Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
24,365
result(s) for
"Animal ethics"
Sort by:
Sister species : women, animals, and social justice
\"There is a very strong association between women, animals, and activism. In Women, Social Justice, and Animal Advocacy, activist Lisa A. Kemmerer presents the narratives of fourteen ecofeminist activists who describe their own experiences in the field, often from the perspective of discovering the extent of a particular kind of animal oppression and resolving to do something about it. The narratives are bold and gripping, sometimes horrifying, and cover a range of topics relating to animal rights and liberation. The writers discuss contemporary cockfighting, factory farming, orphaned primates in Africa, the wild bird trade, scientific experimentation on animals, laws against \"dangerous\" dogs, and violence against baby seals. Sister Species provides a wide survey of what women are doing in the animal activism movement. The writers ask readers to rethink how we view animals in our daily lives--and how we can take action to protect them. Kemmerer's introduction explains why she collected these particular stories and how she views the relationship between feminism and animal suffering. The foreword is by Carol J. Adams, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat (1990), Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals.(1994), The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics: A Reader (2007), and many other books. None of these essays has been previously published\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation
Nonhuman animal (“animal”) experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.
Journal Article
How animal ethics committees make decisions – a scoping review of empirical studies
The aim of the scoping review is to explore the decision-making process for the evaluation of animal research proposals within Animal Ethics Committees (AEC) and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC), and to critically summarize the available empirical literature on the different factors influencing, or likely to influence, decision-making by AECs when evaluating animal research proposals.
A systematic search of empirical literature published between 01.12.2012 and 03.06.2024 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, was performed.
Twelve papers were included in the final results, four of which were quantitative, five qualitative, and three were mixed methods. Qualitative content analysis revealed deficits in the assessment of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction or Refinement) or the weighing of harms and benefits. Factors related to the review process, applicants, and committees were found to influence this process.
The findings prompt pragmatic strategies to improve the decision making process of Animal ethics committees.
The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) with the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB.
Journal Article
A semi-structured questionnaire survey of laboratory animal rehoming practice across 41 UK animal research facilities
If a laboratory animal survives an experiment without lasting compromised welfare, its future must be negotiated. Rehoming may be a consideration. This paper reports on research findings that provide an indication of the uptake of animal rehoming by UK facilities and the associated moral, ethical, practical and regulatory considerations that inform decisions to rehome or not. This research addresses a widely acknowledged gap in the literature to understand both the numbers, and types of animals rehomed from UK research facilities, as well as the main motivations for engaging in the practice, and the barriers for those facilities not currently rehoming. From the ~160 UK research facilities in the UK, 41 facilities completed the questionnaire, giving a response rate of approximately 25%. Results suggest rehoming occurs routinely, yet the numbers are small; just 2322 animals are known to have been rehomed between 2015-2017. At least 1 in 10 facilities are rehoming. There exists a clear preference for the rehoming of some species (mainly cats, dogs and horses) over others (rodents, agricultural animals and primates). Indeed, although 94.15% of species kept in laboratories are rodents, they make up under a fifth (19.14%) of all animals known to be rehomed between 2015-2017. The primary motivation for rehoming is to boost staff morale and promote a positive ethical profile for the facility. Barriers include concern for the animal's welfare following rehoming, high scientific demand for animals that leaves few to be rehomed, and, finally, certain animals (mainly those genetically modified) are simply unsuited to rehoming. The findings of this research will support facilities choosing to rehome, as well as those that are not currently engaging in the practice. By promoting the practice, the benefits to rehoming in terms of improving laboratory animal's quality of life, helping facility staff to overcome the moral stress of killing, and addressing public concern regarding the fate of laboratory animals, can be attained. It is only once an understanding of rehoming from the perspective of UK research facilities has been ascertained, that appropriate policy and support can be provided.
Journal Article
The moral circle : who matters, what matters, and why
Today, human exceptionalism is the norm. Despite occasional nods to animal welfare, we prioritize humankind, often neglecting the welfare of a vast number of beings. In 'The Moral Circle', philosopher Jeff Sebo challenges us to include all potentially significant beings in our moral community, with transformative implications for our lives and societies.
BOOK
Laboratory animal ethics education improves medical students' awareness of laboratory animal ethics
Objective
In this study, we added laboratory animal ethics education into both didactic sessions and practical sessions the general surgery laboratory course, with the didactic sessions focus on teaching the fundamental principles of laboratory animal ethics, while the practical sessions emphasize the application of these principles in laboratory classes and have assessed the changes in medical students' perception of laboratory animal ethics following medical students exposure to such education.
Methods
One hundred and eighty-nine third-year medical students from Wuhan University's Second Clinical College completed a laboratory animal ethics awareness questionnaire and a laboratory animal ethics written examination before and after laboratory animal ethics education.
Results
After receiving laboratory animal ethics education, the percentage of students who supported euthanasia for the execution of animals and humane treatment of laboratory animals were 95.2% and 98.8%, respectively, which did not differ from the 94.9% and 96.4% observed before the education. Moreover, there was a notable increase in the proportion of students who knew about regulations related to laboratory animals (from 39.9% to 57.1%), welfare issues (from 31.9% to 50.0%), and the 3R principle (from 30.4% to 58.9%) post-education, all statistically significant at
P
< 0.05. Test scores also showed improvement, with students scoring (93.02 ± 11.65) after education compared to (67.83 ± 8.08) before, a statistically significant difference.
Conclusions
This research helps to provide information for the good practices of laboratory animal ethics education. After receiving laboratory animal ethics education, students are better able to treat laboratory animals in a correct animal ethical manner. Laboratory animal ethics education helps improve students' knowledge of laboratory animal ethics. Students’ perception towards how the laboratory animal ethics course should be delivered may vary. Still, new courses or better organized courses on laboratory animal ethics education are required in order to provide students an in-depth understanding.
Journal Article
Assessing Animal Welfare Impacts in the Management of European Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), European Moles (Talpa europaea) and Carrion Crows (Corvus corone)
Human-wildlife conflict is a global issue. Attempts to manage this conflict impact upon wild animal welfare, an issue receiving little attention until relatively recently. Where human activities harm animal welfare these effects should be minimised where possible. However, little is known about the welfare impacts of different wildlife management interventions, and opinions on impacts vary widely. Welfare impacts therefore need to be assessed objectively. Our objectives were to: 1) establish whether an existing welfare assessment model could differentiate and rank the impacts of different wildlife management interventions (for decision-making purposes); 2) identify and evaluate any additional benefits of making formal welfare assessments; and 3) illustrate issues raised by application of the model. We applied the welfare assessment model to interventions commonly used with rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), moles (Talpa europaea) and crows (Corvus corone) in the UK. The model ranked interventions for rabbits (least impact first: fencing, head shot, chest shot) and crows (shooting, scaring, live trapping with cervical dislocation). For moles, managing molehills and tunnels scored least impact. Both spring trapping, and live trapping followed by translocation, scored greater impacts, but these could not be compared directly as they scored on different axes of the model. Some rankings appeared counter-intuitive, highlighting the need for objective formal welfare assessments. As well as ranking the humaneness of interventions, the model highlighted future research needs and how Standard Operating Procedures might be improved. The model is a milestone in assessing wildlife management welfare impacts, but our research revealed some limitations of the model and we discuss likely challenges in resolving these. In future, the model might be developed to improve its utility, e.g. by refining the time-scales. It might also be used to reach consensus among stakeholders about relative welfare impacts or to identify ways of improving wildlife management practice in the field.
Journal Article