Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T12:28:13.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science is not enough: how do we increase implementation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

MC Appleby
MC Appleby*
Affiliation:
The Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA
*
mappleby@hsus.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Science has been invaluable for increasing understanding of animal welfare and as a result we know of many ways in which animal treatment and housing can be improved. However, implementation is slow because of political and economic considerations. This is particularly clear for farm animals. This raises the question of what else is needed, besides science, for implementation of welfare improvements. At least three other disciplines need more attention in this respect: sociology, economics and ethics. Scientists will continue to be central in achieving improvements in animal welfare by providing credible, authoritative information on animal welfare and other issues. But to increase implementation of their results they need to increase dialogue with all of the players involved — producers, retailers, consumers, legislators and the media — as well as with specialists in other disciplines to improve cross-disciplinary understanding.

Keywords

animal welfareeconomicsethicspoliticssciencesociology
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue S1: Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium, Edinburgh, 2-4 April 2003 , February 2004 , pp. S159 - S162
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albentosa, M J and Cooper, J J 2002 Effects of cage height and stocking density on the behaviour, perch use and distribution of laying hens in furnished cages. In: Proceedings of the World Poultry Science Association, United Kingdom Branch Spring Meeting pp 36–37. World Poultry Science Association: York, UKGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2003 Producers address issues related to treatment of chickens. Jefferson City News Tribune January 27.Google Scholar
Appleby, M C 1999 Tower of Babel: variation in ethical approaches, concepts of welfare and attitudes to genetic manipulation. Animal Welfare 8: 381–390Google Scholar
Appleby, M C What causes crowding? Effects of space, facilities and group size on behaviour, with particular reference to furnished cages for hens. Animal Welfare: in press.Google Scholar
Appleby, M C, Cutler, N, Gazzard, J, Goddard, P, Milne, J A, Morgan, C and Redfern, A 2003 What price cheap food? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16: 395–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R M 1997 Economics. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 235–248. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities 1999 Council Directive 1999/74/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities L203: 53–57.Google Scholar
England, C 2002 Burger King and animal welfare: Why did this company get involved? In: Proceedings of the Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Science and the Alberta Farm Animal Care Conference p 13. Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Science: Edmonton, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Eurogroup for Animal Welfare 2002 Annual Report: Animal Protection Through Legislation. Eurogroup for Animal Welfare: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
European Communities 2000 European Communities Proposal: Animal Welfare and Trade in Agriculture. WTO Committee on Agriculture, Special Session, Paper G/AG/NG/W/19. Available at http://www.wto.org (follow links Trade Topics/Goods/Agriculture/Agriculture negotiations).Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992 Report on the Welfare of Broiler Chickens. Farm Animal Welfare Council: Tolworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1998 Report on the Implications of Cloning on the Welfare of Livestock. Farm Animal Welfare Council: Tolworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Food and Drug Administration 2002 Centre for veterinary medicine to cosponsor public symposium on livestock cloning. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/fdavet/2002/JulyAugust.pdf.Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare 4: 103–117Google Scholar
Haartsen, P T and Elson, H A 1989 Economics of alternative housing systems. In: Kuit, A R, Ehlhardt, D A and Blokhuis, H J (eds) Alternative Improved Housing Systems for Poultry pp 143–150. Commission of the European Communities: LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
Hollingsworth, J 2002 Impact and importance of standards: FMI-NCCR Animal Welfare Program. In: Reynnells, R and Blake, J (eds) Standards for Food Animal Production: Status, Well-being and Social. Responsibility pp 4–9. Future Trends in Animal Agriculture: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Jorêt, A D 1998 Walking the animal welfare tight-rope — an egg industry view. In: British Society for Animal Science (ed) Farm Animal Welfare: Who Writes the Rules? Programme and Summaries p 2. British Society for Animal Science: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Kestin, S C, Knowles T, G, Tinch, A E and Gregory, N G 1992 Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship to genotype. Veterinary Record 131: 190–194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lysgaard, T 1994 Economic and political considerations of keeping laying hens in Europe and in the EU: the Danish case. In: Future Egg Production in Sweden pp 73–83. Krönagg: Kungsängen, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Mclnerney, J P 1998 The economics of welfare. In: Michell, A R and Ewbank, R (eds) Ethics, Welfare, Law and Market Forces: the Veterinary Interface pp 115–132. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, Herts, UKGoogle Scholar
Mitol, J 2002 Got cloned milk? Company ready to sell milk of cloned cows but is the public ready to buy? Available at abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/clonedmilk_010716.html.Google Scholar
Nakajima, S, Arimitsu, K and Lattal, K M 2002 Estimation of animal intelligence by university students in Japan and the United States. Anthrozoös 15: 194–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polley, C R, Craig, J V and Bhagwat, A L 1974 Crowding and agonistic behavior: a curvilinear relationship. Poultry Science 53: 1621–1623CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandøe, P, Christiansen, S B and Appleby, M C 2003 Farm animal welfare: the interaction of ethical questions and animal welfare science. Animal Welfare 12: 469–478Google Scholar
Sandøe, P, Crisp, R and Holtug, N 1997 Ethics. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 3–17. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Scientific Veterinary Committee 1996 Report on the Welfare of Laying Hens. Commission of the European Communities Directorate-General for Agriculture: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, P 1989 Broiler selection and welfare. In: Faure, J M and Mills, A D (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 45–58. World's Poultry Science Association: Tours, FranceGoogle Scholar
Swiss Society for the Protection of Animals 1994 Laying Hens: Twelve Years of Experience with New Husbandry Systems in Switzerland. Swiss Society for the Protection of Animals: Basel, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
United Egg Producers 2002 Animal Husbandry Guidelines for US Egg Laying Flocks. United Egg Producers: Alpharetta, Georgia, USAGoogle Scholar
Williams, H T 1960 Principles for British Agricultural Policy: a Study Sponsored by the Nuffield Foundation. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar