Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:45:05.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific uncertainty — how should it be handled in relation to scientific advice regarding animal welfare issues?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

P Sandøe ,
B Forkman  and
SB Christiansen
P Sandøe*
Affiliation:
Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Grønnegårdsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
B Forkman
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Grønnegårdsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
SB Christiansen
Affiliation:
Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Grønnegårdsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: pes@kvl.dk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The provision of advice on animal welfare is an important part of the work of scientists in applied ethology, neurophysiology, veterinary epidemiology and other disciplines. Those who request guidance often expect advice that will help them to make progress in difficult discussions. Scientists want to live up to these expectations, but it is also important for them to clarify any scientific limitations. They are normally aware of limits to their advice, but these limits are sometimes not explicitly stated. Using the phrase broadly, we call this kind of limitation ‘scientific uncertainty’. We distinguish between the following four types of uncertainty: I) Ontological uncertainty, relating to the existence of animal feelings and other states relevant for animal welfare. 2) Conceptual uncertainty, stemming from the fact that some of the concepts used in animal welfare science are value-laden if used outside a narrow scientific context. 3) Lack of scientific evidence, stemming from a lack of scientific data on the problem in question. 4) Uncertainty about priorities, relating to the practical conclusions to be drawn in a situation with an open-ended set of ethical and other practical considerations. Scientific uncertainty is unavoidable. It is therefore essential, when giving scientific advice, to state the assumptions on which the advice is based. This makes scientific advice more objective, but also of more limited value to those who do not share the underlying assumptions.

Keywords

animal welfareobjectivityopennessscientific advicescientific uncertainty
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. S121 - S126
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Faure, J M, Guémené, D and Guy, G 2001 Is there avoidance of the force feeding procedure in ducks and geese? Animal Research 50(2): 157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FSBI 2002 Fish Welfare (Briefing Paper 2). Fisheries Society of the British Isles: Cambridge, UK. Available at: http://www.le.ac.uk/biology/fsbi/briefing.htmlGoogle Scholar
Guémené, D, Guy, G, Noirault, J, Garreau-Mills, M, Gouraud, P and Faure, J M 2001 Force-feeding procedure and physiological indicators of stress in male mule ducks. British Poultry Science 42(5): 650–657CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, C P B and Jeppesen, L L 2001 Swimming activity of farm mink (Mustela vison) and its relation to stereotypies. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 51: 71–76Google Scholar
Mason, G J, Cooper, J and Clarebrough, C 2001 Frustrations of fur-farmed mink. Nature 410: 35–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Permin, A, Bisgaard, M, Frandsen, F, Pearman, M, Kold, J and Nansen, P 1999 Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in different poultry production systems. British Poultry Science 40(4): 439–443CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, J D 2002 The neurobehavioural nature of fishes and the question of awareness and pain. Reviews in Fisheries Science 10(1): 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCAHAW 1998 Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese. Report of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/aw/aw_scahaw_en.html.Google Scholar
SCAHAW 2000 The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers). Report of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/aw/aw_scahaw_en.html.Google Scholar
Sherwin, C 2001 Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is argument-by-analogy? Animal Welfare 10: 103–118Google Scholar
Sneddon, L U, Braithwaite, V and Gentle, M J 2003 Do fishes have nociceptors? Evidence for the evolution of a vertebrate sensory system. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, Biological Sciences 270: 1115–1121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed