Does the Animal Welfare Act apply to free-ranging animals?

Despite the long-standing role that institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) have played in reviewing and approving studies at academic institutions, compliance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is not always complete for government natural resource agencies that use free-ranging animals in research and management studies. Even at universities, IACUCs face uncertainties about what activities are covered and about how to judge proposed research on free-ranging animals. One reason for much of the confusion is the AWA vaguely worded exemption for "field studies." In particular, fish are problematic because of the AWA exclusion of poikilothermic animals. However, most university IACUCs review studies on all animals, and the Interagency Research Animal Committee (IRAC) has published the "IRAC Principles," which extend coverage to all vertebrates used by federal researchers. Despite this extended coverage, many scientists working on wild animals continue to view compliance with the AWA with little enthusiasm. IACUCs, IACUC veterinarians, wildlife veterinarians, and fish and wildlife biologists must learn to work together to comply with the law and to protect the privilege of using free-ranging animals in research.     

Animal Welfare at the Group Level: More Than the Sum of Individual Welfare?

Currently assessment and management of animal welfare are based on the supposition that welfare status is something experienced identically by each individual animal when exposed to the same conditions. However, many authors argue that individual welfare cannot be seen as an ‘objective’ state, but is based on the animal’s own self-perception; such perception might vary significantly between individuals which appear to be exposed to exactly the same challenges. We argue that this has two implications: (1) actual perceived welfare status of individuals in a population may vary over a wide range even under identical environmental conditions; (2) animals that appear to an external observer to be in better or poorer welfare condition may all in fact perceive their own individual status as the same. This would imply that optimum welfare of a social group might be achieved in situations where individual group members differ markedly in apparent welfare status and perceive their own welfare as being optimal under differing circumstances. Welfare phenotypes may also vary along a continuum between self-regarding and other-regarding behaviour; a variety of situations exist where (social) individuals appear to invest in the welfare of other individuals instead of maximising their own welfare; in such a case it is necessary to re-evaluate individual welfare within the context of a social group and recognise that there may be consequences for the welfare of individuals, of decisions made at the group level or by other group members.     

Protein folding: where is the paradox?

In this contribution we shall try to argue that no folding scenario - be it hierachical, nonhierarchical, nucleation, etc. - needs to be invoked to solve Levinthal's paradox: It fails on its own grounds.     

Animal morality: What is the debate about?

Empirical studies of the social lives of non-human primates, cetaceans, and other social animals have prompted scientists and philosophers to debate the question of whether morality and moral cognition exists in non-human animals. Some researchers have argued that morality does exist in several animal species, others that these species may possess various evolutionary building blocks or precursors to morality, but not quite the genuine article, while some have argued that nothing remotely resembling morality can be found in any non-human species. However, these different positions on animal morality generally appear to be motivated more by different conceptions of how the term “morality” is to be defined than by empirical disagreements about animal social behaviour and psychology. After delving deeper into the goals and methodologies of various of the protagonists, I argue that, despite appearances, there are actually two importantly distinct debates over animal morality going on, corresponding to two quite different ways of thinking about what it is to define “morality”, “moral cognition”, and associated notions. Several apparent skirmishes in the literature are thus cases of researchers simply talking past each other. I then focus on what I take to be the core debate over animal morality, which is concerned with understanding the nature and phylogenetic distribution of morality conceived as a psychological natural kind. I argue that this debate is in fact largely terminological and non-substantive. Finally, I reflect on how this core debate might best be re-framed.     

Animal Welfare Beyond the Cage … and Beyond the Evidence?

In “Laboratory Rodent Welfare: Thinking Outside the Cage,” Balcombe (2010/this issue) suggests that laboratory cage housing is damaging to rats and mice because it does not meet their evolved needs and may damage their psychological and physical health. The article also indicates that larger and more enriched spaces reduce aggression and mortality and improve the health and friendliness of rodents in the laboratory. Remarkably, many of the studies cited as supporting these assertions fail to provide data bearing on the issues involved or may even report findings opposite to those described by Balcombe, whereas many studies that are highly relevant to these issues are not cited or described. Moreover, although the “evolved needs” of rats and mice are presented as the basis for an analysis of rodent welfare, the important and well-documented changes in needs- or motivation-related behaviors of a rodent in the laboratory (due to human selection over hundreds of generations) is ignored. This pattern of disconnections between data and conclusions is so pervasive as to demolish the scientific value of the exposition.     

Activation of defence reactions in Solanaceae: where is the specificity?

When a potential pathogen attempts to infect a plant, biochemical and molecular communication takes place and leads to the induction of plant defence mechanisms. In the case of efficient defence, visible symptoms are restricted and the pathogen does not multiply (incompatible interaction); when defence is inefficient, the plant becomes rapidly infected (compatible interaction). During the last 30 years, a growing body of knowledge on plant-pathogen interactions has been gathered, and a large number of studies investigate the induction of various plant defence reactions by pathogens or by pathogen-derived compounds. However, as most papers focus on incompatible interactions, there is still a lack of understanding about the similarities and differences between compatible and incompatible situations. This review targets the question of specificity in Solanaceae-pathogen interactions, by comparing defence patterns in plants challenged with virulent or avirulent pathogens (or with pathogen-associated molecular patterns from these). A special emphasis is made on analysing whether defence reactions in Solanaceae depend primarily on the type of elicitor, on the plant genotype/species, or on the type of interaction (compatible or incompatible).     

Animal Welfare Issues in the Poultry Industry: Is There a Lesson to Be Learned?

Many of the conditions in which poultry live and the procedures to which they are subjected compromise their welfare. This article describes these welfare problems in the hope that they may serve as warnings to the rest of animal agriculture, which then might take steps to avoid the same pitfalls. The article discusses poultry welfare problems under the headings of battery cages for laying hens, forced molting, disposal of spent laying hens, fast growth problems in meat poultry, catching and transportation, food restriction of broiler breeders, hyperaggressiveness in broiler breeder males, elective surgeries, and water-bath stunning.     

Vaccination against shigellosis: is it the path that is difficult or is it the difficult that is the path?

Following several decades of research, there is not yet a convincing vaccine against shigellosis. It is still difficult, in spite of the breadth of strategies (i.e. live attenuated oral, killed oral, subunit parenteral) to select an optimal option. Two approaches are clearly emerging: (i) live attenuated deletion mutants based on rational selection of genes that are key in the pathogenic process, and (ii) conjugated detoxified polysaccharide parenteral vaccines, or more recently conjugated synthetic carbohydrates. Some of these approaches have already undergone phase I and II clinical trials with promising results, but important issues have also emerged, particularly the discrepancy between colonization and immunogenic potential of live attenuated vaccine candidates depending upon the population concerned (i.e. non endemic vs. endemic areas). Efforts are needed to definitely establish the proof of concept of these approaches, and thus the need for clinical trials which should also soon explore the possibility to associate different serotypes, in response to serotype specific protection against shigellosis. More basic research is also required to improve what we can still consider as first-generation vaccines, and to explore possible new paradigms including the search for cross-protective antigens.