Laboratory Animal Welfare

By Kathryn Bayne and Patricia V. Turner

Laboratory Animal Welfare provides a comprehensive, up-to-date look into the new science of animal welfare within laboratory research. Animals specifically considered include rodents, cats and dogs, nonhuman primates, agricultural animals, avian animals and aquatic animals.

The book examines the impact of experiment design and environment on animal welfare, as well as emergency situations and euthanasia practices. Readers will benefit from a review of regulations and policy guidelines concerning lab animal use, as well as information on assessing animal welfare. With discussions of the history and ethics of animals in research, and a debate on contemporary and international issues, this book is a go-to resource for laboratory animal welfare.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Sep 2, 2013
• ISBN: 9780123851048

Book preview

Laboratory Animal Welfare

Edited by

Kathryn Bayne

AAALAC International, Frederick, MD, USA

Patricia V. Turner

University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine Series

Copyright

Preface

Acknowledgments

List of Reviewers

Contributors

Chapter 1. History, Philosophies, and Concepts of Animal Welfare

Abstract

Events

Philosophies

Concepts

Conclusion

References

Chapter 2. Ethics and Animal Welfare

Abstract

Why Discuss Ethics in a Book about Animal Welfare

Morality and Moral Status

Ethical Theories

The Three Rs

Summary

References

Chapter 3. Regulations, Policies, and Guidelines Impacting Laboratory Animal Welfare

Abstract

Introduction

The Animal Welfare Act

Public Health Service Policy

The Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International

Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

Summary

References

Further Reading

Chapter 4. Animal Welfare Assessment Considerations

Abstract

Methods of Welfare Assessment

Assessment Standards

Assessing the Welfare of Animals in Cancer Research

Ensuring Observer Accuracy

Implementation of Assessment Standards

Challenges to Overcome

Conclusions

References

Chapter 5. Contemporary Issues in Laboratory Animal Welfare

Abstract

Introduction

Globalization of Animal Use

Ethics

Transparency and Public Involvement

Economic Issues

Scientific and Technological Progress

Building a Robust Animal Welfare Program within Your Institution

Conclusions

References

Chapter 6. Laboratory Animal Welfare: International Issues

Abstract

Introduction

How Countries Provide a Framework for Research Animal Welfare Oversight

A Diversity of Definitions of Animal Welfare

Enhancing Research Animal Welfare through the Three Rs

Harmonization Efforts

The IACUC/ACC/AEC as a Global Model for Review of Animal Use

Training of Veterinarians

Current Issues

Conclusions

References

Chapter 7. Animal Environments and Their Impact on Laboratory Animal Welfare

Abstract

Introduction

Physical Aspects

Chemical

Biological

Conclusions

References

Chapter 8. Experimental Design: Reduction and Refinement in Studies Using Animals

Abstract

Introduction

Why Design

General Considerations

Basic Design Considerations

Types of Experimental Designs

Other Considerations

References

Chapter 9. Animal Welfare Considerations in Biomedical Research and Testing

Abstract

Introduction

Animal Welfare Requirements and Strategies for Minimizing and Avoiding Pain and Distress

Animal Welfare in Biomedical Research

Animal Welfare in Toxicity and Safety Testing

Animal Welfare in Vaccine Testing

Diagnostic and Potency Testing for Toxins

References

Chapter 10. Preservation of Animal Welfare during Unforeseen Events

Abstract

Introduction

Causation of Unforeseen Events

Concepts of Emergency Management

General Principles

Regulatory Requirements and Other Expectations

Reporting Responsibilities

Conclusions

References

Further Reading

Chapter 11. Euthanasia and Laboratory Animal Welfare

Abstract

Euthanasia in Regulation and Research Oversight Guidelines

The Decision to Euthanize: Questions of When and Whether

Animal Welfare Prior to Euthanasia

Animal Welfare Science and Euthanasia: Empirical Studies

Some Current Common Methods for Laboratory Animal Euthanasia

Conclusions

References

Further Reading

Chapter 12. Rodent and Rabbit Welfare in the Research Environment

Abstract

Introduction to Laboratory Rodent and Rabbit Welfare

Assessing Rabbit and Rodent Welfare

Housing and Husbandry Requirements

Breeding and Genetic Engineering

Sources of Laboratory Rabbits and Rodents

Transportation and Receipt of Laboratory Rodents and Rabbits

Veterinary Oversight

Handling

Training and Habituation

Perioperative Care

Monitoring Animal Well-Being and Endpoint Determination

Euthanasia

Summary

References

Further Reading

Chapter 13. Nonhuman Primate Welfare in the Research Environment

Abstract

Acknowledgments

Overview

The Special Case of Nonhuman Primates

Effects of the Research Environment

Behavioral Management

Potential Effects on NHP Models of Maintaining Welfare

Welfare and Assessments of Quality of Life

Conclusions

References

Chapter 14. Dog and Cat Welfare in a Research Environment

Abstract

Introduction

Source

Welfare Considerations at the Laboratory Facility

Re-homing Research Animals

Conclusion

References

Chapter 15. Agricultural Animal Welfare

Abstract

Introduction

Assessing Farm Animal Welfare

Farm Animal Welfare and Pain Assessment

Bovine Welfare

Welfare of the Domestic Sheep and Goat

Swine Welfare

Poultry Welfare

Equine Welfare

Research Farm Animal Welfare and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees

Conclusion

Chapter 16. Birds as Laboratory Animals

Abstract

Introduction

Anatomy and Physiology

Behavior

Pain and Distress

Housing

Environmental Conditions

Feeding and Drinking

Special Aspects of Management

Handling

Transporting Birds

Euthanasia

Experimental Manipulations and Field Studies

Additional Information

References

Chapter 17. Welfare of Laboratory Fishes

Abstract

Welfare Considerations

Welfare Assessment

Basic Environmental Considerations

Basic Handling Considerations

References

Further Reading

Index

American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine Series

Steven H. Weisbroth, Ronald E. Flatt, and Alan L. Kraus, eds.:

The Biology of the Laboratory Rabbit, 1974

Joseph E. Wagner and Patrick J. Manning, eds.:

The Biology of the Guinea Pig, 1976

Edwin J. Andrews, Billy C. Ward, and Norman H. Altman, eds.:

Spontaneous Animal Models of Human Disease, Volume 1, 1979; Volume II, 1979

Henry J. Baker, J. Russell Lindsey, and Steven H. Weisbroth, eds.:

The Laboratory Rat, Volume I: Biology and Diseases, 1979; Volume II: Research Applications, 1980

Henry L. Foster, J. David Small, and James G. Fox, eds.:

The Mouse in Biomedical Research, Volume I: History, Genetics, and Wild Mice, 1981; Volume II: Diseases, 1982; Volume Ill: Normative Biology, Immunology, and Husbandry, 1983; Volume IV: Experimental Biology and Oncology, 1982

James G. Fox, Bennett J. Cohen, and Franklin M. Loew, eds.:

Laboratory Animal Medicine, 1984

G. L. Van Hoosier, Jr., and Charles W McPherson, eds.:

Laboratory Hamsters, 1987

Patrick J. Manning, Daniel H. Ringler, and Christian E. Newcomer, eds.:

The Biology of the Laboratory Rabbit, 2nd Edition, 1994

B. Taylor Bennett, Christian R. Abee, and Roy Henrickson, eds.:

Nonhuman Primates in Biomedical Research, Volume I: Biology and Management, 1995; Volume II: Diseases, 1998

Dennis F. Kohn, Sally K. Wixson, William J. White, and G. John Benson, eds.:

Anesthesia and Analgesia in Laboratory Animals, 1997

James G. Fox, Lynn C. Anderson, Franklin M. Loew and Fred W. Quimby, eds.:

Laboratory Animal Medicine, 2nd Edition, 2002

Mark A. Suckow, Steven H. Weisbroth and Craig L. Franklin, eds.:

The Laboratory Rat, 2nd Edition, 2006

James G. Fox, Muriel T. Davisson, Fred W. Quimby, Stephen W. Barthold, Christian E. Newcomer and Abigail L. Smith, eds.:

The Mouse in Biomedical Research, 2nd Edition, Volume I: History, Wild Mice, and Genetics , 2007; Volume II: Diseases, 2007; Volume III: Normative Biology, Husbandry, and Models, 2007; Volume IV: Immunology, 2007

Richard E. Fish, Marilyn J. Brown, Peggy J. Danneman and Alicia Z. Karas, eds.:

Anesthesia and Analgesia in Laboratory Animals, 2nd Edition, 2008

Jack R. Hessler and Noel D.M. Lehner, eds.:

Planning and Designing Animal Research Facilities, 2009

Mark A. Suckow, Karla A. Stevens, and Ronald P. Wilson, eds.:

The Laboratory Rabbit, Guinea Pig, Hamster and other Rodents, 2011

Christian R. Abee, Keith Mansfield, Suzette Tardif and Timothy Morris, eds.:

Nonhuman Primates in Biomedical Research, 2nd Edition, Volume I: Biology and Management, 2012; Volume II: Diseases, 2012

Kathryn Bayne and Patricia V. Turner, eds.:

Laboratory Animal Welfare, 2013

James G. Fox, Lynn C. Anderson, Glen Otto, Kathleen R. Pritchett-Corning, and Mark T. Whary, eds.:

Laboratory Animal Medicine, 3rd Edition, 2014

Copyright

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

32 Jamestown Road, London NW1 7BY, UK

225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA

525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (+44) (0) 1865 843830; fax (+44) (0) 1865 853333; email: [e-mail]. Alternatively, visit the Science and Technology Books website at www.elsevierdirect.com/rights for further information.

Notice

No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein.

Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN : 978-0-12-385103-1

For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at elsevierdirect.com

Typeset by TNQ Books and Journals

www.tnq.co.in

Printed and bound in USA

13 14 15 16 17  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Preface

Ensuring good animal welfare has been intuitively recognized as a critical goal of veterinary medical practice since its inception. As societal concern for animal welfare has increased, the veterinary medical profession has taken numerous steps to improve animal welfare through public education, the promotion of animal welfare science, and involvement in policy making, as well as standards setting and implementation. Evidence of this heightened attention to animal welfare in the United States includes the update of the AVMA Animal Welfare Principles (https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/AVMA-Animal-Welfare-Principles.aspx) in 2006, creation of the Animal Welfare Division within the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) in the same year, addition of a specific reference to protection of animal welfare in the 2010 revision of the AVMA’s Veterinarian’s Oath, and the increased emphasis on animal welfare found in the Guide to the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NRC, 2011). The European College of Animal Welfare and Behaviour Management (http://www.ecawbm.org/), the American College of Animal Welfare (www.acaw.org), and The Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists Animal Welfare Chapter (http://www.anzcvs.org.au/info/chapters/#4) have been established and recognized as veterinary specialties in the past few years, emphasizing the heightened attention to animal welfare within the veterinary profession.

Due to the global nature of science, harmonization of the health and well-being of the research animal as both an ethical imperative and because of the scientific need for reproducibility and statistical validity of results has become increasingly critical. Variation in animal welfare due to differences in animal care and use standards can be a potentially significant confounding variable for research involving animals. Thus, within the profession of veterinary medicine, specialists in laboratory animal medicine have a pivotal leadership role in promoting research animal welfare. Indeed, the laboratory animal veterinarian typically serves in the role of the animal’s advocate at the research institution. The laboratory animal veterinarian is in the unique position, however, of needing to ensure the health and welfare of a tremendously diverse range of species used for research, testing, production, and educational purposes. In addition, due to the pervasive trend for international collaborations and outsourcing, the laboratory animal veterinarian should be aware of research animal welfare information and requirements from around the world.

Despite these needs, the tools available to laboratory animal veterinarians to assist in decision making or to provide a common resource for foundational information and contemporary topics are lacking, with the result that much experience and knowledge has remained at the individual level rather than being disseminated throughout the laboratory animal veterinary community. This text addresses the basic concepts and history of animal welfare, ethical issues pertaining to the welfare of animals used in research, the regulatory environment, methods to assess research animal welfare, and fundamental welfare topics for species of animals commonly used in research. Both contemporary and international issues are also considered. In addition, circumstances where supporting animal welfare requires different or additional considerations are addressed in chapters addressing animal testing, euthanasia, and emergencies. In keeping with the tenets of the Three Rs, a chapter is specifically devoted to addressing animal welfare in experimental design. The information contained in this textbook will be useful to veterinary clinicians, veterinary behaviorists, colony managers, welfare specialists, and residents or graduate students training to specialize in laboratory animal medicine and animal welfare.

This textbook is an authoritative resource dedicated to the topic of laboratory animal welfare and is sponsored by the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM). The ACLAM Publications Committee and the Board of Directors recognized the need for a comprehensive resource tailored to the laboratory animal veterinary community that addressed this expanding topic. The editors are grateful to the cadre of experts in the field who contributed so generously of their time and energy to meet this need.

Kathryn Bayne and Patricia V. Turner

Acknowledgments

Books do not get written without input from a wide variety of sources, and we are very grateful to our many colleagues in laboratory animal science, animal welfare, and other sectors for contributing their time, effort, knowledge, and wisdom to write these chapters and for providing review comments. We feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with such a diverse group of talented individuals, and learned a significant amount from these interactions. Through the process of bringing this book together, we gained an appreciation of the depth and variety of knowledge that we all acquire during our experiences in working with research animals in different environments. We recognize that in spite of our best efforts, laboratory animal welfare is a rapidly changing field and that occasional errors may be present in the text. We invite reader’s comments and recommendations for future consideration. Every effort has been made to attribute photographs to their rightful owners, and we apologize in advance if we have inadvertently missed any contributor.

We especially wish to recognize the support given by our families and thank them for their unfailing patience throughout this project. We also thank Mary Preap at Elsevier for her excellent comments and gentle nudges to meet deadlines throughout the preparation of this book.

This project is an undertaking of the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM), and all proceeds from book sales will be used to support the educational mission of the ACLAM Foundation. We thank Dr. James Fox, Chair of the ACLAM Publications Committee, for his support in encouraging us to bring this work to fruition.

Kathryn Bayne and Patricia Turner

List of Reviewers

Leanne C. Alworth,    University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Lynn C. Anderson,    Covance, Madison, WI, USA

Alan G. Brady,    University of Texas, Bastrop, TX, USA

Samuel C. Cartner,    University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

Michael F.W. Festing,    Peterborough, UK

Patricia L. Foley,    University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Gilly Griffin,    Canadian Council on Animal Care, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Penny Lawlis,    Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Guelph, ON, Canada

Matthew Leach,    University of Newcastle, Newcastle, UK

David J. Mellor,    Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Scott A. Mischler,    Pfizer Global Research and Development, Pearl River, NY, USA

Carol Morgan,    Victoria, BC, Canada

David B. Morton,    Birmingham, UK

Marek A. Niekrasz,    University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Bruce Nixon,    Animal Emergency Hospital of North Texas, College Station, TX, USA

Bernard E. Rollin,    Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Stephen Ross,    Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL, USA

Barbara L. Sherman,    North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

Kathleen L. Smiler,    Lakeville, MI, USA

Terry Whiting,    Manitoba Agriculture Food and Rural Initiatives, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Christina L. Winnicker,    Charles River Laboratories, Wilmington, MA, USA

Andrew Winterborn,    Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

Jeffrey D. Wyatt,    University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

Contributors

Mercy Akinyi,    Institute of Primate Research, Nairobi, Kenya

Kenneth A. Anderson,    Extension Services, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

Raymond Anthony,    Philosophy Department, University of Alaska at Anchorage, Anchorage, AK, USA

Kathryn Bayne,    AAALAC International, Frederick, MD, USA

A. C. David Bayvel,    World Society for the Protection of Animals, London, United Kingdom

Bonnie V. Beaver,    Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

B. Taylor Bennett,    Management Consultant, Hinsdale, IL, USA

Richard A. Blatchford,    Department of Animal Science and Center for Animal Welfare, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

Marilyn J. Brown,    Animal Welfare and Training, Charles River Laboratories, Wilmington, MA, USA

Larry Carbone,    Laboratory Animal Resource Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Kristine Coleman,    Oregon National Primate Research Center, Beaverton, OR, USA

Marie Claire Domaingue,    Biodia Co Ltd, c/o Medine Limited, Mauritius

Derek Fry,    Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Gail C. Golab,    Animal Welfare Division, American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, IL, USA

F. Claire Hankenson,    University Laboratory Animal Resources and Pathobiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Jann Hau,    Department of Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences and University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen N, Denmark

C. Terrance Hawk,    Animal Quality Assurance, Quality & Risk Management, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA, USA

Penny Hawkins,    Research Animals Department Science Group, RSPCA, West Sussex, UK

Michael J. Huerkamp,    Division of Animal Resources, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Patricia Koenig,    Biodia Co Ltd, Mauritius

Daniel S. Marsman,    Corporate Veterinarian, Animal Welfare and Animal Alternatives Head, Product Safety, P&G Health Care and Pet Care Proctor and Gamble Cincinnati, OH, USA

John J. McGlone,    Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

Leticia V. Medina,    Animal Welfare and Compliance, GPRD, Development Sciences, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA

Joy A. Mench,    Department of Animal Science and Center for Animal Welfare, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

LaVonne D. Meunier,    GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, King of Prussia, PA, USA

Emily Patterson-Kane,    Animal Welfare Division, American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, IL, USA

Steven J. Schapiro

Department of Veterinary Sciences, Michale E. Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine and Research, UTMDACC, TX, USA

Department of Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences and University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen N, Denmark

Stephen A. Smith,    Department of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

William S. Stokes,    Fellow ATS Assistant Surgeon General, National Institutes of Health and US Public Health Service (ret.); Adjunct Professor, Department of Molecular Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

Janice Swanson,    Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Patricia V. Turner,    Laboratory Animal Science, Department of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Wendy J. Underwood,    Department of Veterinary Resources, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Mary Ann Vasbinder,    GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

Virginia Williams,    National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, c/o Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand

Chapter 1

History, Philosophies, and Concepts of Animal Welfare

Emily Patterson-Kane and Gail C. Golab,    Animal Welfare Division, American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, IL, USA

Abstract

A sound understanding of laboratory animal welfare should be grounded in a general knowledge of some of the major events, organizations, and philosophies that have shaped how animals are used and cared for since the industrial revolution. This overview includes the evolution of animal protection and advocacy movements, the development of professional animal science associations, and the creation of laws and regulations governing the use of animals in research. Throughout this period the dominant philosophy has been a form of utilitarianism. However, deontology, animal rights, and ethics of care have also been influential. Scientific inquiry has evolved to increasingly engage with topics such as animal distress and welfare, although the questions of how to best assess the subjective elements of well-being and balance the various measurable parameters remain. There is a general pattern of expanding regulation and increasing public discourse, and a need for harmonization, collaboration, and high standards of care in support of ongoing animal-based activities.

Keywords

Animal rights; Animal welfare; Animal Welfare Act; History; Philosophy; Regulation; Utilitarianism

Concerns about how animals should be treated are pervasive throughout all cultures and periods in history. However, the modern animal welfare movement, which most often attempts to respond to questions about how animals are doing both physically and mentally, dates to more recent events occurring in Europe and, specifically, the United Kingdom. Activities in the United Kingdom have been echoed in the United States (and many other nations), at first with considerable delay, but as technological advances in communications developed, with increasing alacrity. By the 1980s, similar activity took place almost simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic and within most first-world nations. Animal welfare is now debated in a global context, with local considerations and applications understood against a shared concept of animal welfare as a legitimate subject of ethical concern and scientific investigation.

Standards of care for treating animals humanely are correspondingly complex, involving overlapping laws, regulations, guidelines, and professional codes influenced by a diverse body of philosophy, science, ethics, and law. Global trade and collaborations, and international acceptance of safety data, have required attention to harmonization, but awareness of local history and cultural influences remains crucial to successfully addressing laboratory animal welfare concerns now and into the future. Public consensus about matters as fundamental as whether and which animals have moral standing can and has changed. And, while most regulations share a similar basis in law, utilitarian ethics, and community standards, even these basic pillars are under constant challenge and review.

This introduction first provides a brief history of some major events shaping the animal welfare movement, then discusses the emergence of some philosophies, and, finally, provides background on the concepts that contribute to the current framework for animal welfare–related activity as it applies to animals used in the laboratory. As such it illustrates some of the complex forces that must be married to create a valid mandate for researchers to operate and a standard of care for the animals they use.

Events

During the industrial revolutions (1800–1850, 1870–1914) the populations of parts of Europe and the United States (as well as other developing nations) began to move from rural to urban areas. Movement away from agricultural lifestyles prompted a shift in attitudes toward animals. Animals began to be appreciated more as companions, and their use in urban settings (e.g. draft horses, animals used in research) came under increasing scrutiny and criticism.

The first organized and mainstream activities to promote the humane treatment of animals began to emerge, generally with a focus on the treatment of horses, as reflected by the founding of the British Society for the Protection of Animals (1824) and its American equivalent (1866). Subsequently the American Humane Association (1874) and many other humane societies were also created.

During this period approaches to animal use became more industrialized in both urban and rural settings, resulting in advances in nutrition, efficiencies of food and fiber production, and research breakthroughs—but also increasing ethical concerns. The practice of vivisection, whereby animals were restrained and operated upon while conscious, became a flashpoint for debate and protest. This led to the formation of antivivisection societies focused specifically on ending inhumane teaching and research practices (UK: 1875; US: 1883).

These groups and their supporters took part in public demonstrations, which sometimes devolved into riots, reflecting how questions about vivisection exposed deep divisions within Victorian-era society. Efforts to reduce animal suffering aligned with other emerging movements supporting the rights of women, children, and slaves. A Royal Commission in Great Britain investigating vivisection led to the passing of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which licensed researchers using animals and specified that painful research should be carried out only when necessary for instruction or research to benefit human health, and that anesthesia should be used whenever permitted by the scientific goals of the work.

This did little to allay public concern, and protests continued to occur. One of the most persistent and disruptive was known as the Brown Dog Affair. It was predicated upon the erection of a statue in 1906 to commemorate a particular dog that had been used in research—the statue was intended to represent other animals that were used in painful research. The brown dog in question had been used in a demonstration for students by William Bayliss, a faculty member in the Department of Physiology at University College London and a pioneer in the study of hormones. There was vehement debate over whether effective anesthetics were used during the demonstration. Anti-doggers and students clashed sporadically at and around the site of the statue until 1910, when it was removed. (It should be noted that during the Victorian era riots in London were not particularly uncommon, motivated by issues such as Sunday trading, unemployment, and voting rights. A new brown dog statue was placed in the Old English Gardens of Battersea Park in 1985, and has its own small legacy of controversy.)

As a result of the open conflict, many of those who used animals in the laboratory had a heightened appreciation of the need to address public concerns in order to continue using animals in research. Prominent figures from within and outside the scientific community (such as Charles Darwin) became involved in a movement to curb cruel practices in research, an activity that remained arguably self-regulated under relatively permissive oversight. (The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which remained unchanged for 110 years, was the basis of only three prosecutions and one conviction; Dolan, 2008.)

Around this same time the first major shelters for stray animals were established (UK: 1860; US: 1866) as a humane alternative to the often brutal practices of city poundmasters who collected and killed stray dogs by methods such as mass drowning. The use of animals from shelters in research began to attract criticism because of concerns about the potential for stray or stolen pets to end up in laboratories. These concerns endured well into the twentieth century and contributed to the development of the U.S. Animal Welfare Act in 1966. By 1874 shelters began to be directly operated by humane associations, and this became the norm in the United States and the United Kingdom toward the middle of the twentieth century.

The next major period of change occurred after World War II. Several new societies arose with joint interests in animal welfare and the animal sciences (PRIMR [Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research], 1974; NABR [National Association for Biomedical Research], 1979). The founder of one of these, Charles Hume of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (1926), initiated the creation of the first systematic approach toward promoting the welfare of animals in the laboratory. The Three Rs (Russell and Burch, 1959) proposed that wherever possible the use of animals should be replaced, refined, and reduced. The Three Rs made little impact at the time, but have gradually grown to become an international core doctrine in protecting animals' welfare as it applies to animals in the laboratory.

Approaches to laboratory animal husbandry and laboratory animal medicine also became progressively more professional. The American Association for Laboratory Animal Science was founded in 1950, and laboratory animal medicine was recognized as a specialty of veterinary medicine with the founding of the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (1958). That veterinary specialty college was followed over the next several decades by the establishment of others around the world (e.g. ECLAM [European College of Laboratory Animal Medicine], 2000). Professional desire for better conditions for laboratory animals and interest in public assurance led to the establishment of the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) by a group of veterinarians and researchers in 1965. In the years that followed, the AAALAC accredited hundreds of facilities across the United States, raising the benchmark for laboratory animal care. Eventually, existing groups were expanded (e.g. AAALAC International, 1996) and new groups emerged to cover the industry globally. Also, parallel to the creation of new expectations for animal care, attention was increasingly focused on formal qualifications and continuing education for attending veterinarians, researchers, and technicians (e.g. IAT [Institute of Animal Technology], 1949; LASA [Laboratory Animal Science Association], 1963; Scand-LAS [Scandinavian Society for Laboratory Animal Science], 1970; FELASA [Federation for Laboratory Animal Science Associations], 1978).

Attention to animal welfare continued to increase in connection with both humane and scientific concerns throughout the 1960s. Public concern expanded appreciably to include postindustrial farming techniques, as prompted (and reflected) by books such as Animal Machines by Ruth Harrison (1964). The pivotal Brambell Report (Brambell, 1965) led to the development of another set of guiding principles that later became known as the Five Freedoms; these became a core doctrine for those working for the benefit of animals used in agriculture. Around this time connections also developed among individuals and organizations expressing animal welfare and environmental concerns.

It was also during the 1960s that laboratory animal welfare standards became increasingly objective and legally enforced in the United States. Notable events of that period were the release of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (1963) and the passage of the federal Animal Welfare Act (1966). The former (often referred to as the Guide) was created by a group of veterinarians known as the Animal Care Panel, and subsequent editions of the Guide were supported by the National Institutes of Health and published by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the National Academy of Sciences. The Animal Welfare Act brought laboratory animals under the purview of the United States Department of Agriculture. By 1979 all institutions using covered species in research were required to have an ethics review committee, now called an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or IACUC. The Animal Welfare Act underwent a series of amendments in 1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, 2002, 2007, and 2008, increasing its scope and specificity, although many species (including those most commonly used, such as rats and mice) and applications remain excluded. Some of these excluded species and applications, however, are covered in other ways.

At the same time that the use of animals in science became more regulated, some protestors began to apply unlawful tactics in conveying their ongoing concern. In 1977 the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) became active in the United States, only one year after being founded in the United Kingdom. The ALF is not a highly organized group, but instead consists of scattered individuals and small groups using the same title. It appears to have developed out of groups that sabotaged fox hunts in the United Kingdom. The ALF has been connected with attacks on biomedical research and animal science facilities that include removal or release of animals, arson, destruction of equipment, personal attacks, threats and molestations, and pipe bombings. They have also targeted fur farms. A sister movement called the Earth Liberation Front (UK: 1992; Canada: 1995; US: 1996) focuses on targets they perceive to be unfriendly to the environment; these often also have a connection to animal use, such as hunting lodges and McDonald's restaurants.

Not comfortable with such radical actions, but still needing to raise public awareness and investment into their cause, more moderate groups adopted the tactic of the public expose, first through photography and later videos (now often released online). The first example of the effectiveness of this approach was investigative journalism that exposed how pets could be acquired by Class B dealers (a category of activity covered under the Animal Welfare Act) and the conditions under which some of those animals were kept by some of those dealers (Sports Illustrated, 1965; Life Magazine, 1966). This approach only became routine during the 1980s and later as technological developments made amateur and surreptitious photography and videography easier to perform.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), founded in 1980, rose to prominence a year later in a campaign that drew attention to how monkeys were being used in research at the Institute of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Maryland. Photographs taken at night documented the poor conditions under which these monkeys were being kept. In 1983 another PETA campaign against brain injury research performed on baboons at the University of Pennsylvania's Head Injury Clinic in Philadelphia included graphic video footage that suggested clear noncompliance with the Guide. This led to widespread outrage and ultimately closure of the laboratory.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was cofounded as the National Humane Society in the 1950s by former journalist and American Humane Association (AHA) employee Fred Myers, as a result of a dispute within the AHA over its perceived failure to adequately address the legally required surrender of animals from shelters and pounds for use in biomedical research (pound seizure), among other issues. While publicly stating that it was not against vivisection, the HSUS supported increased regulation of animal research; its efforts were directed toward investigation (including the placement of undercover investigators into laboratories), public education, and the passage of legislation. Over time, the HSUS adopted more aggressive tactics in its campaigns, including the increased use of undercover photography and video. Similar video tactics were adopted by other emerging groups, such as Mercy for Animals (1999) and Compassion Over Killing (1995), although the primary focus for the latter groups (and more recently for the HSUS) has been food animal production and slaughter. Images in their stealth recordings have suggested noncompliance with voluntary and legal standards and have led to actions such as the largest meat recall in the United States after a plant was found to be slaughtering nonambulatory cattle, which may place humans at increased risk of diseases, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (2008).

Other organizations have been formed specifically to promote animal-based research (Americans for Medical Progress, 1992) or critique groups such as the HSUS (HumaneWatch, 2010), leading to increasingly high profile debates over how the use of animals in research, agriculture, and other areas should be understood, opposed or endorsed, or regulated.

Philosophies

Parallel to these events was the development of influential philosophies that helped shape academic and regulatory discussions about animal care and protection. While it might seem natural to assume that a person's philosophy drives their behavior, it could equally be argued that philosophies were developed to formalize movements in contemporary culture—first to guide decisions about how animals can be used, then to express resistance to this approach, and finally to acknowledge the role of the human–animal bond.

The dominant approach in the mainstream throughout this period has been a form of utilitarianism. This is a philosophy that seeks to take actions that minimize total suffering and maximize total enjoyment (of humans and animals). In its least controversial form, this means that animals should not be caused to suffer unnecessarily and should be used in ways that produce significant and tangible benefits. Animals are given moral weight in these assessments as historically justified by their sentience, interpreted as the ability to experience suffering. As expressed by Jeremy Bentham in 1789, The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny … The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

Humans, however, are generally considered to have greater moral significance than animals when making utilitarian calculations, such as an IACUC assessment of an experimental protocol. A prominent exception to this bias is the thoughts of philosopher Peter Singer, who popularized the notion of speciesism (Ryder, 1975) and argued that the suffering of individuals should be counted equally regardless of species (Animal Liberation, 1975, 1990). The ways in which humans should use and treat animals remain subject to considerable debate (as well as the roles of other stakeholders and considerations about the environment).

In discussing animals such as pets and higher primates, even utilitarian discourse often takes on deontological qualities—arguments usually referred to as animal rights. These animals are often given special status that may significantly raise the bar for proposals to use these animals (e.g. Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 2011).

Animal rights is a philosophy that suggests that one individual should not be exploited by another. That is, because animals are subjects of a life we may not make use of them to their detriment. This position was first laid out in 1894 by Henry Stephens Salt in a book called Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress but is now better known as espoused by Tom Regan (1985). While Regan tended to limit his concern to mammals with more advanced cognitive abilities, others such as Francione take a more absolute (abolitionist) position that every form of sentient animal life should be counted equally—and also that animal welfare goals should never be counted as intermediate steps toward fulfilling animal rights goals (Francione, 1996).

More recently, a third philosophy has begun to influence debate: the ethics of care. Ethics of care philosophers argue that it is natural and ethical to protect the interests of those with whom we have embodied, caring relationships (especially as parents, guardians, or caretakers). This approach is offered in contrast to the previous assumptions that to be ethical we must act impartially toward all beings within a given rational category, or that suffering matters in a way that is distinct from the particular body/individual who is suffering and his/her relationships. An ethic of care promotes attachment and acknowledges conflicts and partiality as an inevitable consequence (Herzog, 2010). An ethic of care honors the human–animal bond as a morally significant and ethically acceptable attachment that creates a duty to care for and protect a specific animal regardless of the objective status of the animal and without generalizing to other animals of the same type.

Concepts

Scientific data and academic theories can help to provide the necessary information and a bridge between popular (sometimes implicit) philosophies and regulatory policies or general community standards. These concepts shape the empirical data that all or most parties agree to be factual. This in turn influences which actions are widely agreed within the animal-based professions to be ethical, productive, and hence desirable, versus those branded as incompetent or unethical and undesirable.

Before the formalization of the various scientific disciplines' conceptions of animal care, guidance came predominantly from popular and religious sources. For example, the level of care shown by a shepherd was widely enough recognized to be adopted in the Biblical parable of the good shepherd. Historically animal welfare–like issues were approached by specifying how the animal caretaker should perform their duties (standards of care), rather than addressing the state of the animal directly. Thus when the state of the animal was considered, it was mainly in terms of production and performance measures. There was an understanding that an animal should be cared for in a manner that allows it to remain fit for human purposes (and was not seen as wantonly cruel).

Formal professional standards based predominantly on the well-being of the animal per se can be seen as arising out of the study of physiological stress, as first evaluated in the rat. From this research, there developed an appreciation of psychological stress (dystress) as a literal rather than purely subjective state of humans and other animals (Selye, 1956). Thus, the avoidance, not just of pain, but of general distress was incorporated as a goal of humane animal management—and also human lifestyles, housing, and workplace designs. Integration of these concerns into laboratory animal science is apparent with the gradual adoption of the Three Rs as formal goals, embraced explicitly in regulatory policy and law internationally. This fundamentally utilitarian approach pushed for those engaged in research to cause a minimum of any kind of suffering—a goal explicitly motivated by a desire to minimize any form of distress experienced by animals in the laboratory, including pain, fear, discomfort, and other adverse states (e.g. frustration, boredom).

The 1980s were a pivotal time with the emergence of the concept of environmental enrichment into the animal welfare domain. Enrichment is an approach to improving what were, at that time, barren habitats for animals in the laboratory, as well as zoos and many other settings. This concept was formalized by a number of researchers (including Viktor Reinhardt, Georgia Mason, and Ruth Newberry), but unmistakably had its impetus from caretaking staff, predominantly laboratory technicians and zookeepers. The enrichment movement drew attention to the welfare of animals as affected by their experiences, including those kept as breeding stock and other off experiment animals, not just those subjected to specific experimental procedures.

Concurrent to this development were several attempts to deal with the private nature of psychological suffering (i.e. an animal's mental state), and the imperfect correlation between poor environments, physiological stress, and behavioral indicators of psychological distress—as well as the inability to satisfactorily scientifically (a.k.a. with high agreement of observers) measure emotional distress and other subjectively experienced negative states (e.g. depression, frustration, boredom, discomfort).

Broom (1988) offered the idea that animals should not be pressed beyond their ability to cope with their environment. And that coping could be measured without being limited to purely production or performance measures or resorting to consideration of hypothetical emotional states. As an alternative, Marian Dawkins opined that animal welfare is fundamentally about the animal's point of view and how the animal feels, with an emphasis on negative feelings. The publication in 1980 of her book Animal Suffering marked the first widespread, mainstream acceptance of affective states as central to animal welfare science. More recently, Dawkins has provided two criteria for good welfare: Is the animal healthy? and Does it have what it wants?

Meanwhile, Francoise Wemelsfelder (1997) and others demonstrated that humans show high inter-rater reliability when judging the emotional states of animals from species with which they are somewhat familiar. This opened the door to a science of the subjective, which demonstrates that holistic or even unconscious processes of understanding can have objectively measurable levels of accuracy (for example, by accurately identifying animals in fear-provoking conditions, when blinded to which animals were filmed under those conditions).

In 1997 another influential idea arose that recognized that animal welfare exists as both an ethical concern and a scientific discipline, and so cannot be given an objectively precise definition. Ian Duncan and David Fraser (1997) outlined three domains that are important to welfare: natural living, subjective experiences, and biological function. These represent the predominant issues that most people believe are intuitively important to welfare, and that can be—to some extent—scientifically studied and considered before reaching a judgment about a particular animal or groups of animals.

Others have considered control over one's environment, the presence of positive subjective states, preference and motivation, and death itself (not just any attendant suffering) to be relevant to a core understanding of animals' welfare.

Definitions of welfare underlying regulatory codes and law often draw on a combination of the aforementioned concepts. For example, at the international level the current World Organisation for Animal Health definition of animal welfare makes reference to standards of care, minimizing negative subjective states, coping, health, and innate (a.k.a. natural) behavior. The Animal Welfare Act incorporates standards of care, the Three Rs, and minimizing negative subjective states and environmental enrichment in relation to primates. The ILAR (Institute for Laboratory Animal Research) Guide references standards of care, the Three Rs and minimizing negative subjective states. As such, while codes may not be perfectly aligned, they rest on a shared philosophical and conceptual basis that makes harmonization feasible.

Conclusion

At present, important regulatory and advisory standards are provided by federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, inspecting regulatory agencies, funding agencies, journal requirements for publication, and others. Those using animals for research will typically need to comply with multiple overlapping compulsory and voluntary guidelines, and also take into account the perspectives and expectations of their local community. There is a general pattern of increasing regulation, a high level of public discourse and lobbying, and a need for wide harmonization and collaboration and high standards of care in support of ongoing animal-based activities.

Each of the issues and events touched upon in this introduction, and many more, will be more fully considered in the following chapters of this book. It is important to always remember that everything we do is embedded in history and in the cultures, traditions, and habits of mind that history has delivered into our hands. Animal-based research, testing, and teaching is an endeavor that rests on deep, but shifting foundations. As we construct ever more exacting rules and guidelines that protect the efficacy and ethics of science, we must be mindful of what is going on inside and outside of our laboratories' walls. Even as we improve our ability to make sound recommendations about the finer details of practice, the question of how animals should be used and treated remains subject to societal preferences, and those preferences have the potential to change community mandates in profound and overarching ways.

Researchers, technicians and veterinarians, by entering their chosen professions, agree to certain training and compliance with all relevant codes of practice. But further, they enter into contracts with their animals, with their community, and with their own conscience. These contracts must be well based in science, ethics, and logic—and yet be constantly open to doubt and the potential for change upon which all endeavors of science ultimately rest. A structure retains its integrity as much from flexibility as from strength.

References

1. Brambell, R., 1965. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, p. 85.

2. Broom DM. The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 1988;205:5–19.

3. Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity. National Academies Press 2011.

4. Dawkins MS. Animal Suffering, the Science of Animal Welfare. London: Chapman and Hall; 1980.

5. Dolan K. Laboratory Animal Law: Legal Control of the Use of Animals in Research. John Wiley & Sons 2008.

6. Duncan IJH, Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby MA, Hughes BO, eds. Animal Welfare. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publ; 1997;19–31.

7. Francione GL. Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1996.

8. Harrison R. Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry. V Stuart 1964.

9. Herzog HA. The movement is my life: the psychology of animal rights activism. Journal of Social Issues. 2010;49(1):103–119.

10. Phinizy C. The lost pets that stray to labs. Sports Illustrated 1965;36–49.

11. Regan T. The Case for Animals Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1985.

12. Reinhardt V. Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals. Washington: Animal Welfare Institute; 1997.

13. Russell, W.M.S., Burch, R.L., 1959. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen, London. Reprinted by UFAW, 1992.

14. Ryder R. Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research. DC: Davis-Poynter Ltd; 1975; pp. 31–32. Online: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/96symp/awasymp.htm; 1975.

15. Selye H. The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1956.

16. Singer P. (first ed. 1975) In: Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books; 1990.

17. Wemelsfelder F. The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 1997;53:75–88.

18. Wayman S. Concentration camps for dogs. Life Magazine. 1966;60:25–28.

Chapter 2

Ethics and Animal Welfare

Marilyn J. Brown,    Animal Welfare and Training, Charles River Laboratories, Wilmington, MA, USA

Abstract

The term animal welfare is commonly used to describe both a branch of science and to describe a concept. As a science, it involves a measurable state in an animal and is often related to the adequacy of an animal's ability to cope with its environment. This chapter will briefly discuss some greatly different opinions about the role of ethics in animal welfare science. Organizations such as the American Veterinary Medical Association and the World Organization for Animal Health refer to animal welfare as more of a concept where the state of the animals' welfare is influenced by human action(s) and may be looked upon as what we owe animals. This chapter will focus on this second use of the term animal welfare. Those involved in trying to assure animal welfare are often faced with ethical dilemmas where conflicting obligations must be considered when making decisions about the care and use of animals. How those obligations are viewed will be influenced by the moral status/standing we allocate to animals. Both uni-criterial and multi-criterial approaches to determining moral status/standing and possible different levels of obligation will be explored. Several common ethical theories will be highlighted. Reflective review of the approaches to moral status/standing, along with an understanding of key aspects of common ethical theories, will help those concerned with assuring animal welfare consider ethical dilemmas in a thoughtful, purposeful manner. Understanding some of the various theories of animal ethics can also lead to better understanding of different viewpoints and help lead to civil discourse about the issues. The goal of this chapter is not to provide the answers to the ethical questions surrounding animal welfare but to introduce some tools to help derive one's own answers.

Keywords

Animal welfare; Ethics; Moral standing; Moral status; Morals

The term animal welfare is commonly used to describe both a branch of science and a concept. As a science, it involves a measurable state in an animal and is often related to the adequacy of the animal’s ability to cope with its environment. This chapter will briefly discuss some greatly different opinions about the role of ethics in animal welfare science. Organizations such as the American Veterinary Medical Association and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) refer to animal welfare as more of a concept where the state of the animal’s welfare is influenced by human action(s) and may be looked upon as what we owe animals. This chapter will focus on this second use of the term animal welfare. Those involved in trying to assure animal welfare are often faced with ethical dilemmas where conflicting obligations must be considered when making decisions about the care and use of animals. How those obligations are viewed will be influenced by the moral status/standing we allocate to animals. Both uni-criterial and multi-criterial approaches to determining moral status/standing and possible different levels of obligation will be explored. Several common ethical theories will be highlighted. Reflective review of the approaches to moral status/standing, along with an understanding of key aspects of common ethical theories, will help those concerned with assuring animal welfare to consider ethical dilemmas in a thoughtful, purposeful manner. Understanding some of the various theories of animal ethics can also lead to a better understanding of different viewpoints and help lead to productive discourse about the issues. The goal of this chapter is not to provide the answers to the ethical questions surrounding animal welfare but to introduce some tools to help derive one’s own answers.

Why Discuss Ethics in a Book about Animal Welfare

There are two schools of thought about the role of ethics in the subject of animal welfare, which are likely derived from the different applications of the term. For example, the term animal welfare is often used to describe a branch of science; however, it is also used to describe a concept or morally evaluative notion. Animal welfare science involves a measurable state in an animal, which is often used to judge how well an animal is coping with its environment. It is independent of any ethical judgments, although the view of what is adequate coping may be based on ethical considerations. The concept of animal welfare has been described in many ways. For example, the American Veterinary Medical Association states that animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, from proper housing and nutrition to preventative care, treatment of disease, and when necessary, humane euthanasia. The Hasting Center report on Animal Research Ethics: Evolving Views and Practices (Gilbert et al., 2012) states animal welfare is concerned with assuring humane treatment of animals: maintaining good health, minimizing negative states such as pain, enhancing positive states, and giving animals freedom to behave in ways that are natural to that species. The OIE considers animal welfare how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter/killing. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment (Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2012 Volume 1, Article 7.1.1, http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_1.7.1.htm). The American College of Animal Welfare summarizes the numerous additional definitions for animal welfare on their website (http://www.acaw.org/animal_welfare_principles.html). Most of these definitions of animal welfare arise within the context of the animal's life, as determined or influenced by human action(s) and may be looked upon as what we owe animals.

As previously mentioned, as a science, the welfare of an animal reflects its state of coping with its environment at the time. It is a measurable state whose measurements are independent of ethical consideration (Broom, 1986). In making scientific comparisons of welfare, the analysis of the outcome of those measurements must be objective and independent of the individual's ethical view of what may be desirable. The science of animal welfare provides knowledge and understanding to form the basis from which we make ethical choices regarding animals. As Broom (1986) has noted, The assessment of (animal) welfare should be quite separate from any ethical judgment but, once an assessment is completed, it should provide information which can be used to take decisions about the ethics of a situation. In Broom's explanation, ethics are involved in the initial determination if there is a potential problem and after the analysis of the problem has occurred, at which time there is an ethical discussion of the results. Rollin disputes the idea that science is value free, stating that scientists operate within the boundaries of consensus social ethics just as any other subgroup of society (Rollin, 2011). This idea is supported by Tannenbaum who argues that animal welfare and ethics are inextricably linked (Tannenbaum, 1991). Both Rollin and Tannenbaum cite numerous types of ethical dilemmas that may confront the veterinarian (or anyone) faced with conflicting obligations when trying to assure animal welfare. A veterinarian has moral obligations to the animal, the client, their employees, peers and the profession, society, as well as themselves. Ethical issues or challenges arise when these obligations are in conflict. Ethical theory helps the veterinarian and scientist work through these challenges.

Ethics and morality serve as the basis for how any individual feels about the use of animals in research (or other types of use) and helps those involved with animal research make decisions about the ethical questions that arise. Rollin (2011) offers two pivotal perspectives of ethics. He defines ethics as the set of beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust, fair and unfair that all persons acquire in society as they grow up. He builds on this definition, noting that the systematic study of the definition, looking at consistency of ethical beliefs, and determining if some ethical views are better than others is critical.

The premise of this chapter is that a study of ethics is an imperative for someone who is involved in assuring animal welfare. Although this chapter is divided into general topic sections, there is overlap in the applicability of various ethical theories or philosophers, with the result that their influence is considered in more than one section. Since many points about our ethical relationship with animals center around morals, morality, and the moral status of animals, these will be discussed with a particular emphasis on how animals may, or may not, have morally relevant differences from humans. The ethical view of animals will then be viewed through the lens of several ethical theories. It is important to remember that neither reading this short chapter, nor even the study of ethics, will yield all the answers, but will hopefully serve as an introduction to the tools with which ethically challenging situations can be addressed. Understanding the various theories of animal ethics will also lead to a better understanding of the different viewpoints in the debate about the relationship between humans and nonhuman animals, which ultimately will contribute to productive discourse about the issues.

Morality and Moral Status

Morality has been defined as a set of rules to govern interaction between agents, placing constraints on what they may legitimately do to each other (Carruthers, 1992). The two extremes of the spectrum are the ethical egoist who rejects moral status as a moral agent because one only has obligations to oneself and the moral nihilist who rejects all moral principles. Other concepts of morality are more nuanced. Cultural relativism (moral truth determined solely by prevailing beliefs within a particular group) may explain many of the conflicts occurring around globe today. The term moral intuition describes a merging of morals and common sense. Common sense has been proposed as a basis for philosophy (Rollin, 2011). But there may be disagreement as to whose common sense is legitimate or prevails. The relationship between common sense moral belief and moral theory can be explained by the notion of reflective equilibrium, where individuals seek an equilibrium between theory and ordinary judgment (Carruthers, 1992). With reflective equilibrium, the individual uses common sense moral beliefs and constructs plausible theories that will explain and give unity to a set of beliefs. If the resulting proposed theory causes some judgments to be false, it becomes necessary to revise the theory or give up some element(s) of the belief (Carruthers, 1992).

When discussing morality, one often refers to the moral community and who is a part of this community. Referring to where someone fits in this community is often referred to as moral status, moral standing, and/or moral consideration. Rollin considers the moral status of animals the key question in veterinary ethics (Rollin, 2011). It is easy to get caught up in the definitions and differences of each of these phrases since in some literature they seem to be used interchangeably. This chapter will consider moral status and moral standing to be the same, and thus it will be used as moral status/standing to be clear that this is the intent. Moral agents have moral obligations to entities with moral standing. The view of moral standing comes from legal terminology, one's place in the community in the estimation of others, one's relative position in social, commercial, or moral relations, one's repute, grade or rank (Garner, 2009). Moral status/standing is usually ascribed to members of a group rather than to an individual. This definition seems to imply a continuum or sliding scale of moral status since one may have a higher or lower position in social, commercial, or moral relations, one may also have a higher or lower moral standing, depending on the context.

The concept of a sliding scale of moral status/standing is supported by Frey who says that although animals have moral standing, animal life is less valuable than human life (Frey, 1988). Frey believes moral intuitions support this comparative value thesis. Moral intuitions (the relationship of morals to common sense) are also one of the factors considered when ascribing moral status to infants and the brain damaged—we value them because we are protecting the feelings of those who care about them. Beauchamp states, Animals have standing that protects against their being treated in certain ways that would reduce their lives to the level of things or mere resources for others. But, this leaves open the idea that such standing may be given on a sliding scale. Evolutionary theory, which lacks sharp breaks, also supports the ideas of a sliding scale or continuum—the higher up one is on the evolutionary tree, the higher the moral status/standing may be.

The question of moral status/standing of animals is not the same as the question if animals matter (Carruthers, 1992). However, something may matter, such as a place, a piece of artwork, and so forth, without having moral status/standing. Carruthers also says common sense morality tells us that animals have partial moral standing in that their lives and experiences have direct moral significance, but much less than humans.

Criteria Used to Ascribe Moral Status/Standing

Uni-Criterial Approach

When looking at moral status/standing as an absolute, the question of morally relevant differences (or the criteria used for ascribing moral status) must be considered. Some approaches are uni-criterial—there is a single key (property): life, the capacity to feel pain, or the powers of reason, or something else. Those things that possess the key property count morally—all are equal and all in the same way. Those things that lack it are utterly irrelevant, except as resources for the benefit of those things that count (Stone, 1987). Reverence for life (Schweitzer, 1929) and Regan's Subject-of life (Cohen and Regan, 2001), language, reason and autonomy (Kant, 1963), sentience (Bentham, 1970; Singer, 1975), and personhood are examples of criteria that have been proposed.

Albert Schweitzer found the Judeo-Christian moral traditions