Search

Fish resilience can be understood as the capacity of fish to successfully respond to a challenge so that they are able to function and flourish in much the same way as they did prior to the occurrence of the challenge. Resilience is a function not only of individual fish, but also of a whole fish population. Enhancing the resilience of fish requires both adapting the robustness of the animals and adapting the (production) environment to the specific needs of the fish. Rather than a mere biological capacity of fish, resilience also comes with ethical questions. These questions occur at four levels. First, in practice resilience often comes with a “rhetoric” of optimalization. The view that aquaculture that strives for resilient fish is good for both fish welfare and production is inherently normative. It assumes a ‘win–win situation’, but thereby makes certain normative assumptions. Second, especially when the win–win situation is not achievable, resilience means making trade‐offs between preferred responses to challenges from the perspective of individual animals and groups or between individual housing and larger aquaculture systems. Third, the discussions on resilience and fish demonstrate the need to move beyond an animal welfare framework when discussing the treatment of fish in aquaculture. Recently, animal ethics has seen a turn towards centering animals' own agency. This means that we should not only focus on improving animal welfare, but also on asking what the animals themselves want and how they can be given more control over their situation. This may also impact the definition of resilience and how it is made operational. Finally, the use of the concept of resilience may reveal a certain moral outlook with regard to fish. On the one hand, resilience is portrayed as a positive characteristic of animals that enables improvement of the quality of life of fish. At the same time, it raises the question of how far we should stretch the “manufacturability” of fish. When we physically adapt animals so that they can cope with difficult circumstances we may be stretching moral boundaries. For example, this raises the objection that we are instrumentalizing animals. In this article, we reflect on these types of ethical issues and aim to show that the ethical dimensions of resilience need to be taken into account by professionals in aquaculture in order to make resilience operational and to contribute to a responsible interaction with fish in aquaculture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In February 2022, the university course Replacing Animal Testing (RAT) Challenge was organized for the first time by an alliance of Dutch universities with the aim of engaging future generations in finding solutions to replace the use of animals in testing. Educating the next generations of researchers and professionals is an important step in the transition to promote animal-free science, to which the Dutch government is committed. Students are key stakeholders in the transition to animal-free innovations but their perspective still remains underrepresented. Therefore, our study aimed to explore their viewpoints focusing on their beliefs, values, and the motivations of students to join the course. We conclude that students share the ethical and scientific values that inspire the transition, and that their reflections on the socio-political landscape provide valuable insights on current and future challenges to the acceptance of animal-free innovations. In 2016, the Dutch government declared its commitment to phasing out animal experiments by 2025. Although a high number of animal experiments are still performed and the 2025 target will not be met, the commitment remains. Efforts are being made to identify levers that might foster the transition to animal-free science. Education has been found to play a key role in the future of animal-free science and young generations are increasingly seen as key stakeholders. However, their attitudes toward the transition to animal-free innovations have not been investigated. The present article focuses on the values and beliefs held by students, who in 2022, participated in the course 'Replacing Animal Testing' (RAT) Challenge, organized by a consortium of Dutch universities. Contextually, students' motivations to follow the course were investigated. The research was based on a qualitative study, including semi-structured interviews and a literature review. Our analysis of the findings revealed that students feel aligned with the social, ethical, and scientific reasons that support the transition to animal-free innovations. Moreover, the participants identified a series of regulatory, educational, cultural, and political obstacles to the transition that align with those identified in recent literature. From the discussion of these findings, we extrapolated six fundamental challenges that need to be addressed to foster the transition to animal-free science in an acceptable and responsible way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]