Refinement

Ethics of feeding: The omnivore dilemma

By I. H. E. Kasanen, D. B. Sørensen, B. Forkman & P. Sandøe
Animal Welfare. UFAW. 2010

 

Abstract

The way in which animals are fed is an important aspect of their welfare. Not only does food provide the energy and nutrients vital for survival, but feeding is also associated with a number of other factors contributing to the well-being of animals. The feeding method can determine the animals' abilities to fulfil basic behavioural needs, such as foraging. The aim of this paper is to review and discuss the dilemma of choosing between ad libitum feeding (AL) and dietary restriction (DR). AL can produce obese individuals with severe health problems, though it does appear to be compatible with welfare-friendly management systems. On the other hand, DR is often associated with improved physical health and longevity but can leave animals suffering from hunger, frustration or aggression.

 

The species discussed are the laboratory rat, pigs and poultry all of which are omnivores sharing many characteristics in their eating habits. The welfare implications of different feeding methods depend upon the definition of welfare used. Based on a definition of welfare in terms of functioning, DR could be considered the best way to feed animals, because it results in improved physical health and longevity. If welfare is defined in terms of natural living, it is also a requirement for the animal to be able to engage in natural foraging behaviours. From the feelings-based approach, DR can be viewed as preferable only in circumstances when animals are anticipated to live so long that they would otherwise suffer from the negative long-term consequences of AL. It is argued that incentives are needed to make farmers spend resources to ensure that farm animals are allowed to have their foraging-related needs fulfilled. Feeding of laboratory animals creates special dilemmas when it is important either to under- or over-nourish the animals for experimental purposes, in such instances there is a need for Refinement. 

 

Full text (pdf) - limited access 

 

---

 

Painful dilemmas: The ethics of animal-based pain research

 

M. Magalhães-Sant’Ana, P. Sandøe & I. A. S. Olsson
Animal Welfare. UFAW. 2009 

 

Abstract

While it has the potential to deliver important human benefits, animal-based pain research raises ethical questions, because it involves inducing pain in sentient beings. Ethical decision-making, connected with this variety of research, requires informed harm-benefit analysis, and the aim of this paper is to provide information for such an analysis. We present an overview of the different models and their consequences for animal welfare, showing that, of the many animal models available, most have a considerable welfare impact on the animal. While the usual approach to pain control through administration of analgesic substances is usually unsuitable in pain research, refinement remains an option, both within the experimental protocol and in general husbandry and handling. Drawing on the overview, we develop a discussion of the ethical acceptability of animal-based pain research against the background of the kinds of harm done to the animals involved, the potential for refinement, and the expected benefits of the research.

 

Full text (pdf) - limited access

  

 

Ethics and Refinement in Animal Research

 

By I. A. S. Olsson, A. K. Hansen & P. Sandøe

Science. AAAS. 2007

 

Extract

Based on a case study we conclude that scientists and journals could and should do more to secure the ethical standards of animal use in biomedical research: Scientists often justify animal use referring to the scientific value and biomedical importance (2). However, except from a purely anthropocentric perspective, ethical concern about compromised animal welfare cannot be justified by human benefits alone (1). It is equally important that the benefits are achieved with a minimum of negative effects to the animals involved. Thus scientists must apply ’refinement’, the third R of the so-called 3Rs (3). But here scientists seem sometimes to do less than they should and journals fail in their duty to enforce high ethical standards. 

 

Full text (pdf)