Vulnerable Subjects? The Case of Nonhuman Animals in Experimentation

The concept of vulnerability is deployed in bioethics to, amongst other things, identify and remedy harms to participants in research, yet although nonhuman animals in experimentation seem intuitively to be vulnerable, this concept and its attendant protections are rarely applied to research animals. I want to argue, however, that this concept is applicable to nonhuman animals and that a new taxonomy of vulnerability developed in the context of human bioethics can be applied to research animals. This taxonomy does useful explanatory work, helping to pinpoint the limitations of the 3Rs/welfare approach currently adopted in the context of animal experimentation. On this account, the 3Rs/welfare approach fails to deliver for nonhuman animals in experimentation because it effectively addresses only one element of their vulnerability (inherent) and paradoxically through the institution of Animal Ethics Committees intended to protect experimental animals in fact generates new vulnerabilities that exacerbate their already precarious situation.     

From “Us vs. Them” to “Shared Risk”: Can Animals Help Link Environmental Factors to Human Health?

Linking human health risk to environmental factors can be a challenge for clinicians, public health departments, and environmental health researchers. While it is possible that nonhuman animal species could help identify and mitigate such linkages, the fields of animal and human health remain far apart, and the prevailing human health attitude toward disease events in animals is an “us vs. them” paradigm that considers the degree of threat that animals themselves pose to humans. An alternative would be the development of the concepts of animals as models for environmentally induced disease, as well as potential “sentinels” providing early warning of both noninfectious and infectious hazards in the environment. For such concepts to truly develop, critical knowledge gaps need to be addressed using a “shared risk” paradigm based on the comparative biology of environment–host interactions in different species.     

Equine Welfare in England and Wales: Exploration of Stakeholders' Understanding

Investigating how those responsible for the care of nonhuman animals understand the concept of animal welfare is important for animal welfare improvement. In-depth interviews with 31 equine stakeholders were used to explore their perceptions and understanding of welfare. The results showed the stakeholders understood the concept of welfare in 4 ways. Firstly, welfare was understood in terms of the provision of resources—for example, food. Secondly, a “horse-centered” understanding of welfare was articulated; this understanding included the horses' mental state and was linked to natural behavior. Thirdly, the word welfare had negative connotations, and for some, good welfare was achieved through avoidance of negative states. Finally, interviewees discussed incidents that occurred in their own familiar contexts but suggested that these were not welfare problems. Evidence indicated that the ways in which equine stakeholders understood the concept of welfare might have been acting as a barrier to the alleviation of some equine welfare problems. There is a need for strategies aimed at improving equine welfare to consider stakeholder constructs of welfare and the ways in which these constructs are generated and acted upon.     

Animals as sentinels: using comparative medicine to move beyond the laboratory

The comparative medicine approach, as applied to the study of laboratory animals for the betterment of human health, has resulted in important medical and scientific progress. Much of what is known about the human health risks of many toxic and infectious hazards present in the environment derives from experimental studies in animals and observational (epidemiological) studies of exposed human populations. Yet there is a third source of "in vivo" knowledge about host-environment interactions that may be underused and -explored: the study of diseases in naturally occurring animal populations that may signal potential human health threats. Just as canaries warned coal miners of the risk of toxic gases, other nonhuman animals, due to their greater susceptibility, environmental exposure, or shorter life span, may serve as "sentinels" for human environmental health hazards. Traditionally, communication between human and animal health professionals about cross-species sentinel events has been limited, but progress in comparative genomics, animal epidemiology, and bioinformatics can now provide an enhanced forum for such communication. The "One Health" concept involves moving toward a comparative clinical approach that considers "shared risks" between humans and animals and promotes greater cooperation and collaboration between human and animal health professionals to identify and reduce such risks. In doing so, it also creates new opportunities for the field of comparative medicine that can supplement traditional laboratory animal research.     

Wild Minds: What People Think about Animal Thinking

ABSTRACT

The question of how nonhuman animals think is pervasive in the scientific and popular media, yet there is an apparent lack of concordance between findings from research in animal cognition and how this information emerges in popular discourse. The present study investigated the way people conceive of animal thinking, in order to inform the development of an exhibit on animal minds that will address this issue and foster a deeper connection between people and animals. This two-part, sequential study of perceptions of animal thinking used qualitative interviews of visitors to the New York Hall of Science and Staten Island Zoo to develop a quantitative, online consumer survey of American museum visitors. The results show that American museum visitors vary in their perceptions of animal thinking, but appear to be open to new ideas about how animals might think. Participants' responses to the interviews revealed they could easily recognize survival strategies in wild animals, but had reservations about discussions of empathy, deception, and awareness. In addition, animals kept as pets or companion animals in Western culture were commonly perceived to have higher cognitive capacities for thinking than food or other domestic animals. Participants' responses to the online consumer survey appeared to focus on an overall concept of animal thinking, rather than different cognitive dimensions. Although participants were generally neutral in their responses, demographic analysis revealed participants who had dogs and/or cats, a college education, or watched nature shows were more likely to support the belief that animals can think. Participants who had children at home were less likely to support this belief. Further research is needed to determine how different kinds of thought processes are understood by general audiences and how demographic factors might influence perceptions of animal thinking.     

Social Dominance and Legitimizing Myths about Animal Use

The present study tested the hypothesis that the relation between social dominance orientation and the endorsement of legitimizing myths about the human use of nonhuman animals is moderated by the salience of that use. Eighty-two student participants read an article about agriculture that focused on either animal or crop production and then completed measures of legitimizing myths about animal use, speciesism, and social dominance orientation. In support of the hypothesis, legitimizing myths and speciesism were endorsed among people higher in social dominance orientation in the animal agriculture condition but not in the crop agriculture condition. This illustrates that when issues regarding the human use of animals are salient, people who support inequality between human groups are likely to appeal to justifications of practices in animal use that benefit humans. More broadly, it illustrates that a similar nexus between social dynamics and psychological variables sustains both human intergroup inequality and hierarchical human–animal relationships.     

The Concept of Human Dignity in the Ethics of Genetic Research

Despite criticism that dignity is a vague and slippery concept, a number of international guidelines on bioethics have cautioned against research that is contrary to human dignity, with reference specifically to genetic technology. What is the connection between genetic research and human dignity? In this article, I investigate the concept of human dignity in its various historical forms, and examine its status as a moral concept. Unlike Kant's ideal concept of human dignity, the empirical or relational concept takes human dignity as something that is affected by one's circumstances and what others do. I argue that the dignity objection to some forms of genetic research rests on a view of human nature that gives humans a special status in nature – one that is threatened by the potential of genetic research to reduce individuals to their genetic endowment. I distinguish two main philosophical accounts of human nature. One of these, the Aristotelian view, is compatible with the use of genetic technology to help humans realize their inherent potential to a fuller extent.     

Special welfare concerns in countries dependent on live animal trade: the real foreign animal disease emergency for Canada

Any outbreak of an Office International des Epizooties trade-disrupting (previously List-A) disease, such as classical swine fever or foot and mouth disease in a previously disease-free region can have severe consequences for nonhuman animal welfare. In addition to animals destroyed for the purposes of disease eradication, certain preexisting trade patterns may result in welfare slaughter programs affecting many more animals than the disease eradication effort. Welfare slaughter is the destruction of healthy animals to prevent overcrowding on farms under movement restriction and as a consequence of loss of access to live animal export markets. Governments of European countries have anticipated welfare slaughter as part of their disease eradication preparedness. The concept of welfare slaughter and the resource implications thereof have not been included in current, published, livestock disease emergency-planning documents in Canada or the United States. Animal welfare, specifically the killing of healthy animals (not foreign animal disease eradication) has been the focus of public concern in recent disease-eradication efforts in Europe. North American organizations responsible for livestock exotic disease emergency preparedness need to expand their plans to include welfare slaughter.     

Why should we care about nonhuman animals during times of crisis?

Incentives to care for nonhuman animals derive in part from the extent to which people depend on animals for food, for livelihood, and for cultural and psychological reasons as well as from the duty to protect animals in their care. When attention is turned to solving and preventing animal welfare problems at times of crisis, it becomes clear that those problems are also associated with problems for human welfare and environmental impact. The incidence and spread of animal diseases is affected by how animals are treated, and this can have very important effects. Similarly, during disasters caused by either natural or human-made events, outcomes for animals are important both in themselves and for their effects on humans and the environment. The need to plan and prepare to care for animals in advance of disease pandemics and disasters—and then to provide coordinated, measured management in response when such crises occur—requires collaboration between all agencies involved as well as increasing attention and resources.     

Editor's introduction to the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science

Animal welfare names a science in which investigators ask the general question: What are the capacities, sensibilities, needs, and interests of animals as they relate to their welfare? The objects of study in this emerging field are exclusively animals other than humans. Numerous contexts give rise to this interest in nonhuman animal welfare: The intensification of the use of animals since World War II, particularly on the farm and in the laboratory. The development of moral philosophies that establish nonhuman animals as objects of moral consideration. The advances in science in fields that have added to our understanding of animals, such as cognitive ethology. Advances in technology that give us more direct access to human physiology and psychology and undercut the tradition of using animal models. The success of the contemporary animal rights movement in placing the issue of the treatment of animals before the public.     

An undignified bioethics: there is no method in this madness

In a recent article, Alasdair Cochrane argues for the need to have an undignified bioethics. His is not, of course, a call to transform bioethics into an inelegant, pathetic discipline, or one failing to meet appropriate disciplinary standards. His is a call to simply eliminate the concept of human dignity from bioethical discourse. Here I argue that he fails to make his case. I first show that several of the flaws that Cochrane identifies are not flaws of the conceptions of dignity he discusses but rather flaws of his, often problematic, understanding of such conceptions. Second, I argue that Cochrane's case against the concept of human dignity goes too far. I thus show that were one to agree that these are indeed flaws that require that we discard our ethical concepts, then following Cochrane's recommendations would commit us not only to an undignified bioethics, i.e. a bioethics without dignity, but to a bioethics without much ethics at all.     

Human–Dolphin Interactions: Relationships,Connections, and the Reinforcement of an Ongoing Nature Relationship

Although interactions between humans and wild animals have been explored in the literature, the mechanism for how such experiences influence wellbeing is an area needing further examination. This research used Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis to explore the narratives of wellbeing from eight semi-structured interviews with people who had experienced intense close encounters with dolphins. Despite idiographic differences between narratives, a common theme of Relationships and Connectedness between participants and nonhuman animals emerged. The expression of this indicates that human–dolphin experiences fulfill aspects of the human need for connection and relationships and that the experiences promote wellbeing and environmental behaviors. This is contextualized within an ongoing nature relationship and the importance of a lifelong connection with wildlife, to ensure that humans see themselves as part of the natural world. Such a dynamic is discussed within the frame of the biophilia hypothesis and the importance of human contact with nature to ensure wellbeing. The narratives reported here describe strong emotional connections, transmitted through both tangible and perceived contact with dolphins, which translate into positive senses of emotion and wellbeing. The connections described are powerful: perceptions of communion and mutual exchange become articulated through rhetoric of friendship and kinship. Importantly, it appears that dolphin encounters are signifiers of wider relationships, both with nature and people. In this case, participants are reinforcing established habits of nature connectedness, habits reflecting a lifelong involvement with nonhuman animals. How connection with wild animals as a part of nature can promote wellbeing and in turn encourage environmental behavior is discussed in the context of the contemporary need for human responsibility to ensure the protection of nature and the survival of nonhuman animal species and habitats.     

Visitors' effects on the welfare of animals in the zoo: a review

Since the 1970s, research about zoo visitors' effects on the welfare of nonhuman animals in captivity has intensified. Numerous studies have shown that characteristics such as visitor presence, density, activity, size, and position are associated with animal behavioral and—to alesser extent physiological—changes. Studies usually interpret these changes as negative (undesirable) or positive (enriching), but it remains unclear whether they significantly impinge on animal welfare. To make confident conclusions about visitors' effects necessitates more studies using (a) a wider range of animal groupings, (b) measures of stress, (c) visitor-animal variables, and (d) other methodological improvements In the meantime, in addition to further research, individual zoos need to emphasize (a) monitoring the stress indicators of their captive animals, (b) observing visitor behavior, and (c) ensuring that staffs are aware of the “visitor effect” concept.     

Visitors' Effects on the Welfare of Animals in the Zoo: A Review

Since the 1970s, research about zoo visitors' effects on the welfare of nonhuman animals in captivity has intensified. Numerous studies have shown that characteristics such as visitor presence, density, activity, size, and position are associated with animal behavioral and—to alesser extent physiological—changes. Studies usually interpret these changes as negative (undesirable) or positive (enriching), but it remains unclear whether they significantly impinge on animal welfare. To make confident conclusions about visitors' effects necessitates more studies using (a) a wider range of animal groupings, (b) measures of stress, (c) visitor-animal variables, and (d) other methodological improvements In the meantime, in addition to further research, individual zoos need to emphasize (a) monitoring the stress indicators of their captive animals, (b) observing visitor behavior, and (c) ensuring that staffs are aware of the “visitor effect” concept.     

Characteristics of Shelter-Relinquished Animals and Their Owners Compared With Animals and Their Owners in U.S. Pet-Owning Households

Animal shelters in the United States annually receive millions of relinquished dogs and cats, and risk factors for relinquishment are not fully understood. Investigators sponsored by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy interviewed people who relinquished dogs and cats at 12 shelters in four regions. We collected similar data from a sample of U.S. households with companion animals. Data collected included nonhuman animal characteristics such as age, sex, and frequency of selected behaviors. We also obtained data on keepers' (owners') age, sex, and level of education as well as their general knowledge of pet care and behavior. We found that relinquishment was associated with physical and behavioral characteristics of the animals and owner characteristics and knowledge. Relinquished animals were more likely to be intact, younger, and mixed bred. People relinquishing animals were significantly more likely to be men and younger than 35 years. Duration of ownership was significantly shorter for relinquished animals.     

“Animals Like Us”: Identifying with Nonhuman Animals and Support for Nonhuman Animal Rights

While anthropomorphizing nonhuman animals has been shown to increase identification with them and, by extension, concern for their wellbeing, little research has directly tested whether identifying with nonhuman animals is similarly associated with concern for their wellbeing. We tested hypotheses related to this premise across three cross-sectional studies. In study 1 (n = 224), we tested the hypothesis that therians—a group of people who self-identify with nonhuman animals, show greater concern for nonhuman animal rights than non-therian furries—people with a fan-like interest in media featuring anthropomorphized animal characters. In study 2 (n = 206), we further tested this hypothesis using implicit and explicit measures of identification with nonhuman animals to predict behavioral intentions to support nonhuman animal rights. In study 3 (n = 182), we tested the generalizability of our findings in a sample of undergraduate students. Taken together, the studies show that explicit, but not implicit, identification with nonhuman animals predicts greater support for their rights. The implications of these findings for research on anthropomorphism and animal rights activism are discussed, as well as the limitations of these findings and possible avenues for future research.     

Characteristics of Shelter-Relinquished Animals and Their Owners Compared With Animals and Their Owners in U.S. Pet-Owning Households

Animal shelters in the United States annually receive millions of relinquished dogs and cats, and risk factors for relinquishment are not fully understood. Investigators sponsored by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy interviewed people who relinquished dogs and cats at 12 shelters in four regions. We collected similar data from a sample of U.S. households with companion animals. Data collected included nonhuman animal characteristics such as age, sex, and frequency of selected behaviors. We also obtained data on keepers' (owners') age, sex, and level of education as well as their general knowledge of pet care and behavior. We found that relinquishment was associated with physical and behavioral characteristics of the animals and owner characteristics and knowledge. Relinquished animals were more likely to be intact, younger, and mixed bred. People relinquishing animals were significantly more likely to be men and younger than 35 years. Duration of ownership was significantly shorter for relinquished animals.     

Genetic Engineering and Other Factors That Might Affect Human-Animal Interactions in the Research Setting

Evidence exists, particularly in the welfare literature of nonhuman animals on the farm, that the interaction between nonhuman animals and the personnel who care for them can have a strong effect on the animals' behavior, productivity, and welfare. Among species commonly used for biomedical research, mice appear to be the least-preferred species in animal care facilities. A review of the literature and observations of animal care staff interacting with mice indicated that the following factors may influence this: their small size, their particular behavioral characteristics, and husbandry constraints (such as housing in ventilated racks). In addition, this study questioned whether animal care personnel have a different perception of genetically engineered animals and whether this, in turn, has an effect on their interactions with these animals. The ability to carefully observe an animal's behavior is key in carrying out an animal-wellness assessment and in minimizing pain and distress. Attention to human-animal interactions in the research setting represents an opportunity for refinement for large numbers of animals and potentially for reduction of animal use.     

Genetic engineering and other factors that might affect human-animal interactions in the research setting

Evidence exists, particularly in the welfare literature of nonhuman animals on the farm, that the interaction between nonhuman animals and the personnel who care for them can have a strong effect on the animals' behavior, productivity, and welfare. Among species commonly used for biomedical research, mice appear to be the least-preferred species in animal care facilities. A review of the literature and observations of animal care staff interacting with mice indicated that the following factors may influence this: their small size, their particular behavioral characteristics, and husbandry constraints (such as housing in ventilated racks). In addition, this study questioned whether animal care personnel have a different perception of genetically engineered animals and whether this, in turn, has an effect on their interactions with these animals. The ability to carefully observe an animal's behavior is key in carrying out an animal-wellness assessment and in minimizing pain and distress. Attention to human-animal interactions in the research setting represents an opportunity for refinement for large numbers of animals and potentially for reduction of animal use.