PSY1HAE Topic 22: How Welfare Scientists Think About Animal Welfare PDF

 Topic 22: How Welfare Scientists Think About Animal Welfare 3. a rabbit living in a laboratory, being kept When you have completed this topic, you in solitary confinement in a small cage should:...

 Topic 22: How Welfare Scientists Think About Animal Welfare 3. a rabbit living in a laboratory, being kept When you have completed this topic, you in solitary confinement in a small cage should: and being used for scientific experiments testing the effects of tumour producing Be familiar with the animal drugs, at the end of which you will be preferences-based approach to humanely euthanised. In this life, you get animal welfare, as well as biological- to have an electrode implanted into the functioning approaches and feelings- ‘pleasure’ centre of your rabbit brain and based approaches you have access to a lever that can Understand the strengths and stimulate this centre any time you want. limitations of each approach When it is stimulated you feel happy and Know that psychological values are contented regardless of what is just as important as facts when happening around you. making welfare assessments Which one of these rabbits would you like to be and why? Which has the best welfare? In our previous topic we considered the importance of defining what we mean by animal welfare, and of being able to measure welfare in specific animals. This is not so easy to do but, at the end of the last topic, the point was made that animal welfare cannot simply be judged by humans according to what we think is best. Instead, the animals themselves are assumed to have valid points of views and preferences that should be taken into account. Consider the following example. Imagine that you are about to be reincarnated The animal preferences approach as a rabbit and have the choice of three different lives: This kind of thought experiment makes sense if you believe that we should be asking animals 1. a pet rabbit, sheltered from predators, how they want to live their lives. Indeed, many given access to appropriate food and scientists do just this, finding out what an animal water and provided with a large hutch, prefers by giving it a choice between two or complete with an appropriate mate. more alternatives and observing whether one of 2. a wild rabbit, exposed to adverse these is consistently selected. Experiments have environmental conditions, predation, been conducted to examine the preferences of disease, and poisons, but living a free life, animals for various resources, such as space, albeit possibly quite a short one, as a flooring, mates, and nesting materials. Typically, rabbit is ‘supposed’ to do. the animal is placed in the middle section of a box, or a V-shaped maze, and can make a choice preference test with your favourite pet dog or to move either to the left (gaining access to one cat, simply by giving them access to two bowls resource) or to the right (gaining access to a of food, each containing a different food item. different resource). The animal’s preference is Would your pet always choose the one that is measured either as the amount of time the best for them? Better still, try this experiment animal spends with the resource, or simply the on yourself. Put chocolate in one bowl and choice of resource that is selected. Of course, spinach in the other. Which one would you the experiment is usually repeated with a whole prefer? Stupid question, right? Well, the same lot of animals to be sure that the results are applies to animals. Many select foods that are meaningful, but preference tests are quite a tasty but non-nutritious. Some even prefer foods good way of finding out what animals prefer. For that are dangerous. Pet dogs, for example, instance, do capuchin monkeys value facial appear to have strong preferences for snail killer attractiveness when looking for a mate the way and antifreeze, both of which are extremely humans do? Find out here. toxic. We know this, not because someone did such a stupid experiment, but because dozens of pet dogs die each year when their owners accidentally give them access to these poisons. Sometimes, bad choices occur because animals cannot anticipate the consequences of a decision they make. In a preference test an animal might choose freedom rather than captivity, not knowing that freedom means exposure to predation or weather extremes. Others, especially those that have been caged for long periods, might choose captivity because it is safe and familiar, and they do not realise that an environment which may be better for them is available. A 1969 study by Turner and colleagues showed that chimpanzees raised in restricted environments were socially inept as adolescents. Some of the males initiated play and sexual activity less often than chimpanzees raised in normal environments. Even though they did not seem to want sex or play, we cannot say that the welfare of these animals was better This does not mean that preference testing is a than it would have been had they been raised perfect way to solve welfare problems. Like the differently. It would be naïve to assume that an approaches discussed in the last topic, there are animal’s preferences or choices always equate several limitations associated with preference to improved welfare. testing. One is that animal preferences may not Another challenge with preference testing is translate into improved welfare, even though that it is generally possible to test only one they may indicate what the animal desires in the thing at a time, but what an animal needs or short term. Indeed, an animal’s preferences desires may depend very much on what is often appear to be based primarily on subjective available, as well as its motivational state. Give short-term experiences, which may or may not a rat a choice between a brightly lit area and a correspond with long term consequences. dimly lit one, and it will probably choose the one As an example of this limitation, consider what that is dim. Give it a choice between a dimly lit would happen if you were to conduct a food area and one that has no light at all, however, and the dimly lit area will generally become less used as an indication of its preference strength. popular. On a hot day an animal might prefer For example, an animal might be taught to pull one type of food, but it might choose another a lever, press a button, or perform some other when the temperature is cooler. A hungry animal action in order to obtain access to a desired is more likely to select food over increased resource. The terms of obtaining the resource physical space if given a choice, but the same can then easily be altered so that the animal has animal might prefer extra space when satiated. to press the bar more times or press it harder There may even be changes in preferences to obtain access to the resource. It is assumed across time. A male animal might choose a that things an animal will ‘work’ hard to obtain receptive female over food during the mating are more strongly preferred than things that are season, but prefer food once the season is over. preferred only when they are easily obtainable, although of course many of the same limitations apply to tests of preference strength as apply to simple preference tests. A book by Broom and Johnson (1993) describes several good examples of this kind of approach. In one experiment rats were given a choice between going through a cold maze in order to obtain a preferred food and obtaining normal food in warm (usually preferred) conditions. The rats went through the cold maze to get the preferred food, indicating that the food was The required choice may also be beyond the highly preferred. In another study, hens learned animal’s sensory or cognitive capacity. For to peck a key to increase cage size. The hens example, rats rapidly learn to avoid poisoned were not always willing to press the key to move food on the basis of flavour or scent, but fail to the cage wall, perhaps because this was a do so on the basis of colour or size. They simply complex situation for hens, with social factors, are not equipped, cognitively, to make such fluctuations in activity, and changing choices. requirements for space all playing a part. Finally, different animal species may Another experimenter studied the maximum demonstrate their preferences in quite diverse weights on doors that hens would push in order ways. For example, some animals tend to flee to obtain access to peat moss when deprived of when frightened but others freeze, leading us to dust-bathing. incorrectly conclude that they prefer a given stimulus when, in reality, they may be too frightened to move. These limitations mean that, even though the concept of preference testing is good in principle, in practice it is difficult to identify and understand even simple preferences in animals. Scientists are trying hard to overcome these limitations and one of the strategies they have come up with is measuring preference strength. One technique that has been used fairly successfully requires that an animal first be All of these experiments are quite interesting, taught how to select its preference. It can then and they are adding, very gradually, to what we be made to work for the preferred option, with know about the preferences of different animals. the amount of effort it is prepared to exert being Once again, though, it may not always be desirable to let animals decide what is in their more chronic problems. Animals can be best interests. Some argue that humans are a subjected to different experimental conditions better judge than animals of what is good for and we can simply measure how well they cope them, much as we assume that parents know by monitoring general physiological and/or better than their children about things like behavioural indicators of illness, such as we brushing teeth before bed or going to school might observe in humans. An animal that has regularly. The animals in our care also require poor welfare may lose weight, fail to reproduce, that we sometimes make decisions for them. or even die, and many of its physiological control systems will show signs of disorder. One Biological functioning approach that has good welfare, in contrast, will show no This brings us to our next approach to animal signs of illness or distress. The functioning of its welfare, the biological-functioning approach. If body repair systems, immunological defences, we are going to make decisions for animals, we physiological stress responses, and a variety of need to know how those decisions affect them. behavioural responses, will be normal. While we generally cannot ask animals directly, we can look at how they are functioning overall. If we assume that animals have better welfare when everything is working as it should be, then we can check that everything is working well and draw our conclusions from this. Do you agree that an animal probably has good welfare if everything is working as it should? Do you think that your own welfare is enhanced when you are free from painful injuries or disease, and when your bodily organs (heart, liver, kidneys, etc.) are functioning efficiently? We know from our own experience that being physiologically ‘well’ is usually associated with good welfare, so it seems reasonable to accept that good physiological functioning is important for animal welfare as well. The good thing about focusing on physiological processes and systems is that they can be relatively easily observed and measured. Once the central nervous system of any animal perceives some kind of challenge, it typically develops a response that consists of some combination of four general biological defence responses: behavioural responses, responses of This is not to say that the biological functioning the autonomic nervous system, responses of the approach to welfare is perfect. Like the other neuroendocrine system, and responses of the approaches we have discussed, it has some immunological system. The central nervous significant shortcomings. These arise mainly system normally integrates these responses to because it is difficult to know exactly how provide the animal with the principal resources specific biological indicators relate to welfare. needed to cope with the challenge. For example, although animals tend to stop reproducing when their welfare is seriously This means that we can monitor a range of impaired through injury or disease, this may not things, over a short or long term, to assess the always occur. Many domesticated animals are effects of both acute welfare challenges and neutered and never have an opportunity to reproduce. Others have been selected for Normally we assume that such stereotypies decades on the basis of their reproductive indicate poor welfare, but animals displaying performance and may continue to reproduce stereotypical behaviour often fare better when efficiently even under what seem like extremely we measure other indicators of stress, than do challenging conditions, especially if technology those who do not engage in these behaviours. is used to assist the reproductive process. So, although the stereotypies probably only Similarly, while a fast growth rate might indicate develop when an animal’s welfare is fairly poor, good welfare in some species, in others it is a they may be a way of dealing with stress, rather function of decades of genetic selection, and is than simply being a sign of poor welfare. associated with high mortality, and with bone defects that can lead to poor welfare. Another problem arises when different welfare indicators provide inconsistent results. Although the central nervous system normally integrates our response systems, we cannot always understand what the integrated response should look like or what might happen if it is disrupted. For example, a hormone called cortisol is elevated when an animal is highly stressed. It turns out that one of the most stressful things for most animals is having sex, A final problem with biological functioning- hardly something we normally associate with based approaches to animal welfare is that they poor welfare! So, we need to remember that seem to leave out some things that are critical stress is not necessarily a bad thing, and to be to our own welfare. We tend to think, for careful to interpret our results in context. example, that our subjective feelings are critically important. Can you imagine two people, both suffering from the same terminal illness, both with exactly the same symptoms and both living in the same optimal environment? The only difference is that one has psychologically accepted their condition and feels OK about it, while the other does not. The first is convinced that they are going to recover from the disease and return to their normal life, while the second is convinced that they are going to suffer dreadfully and then die. Although we may be able to detect some physiological or behavioural differences Some animals develop behaviours called between these two people, we also may not, and stereotypies when they are confined for long most of us would say that one had better periods with not much to do. A stereotypy is welfare than the other. So, might not the same defined by The Free Dictionary as “Excessive reasoning apply to animals? Can two cows be in repetition or lack of variation in movements, exactly the same environment, show similar ideas, or patterns of speech, especially when physiological profiles, but experience other than viewed as a symptom of certain developmental identical welfare in a psychological sense? or psychiatric disorders.” You may have seen This is not an easy question to answer and it has elephants swaying back and forth, and large troubled psychologists and philosophers for cats tracing a set route around their enclosure. years, as least since the time that we first starting thinking that animals might actually though, that, while the biological functioning- have some kind of mind or mental world. The based approach to animal welfare is extremely problem is that, although we can quite useful in identifying those animals whose accurately tell how another person or animal is welfare is seriously impaired, it is perhaps less functioning, we cannot tell exactly what they are able to identify animals experiencing more feeling – or indeed if they are feeling anything subtle forms of what we might call suffering. at all. This seems to be a critical factor in determining our own welfare, but it is missing from the biological functioning approach. Another thing that seems to be missing is more difficult to define, but has something to do with autonomy – the capacity to make choices and control our own fate. As depicted in the movie The Truman Show, and in The Matrix trilogy, most of us would object to living in a highly controlled environment, even if all of our biological needs were fully met. The same might be said of animals confined to small barren enclosures, like old-fashioned zoo enclosures or some intensive farming facilities. These animals might be well-fed and free of parasites, disease, and predation, but many people would argue that their welfare is poorer than those animals living in a more natural environment. Indeed, one of the biggest animal welfare problems in our current society is probably boredom. There are millions of animals confined in tiny areas with no opportunity for physical stimulation or psychological choice, and this may be just as bad for them as are environments where there is too much stress. Of course, confinement Feelings-based approach stress is likely to show up physiologically and The final approach to understanding and behaviourally, but we might be concerned about assessing animal welfare that we have time to it even when it does not. consider here, is the animal feelings approach. Maybe confined animals, unlike humans, are As was discussed previously, when we are unaware of their confinement and, hence, are talking about good welfare, we generally mean not likely to suffer because of it. Thinking back a contented state of being happy and healthy. to The Truman Show and The Matrix movies, it All of the approaches to welfare that we have was only when the main cast members became considered thus far, the five freedoms approach, aware of their ‘captivity’ that they became the nature of the species approach, the concerned. Other people, living comfortably preference testing approach, and the biological within the Matrix, may well be thought by some functioning approach, are helping scientists get to have enjoyed better welfare than those closer to understanding what we should be fighting against the system. aiming for if we are going to treat animals in our society in a morally defensible manner. They all Animal self-awareness is a challenging issue seem to be missing the central concept in the that continues to tax some of the best scientific definition of welfare, however – a contented minds in the world and we cannot do it justice state. This clearly refers to how an animal feels here. It is probably worth keeping in mind, psychologically, rather than to how it is same way. Philosophers call the subjective functioning physically, what freedoms it has or experience of different states qualia. Most even whether it is getting what it prefers. All of people who have spent any time at all with these things will undoubtedly affect how an animals agree that they have feelings and that animal feels, but feelings themselves are a really these feelings matter to the animal. critical part of welfare that should not be Nonetheless, the exact nature of animal feelings overlooked. You might remember from our remains a complete mystery. Do animals rabbit example at the beginning of this topic experience pain in the same way that humans that one choice was to be an experimental do? Do they experience fear as they watch other animal, being used in experiments but with an animals being killed? Can a pet canary, isolated electrode implant that allows you to feel happy in a small cage, experience anxiety or and contented whenever you want. How did you depression? Do animals experience grief when rate the welfare of this rabbit relative to the they are separated from their young? These are others – and why? difficult but important questions that can only be partially answered at the present time. This is problematic, of course. It is all very well to say that animal feelings should be taken into account when we try to assess animal welfare, but if we cannot identify or measure feelings, then we cannot use them in a reliable way. We need to be very careful of anthropomorphism, the assumption that animals have exactly the same mental and affective states that humans do. We simply cannot justify this claim unless it can be proven in some way. Mind you, we also cannot justify the Cartesian (remember Descartes) view that animals are automatons that act like they experience their lives but do not actually do so. Everything we know about evolution, physiology and behaviour suggests otherwise – that animals are more like than unlike humans in terms of their affective (feeling good and bad) states. This 5-minute TED video is about robots that There is an approach to welfare called the definitely do not experience feelings but do feelings-based approach, which focuses on the express emotions and even display empathy subjective feelings of animals. This is intuitively with others. Examples such as this mean that a appealing, and a feelings-based approach is feelings-based approach to animal welfare is of often adopted by newcomers to the field. Our limited use at present, and that it will remain so own welfare is clearly dependent on how we unless we can find a reliable way of identifying feel, and we comfortably apply this same and measuring animal feelings. While this need criterion to other humans. But whether this not mean that the feelings-based approach to same logic can be applied to animals remains animal welfare is invalid, it does caution us debatable. The problem is that we simply cannot against using this approach alone, without see or measure subjective feelings in animals or developing a good understanding of animal humans so we can never be absolutely certain physiology and behaviour. If we can eventually that an animal feels pain like we do or, for that identify physiological states and behaviours that matter, that two people experience pain in the are associated with negative emotions like fear and pain, then presumably we can judge what Summary an animal is feeling by measuring these things. In this topic we considered three approaches to Scientists all over the world are trying to do just understanding animal welfare, beginning with this, using complicated brain imaging the animal preferences approach and then techniques, so it may not be long before we can delving into biological functioning-based really tell for sure what animals are feeling. It is approaches and animal feelings-based kind of ironic that we are now conducting approaches. What you should realise from this experiments using humans, who can tell us what material is that there is no general consensus on they feel, to find out about how animals might what constitutes good and poor welfare in feel when they experience identical animals. This is unfortunate, because if we are physiological states to the humans. This very going to make sensible decisions about animals, interesting video talks about how neuroimaging we need to know what matters to them, rather methods are being used to study emotions in than what we think matters or what would humans. As scientists gain more knowledge of matter to us if we were in the same situation. the parts of our brain that become active when Sometimes, of course, the answer to welfare we are feeling a particular way, that information questions is so obvious that there is no could potentially be used for similar research on controversy. An animal that is injured or ill animals in the future, to determine if their clearly has poorer welfare than it would have emotional lives are similar to ours. otherwise, regardless of which approach is taken. In other situations, however, the answer is less clear and will depend on which approach is adopted. This reflects our personal values just as much, if not more, than it reflects any hard data that we have been able to collect, and this is why it is important to develop a good understanding of the psychology of human animal relationships. A lack of certainty can be somewhat disconcerting for those concerned about animals, since it implies that we can never be absolutely sure we have made the right decision about many welfare-related issues. We can certainly do a whole lot better than we are doing now, however, so the important thing is to understand how our psychology affects our thinking and then get started. Millions of animals are counting on us to make sensible decisions on their behalf right now, and we do have the skills and expertise necessary to underpin these decisions most of the time. References and/or supplementary resources Broom, D., & Johnson, K (1993). Stress and animal welfare. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83, 435-450. Turner, C.H., Davenport, R.K., & Rogers, C.M. (1969). The effect of early deprivation on the social behaviour of adolescent chimpanzees. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125, 1531-1536.