Bridging research disciplines to advance animal welfare science: a practical guide

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Interdisciplinary Research ◽  
Animal Behaviour ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Animal Welfare Science ◽  
Practical Information ◽  
Integration Of Disciplines ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Science Part

Abstract This book provides practical information about interdisciplinary research, particularly to students and researchers of animal behaviour, animal welfare and veterinary sciences, to better understand how the integration of disciplines can advance animal welfare science. The book is divided into 2 parts. Part 1 gives guidance on how interdisciplinary research can advance animal welfare science. Part 2 touches on some of the major links between animal welfare and other disciplines and gives insight into the techniques and potential pitfalls that may occur when applying a certain discipline to animal welfare research.

Interdisciplinary research to advance animal welfare science: an introduction.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Irene Camerlink
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Interdisciplinary Research ◽  
Animal Welfare Science

Abstract This chapter provides a brief introduction to animal welfare and animal welfare science, and to interdisciplinary research within this context.

Using neuroscience to better understand animals and their welfare.

2021 ◽  
pp. 157-171
Author(s):  
Irene Camerlink
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Welfare Science ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract In this chapter, a brief overview of the vast field of neuroscience is given in relation to animal welfare science. The outlined techniques provide examples of how neuroscience can help us to gain insight into animals' mental experiences.

scholarly journals PSIV-33 The Animal Welfare Assessment Contest® as a Tool to Promote Animal Welfare Education

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. 468-468
Author(s):  
Sharon Kuca ◽  
Lindsey McKinney ◽  
Cia Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Educational Tool ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Behavioral Indicators ◽  
Animal Welfare Science ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Animal Welfare Assessment ◽  
Strongly Agree

Abstract Established in 2001, the Animal Welfare Assessment Contest® (AWJAC®) aims to be an innovative educational tool for enhancing understanding and awareness of welfare issues affecting animals used for human purposes (e.g., research, agriculture, entertainment, companionship). The contest is open to participation by veterinary, undergraduate, and graduate students who may participate as individuals or as part of a team. A limited number of veterinarians are also eligible to compete as non-placing participants. Participation in the contest entails assessment of live and computer-based scenarios encompassing data, photographs, and videos of animals in comparable situations. Students then use the information obtained to rank the welfare of the animals in those situations on the basis of physiologic and behavioral indicators, with attention to facilities and management, and present their analyses orally to expert judges. The species featured change each year of the contest. At the completion of each contest, participants and coaches are asked to anonymously complete a written survey. The quantitative and qualitative results of this survey are used to determine if the contest has achieved its aims and incorporate suggestions for improvement of future contests. The majority of survey respondents from the five contests held between 2014–2018 report they either strongly agree or agree that the AWJAC increased their knowledge of animal welfare science (98%, n = 549) and was an overall valuable experience (99%, n = 547) that they would recommend to their peers (98%, n = 550). Respondents cited networking opportunities and diversity of species featured in the contest as key reasons the contest is valuable. Given these results, the AWJAC is successfully achieving its aims to increase animal welfare knowledge in an innovative way.

Animal welfare science—Working at the interface between the natural and social sciences

2006 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vonne Lund ◽  
Grahame Coleman ◽  
Stefan Gunnarsson ◽  
Michael Calvert Appleby ◽  
Katri Karkinen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Welfare Science ◽  
Science Working

scholarly journals Increasing Maximum Penalties for Animal Welfare Offences in South Australia—Has It Caused Penal Change?

Animals ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rochelle Morton ◽  
Michelle Hebart ◽  
Alexandra Whittaker
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Interdisciplinary Research ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Companion Animal ◽  
Animal Abuse ◽  
Electronic Form ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Case Files ◽  
Animal Welfare Legislation

Animal welfare legislation in South Australia underwent amendments in 2008, where all the maximum penalties for animal welfare offences were doubled. This commitment to increased penalties arguably provides evidence of the legislature’s intent with respect to penalties. Studies have speculated that the legislative intent behind the increased penalties is not being reflected in the courts. This interdisciplinary research sought to gain evidence to confirm or disprove these speculations, by quantifying the average custodial sentence and monetary fine handed down in court before and after the 2008 amendments. Furthermore, trends relating to the species of animal affected and the demographics of the offender were identified. A total of 314 RSPCA (SA) closed case files from 2006 to 2018 were converted into an electronic form. Since the amendments, the average penalties have doubled in magnitude; fines have increased from $700 to $1535, while prison sentences have increased from 37 days to 77 days. Cases of companion animal abuse were most common (75% of all cases) and the location of the offence was found to influence offending. These findings suggest that the 2008 amendments have caused the average penalties to increase. However, it is debatable whether these increases are enough to effectively punish animal abusers.

scholarly journals Putting the Horse Before the Cart: the Ethical Case for Animal Patient Values in EBVM

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Mills
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Surgical Intervention ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
Natural Behaviour ◽  
Do No Harm ◽  
Or Practice ◽  
Animal Welfare Science ◽  
Patient Values ◽  
The Individual

<p>Patient values represents one of the three cornerstones of contemporary human EBM definitions, and are considered vital to both protect the patient from the tyranny of unsuitable treatment and to ensure the individual is central in clinical decisions. They comprise “unique preferences, concerns and expectations of each patient” (Sackett et al 1996). By stark contrast, EBVM replaces individual patient values with “circumstances of each patient, and the circumstances and values of the owner/carer” (CEVM 2015). There is a danger that in such a conception, animal welfare may not be prioritised in EBVM practice.</p><p>Animal patients are not philosophically or scientifically likely to possess the complex values of humans, but it is conceivable that they possess ‘values’ in the context of veterinary interventions, such as preferences, wants, needs and desires; indeed these underlie much animal welfare science. They may be basic, such as the avoidance of suffering and a desire to continue life, or more complex, such as a desire to maximise pleasure or natural behaviour. They are likely to be individual and dynamic. They may be defined as the unique dynamic mental preference state of an animal during the period of veterinary medical or surgical intervention, including avoidance of suffering and maximisation of health and pleasure.</p><p>EBVM’s current consideration of patient values only extends to demonstrating effectiveness, or not, of an intervention for an animal. Any intervention involves some physical or mental welfare compromise for animal patients, which may be severe; EBVM aims to ensure this harm 'cost' is consistently outweighed by therapeutic 'benefit'. However, in current EBVM the evidence is often weak, incomplete, contradictory, fuzzy, non-existent or inapplicable, meaning there is a significant risk of causing harm to the patient’s welfare when practising EBVM. This stands in opposition to a veterinary surgeon’s oath and ethical imperative to do no harm, and to do the best for her patients’ welfare (RCVS 2015).</p><p>At what point does the risk become ethically unacceptable? The answer comprises both philosophical considerations, and empirical, critically anthropomorphic attributions of values to animals. Such conceptions and techniques are not currently explicitly expounded in EBVM research or practice. Rather than being marginalised or excluded from definitions of EBVM, this presentation will argue that patient values should be the central, primary and overriding consideration in both its practice and research if EBVM is to be an ethically acceptable pursuit.</p><br /> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access" />

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document