Twenty-five years ago, Paul Taylor probed principles for giving “wildlife...a chance to survive alongside the works of human culture” (299) and bringing “human civilization...into harmony with natu...

Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics

The general concept of animal welfare embraces a continuum between negative/bad welfare and positive/good welfare. Early approaches to defining animal welfare were mainly based on the exclusion of negative states, neglecting the fact that during evolution animals optimised their ability to interact with and adapt to their environment(s). An animal's welfare status might best be represented by the adaptive value of the individual's interaction with a given environmental setting but this dynamic welfare concept has significant implications for practical welfare assessments. Animal welfare issues cannot simply be addressed by means of objective biological measurements of an animal's welfare status under certain circumstances. In practice, interpretation of welfare status and its translation into the active management of perceived welfare issues are both strongly influenced by context and, especially, by cultural and societal values. In assessing whether or not a given welfare status is morally acceptable, animal welfare scientists must be aware that scientifically based, operational definitions of animal welfare will necessarily be influenced strongly by a given society's moral understanding.

Animal welfare: At the interface between science and society

Pre-emptive culling is becoming increasingly questioned as a means of controlling animal diseases, including classical swine fever (CSF). This has prompted discussions on the use of emergency vaccination to control future CSF outbreaks in domestic pigs. Despite a long history of safe use in endemic areas, there is a paucity of data on aspects important to emergency strategies, such as how rapidly CSFV vaccines would protect against transmission, and if this protection is equivalent for all viral genotypes, including highly divergent genotype 3 strains. To evaluate these questions, pigs were vaccinated with the Riemser® C-strain vaccine at 1, 3 and 5 days prior to challenge with genotype 2.1 and 3.3 challenge strains. The vaccine provided equivalent protection against clinical disease caused by for the two challenge strains and, as expected, protection was complete at 5 days post-vaccination. Substantial protection was achieved after 3 days, which was sufficient to prevent transmission of the 3.3 strain to animals in direct contact. Even by one day post-vaccination approximately half the animals were partially protected, and were able to control the infection, indicating that a reduction of the infectious potential is achieved very rapidly after vaccination. There was a close temporal correlation between T cell IFN-γ responses and protection. Interestingly, compared to responses of animals challenged 5 days after vaccination, challenge of animals 3 or 1 days post-vaccination resulted in impaired vaccine-induced T cell responses. This, together with the failure to detect a T cell IFN-γ response in unprotected and unvaccinated animals, indicates that virulent CSFV can inhibit the potent antiviral host defences primed by C-strain in the early period post vaccination.

/pdf/challenge-of-pigs-with-classical-swine-fever-viruses-after-c-41sgi3p4xl.pdf

Challenge of Pigs with Classical Swine Fever Viruses after C-Strain Vaccination Reveals Remarkably Rapid Protection and Insights into Early Immunity

The Animals Issue - Moral Theory in Practice.

The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework that will help in understanding and evaluating, along social and ethical lines, the issue of killing day-old male chicks and two alternative directions of responsible innovations to solve this issue. The following research questions are addressed: Why is the killing of day-old chicks morally problematic? Are the proposed alternatives morally sound? To what extent do the alternatives lead to responsible innovation? The conceptual framework demonstrates clearly that there is a moral “lock-in”, and why the killing of day-old chicks is indeed an issue. Furthermore, it is shown that both alternative directions address some important objections with regard to the killing of day-old chicks, but that they also raise new dilemmas. It also becomes clear that the framework enables and secures anticipation, reflection, deliberation with and responsiveness to stakeholders, the four dimensions of responsible innovation, in a structured way.

/pdf/moral-lock-in-in-responsible-innovation-the-ethical-and-3kbop8c4om.pdf

Moral “Lock-In” in Responsible Innovation: The Ethical and Social Aspects of Killing Day-Old Chicks and Its Alternatives

In this paper, we present and defend the theoretical framework of an empirical model to describe people’s fundamental moral attitudes (FMAs) to animals, the stratification of FMAs in society and the role of FMAs in judgment on the culling of healthy animals in an animal disease epidemic. We used philosophical animal ethics theories to understand the moral basis of FMA convictions. Moreover, these theories provide us with a moral language for communication between animal ethics, FMAs, and public debates. We defend that FMA is a two-layered concept. The first layer consists of deeply felt convictions about animals. The second layer consists of convictions derived from the first layer to serve as arguments in a debate on animal issues. In a debate, the latter convictions are variable, depending on the animal issue in a specific context, time, and place. This variability facilitates finding common ground in an animal issue between actors with opposing convictions.

/pdf/fundamental-moral-attitudes-to-animals-and-their-role-in-q089s5k602.pdf

Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment: An Empirical Model to Describe Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment on the Culling of Healthy Animals During an Animal Disease Epidemic

In 2004 a survey was conducted in the member states of the European Union designed to gain greater insight into the views on control strategies for foot and mouth disease, classical swine fever, and avian influenza with respect to the epidemiological, economic and social-ethical consequences of each of these animal diseases. This article presents the results of the social-ethical survey. A selection of stakeholders from each member state was asked to prioritize issues for the prevention and control of these diseases. A majority of stakeholders chose preventive measures as the preferred issue. An analysis was done to determine whether there were differences in views expressed by stakeholders from member states with a history of recent epidemics and ones without such a history, and whether there were regional differences. There were no differences between member states with or without a history of recent epidemics. There were indeed regional differences between the priority orders from Northern and Southern Europe on the one hand, and from Eastern Europe on the other.

/pdf/social-ethical-issues-concerning-the-control-strategy-of-25djjlmw9e.pdf

Social-ethical issues concerning the control strategy of animal diseases in the European Union: A survey

In this paper the results are presented of a national survey in the Netherlands. The aim was to identify and describe the convictions about animals that people have in Dutch society and the role of these in judgments on the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. A total of 1,999 responses was received and two groups of respondents were distinguished: A profile (50% of the respondents) and B profile (28%). The A profile respondents considered humans to be superior to animals, whereas the B profile respondents considered both to be equal. Both groups were of the opinion that animals have value, that people have a duty to care for and protect all animals, and that all animals have a right to life. These convictions were based on a number of values, such as animal life, the ability of animals to feel pain and emotions (sentience), and the importance of animal species in the ecosystem. The results of a case study suggest that convictions play a role in judgment. More A respondents agreed with the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. More B respondents partly (dis)agreed or disagreed with this. Most respondents (A: 81%, B: 61%) agreed with culling to protect human life. The most important argument against culling was the value of animal life. The A respondents rated all arguments against culling significantly lower than did the B respondents.

Moral Convictions and Culling Animals: A Survey in the Netherlands

European animal disease policy seems to find its justification in a “harm to other” principle. Limiting the freedom of animal keepers—e.g., by culling their animals—is justified by the aim to prevent harm, i.e., the spreading of the disease. The picture, however, is more complicated. Both during the control of outbreaks and in the prevention of notifiable, animal diseases the government is confronted with conflicting claims of stakeholders who anticipate running a risk to be harmed by each other, and who ask for government intervention. In this paper, we first argue that in a policy that aims to prevent animal diseases, the focus shifts from limiting “harm” to weighing conflicting claims with respect to “risks of harm.” Therefore, we claim that the harm principle is no longer a sufficient justification for governmental intervention in animal disease prevention. A policy that has to deal with and distribute conflicting risks of harm needs additional value assumptions that guide this process of assessment and distribution. We show that currently, policies are based on assumptions that are mainly economic considerations. In order to show the limitations of these considerations, we use the interests and position of keepers of backyard animals as an example. Based on the problems they faced during and after the recent outbreaks, we defend the thesis that in order to develop a sustainable animal disease policy other than economic assumptions need to be taken into account.

/pdf/beyond-the-prevention-of-harm-animal-disease-policy-as-a-21nm3vblca.pdf

Nina E. Cohen

Papers

Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment: An Empirical Model to Describe Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment on the Culling of Healthy Animals During an Animal Disease Epidemic

Social-ethical issues concerning the control strategy of animal diseases in the European Union: A survey

Moral Convictions and Culling Animals: A Survey in the Netherlands

Beyond the prevention of harm: Animal disease policy as a moral question