Concern For Animal Welfare Research Articles

Incidence of bruising and dark firm dry beef in cattle carcasses in a commercial abattoir in Zimbabwe: An animal welfare concern

Incidence of bruising and dark firm dry beef in cattle carcasses in a commercial abattoir in Zimbabwe: An animal welfare concern

Ethical aspects and dilemmas of fertility control of unwanted wildlife: an animal welfarist's perspective.

Proposals to manipulate the fertility of wild, free-living animals extend the domination humans already exercise over domesticated animals. Current lethal methods for population control include poisoning, trapping, hunting, dogging, shooting, explosives, fumigants, and deliberately introduced disease. Animal welfare interests are based on individual animal suffering, but those interests are often overshadowed by labelling of groups of animals as pests, resource species, national emblem or endangered species. Public concern for animal welfare and acceptance of new population control methods will be influenced by such labels. The animal welfare implications of new population control technology must be balanced against the existing inhumane lethal methods used. It will be difficult to resolve the dilemma of a mechanism for disseminating a fertility control agent that will cause some animal suffering (e.g. a genetically-manipulated myxoma virus for European rabbits), yet may reduce future rabbit populations and therefore the number suffering from lethal methods. An Animal Impact Statement is proposed as a tool to assist debate during development of fertility control methods and for decision making prior to their use. A comprehensive and objective Animal Impact Statement may introduce an ethic that moves the pendulum from attitudes that allow sentient animals to be destroyed by any and all available means, towards a more objective selection of the most effective and humane methods.

Children linking science and technology in the primary classroom

This research project exemplifies how technology can facilitate scientific investigations. It also highlights how enthusiastic children can be when they are encouraged to pose their own questions and take responsibility for finding the answers. Year 5 children, working in groups, were involved in designing, making and appraising catchers and enclosures used to investigate small animals found within their school's grounds. A videotape of this project was made and should be a valuable resource for the professional development of both trainee and practising teachers. Included in the tape are children's spontaneous comments, their concern for animal welfare, and reflection on the various aspects of their investigations.

Updated toxicology test methods for new industrial chemicals: Implications for regulatory acceptance of in vitro alternatives now and in the future

Toxicology studies submitted under the Notification of New Substances Regulations are conducted according to standard (‘Annex V’) methods first published in 1984. In December 1992, updated methods became available that indicate where progress has been made in developing in vitro alternatives to animal testing which are acceptable to the regulatory authority (Health and Safety Executive). Although some changes reflect concern for animal welfare (e.g. the introduction of the fixed-dose method), for most toxicological endpoints an animal test remains obligatory. The major advance in the potential use of in vitro methods is as part of a tiered approach to irritancy testing. The updated method for eye irritation, for example, allows positive results in ‘well-validated alternative studies’ to override the need for an animal test. The substance is then classified as irritant and labelled with R41. The challenge facing such methods is to achieve full validation, so that negative data will be acceptable to the regulatory authorities. There are other challenges: a validated in vitro screen for developmental toxicity is needed for new substances, as are methods for detecting respiratory sensitizers and for replacing guinea pig skin sensitization tests.

Limitations to Productivity

Productivity in livestock systems is closely correlated with gross efficiency. Improving efficiency by increasing productivity is an honourable pursuit since it minimises waste; not least the waste of animals through disease, infertility or simply the inability to provide food in excess of maintenance. By this (limited) definition the limits to productivity in any system are defined only by the quality of feed available and the genetic and physiological capacity of the animal to convert it into food for man. However, the approach to the limit is asymptotic, i.e. subject to the law of diminishing returns. Until recently most Animal Science has been directed towards marginal improvements in productivity but we now recognise the need to broaden our objectives to include quality of life criteria, such as environmental protection and animal welfare. My remit is to consider how to incorporate a proper concern for animal welfare into the assessment of limits to productivity,or more precisely, the cost/benefit analysis of marginal responses to increased intensity of production.

Recent advances in animal biotechnology: welfare and ethical implications

The increasing dependence of intensive livestock industries on animal biotechnology to sustain and increase production efficiency continues to evoke animal welfare and ethical concern. This paper briefly reviews recent biotechnological developments in the light of their possible welfare and ethical implications. In particular, the review focuses on recent developments in animal breeding including artificial insemination, embryo transfer, and embryo cloning and on approaches aimed at increasing production through use of pharmaceuticals and transgenesis.

Editorial

The contents of this second issue in Volume 2 of the UFAW journal are mainly directed towards three areas of animal welfare concern: commercial poultry production, captive primates and the use of animals in scientific research.

The Last GASP Wasn't-Reply

In Reply.— controversy over animal experimentation goes far beyond questions of providing for humane and considered treatment of sentient living subjects. emotional issue of animal welfare has been manipulated by some animal rights activists to discredit, disrupt, and threaten biomedical scientists and their work. My essay The Last GASP lampooned those who would destroy the experimental foundations of our science in the name of animal liberation by suggesting through hyperbole a direction their activities might lead us. My intent was not to demean or ridicule genuine concern for animal welfare, a sentiment shared by all persons of good will, scientists and satirists included.

Subcutaneous immunization of rabbits with nitrocellulose paper strips impregnated with microgram quantities of protein

The desire to produce specific antibodies to substances available only in m inute quantities and increased concern for laboratory animal welfare have each contributed to heightened interest in alternative immunization methods. In this report, we describe the production of polyclonal antibodies against microgram quantities of a weakly immunogenic tumor-associated protein of canine origin. Our technique employs the subcutaneous implantation of nitrocellulose electroblot strips without the use of adjuvant. The method is simple, appears reliable, can be used to improve antigen purity, and is applicable for either polyclonal or monoclonal antibody production in different host species. In addition, because traditional adjuvants are not required with this system, severe inflammatory responses and associated animal discomfort are reduced.

Review of Experiments for Animal Welfare Concerns

Review of Experiments for Animal Welfare Concerns

The modern politics of laboratory animal use.

There are signs that the parties in the laboratory animal welfare controversy may be ready to recognize each other's concerns. The issue is a longstanding one in Europe and the United States, and has been characterized by bitter accusations and certainty of moral position on both sides.' Those who are convinced that laboratory animals are cruelly or unnecessarily used have often characterized the scientific establishment as coldly insensitive to animal pain, and lacking in basic compassion toward living creatures. Those who are convinced that animal experiments are natural and appropriate tools to serve the advancement of science and the struggle against human diseases have often characterized the animal welfare movement as irrational and as blindly myopic in its sense of moral outrage at animal suffering but lack of recognition of human health needs. In the conflict, there has generally been an absence of the basic condition for successful resolution: That each side recognizes the legitimacy, in its own context, of the opposing point of view. Recent legislative debates, and actions in both the scientific and animal welfare communities, however, are finally giving cause for optimism that problemsolving approaches may begin to prevail over debating tactics. That optimism is based, in part, on a crucial shift of scientific community opinion. Some aspects of this shift were clearly evident in the recent conference on Standards for Research with Animals: Current Issues and Proposed Legislation sponsored by Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R).2 The shift involves abandonment of the point of view that concern for laboratory animal welfare is a minor or eccentric sideshow in the overall progress of biomedical research. Instead, it is beginning to be seen as one of a few crucial interfaces between the operations of science and the concerns of the public as a whole. And because the laboratory animals issue is one among relatively few areas in which the public expresses concern about the procedures, ethics, and approaches of scientific research (human subject practices, recombinant DNA research, and industry-university relationships, among the others), many scientists now recognize that the scientific community must ensure that the issue is handled sensitively and credibly. The special importance of communication at this juncture of public discussion is the reason that the U.S. Congress has been taking laboratory animal legislation as seriously as it has. Many of the key Congressional figures involved in recent legislative initiatives are the traditional friends of science, who have worked for adequate funding and often led the resistance against ideological harassment or curbs on scientific independence.3 They appreciate the importance of public support as a necessary basis for justifying the spending of public funds. That recognition clearly reinforces their sense of the need to facilitate the smooth functioning of this critical science/public interface. Current legislative interest is, of course, the product of a long process of growing public and political sensitivity to the treatment of animal Thomas Moss is Director of Research Administration and Adjunct Professor of Physics at Case Western Reserve University. During the 96th and 97th Congress, Dr. Moss was Staff Director of the Science, Research, and Technology Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives, which had before it the major proposals for laboratory animal welfare legislation.

The relationship between agricultural research and socio-economic and agricultural policies

The application of known technology to the agriculture of the OECD countries could produce far more food than their own populations need. Yet in transferring the surplus food to the food-deficient developing countries there could be problems in the logistics and energy costs of transport and distribution, in interference in conventional marketing arrangements, and in reducing the incentive to produce food in the needy countries. Thus a number of OECD countries are now examining whether they should restrict their levels of food production; certainly there could be less emphasis than in the past on food output per se. This could coincide with a number of unrelated developments which are likely to place restraints upon the level of food production. These include energy problems (food production at the margin is costly in energy), environmental pollution, food quality (including interest in systems of alternative agriculture), food and nutrition policy, and concern for animal welfare. As long as food supply appeared limiting, society was prepared to place only limited restraints on agricultural production systems; this attitude could change if food supplies move towards increasing surpluses. The paper considers the possible implications of such a change for the planning of R and D programmes in agriculture and food, and also for the production decisions taken on individual farms where food is produced. It concludes that, while the effect will differ between countries, depending on levels of self-sufficiency in food, in general increasing are likely to be placed on “output” as a primary objective of agricultural production systems.