted through law and informal or assumed. In this paper, we propose these entanglements can be studied through an approach that understands animal research as a nexus spanning the domains of science, health and animal welfare. We introduce this argument through, first, outlining some key challenges in UK debates around animal research, and second, reviewing the way nexus concepts have been used to connect issues in environmental research. Third, we explore how existing social sciences and humanities scholarship on animal research tends to focus on different aspects of the connections between scientific research, human health and animal welfare, which we suggest can be combined in a nexus approach. In the fourth section, we introduce our collaborative research on the animal research nexus, indicating how this approach can be used to study the history, governance and changing sensibilities around UK laboratory animal research. We suggest the attention to complex connections in nexus approaches can be enriched through conversations with the social sciences and medical humanities in ways that deepen appreciation of the importance of path-dependency and contingency, inclusion and exclusion in governance and the affective dimension to research. In conclusion, we reflect on the value of nexus thinking for developing research that is interdisciplinary, interactive and reflexive in understanding how accounts of the histories and current relations of animal research have significant implications for how scientific practices, policy debates and broad social contracts around animal research are being remade today.
In search of animal normativity: a framework for studying social norms in non‐human animals

Evan Westra,Simon Fitzpatrick,Sarah F. Brosnan,Thibaud Gruber,Catherine Hobaiter,Lydia M. Hopper,Daniel Kelly,Christopher Krupenye,Lydia V. Luncz,Jordan Theriault,Kristin Andrews

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13056

IF: 14.35

2024-01-26

Biological Reviews

Abstract:Social norms – rules governing which behaviours are deemed appropriate or inappropriate within a given community – are typically taken to be uniquely human. Recently, this position has been challenged by a number of philosophers, cognitive scientists, and ethologists, who have suggested that social norms may also be found in certain non‐human animal communities. Such claims have elicited considerable scepticism from norm cognition researchers, who doubt that any non‐human animals possess the psychological capacities necessary for normative cognition. However, there is little agreement among these researchers about what these psychological prerequisites are. This makes empirical study of animal social norms difficult, since it is not clear what we are looking for and thus what should count as behavioural evidence for the presence (or absence) of social norms in animals. To break this impasse, we offer an approach that moves beyond contested psychological criteria for social norms. This approach is inspired by the animal culture research program, which has made a similar shift away from heavily psychological definitions of 'culture' to become organised around a cluster of more empirically tractable concepts of culture. Here, we propose an analogous set of constructs built around the core notion of a normative regularity, which we define as a socially maintained pattern of behavioural conformity within a community. We suggest methods for studying potential normative regularities in wild and captive primates. We also discuss the broader scientific and philosophical implications of this research program with respect to questions of human uniqueness, animal welfare and conservation.

biology
Re-thinking public health: Towards a new scientific logic of routine animal health care in European industrial farming

Camille Bellet,Lindsay Hamilton,Jonathan Rushton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00890-y

2021-09-20

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Abstract:Abstract This study makes the case for a new scientific logic of routine animal health care in industrial farming in Europe. We argue that the social regime underpinning scientific research and development on chronic animal disease management (CADM) in Europe stifles innovation and sustains a productivist model of animal husbandry that facilitates and maintains chronic animal diseases rather than eliminating them. Drawing on documentary analysis and qualitative interviews, the study explores the science of CADM in the broiler, cattle and pig sectors of the European food industry. Our findings show that in these major sectors, research and development on CADM is largely orientated towards a logic of growth, profitability and control rather than a recognition of the interconnection between chronic animal diseases, the food industry, and people (especially consumers) as advocated by the One Health approach. The study contributes to the literature on medical humanities and science and technology studies within One Health and public health in two ways: First, we draw new focus towards chronic animal diseases that are non-transmissible to humans and argue that while these are not zoonoses, they are equally worthy of attention for managing the emergence of new pathogens and diseases. Second, we expand the conceptualisation of One Health to include chronic animal health conditions. Our argument is that public health as an outcome of the One Health approach should be a term of reference that applies to humans and nonhumans alike whether they be farmed animals, practitioners or consumers.
Social determinants of health and survival in humans and other animals

Noah Snyder-Mackler,Joseph Robert Burger,Lauren Gaydosh,Daniel W Belsky,Grace A Noppert,Fernando A Campos,Alessandro Bartolomucci,Yang Claire Yang,Allison E Aiello,Angela O'Rand,Kathleen Mullan Harris,Carol A Shively,Susan C Alberts,Jenny Tung,Daniel W. Belsky,Grace A. Noppert,Fernando A. Campos,Allison E. Aiello,Angela O’Rand,Carol A. Shively,Susan C. Alberts

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax9553

IF: 56.9

2020-05-22

Science

Abstract:Social animals need connection Much research over the past decade or so has revealed that health and lifespan in humans, highly social animals, are reduced with social adversity. We humans are not the only animals that are social, however, and similar research has shown that other social mammals are similarly influenced by isolation and adversity. Snyder-Mackler et al. reviewed the relationships between social environment and many aspects of health and well-being across nonhuman mammals and investigated the similarities between these and patterns in humans. They found many of the same threats and responses across social mammals. Science , this issue p. eaax9553

multidisciplinary sciences
Ethical and Animal Welfare Considerations in Relation to Species Selection for Animal Experimentation

John Webster

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani4040729

2014-12-03

Animals

Abstract:Ethical principles governing the conduct of experiments with animals are reviewed, especially those relating to the choice of species. Legislation requires that the potential harm to animals arising from any procedure should be assessed in advance and justified in terms of its possible benefit to society. Potential harms may arise both from the procedures and the quality of the animals' lifetime experience. The conventional approach to species selection is to use animals with the "lowest degree of neurophysiological sensitivity". However; this concept should be applied with extreme caution in the light of new knowledge. The capacity to experience pain may be similar in mammals, birds and fish. The capacity to suffer from fear is governed more by sentience than cognitive ability, so it cannot be assumed that rodents or farm animals suffer less than dogs or primates. I suggest that it is unethical to base the choice of species for animal experimentation simply on the basis that it will cause less distress within society. A set of responsibilities is outlined for each category of moral agent. These include regulators, operators directly concerned with the conduct of scientific experiments and toxicology trials, veterinarians and animal care staff; and society at large.

agriculture, dairy & animal science,veterinary sciences
Welfare and Ethics of Medical Laboratory Animals

恽时锋,田小芸,董敏,张立波,郭联庆,杨国斌

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-8199.2010.04.014

2010-01-01

Abstract:Laboratory animals constitute an important base and an indispensable support for researches and development of life sciences, and contribute immensely to medicine and people's health. But a series of ethic issues have prompted people to ponder how to correctly treat the life of laboratory animals, how to safeguard their welfare, and how to make animal experiments in accordance with the principles of life ethics. This paper presents an overview on the origin and development of animal welfare and ethics, the appearance of the 3R theory and the legislation for laboratory animal welfare and ethics in the world, gives an analysis on the relationship of animal experiments with the welfare and ethics of animals and the influencing factors of animal welfare and ethics, and puts forward some measures and proposals for the improvement of the welfare and ethics of laboratory animals in China.
Prosocial behaviors in rodents

Michael J M Gachomba,Joan Esteve-Agraz,Cristina Márquez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105776

Abstract:Prosocial behaviors (i.e., actions that benefit others) are central for social interactions in humans and other animals, by fostering social bonding and cohesion. To study prosociality in rodents, scientists have developed behavioral paradigms where animals can display actions that benefit conspecifics in distress or need. These paradigms have provided insights into the role of social interactions and transfer of emotional states in the expression of prosociality, and increased knowledge of its neural bases. However, prosociality levels are variable: not all tested animals are prosocial. Such variation has been linked to differences in animals' ability to process another's state as well as to contextual factors. Moreover, evidence suggests that prosocial behaviors involve the orchestrated activity of multiple brain regions and neuromodulators. This review aims to synthesize findings across paradigms both at the level of behavior and neural mechanisms. Growing evidence confirms that these processes can be studied in rodents, and intense research in the past years is rapidly advancing our knowledge. We discuss a strong bias in the field towards the study of these processes in negative valence contexts (e.g., pain, fear, stress), which should be taken as an opportunity to open new venues for future research.
Animals in education and the structure of science

H. Verhoog

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.1993.10800645

1993-01-01

Global Bioethics

Abstract:The author puts forward the idea that one reason why ethical aspects of scientific experimentation received so little attention until recently, may be related to the methodological structure of natural science. It is the objectivation of nature and the belief in the value-freedom of science which have led to the separation between applying science and ethical reflection. In cases of conscientious objection one can regularly hear scientists say that students who don't want to do animal experiments should not study biology. This view overlooks the fact that besides the reductionistic approach there is also the holistic-naturalistic approach in biology. In the latter approach animals are studied for their own sake, rather than as measuring instruments or ‘models’. Ethicists would say that the animal studied in this approach has a value-of-its-own (intrinsic value), rather than the instrumental value of the animal in the laboratory. The choice for a reductionistic or holistic approach has different consequences with respect to our educational goals. The reductionistic view fosters the attitude that animals only exist for our own benefit, as objects to be mastered by the scientific method, to be instrumentalized in various practices inside or outside the laboratory. Emphasis on the holistic-naturalistic approach on the other hand leads to quite a different attitude, in which animals may be seen as our ‘partners’, either in the larger ecosystemic community of life, with a clearly recognizable value-of-their-own, or inside the human community (for instance as pets).

English Else
The Four Cs of Modern (Neuro)ethology and Neuroethics: Cognition, Complexity, Conation, and Culture

Simon Gadbois

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31011-0_9

2020-01-01

Abstract:Most of the modern arguments for or against the use of animals in research have a tendency to focus on animals’ cognitive and metacognitive abilities or seem to make consciousness and self-awareness prerequisites for an argument for the ethical treatment of animals. In the age of animal well-being (as opposed to their mere welfare), a modern neuroethological and post-cognitivist perspective on the animal mind may be fruitful. Unfortunately, the popularization of science (a strong venture in animal behavior and neuroscience) often weakens potentially good arguments and disfigures the science, the data, and the facts, adding only confusion to the issues at hand and creating myths that stall the progress of the ethical matters being discussed. We will discuss four main points: (1) cognitive perspectives in animal behavior emerged in ethology and comparative psychology and may have sidetracked some of the most salient issues relevant to neuroethics; (2) complex behaviors can emerge from simple brains, bridging the “mind gap” between human and nonhuman animals; (3) a conative approach to the behavioral sciences and neurosciences (already historically well established) is relevant to animal well-being and welfare in defining what animals want; (4) social neuroscience, behavioral plasticity, and the emergence of an understanding of animal culture narrow the divide between what we always assumed was uniquely human (species-specific behavioral flexibility and diversity).
A deepening understanding of animal culture suggests lessons for conservation

Philippa Brakes,Emma L. Carroll,Sasha R. X. Dall,Sally A. Keith,Peter K. McGregor,Sarah L. Mesnick,Michael J. Noad,Luke Rendell,Martha M. Robbins,Christian Rutz,Alex Thornton,Andrew Whiten,Martin J. Whiting,Lucy M. Aplin,Stuart Bearhop,Paolo Ciucci,Vicki Fishlock,John K. B. Ford,Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara,Mark P. Simmonds,Fernando Spina,Paul R. Wade,Hal Whitehead,James Williams,Ellen C. Garland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2718

2021-04-21

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract:A key goal of conservation is to protect biodiversity by supporting the long-term persistence of viable, natural populations of wild species. Conservation practice has long been guided by genetic, ecological and demographic indicators of risk. Emerging evidence of animal culture across diverse taxa and its role as a driver of evolutionary diversification, population structure and demographic processes may be essential for augmenting these conventional conservation approaches and decision-making. Animal culture was the focus of a ground-breaking resolution under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), an international treaty operating under the UN Environment Programme. Here, we synthesize existing evidence to demonstrate how social learning and animal culture interact with processes important to conservation management. Specifically, we explore how social learning might influence population viability and be an important resource in response to anthropogenic change, and provide examples of how it can result in phenotypically distinct units with different, socially learnt behavioural strategies. While identifying culture and social learning can be challenging, indirect identification and parsimonious inferences may be informative. Finally, we identify relevant methodologies and provide a framework for viewing behavioural data through a cultural lens which might provide new insights for conservation management.
Ethics, Space, and Somatic Sensibilities: Comparing Relationships between Scientific Researchers and Their Human and Animal Experimental Subjects

Beth Greenhough,Emma Roe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/d17109

2011-01-01

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space

Abstract:Drawing on geographies of affect and nature - society relations, we propose a radical rethinking of how scientists, social scientists, and regulatory agencies conceptualise human and animal participants in scientific research. The scientific rationale for using animal bodies to simulate what could be done in human bodies emphasises shared somatic capacities that generate comparable responses to clinical interventions. At the same time, regulatory guidelines and care practices stress the differences between human and animal subjects. In this paper we consider the implications of this differentiation between human and animal bodies in ethical and welfare protocols and practices. We show how the bioethical debates around the use of human subjects tend to focus on issues of consent and language, while recent work in animal welfare reflects an increasing focus on the affectual dimensions of ethical practice. We argue that this attention to the more-than-representational dimensions of ethics and welfare might be equally important for human subjects. We assert that paying attention to these somatic sensibilities can offer insights into how experimental environments can both facilitate and restrict the development of more care-full and response-able relations between researchers and their experimental subjects.

English Else

Who cares about lab rodents?

Science, Culture, and Care in Laboratory Animal Research

Culture of care in animal research – Expanding the 3Rs to include people

Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare

A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research

Culture of care: the question of animal agency in laboratory animal science

Impulse for animal welfare outside the experiment

The culture of care to enhance laboratory animal personnel well-being: a scoping review

Societal views and animal welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories

Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures

Animal research nexus: a new approach to the connections between science, health and animal welfare

In search of animal normativity: a framework for studying social norms in non‐human animals

Re-thinking public health: Towards a new scientific logic of routine animal health care in European industrial farming

Social determinants of health and survival in humans and other animals

Ethical and Animal Welfare Considerations in Relation to Species Selection for Animal Experimentation

Welfare and Ethics of Medical Laboratory Animals

Prosocial behaviors in rodents

Animals in education and the structure of science

The Four Cs of Modern (Neuro)ethology and Neuroethics: Cognition, Complexity, Conation, and Culture

A deepening understanding of animal culture suggests lessons for conservation

Ethics, Space, and Somatic Sensibilities: Comparing Relationships between Scientific Researchers and Their Human and Animal Experimental Subjects