Return to search

Investigating non-anthropocentric approaches to human-animal interactions in science: towards improved welfare of animals used in wildlife research

Drawing on anthropocentric, ecocentric and biocentric worldviews, I examine the use of research animals as a case to investigate human-animal interactions in science. Specifically, I investigate a case of potential tensions between eco- and biocentric worldviews by examining oversight mechanisms of animal care during research. Despite abundant focus on responsible care of laboratory animals, I argue that inattention to the treatment of wildlife constitutes an ethical shortcoming in contemporary animal research. I review significant shortcomings in legal and institutional oversight and argue for the relatively rapid and transformational potential of editorial oversight in preventing inhumane treatment to vertebrates studied in the field and outside the direct supervision of institutions. Straightforward changes to animal care policies in journals, which the analysis of 206 journals suggests are in many cases absent (34%), weak, incoherent, or neglected by researchers, could provide a practical, effective, and rapidly imposed safeguard against unnecessary suffering. The ARROW (Animal Research: Reporting on Wildlife) guidelines, an original contribution to the present work, coupled with strong enforcement, could result in significant changes to how animals involved in wildlife research are treated. The research process would also benefit. In many cases, reliability, validity, and replicability of data requires animal subjects to be physically, physiologically, and behaviorally unharmed. Accordingly, publication of methods that contravenes animal welfare principles risks perpetuating inhumane approaches and bad science. I conclude by assessing whether paradigms have shifted from anthropocentric to non-anthropocentric approaches to interacting with animals in research, and offer practical and conceptual suggestions for ensuring humane human-animal interactions. / Graduate / 2020-04-05

Identiferoai:union.ndltd.org:uvic.ca/oai:dspace.library.uvic.ca:1828/10825
Date01 May 2019
CreatorsField, Kate A.
ContributorsDarimont, Chris T
Source SetsUniversity of Victoria
LanguageEnglish, English
Detected LanguageEnglish
TypeThesis
Formatapplication/pdf
RightsAvailable to the World Wide Web

Page generated in 0.0018 seconds