Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:51:08.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Scientific Conception of Animal Welfare that Reflects Ethical Concerns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

D Fraser ,
D M Weary ,
E A Pajor  and
B N Milligan
D Fraser*
Affiliation:
Centre for Food and Animal Research, Building 94, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa K1A 0C6, Canada
D M Weary
Affiliation:
Centre for Food and Animal Research, Building 94, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa K1A 0C6, Canada
E A Pajor
Affiliation:
Centre for Food and Animal Research, Building 94, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa K1A 0C6, Canada
B N Milligan
Affiliation:
Centre for Food and Animal Research, Building 94, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa K1A 0C6, Canada
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
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.

Scientific research on ‘animal welfare’ began because of ethical concerns over the quality of life of animals, and the public looks to animal welfare research for guidance regarding these concerns. The conception of animal welfare used by scientists must relate closely to these ethical concerns if the orientation of the research and the interpretation of the findings is to address them successfully.

At least three overlapping ethical concerns are commonly expressed regarding the quality of life of animals: (1) that animals should lead natural lives through the development and use of their natural adaptations and capabilities, (2) that animals should feel well by being free from prolonged and intense fear, pain, and other negative states, and by experiencing normal pleasures, and (3) that animals should function well, in the sense of satisfactory health, growth and normal functioning of physiological and behavioural systems. Various scientists have proposed restricted conceptions of animal welfare that relate to only one or other of these three concerns. Some such conceptions are based on value positions about what is truly important for the quality of life of animals or about the nature of human responsibility for animals in their care. Others are operational claims: (1) that animal welfare research must focus on the functioning of animals because subjective experiences fall outside the realm of scientific enquiry, or (2) that studying the functioning of animals is sufficient because subjective experiences and functioning are closely correlated. We argue that none of these positions provides fully satisfactory guidance for animal welfare research.

We suggest instead that ethical concerns about the quality of life of animals can be better captured by recognizing three classes of problems that may arise when the adaptations possessed by an animal do not fully correspond to the challenges posed by its current environment. (I) If animals possess adaptations that no longer serve a significant function in the new environment, then unpleasant subjective experiences may arise, yet these may not be accompanied by significant disruption to biological functioning. Thus, a bucket-fed calf may experience a strong, frustrated desire to suck, even though it obtains adequate milk. (2) If the environment poses challenges for which the animal has no corresponding adaptation, then functional problems may arise, yet these may not be accompanied by significant effects on subjective feelings. Thus, a pig breathing polluted air may develop lung damage without appearing to notice or mind the problem. (3) Where animals have adaptations corresponding to the kinds of environmental challenges they face, problems may still arise if the adaptations prove inadequate. For example, an animal's thermoregulatory adaptations may be insufficient in a very cold environment such that the animal both feels poorly and functions poorly. We propose that all three types of problems are causes of ethical concern over the quality of life of animals and that they together define the subject matter of animal welfare science.

Keywords

animal welfareethicshealthscientific researchsubjective experiencesstressvalues
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , August 1997 , pp. 187 - 205
Copyright
© 1997 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Footnotes

1

Current address: Department of Animal Science and Centre for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada

2

Current address: Department of Biology, McGill University, 1205 Avenue Dr Penfield, Montreal H3A 1B1, Canada

References

Anonymous 1984 The Random House College Dictionary, revised edition. Random House: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 1989a The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 1989b How Astrid Lindgren Achieved Enactment of the 1988 Law Protecting Farm Animals in Sweden. Animal Welfare Institute: Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C, Mellor, D and Roberts, C 1996 Towards a consensus definition of animal welfare. In: Duncan I J H, Widowski T M and Haley D B (eds) Proceedings of the 30th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 73. Colonel K L Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare: Guelph, CanadaGoogle 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
Baxter, M R 1983 Ethology in environmental design for animal production. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambell, F W R 1965 Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1991a Assessing welfare and suffering. Behavioural Processes 25: 117–123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, D M 1991b Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M and Johnson, K G 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, E 1980 Animals and Ethics. A report of the working party convened by Edward Carpenter. Watkins & Dulverton: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Curtis, S E 1987 Animal well-being and animal care. Veterinary Clinics of North America 3(Farm Animal Behavior): 369–382Google ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, M S 1980 Animal Suffering. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1988 Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1993 Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness. W H Freeman: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D C 1987 The Intentional Stance. MIT Press: Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar
de Passille, A M B, Christophersen, R J and Rushen, J 1993 Nonnutritive sucking and the postprandial secretion of insulin, CCK and gastrin in the calf. Physiology and Behavior 54: 1069–1073CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Passillé, A M B, Metz, J H M, Mekking, P and Wiepkema, P R 1992 Does drinking milk stimulate sucking in young calves? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 23–36CrossRefGoogle 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 1996 Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science, Supplement 27: 29–35Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Fraser, D 1997 Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 19–31. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H, Slee, G, Kettlewell, P, Berry, P and Carlisle, A J 1986 Comparison of the stressfulness of harvesting broiler chickens by machine and by hand. British Poultry Science 27: 109–114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ewbank, R 1988 Animal welfare. In: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (eds) Management and Welfare of Farm Animals pp 1–12. Baillière Tindall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1993 Assessing animal well-being: common sense, uncommon science. In: Food Animal Well- Being pp 37–54. Purdue University Office of Agricultural Research Programs: West Lafayette, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare 4: 103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giattina, J D and Garton, R R 1983 A review of the preference-avoidance responses of fishes to aquatic contaminants. Residue Reviews 87: 43–90Google Scholar
Gonyou, H W 1993 Animal welfare: definitions and assessment. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, Supplement 2: 37–43Google Scholar
Griffin, D R 1992 Animal Minds. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R 1964 Animal Machines. Vincent Stuart Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hartwell S I, Jin J H, Cherry D S and Cairns J Jr 1989 Toxicity versus avoidance response of golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas, to five metals. Journal of Fish Biology 35: 447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O 1976 Behaviour as an index of welfare. In: Proceedings of the Fifth European Poultry Conference, Malta, pp 1005–1018Google Scholar
Hughes, B O and Duncan, I J H 1988 The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurnik, J F 1993 Ethics and animal agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, Supplement 1: ‘21-35Google Scholar
Jones, J B, Wathes, C M and Webster, A J F 1996 Behavioural adaptation of pigs to the irritant effects of atmospheric ammonia. In: Duncan I J H, Widowski T M and Haley D B (eds) Proceedings of the 30th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 103. Colonel K L Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare: Guelph, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J S 1992 The New Anthropomorphism. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiley-Worthington, M 1989 Ecological, ethological, and ethically sound environments for animals: toward symbiosis. Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2: 323–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolakowski, L 1968 The Alienation of Reason. A History of Positivist Thought. (Guterman N, translator). Doubleday: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
McFarland D (Ed) 1981 The Oxford Companion to Animal Behaviour. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
McGlone, J J 1993 What is animal welfare? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, Supplement 2: 26–36Google Scholar
Mendl, M 1991 Some problems with the concept of a cut-off point for determining when an animal’s welfare is at risk. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midgley, M 1983 Animals and Why They Matter. University of Georgia Press: Athens, USAGoogle 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
Molony, V, Kent, J E and Robertson, I S 1995 Assessment of acute and chronic pain after different methods of castration of calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, W D, Pirie, P D, Perkins, S, Braithwaite, L A, Smith, J H, Waterfall, D and Doucett, C M 1993 Gases and respirable dust in confinement buildings and the response of animals to such airborne contaminants. In: Collins E and Boon C (eds) Livestock Environment IV pp 734-741. American Society of Agricultural Engineers: St Joseph, USAGoogle Scholar
Regan, T 1983 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press: Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1990 The Unheeded Cry. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1992 Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus Books: Buffalo, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1993 Animal welfare, science, and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, Supplement 2: 44–50Google Scholar
Rollin, B E 1995 Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical, and Research Issues. Iowa State University Press: Ames, USAGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Lawrence, A B and Terlouw, E M C 1993 The motivational basis of stereotypies. In: Lawrence, A B and Rushen, J (eds) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare pp 41–64. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, D 1986 Farm Animal Welfare. Cattle, Pigs and Poultry. Collins: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Sambraus, H H 1981 Abnormal behavior as an indication of immaterial suffering. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 2: 245–248Google Scholar
Singer, P 1990 Animal Liberation, 2nd edition. Avon Books: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Smith, W J and Penny, R H C 1986 Behavioral problems, including vices and cannibalism. In: Leman, A D, Straw, B, Glock, R D, Mengeling, W L, Penny, R H C and Scholl, E (eds) Diseases of Swine, 6th edition pp 762–772. Iowa State University Press: Ames, USAGoogle Scholar
Stafleu, F R, Rivas, E, Rivas, T, Vorstenbosch, J, Heeger, F R and Beynen, A C 1992 The use of analogous reasoning for assessing discomfort in laboratory animals. Animal Welfare 1: 77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafleu, F R, Grommers, F J and Vorstenbosch, J 1996 Animal welfare: evolution and erosion of a moral concept. Animal Welfare 5: 225–234CrossRefGoogle 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
Taylor, P W 1986 Respect for Nature - A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University Press: Princeton, USAGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, W H 1969 Welfare of domestic animals. Nature 224: 18–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooijen, J 1981 Are feelings adaptations? The basis of modern applied animal ethology. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 187–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widowski, T M and Curtis, S E 1990 The influence of straw, cloth tassel, or both on the prepartum behavior of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar