A Good Life for Laboratory Rodents?

Most would agree that animals in research should be spared "unnecessary" harm, pain, or distress, and there is also growing interest in providing animals with some form of environmental enrichment. But is this the standard of care that we should aspire to? We argue that we need to work towards a higher standard-specifically, that providing research animals with a "good life" should be a prerequisite for their use. The aims of this paper are to illustrate our vision of a "good life" for laboratory rats and mice and to provide a roadmap for achieving this vision. We recognize that several research procedures are clearly incompatible with a good life but describe here what we consider to be the minimum day-to-day living conditions to be met when using rodents in research. A good life requires that animals can express a rich behavioral repertoire, use their abilities, and fulfill their potential through active engagement with their environment. In the first section, we describe how animals could be housed for these requirements to be fulfilled, from simple modifications to standard housing through to better cage designs and free-ranging options. In the second section, we review the types of interactions with laboratory rodents that are compatible with a good life. In the third section, we address the potential for the animals to have a life outside of research, including the use of pets in clinical trials (the animal-as-patient model) and the adoption of research animals to new homes when they are no longer needed in research. We conclude with a few suggestions for achieving our vision.

Naturalness and Animal Welfare

Naturalness is considered important for animals, and is one criterion for assessing how we care for them. However, it is a vague and ambiguous term, which needs definition and assessments suitable for scientific and ethical questions. This paper makes a start on that aim. This paper differentiates the term from other related concepts, such as species-typical behaviour and wellbeing. It identifies contingent ways in which naturalness might be used, as: (i) prompts for further welfare assessment; (ii) a plausible hypothesis for what safeguards wellbeing; (iii) a threshold for what is acceptable; (iv) constraints on what improvements are unacceptable; and (v) demarcating what is not morally wrong, because of a lack of human agency. It then suggests an approach to evaluating animals' behaviour that is quantitative, is based on reality, and which assesses naturalness by degrees. It proposes classing unaffected wild populations as natural by definition. Where animals might have been affected by humans, they should be compared to the closest population(s) of unaffected animals. This approach could allow us both to assess naturalness scientifically, and to make practical decisions about the behaviour of domestic animals.

Online Chats to Assess Stakeholder Perceptions of Meat Chicken Intensification and Welfare

Simple Summary

Most people care about animal welfare. Nevertheless, divergent views remain on what constitutes animal welfare, despite a growing body of scientific evidence. We used online chats to trigger discussion among participants from various stakeholder groups: general public, animal advocacy group, meat chicken industry-affiliated, and researchers or veterinarians who were not industry-affiliated but had experience with chickens. The aim of this pilot study was to assess reasons for divergence in opinions or conversely agreement between participants, using the topic of the welfare implications of meat chicken farming intensification. Participants also completed a pre- and post-chat survey to evaluate their perceptions and knowledge of chicken farming. Reasons for supporting intensification included perceptions of better health for the chickens and the sustainability of the system. Reasons for opposition included perceptions of the large number of animals kept together, and limited ability to perform natural behaviours. Misunderstandings about current practices were clarified in chats which contained industry-affiliated participants. Participants agreed on the need for enforceable standards and industry transparency. On average, objective knowledge of intensification increased after participating in the chat, but support for intensification did not change over the course of the study, counter to assertions that lack of knowledge results in lack of support for some practices. Engaging stakeholders can provide valuable information to anyone interested in the relationship between perception and knowledge of specific farming practices.

Abstract

Evidence suggests that there is variation in support for specific chicken farming practices amongst stakeholder groups, and this should be explored in more detail to understand the nature of these differences and work towards convergence. Online focus groups were used to assess attitudes to animal welfare in meat chicken farming in this pilot study. Across six online chats, 25 participants (general public, n = 8; animal advocacy group, n = 11, meat chicken industry, n = 3; research or veterinary practice who had experience with poultry but no declared industry affiliation, n = 3) discussed meat chicken intensification and welfare. Of those, 21 participants completed pre- and post-chat surveys gauging perceptions and objective knowledge about meat chicken management. Main reasons for intensification support were perceptions of improved bird health, and perceptions that it is a cost-effective, sustainable farming system. Reasons for opposition included perceptions that a large number of birds kept are in close proximity and have limited ability to perform natural behaviours. Misunderstandings about current practices were clarified in chats which contained industry representation. Participants agreed on the need for enforceable standards and industry transparency. Industry-affiliated members rated welfare of meat chickens higher, and gave lower ratings for the importance of natural living, than other stakeholder groups (both p = 0.001). On average, while objective knowledge of intensification increased after chat participation (p = 0.03), general welfare ratings and support for intensification did not change over time, counter to assertions that lack of knowledge results in lack of support for some practices.

[The HIV infection - the limits of prevention concepts. Consideration with respect to responsibilities incumbent on the infected individual, politics and society at large]

Despite the introduction of campaigns to prevent the continued spread of HIV/AIDS in Germany, the number of annual firsttime HIV-diagnoses is continuing steadily. The concepts behind the current campaigns are largely based on models of New Public Health, of which social learning strategies are an essential element. The established personal and individual rights should be unimpeachable but the right not to know the status of HIV infection should be questioned for those people who spread their HIV infection intentionally and wilfully. Confronted with more than 10,000 people in Germany unconscious of their HIV infection, easy access to HIV testing and access of opportune therapy should be offered with the goal of reducing the number of new infections. Expanded strategies on the responsibility to one's personal health and that of the partner, understandable and adapted to special groups of the society, should be established and maintained at a high level of awareness. All measures must be performed voluntarily.