Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:56:22.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science, Values and Animal Welfare: Exploring the ‘Inextricable Connection’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

D Fraser
D Fraser*
Affiliation:
Centre for Food and Animal Research, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa KIA OC6, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In conceptualizing animal welfare, it is useful to distinguish among three types of concepts. ‘Type 1” are single, measurable attributes. ‘Type 2’ are single attributes that cannot be measured directly but can be estimated by correctly combining various contributing attributes. ‘Type 3’ are concepts involving multiple attributes which are grouped together because they serve some common function, and whose relative importance cannot be established in an entirely objective way. Individuals who treat animal welfare as a type 1 concept may propose single, objective measures of welfare, such as longevity or levels of stress-related hormones; however, this approach rests on judgements, which are not purely objective, about the relative importance of different factors for an animal's quality of life. Studies of animal preferences and motivation are sometimes seen as an objective way to weight different attributes according to the animals’ own priorities, and thus allow animal welfare to be treated as a type 2 concept. However, numerous technical and fundamental difficulties limit our ability to do this. Animal welfare is best seen as a type 3 concept incorporating multiple attributes, with considerable consensus over certain general principles (eg that a high level of welfare implies freedom from suffering) but with value-related disagreement over how these principles should be applied. Because the various attributes cannot be combined in a purely objective way, science is limited in its ability to determine the ‘overall’ welfare of an animal and to compare welfare in disparate environments. Instead of attempting to ‘measure’ animal welfare, the role of science should be seen as identifying, rectifying and preventing welfare problems.

Keywords

animal welfarevaluesethicsscience
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , May 1995 , pp. 103 - 117
Copyright
© 1995 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 1989 How Astrid Lindgren Achieved Enactment of the 1988 Law Protecting Farm Animals in Sweden. Animal Welfare Institute: Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
Arey, D S 1992 Straw and food as reinforcers for prepartal sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J L, Cronin, G M, Winfield, C G and Dewar, A M 1984 The welfare of adult pigs: The effects of five housing treatments on behaviour, plasma corticosteroids and injuries. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J L and Hemsworth, P H 1990 The validity of physiological and behavioural measures of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1991 Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunk, C, Haworth, L and Lee, B 1991 Value Assumptions in Risk Assessment: A Case Study of the Alachlor Controversy. Wilfrid Laurier University Press: Waterloo, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Cannon, W B 1929 Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage, 2nd edition. Appleton-Century Co: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, E 1980 Animals and Ethics. A report of the working party convened by Edward Carpenter. Watkins & Dulverton: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Dantzer, R 1990 Animal suffering: The practical way forward. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 17–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dantzer, R and Monnede, P 1983 Stress in farm animals: A need for reevaluation. Journal of Animal Science 57: 6–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, M S 1980 Animal Suffering. Chapman & Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1983 Battery hens name their price: Consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs.’ Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal’s point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–9, 54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S and Beardsley, T 1986 Reinforcing properties of access to litter in hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1978 The interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1993 Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6(Supplement 2): 8–14Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Dawkins, M S 1983 The problem of assessing ‘well-being’ and ‘suffering’ in farm animals. In: D Smidt (ed) Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare pp 13–24. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, P (ed) 1967 The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 8. Macmillan Publishing Co: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A F and Broom, D M 1990 Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 3rd Edition. Baillière Tindall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1993 Assessing animal well-being: Common sense, uncommon science. In: Food Animal Weil-Being pp 37–54. Purdue University Office of Agricultural Research Programs: West Lafayette, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Leonard, M L 1993 Farm animal welfare. In: Martin, J, Hudson, R J and Young, B A (eds) Animal Production in Canada pp 253–270. University of Alberta Faculty of Extension: Edmonton, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, P A and Thompson, B K 1993 Environmental preference testing to assess the well-being of animals - An evolving paradigm. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6(Supplement 2): 104–114Google Scholar
Harrison, R 1964 Animal Machines. Vincent Stuart Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O 1975 Spatial preference in the domestic hen. British Veterinary Journal 131: 560–564CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, B O 1976a Preference decisions of domestic hens for wire or litter floors. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O 1976b Behaviour as an index of welfare. In: Proceedings of the Fifth European Poultry Conference pp 1005-1018. MaltaGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Black, A J 1973 The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. British Poultry Science 14: 615–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurnik, J F 1993 Ethics and animal agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6(Supplement 1): 21–35Google Scholar
Hutson, G D 1988 Do sows need straw for nest-building? Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28: 187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladewig, J and Smidt, D 1989 Behavior, episodic secretion of Cortisol, and adrenocortical reactivity in bulls subjected to tethering. Hormones and Behavior 23: 344–360CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lagadic, H and Faure, J-M 1987 Preferences of domestic hens for cage size and floor types as measured by operant conditioning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessells, C M 1991 The evolution of life histories. In: Krebs, J R and Davies, N B (eds) Behavioural Ecology, 3rd edition pp 32–68. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Mason, G and Mendl, M 1993 Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, J W (ed) 1968 Organization of psychoendocrine mechanisms. [15 paper supplement] Psychosomatic Medicine 30: 565–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, J A and Stricklin, W R 1990 Consumer demand theory and social behavior: All chickens are not equal. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moberg, G P 1985 Biological response to stress: Key to assessment of animal well-being? In: Moberg G P (ed) Animal Stress pp 27–49. American Physiological Society: Bethesda, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moberg, G P 1992 Stress: Diagnosis, cost and management. In: Mench, J A, Mayer, S J and Krulisch, L (eds) The Well-Being of Agricultural Animals in Biomedical and Agricultural Research pp 58–61. Scientists Center for Animal Welfare: Bethesda, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1992 Animal Rights and Human Morality. Revised edition. Prometheus Books: Buffalo, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1991 Problems associated with the interpretation of physiological data in the assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J and de Passillé, A M B 1992 The scientific assessment of the impact of housing on animal welfare: A critical review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 721–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
San doe, P and Simonsen, H P 1992 Assessing animal welfare: where does science end and philosophy begin? Animal Welfare 1: 257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selye, H 1950 Stress. ACTA: Montreal, CanadaGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selye, H 1956 The Stress of Life. McGraw-Hill Book Co: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Shettleworth, S J and Mrosovsky, N 1990 From one subjectivity to another. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 37–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, J 1991 Ethics and animal welfare: The inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 198: 1360–1376Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, G B 1972 One man’s philosophy of welfare. Veterinary Record 91: 426–428CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorpe, W H 1969 Welfare of domestic animals. Nature 224: 18–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar