Terminator tech?

Abstract

IT'S hard to avoid the subject of artificial intelligence (AI) at the moment, and what chat bots like ChatGPT can do for us, or the Terminator-style threats, existential or otherwise, that AI poses. But there is more to technology than AI, and technological developments in the animal health industry mean that remote monitoring of animals is more possible than ever before. But what are the consequences of this? This question was posed at the recent Animal Welfare Foundation discussion forum, in a session entitled ‘Technology is challenging the paradigm of animal welfare’. All four speakers on the panel – Nicola Blackie, Kevin Corley, Piers Hampson and Jonathan Statham – agreed that there were opportunities to improve animal welfare through the use of technology, but that it should augment rather than replace people. They argued that technology could even help retain people in the animal health industry as it could free them up to do more interesting tasks and solve more complex challenges. Technological innovations can generate, gather and process a huge amount of data, but as Blackie pointed out, it is how these data are interpreted that is important. She gave examples of how certain remote measurements might lead to misinterpretation of what was happening in the field if nobody was there to observe what was going on. Corley highlighted the importance of ensuring that any algorithms developed did not worsen bias and that data were thoroughly interrogated to understand the starting point. However, there is certainly the opportunity to use technology to spot subclinical signs and early warning behaviours to help identify and tackle health and welfare problems before they become serious. But again, the panellists sounded a note of caution, highlighting the challenge of identifying when these warning signs would lead to an actual problem. There is, for example, a danger of overtreating or overprescribing antimicrobials following the detection of subclinical signs that, ultimately, would not turn into disease. Nonetheless, continued data collection and research may well yield biomarkers and measurements that are reasonably accurate in flagging up a problem, giving the opportunity for intervention before a disease becomes established. An audience member also highlighted the danger of animals being considered as non-sentient ‘machines’ if too much monitoring is done remotely. This is another reason why people must maintain day-to-day knowledge of and responsibility for the animals they are caring for – be they owner or vet. More widely, technology can be of benefit in many current areas of concern. During the debate, Statham suggested that technology could help balance the pressures between animal health and welfare, sustainability, food security and antimicrobial use, for example. “Technology must not be introduced blindly, without consideration of possible consequences Keeping the interests of animals front and centre in all developments is key, and vets and vet nurses must advocate for them. This debate is taken further in an opinion piece on p 491 of this issue, in which Steve McCulloch, a vet and animal welfarist, argues vets should be involved in securing not only animal welfare but animal rights too. BVA grants editorial freedom to the Editor of Vet Record. The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and may not necessarily comply with BVA policy