Knowing Animals:
cross-fertilisation between natural and social sciences for understanding the quality of life of animals

Keynote Speakers & Abstracts

David Fraser, Professor of Animal Welfare, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Understanding animal welfare: the science in its cultural context

Current debates about the welfare of animals in intensive animal production systems have much in common with the debates that arose about human welfare during the Industrial Revolution. Many critics, who saw industrialization as bad for human welfare, adopted a ‘Romantic/Agrarian’ world-view which valued nature ahead of technology, individual freedom ahead of collective efficiency, and emotion ahead of rationality. They saw industrial manufacturing as forcing workers into situations that were no unnatural as to damage their health and deny their individuality, autonomy and basic human nature. Others, who saw industrialization as good for human welfare, reflected a ‘Rational/Industrial’ world-view that valued productivity ahead of individuality, rationality ahead of emotion, saw ‘progress’ through science and technology as leading ultimately to a better life, and saw the efficiency of the factories as proof that they are suitable environments for workers. A remarkably similar dichotomy of values can be seen in disagreements over whether intensive animal production is bad for animal welfare (because the systems are unnatural, curtail freedom and involve negative emotions such as frustration) or good for animal welfare (as reflected in good physical health and high productivity).

The contrasting world-views have also influenced the measures chosen by scientsts to assess animal welfare. Some scientists, roughly in line with a Romantic/Agrarian world-view, look to the affective states of animals (emotions, feelings) as indicators of welfare, and attempt to improve animal welfare by allowing animals to live in a freer and more natural manner. Other scientists, roughly in line with a Rational/Industrial world-view, look to the basic health and good functioning of animals as indicators of welfare. These different criteria of welfare overlap substantially but are sufficiently independent that disagreements often arise. The various research approaches have helped to identify and solve many animal welfare problems, but the research does not resolve the disagreements attributable to the different value-based views of animal welfare. Rather, the different views of welfare provide the rationale for the diverse scientific approaches.

Thus, our understanding of animal welfare is both science-based and values-based. In this respect, animal welfare is like many other ‘evaluative concepts’ such as food safety and environmental sustainability where the tools of science are used within a framework of values. Scientists working in these fields need to be able to articulate both their empirical work and the values on which it is based.

Erica Fudge, School of Humanities and Cultural Studies at Middlesex University, UK

Gesturing at an Animal History

The history of animals is slowly coming to be regarded as having a role to play in our reconstructions and imaginings of our pasts. For example, historians are speculating about the role of animals - their agency, no less - in the colonial projects in the American 'New World'; studies are being undertaken of the history of pet ownership, as well as of domestication. What was once absent from our studies is now taking its rightful place. But there are some things that may never find their way into our histories; how animals lived in their human contexts might be something that is traceable through human records, but how the animals experienced their co-existence with humans may be forever lost. This paper will begin to think about what it is that might constitute an animal's experience, how that might be different from a human experience. It will attempt to trace what can be reclaimed of animals' pasts, but will also acknowledge that there is much that we may never be able to reclaim. What this loss means to the project of history is central.

Using ideas from a range of areas of current academic inquiry - in particular animal studies, sensory studies and disability studies - I will explore what animal history might, should, but perhaps cannot be.

John Webster, Professor of Animal Husbandry, Bristol University, UK

Zoomorphism and Anthropomorphism: Fruitful fallacies?

Zoo- and anthropomorphism are both scientific heresies but both may serve as laboratory equipment for thought experiments designed to explore our ability to assess quality of life as perceived by another sentient animal. Sentience, a major contributor to evolutionary fitness in a complex environment, implies ‘feelings that matter’. Strength of motivation is a measure of how much they matter. Since humans and most domestic animals share the property of sentience, it follows that some aspects of feeling may be similar, and where we differ, the differences may be of degree rather than absolute. One of the assumed absolutes that I shall challenge is the concept that non-human animals live only in the present. I shall explore how domestic animals may experience the feelings of hunger, pain, fear and hope. Hunger is indisputably a primitive sensation. Pain and fear are primitive sensations with emotional overtones. The problem is to discover how they may affect quality of life. Acute pain and fear are positive signals for action to avoid harm. These actions and their consequences (‘how well did I cope?’) will be committed to memory and affect how an animal feels when they recur, or it fears they may recur. Hope (and its antithesis, despair) are considered by many philosophers (who don’t own dogs) as emotions restricted to humans since only we can imagine the future. However, zoomorphically, hope may be classed with hunger (except in extreme cases) as a primitive feeling of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Either may lead to action directed towards the goal of feeling better or encourage the belief that things will get better (food will arrive). Both are feelings of expectation for the future modulated in the light of past experience. With all these four emotions quality of life may be expressed in terms of how well the animal feels it can cope, both in the present and in the future. When it feels it cannot cope, then it will suffer.

Adrian Franklin, Professor of Sociology, University of Tasmania, Australia

Animals and the academy: humanism, antihumanism and posthumanism

This paper argues that although we can recognise that our relationships with animals, particularly domesticated species are of considerable value, the theoretical and methodological tools we need to understand those relationships and how they form are largely missing. Human-dog, human-cow, human-pig and human-sheep relationships for instance seem to fall into the abyss of the Great Divide, somewhere between the humanities and the sciences, and especially as this division is organised and ordered by specific disciplinary boundaries and knowledges. Crudely, the sciences have been interested in animal behaviour , as if it is separable from the humanity it is intertwined with and has co-evolved alongside. It is as if dog behaviour in its relation with humans belongs to and resides in a dog’s species being, as opposed to being an artefact of a dialectical exchange between species; something that is neither dog or human but both; something created and emergent. We can say that this approach purifies out the human dimension of the relationship, something Pickering (2000) called antihumanism. On the other hand the humanities and social sciences have been humanist inasmuch as they posit a world of humans among themselves. Their research on human dog and other animal relations tends to centre on what they mean to, represent and achieve for, humans: as if it were only human agency, interpretation, ethics/morality and action existed or was of interest. This paper fleshes out the nature of this ontological abyss and suggests, in broad terms and asks how it can be addressed theoretically and methodologically. While the theoretical problem can be solved and the methodology specified in broad terms, the task of enacting what Franklin, Haraway et al (2007) have called trans-species methodology might take us to new and scary territory.

John Law , Professor of Sociology, Lancaster University, UK

Care and Killing: Tensions in Veterinary Practice

In the UK foot and mouth epidemic vets up and down the country cared: for the animals in life, the animals at the point of death, and the animals after death; pastorally, for the farmers; for their own sensitivity to slaughter and suffering, and the necessary self-protection that goes along with this in order to retain sanity; for an abstract collectivity, the national herd; for the neighbours; perhaps for the meat trade, for the national economy, and on some versions, the political fate of the government. This is care multiple. In this paper I meditate on how this works, how it is managed, and when and how it breaks down.

Lindsay Matthews, AgResearch Ltd., Ruakura Research Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand

Pigness, chickeness, cowness: naturality as welfare?

There are at least three different views about the essence of animal welfare, and these views are related to different ‘value frameworks’. One view emphasises biological functioning (e.g. health, ability to cope with stress, levels of reproduction and production). A second focuses on the relevance of the animal’s perceptions of its (affective) state (suffering or ‘feeling good’), quality of life and mental health. The third view is that natural living is the most important feature. Historically, much of the scientific assessment of the welfare state of animals has focussed on measurements of biological functioning. Affective state has long been considered an important component of welfare status but research endeavours in this field have increased in intensity only relatively recently. This increase in effort has been driven, in part, by: the belief (particularly of citizens) that mental experiences of animals are key to understanding animal welfare; and the development of new techniques for measuring subjective states.

Similarly, the wider community places heavy emphasis on ‘natural behaviours and environments’ in conceptions of animal welfare, with more ‘natural’ systems generally viewed as superior. ‘Naturalness is superior’ seems to be an example of a moral intuition that is not necessarily consistent with scientific evidence derived from the biological functioning and affective state frameworks. For example, recent research has demonstrated that, on balance, the welfare of layer hens is superior in some types of confinement systems, yet many in the wider society would prefer hens to be kept in more extensive environments. It will be argued that the essence of animal welfare is determining what matters to animals, and therefore the focus of the natural sciences should be on understanding animals’ mental experiences and how these relate to biological functioning. Evidence will be presented that (for at least some situations) measures of the strength of animal preferences captures and integrates much of the information that (we currently believe) we need know when making evidence-based judgements about animal welfare, including the value of ‘naturalness’. However, this information will have limited appeal to wider society unless it can be shown to match with their views on animal welfare. Thus, the social and natural sciences need to combine their endeavours to gain a much greater understanding of how citizens view ‘nature’ and animal welfare, the robustness of these views, and the links between ‘naturalness’ and current scientific understandings of animal welfare. Only then will we be able to determine how readily we can close the gaps in understanding the relevance of ‘naturalness’ to animal welfare and its assessment.

Joy A. Mench, Professor of Animal Science and Director of the Center for Animal Welfare, University of California, Davis, USA

Animal Welfare Standards: Balancing Science, Ethics, and Practicality

As ethical concerns about the treatment of animals have increased in society, there has also been increasing emphasis on the development of standards for the breeding, raising, transport and slaughter of farm animals. These standards have taken many forms: legislated or voluntary, enforced by governmental authorities or established via auditing or certification programs, or relying on market forces. These different approaches have strengths and weaknesses in terms of their potential for improving farm animal welfare, and some may be more effective than others for particular types of welfare problems or in particular situations. However, there are a number of major challenges for the development and implementation of animal welfare standards regardless of the form they take. One of these challenges is to how to reconcile the sometimes conflicting perspectives and needs of the public with those of farmers, processors, and others involved with producing or selling animal products. Another is how to resolve conflicts that sometimes (often?) arise between people’s ethical attitudes towards animals and scientific information about animal welfare. Although such conflicts are unavoidable, wide stakeholder input into the standards development process can be beneficial in terms of finding common ground and creating workable solutions. In the future, farm animal welfare standards will also need to be much more closely integrated with standards for all of the other factors affecting the social sustainability of animal agriculture – including the health and economic viability of farmers and rural communities, the environment, and food safety and security.

Lawrence Busch, Professor of Sociology, Michigan State University, USA & at CESAGEN, Institute for Advanced Studies, Lancaster University, UK

The Politics of Animal Welfare Policies

Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot tell us that we live in a plural world in which actions are justified in multiple ways. Moreover, Anne Marie Mol argues that things, certainly including animals, are always multiple, their very existence dependent on the particular practices in which they are implicated. Thus animal welfare policies must be understood in light of both the ways in which animals are ‘practiced’ and the particular justifications provided for these practices. Such policies make claims based on the practices involved in animal-human interactions and are justified based on appeals to the scientific (industrial), civic, market, and domestic polities, among others. This paper will explore the implications of these multiplicities for the formation of animal welfare policies.

Note: I am now working at both Michigan State University and Lancaster University. I will be in Michigan through March 2009 and then will return to the Lancaster. My addresses are:

University Distinguished Professor
442A Berkey Hall
Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
USA
Tel.: +1 517 355 3396
Fax: + 1 517 432 2856 Prof. of Standards and Society

CESAGEN
Institute for Advanced Studies
Lancaster University
Lancaster LA1 4YD
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel.: +44 (0) 1524 510840
Fax: +44 (0) 1524 510856

Rod Bennison, Conjoint Lecturer, Co-convenor 2009 International Academic and Community Conference on Animals and Society: Minding Animals, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia

Minding Animals

The Minding Animals Conference is dedicated to the emerging transdiscipline of animal studies. A brief examination will be made of the rationale behind the name, and the aims and objectives of the conference will be outlined.

The aim of the conference is to incorporate and expand on the areas of ethnozoology, ethnobiology, critical animal studies, society and animals, animal geographies, animal philosophy and animal law, let alone how animals are represented in art, music, literature and on film. The conference has six major themes and objectives, including an examination of the relationship between the animal and environmental movements, an
examination of how humans identify and represent nonhuman animals in art, literature, music, science,and in the media and on film, and how, throughout history, the objectification of nonhuman animals and nature in science and society, religion and philosophy, has led to the abuse of nonhuman animals and how this has since been interpreted and evaluated.

The conference also has the objective to examine how the lives of humans and companion and domesticated nonhuman animals are intertwined, and how science, human and veterinary medicine utilise these important connections. Importantly, the conference will examine how the study of animals and society can better inform both the scientific study of animals and community activism and advocacy, and how science and community activism and advocacy can inform the study of nonhuman animals and society.

The second part of the presentation will outline the design and logistics of the Minding Animals Conference. The conference has been designed to be an integrative, informative and interpretative conference between academics and community activists whose chief interests are the environment and or animal advocacy (inclusive of animal protection, animal welfare, animal rights, and animal liberation and wildlife protection).
The framework has been designed to allow the emerging field some insight into community activities that academics seek to study, and some tensions that exist within albeit similar community or activist movements.
Other than keynote and concurrent invited speaker presentations, sessions will include the Protecting the Animals Seminar Series that will allow non-government organisations and advocacies and government instrumentalities to display and elaborate on their specific work or aspects of their charter that seek to protect animals. Sessions also
include a more traditional conference framework involving panel presentations, concurrent sessions and poster presentations. The conference will also be hosting an Animals and Arts Festival, a Animal Docos Festival, an Interfaith Service, and an extensive social programme.

Email: rod.bennison@newcastle.edu.au
Website: http://www.mindinganimals.com/

Andrea Gavinelli, European Commission, Directorate General for Health and Consumers, Unit D5, Animal Welfare, Brussels, Belgium

The European vision on animal welfare from science to policy

Animal Welfare is being accorded an increasingly important role in today's civil society. The results of several social investigations and market analysis carried on in the European Union confirm that the farming of animals is no longer viewed by European consumers simply as a means of food production. Instead it is seen as fundamental to other key social goals such as food safety and quality, safeguarding environmental protection, sustainability, enhancing the quality of life in rural areas while ensuring that animals are properly treated.
While in the past animal welfare policy was often driven public concerns about specific topics the Commission adopted in 2006 a more comprehensive strategy for this policy area.
The first Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010 takes into account all the concerns as well as the globalisation of animal production. It defines the direction of the Community policies and the related activities for the coming years to continue to promote high animal welfare standards in the EU and internationally considering animal welfare as business opportunities while respecting the ethical and cultural dimension of the issue. A major effort is ongoing today to simplify the legislative framework and to reshape it in order to obtain in the future a more powerful tool to support European farm business.

The scientific study of animal welfare is a relatively young discipline and has developed over the last three decades and continues to expand to meet new challenges and new possibilities.
Welfare researchers are providing the scientific basis for practical, reliable and feasible welfare assessment systems and standardised tools for the conversion of welfare measures into accessible and understandable information, which could help to improve the welfare situation for animals in Europe and to contribute to Commission's policy making.
The scientific knowledge could play an important role facilitating the ethical and political decisions about animal care.
EU legislation based on scientific evidence and systematic risk assessment by EFSA is important to support the further improvement of animal welfare in Europe.
Considerations about animal welfare should also take account of the potential risks related to food safety, animal health and the spread of animal diseases.
The overall aim of the European Commission's initiative is to initiate a broad public debate on animal welfare which will allow shaping a coherent and widely accepted policy.
The vision is to integrate the farming of animals in good health and welfare conditions with the respect of several other issues such as the safety of the products and the respect for the environment: this integrated approach will bring a real benefit for the global society.

Email: Andrea.Gavinelli@ec.europa.eu