Search

To stay up-to-date with the demographics, interests, and needs of the equine community, equine extension programs commonly conduct so called "needs assessment surveys". The main goals of the 2022 Rutgers Equine Science Center (ESC) needs assessment survey were to: 1) characterize the equine community, 2) identify information sources used by the equine community, 3) assess the usefulness of selected equine-related services and programs, and 4) determine the perceived importance of selected equine-related issues. An anonymous online survey was distributed through the Rutgers ESC's email list, a press release, and social media. Analysis-eligible surveys were received from n = 493. Most participants were female (92.7 %), 36-60 years of age (48.4 %), white (88.8 %), and horse owners (87.8 %). The top three sources of equine-related information used were 1) personal knowledge (95.7 %), 2) the veterinarian (93.7 %), and 3) the farrier (83.7 %). The survey showed that the provision of horse health information is the most useful service that the Rutgers ESC specifically can provide (79.3 %). This service may also be most useful for other extension programs, but a follow-up study is needed for clarification. The five equine-related issues most often considered to be extremely important were "Lameness and Soundness" (76.5 %), "Ethical Use of Horses" (73.2 %), "Nutrition" (63.9 %), "Right to Farm" (56.8 %), and "Care of Old Horses" (55.6 %). The survey provided insights into the current demographics of the equine community, highlighted personal knowledge, veterinarians and farriers as important information sources, and elucidated "Lameness and Soundness" as the most important equine-related issue., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None of the authors has any financial or personal relationships that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

One objection to xenotransplantation is that it will require the large-scale breeding, raising and killing of genetically modified pigs. The pigs will need to be raised in designated pathogen-free facilities and undergo a range of medical tests before having their organs removed and being euthanised. As a result, they will have significantly shortened life expectancies, will experience pain and suffering and be subject to a degree of social and environmental deprivation. To minimise the impact of these factors, we propose the following option for consideration-ethically defensible xenotransplantation should entail the use of genetic disenhancement if it becomes possible to do so and if that pain and suffering cannot be eliminated by other means. Despite not being a morally ideal 'solution', it is morally better to prevent unavoidable pain until a viable non-animal alternative becomes available., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The revolution in biology triggered by the different genome-editing tools has of course arrived to the research field of animal reproduction. Yeast meganucleases, zinc-finger nucleases, TALEN and, particularly, the several generations of CRISPR tools have landed in animal reproduction thereby providing novel strategies to optimize or modify some of the features and capabilities of the recipient animals. All these genome-editing proposals and activities are associated with ethical considerations regarding how those planned genome alterations might affect important animal welfare issues. The ethical dimension of all these genome editing must be seriously considered. Hence, all ethical aspects bound to any given genome-edited allele in animals should be discussed in order to ensure that we are maximizing benefits and reducing any potential risk or negative considerations of these modifications. In this review, I will summarize some of the experiments reported aiming to investigate or improve animal reproduction and I will address the ethics issues that should also be considered., (© 2024 The Author(s). Reproduction in Domestic Animals published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH.)

The 3Rs framework in animal experimentation- "replace, reduce, refine" - has been alleged to be expressive of anthropocentrism, the view that only humans are directly morally relevant. After all, the 3Rs safeguard animal welfare only as far as given human research objectives permit, effectively prioritizing human use interests over animal interests. This article acknowledges this prioritization, but argues that the characterization as anthropocentric is inaccurate. In fact, the 3Rs prioritize research purposes even more strongly than an ethical anthropocentrist would. Drawing on the writings of Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) founder Charles W. Hume, who employed Russell and Burch, it is argued that the 3Rs originally arose from an animal-centered ethic which was however restricted by an organizational strategy aiming at the voluntary cooperation of animal researchers. Research purposes thus had to be accepted as given. While this explains why the 3Rs focus narrowly on humane method selection, not on encouraging animal-free question selection in the first place, it suggests that governments should (also) focus on the latter if they recognize animals as deserving protection for their own sake., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits states from depriving any person "equal protection of the laws," and the Constitution's Fifth Amendment has been interpreted as applying this prohibition to the federal government. This article considers whether constitutional equal protection should apply to some nonhuman animals in light of corporations having gained such protection and concludes that expanding equal protection personhood to nonhuman animals is improbable in the present legal landscape., (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique established what many know today as the "3 R's"-refinement, reduction, and replacement-when it was published in 1959. Since their formulation, these principles have guided decision-making for many about nonhuman animal subjects' uses in laboratory-based research. Discussion about how to amend or replace the 3 R's is ongoing, driven mainly by philosophical ethics approaches to nonhuman animal rights and by scientific advancement. This article explores merits and drawbacks of possible updates to and interpretations of the 3 R's., (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

This article explores the legal status of nonhuman animals used in biomedical research. While acknowledging that, presently, nonhuman animals in research settings hold no personal legal rights, this article explores what a legal person is and proposes that it is possible for nonhuman animals to become legal persons and receive better protections under the federal Animal Welfare Act., (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Historically, most discussions about nonhuman animal experimentation consider what has become known as the 3 R's: refinement, reduction, and replacement. Refinement and reduction receive the most attention, but recent modeling advances suggest that suitable replacement of nonhuman animal testing would bolster human research and increase translatability to human health outcomes. This article discusses these modeling advances and advocates their use, especially as replacements to nonpredictive nonhuman animal protocols, and discusses growing momentum in biomedical research communities and federal agencies that favors replacement of animal testing., (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Discussions of nonhuman research ethics tend to focus on what we owe nonhuman research subjects in laboratory settings only. But humans make critical decisions about these animals outside the lab, too, during breeding, transportation, and end-of-study protocols. This article reviews extra-lab risks and harms to nonhuman research subjects, focusing on the most commonly and intensively used animals like rodents and fishes, and argues that extra-lab risks and harms merit ethical consideration by researchers and institutional review., (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

If we assume that nonhuman animals experience pain or distress, then ethically justifying human-centered research with only nonhuman animals as subjects likely requires that the research's benefits to humans must, at least, outweigh harms suffered by the nonhuman animals. Yet this reasoning does not seem to account well for the ethical view that nonhuman animals are morally valuable in their own right. This commentary on a case considers this ethical tension and discusses how clinician-researchers should navigate it. This commentary also suggests why clinician-researchers' reasoning about the nature and scope of their obligations to nonhuman animals extends beyond governing regulations and federal oversight, which is silent on or ambiguous about nonhuman animals as morally valuable in their own right., (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Nonhuman animal research has contributed to human health advancements but raises questions about the extent to which humans protect nonhuman animals during such endeavors. This series of drawings explores several ethics and empirical questions from a visual point of view., (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Nonhuman animals used in biomedical research frequently suffer and are harmed as part of their use as experimental models. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of a given institution is meant to ensure that research protocols follow federal guidelines, but research protocols such as those described in this case can generate unnecessary suffering; this problem suggests limitations of IACUCs' capacity to protect nonhuman animals' welfare. This commentary on the case considers how to more fully protect nonhuman animals used in scientific research and identifies barriers to more comprehensive protection of nonhuman animals' welfare., (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

The animal experiment is an important form of acupuncture research, which is of great significance for revealing the regularities and mechanisms of acupuncture effects. The ethical principle of animal welfare is the important guarantee of animal rights and experimental scientificity in the process of research. Starting from the "3R principle" and "five welfare" rules, and the specific operation process of acupuncture animal experiments, we, in this paper, proposed the implementation methods of animal ethics in acupuncture experiments, including ethical execution before acupuncture experiments, and ethical requirements during the experimental stage (such as animal fixation method that meets the needling needs, selection of acupuncture apparatus, acupuncture manipulations, acupuncture stimulation intensity, and sampling of animal tissues). These proposed methods may provide some appropriate references for the guarantee of animal ethics in acupuncture research, and provide ideas for establishing a new paradigm of animal welfare ethics in acupuncture animal experiments, and finally promote the standardization and scientificity process of the implementation of animal welfare ethics in acupuncture animal experiments.

Recent ethical debate about compassionate conservation has invoked moral theories to oppose or support traditional practices of killing animals to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. The debate has featured the mainstream moral theories of consequentialism and utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. We identify problematic applications and critique of these moral theories in conservation discussions. Problems include a lack of clarity when invoking moral theories, misunderstanding and mischaracterizing theories, and overlooking features and circumstances affecting a theory's application. A key omission in the debate is a detailed discussion of the moral significance of animals and nature. We then examine the role of moral theory as such in ethical discussion, contrasting moral theory with ethical outlooks that center, for example, forms of love and care. Our aim is to advance the ethical debate about harming animals in conservation., (© 2024 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.)

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

A critical turning point was reached in research with the recent success in cloning rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), a major advancement in primatology. This breakthrough marks the beginning of a new age in biomedical research, ushered by improved somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques and creative trophoblast replacement strategies. The successful cloning of rhesus monkeys presents the possibility of producing genetically homogeneous models that are highly advantageous for studying complex biological processes, testing drugs, and researching diseases. However, this achievement raises important ethical questions, particularly regarding animal welfare and the broader ramifications of primate cloning. Approaching the future of primate research with balance is critical, as the scientific world stands on the brink of these revolutionary breakthroughs. This paper aims to summarise the consequences, ethical challenges and possible paths forward in primatology arising from rhesus monkey cloning., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Medical Primatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Veterinarians stand in many contradictory positions, such as moral and ethical representatives of animals and their welfare and the clinic owner, which makes income for them and their families. The article will look at factors in decision making significantly impacting veterinary professionals' mental health. Distress is caused by high societal pressure, as veterinarians must fulfill their profession's requirements. Together with working conditions, it negatively impacts their mental health. The article emphasizes the need for veterinary professionals and future veterinary professionals to have proficiency in animal welfare, animal ethics, and primarily moral decision making. Thus, critical thinking and ethical decision making should be discussed more in the profession and veterinary education.

Objective: This research examines differential responses to ethical vegetarian appeals as a fuction of individuals' personalities., Background: Ethical vegetarian appeals are persuasive messages promoting the adoption of a plant-based diet on moral grounds. Individuals may vary in their receptivity to such appeals, depending on their morally relevant traits (e.g., agreeableness), beliefs (e.g., speciesism), and motives (e.g., concerns about animal welfare)., Methods: We explored (Study 1, N = 907) and then attempted to confirm (Study 2, N = 980) differential responses to three vegetarian appeals-two highlighting moral concerns (animal welfare, the environment) and a third focusing on individual health (control condition)., Results: Both studies revealed several differential effects of our vegetarian appeals on the perceived effectiveness of the appeal and resultant intentions to reduce meat consumption. These mostly consisted of differences in receptivity to appeals focused on animal welfare. However, only one such effect observed in Study 1 was clearly replicated in Study 2: People who more strongly believed that eating meat was "normal" rated the vegetarian appeals focused on animal welfare as less effective., Conclusion: Ethical vegetarian appeals may elicit different responses from different people, particularly those focused on animal welfare, depending on how normative one believes meat-eating to be. Such insights can inform behavior change efforts in this area., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Personality published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Due to the legal implantation of the 3R principle, the number of laboratory animals decreased significantly over the past 10 years. In this article, the historical development of animal experiments over the last decade will be presented in the context of the current regulations of the Animal Welfare Act. It points out bureaucratic obstacles to the approval of animal experiments, which jeopardize Germany as a research location for both academia and industry. The article presents constructive proposals for solutions. This should be done in accordance with the DFG recommendation to ensure efficient biomedical research while maintaining the highest animal welfare standards., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

What would it look like for researchers to take non-human animal rights seriously? Recent discussions foster the impression that scientific practice needs to be reformed to make animal research ethical: just as there is ethically rigorous human research, so there can be ethically rigorous animal research. We argue that practically little existing animal research would be ethical and that ethical animal research is not scalable. Since animal research is integral to the existing scientific paradigm, taking animal rights seriously requires a radical, wholesale reimagining of science. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05340426.

Animal protectionists John Hadidian, Camilla Fox, and William Lynn exhorted wildlife professionals to engage the ethical issues associated with wildlife damage management. After outlining several ethical principles, they raised three common “nuisance” wildlife scenarios to illustrate the ethical difficulties they believe need thoughtful consideration. Despite their honorable desire, their paper exemplifies why the substantive dialogue on the ethics of wildlife control has not been achieved. First, their presentation neglected to wrestle with the role of competing worldviews. Second, the authors avoided acknowledging how animal protectionists’ rhetoric and behavior has undermined the trust necessary for wildlife managers to engage in dialogue. I conclude by offering several ways animal protectionists can build the fund of good will essential to initiating dialogue and finding common ground.

Validation establishes the reproducibility and relevance of regulatory test methods, particularly for new approach methods (NAMs) as alternatives to animal testing. While validation concepts provide a framework to assess method suitability, they rarely undergo method-critical assessment. This paper explores the philosophical and ethical foundations of the validation process, drawing from various philosophical traditions and contemporary ethical frameworks. How validation intersects with utilitarian principles, ethics of responsibility, and post-modern critiques is examined, offering a multifaceted perspective on its role in scientific progress and societal values. The paper argues for a paradigm shift in validation, moving beyond traditional animal-based comparisons towards more flexible, fit-for-purpose approaches that embrace emerging technologies and ethical con-siderations. Key ethical principles guiding NAM validation are discussed, including beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and respect for animal welfare. Integrating these principles with scientific rigor can create a more holistic validation framework that balances human safety, animal welfare, and technological innovation. By critically examining the philosophical underpinnings of validation, this paper aims to stimulate dialogue on reforming the process to better align with contemporary scientific knowledge, ethical standards, and societal expectations. It calls for a more adaptive, transparent, and ethically grounded approach to validation that can accelerate the adoption of innovative and human-relevant toxicological methods while maintaining scientific integrity and public trust.

The Dutch Partij voor de Dieren (Party for the Animals), the only political party devoted to animals in the world, wants to take wild as well as domestic animals under its wing and, hence, to remove the traditional dividing line between both domains. How can the Animal Party at the same time claim to stand up for the interests of animals as individuals as well as for the particular interests of wild animals? Rather than perceiving wild animals as mere components of wider entities, the Animal Party starts to personalize wild animals at the moment that their wellbeing can be detected and actively improved.

One response to calls for increased openness in animal research is to make protocols publicly accessible, but it is unclear what type of input the public would provide if given this opportunity. In this study we invited public responses to five different research projects, using non-technical summaries intended for lay audiences. Our aim was to assess the potential for this type of public consultation in protocol review, and a secondary aim was to better understand what types of animal research people are willing to accept and why. US participants (n = 1521) were asked (via an online survey) "Do you support the use of these (insert species) for this research", and responded using a seven-point scale (1 = "No", 4 = "Neutral", and 7 = "Yes"). Participants were asked to explain the reasons for their choice; open-ended text responses were subjected to thematic analysis. Most participants (89.7%) provided clear comments, showing the potential of an online forum to elicit feedback. Four themes were prevalent in participant reasoning regarding their support for the proposed research: 1) impact on animals, 2) impact on humans, 3) scientific merit, and 4) availability of alternatives. Participant support for the proposed research varied but on average was close to neutral (mean ± SD: 4.5 ± 2.19) suggesting some ambivalence to this animal use. The protocol describing Parkinson's research (on monkeys) was least supported (3.9 ± 2.17) and the transplant research (on pigs) was most supported (4.9 ± 2.02). These results indicate that public participants are sensitive to specifics of a protocol. We conclude that an online forum can provide meaningful public input on proposed animal research, offering research institutions the opportunity for improved transparency and the chance to reduce the risk that they engage in studies that are out of step with community values., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Keeping similar memories distinct from one another is a critical cognitive process without which we would have difficulty functioning in everyday life. Memories are thought to be kept distinct through the computational mechanism of pattern separation, which reduces overlap between similar input patterns to amplify differences among stored representations. At the behavioral level, impaired pattern separation has been shown to contribute to memory deficits seen in neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease, and in normal aging. This protocol describes the use of the spontaneous location recognition (SLR) task in mice and rats to behaviorally assess spatial pattern separation ability. This two-phase spontaneous memory task assesses the extent to which animals can discriminate and remember object locations presented during the encoding phase. Using three configurations of the task, the similarity of the to-be-remembered locations can be parametrically manipulated by altering the spatial positions of objects-dissimilar, similar or extra similar-to vary the load on pattern separation. Unlike other pattern separation tasks, SLR varies the load on pattern separation during encoding, when pattern separation is thought to occur. Furthermore, SLR can be used in standard rodent behavioral facilities with basic expertise in rodent handling. The entire protocol takes ~20 d from habituation to testing of the animals on all three task configurations. By incorporating breaks between testing, and varying the objects used as landmarks, animals can be tested repeatedly, increasing experimental power by allowing for within-subjects manipulations., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

There is ample research supporting White's (1967) thesis, which postulates that religion and religious belief inhibit ecological concerns. This study thus seeks to explore the relationship between individuals' acceptability for harming animals as one representation of ecological concern (measured using Animal Issue scale (AIS)) and their religious belief (measured using Religious Orientation Scale (ROS)) and ethical ideology (measured using Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ)). The study surveyed 929 Muslim teachers and school staff in East Java, Indonesia. We found that ROS correlates with EPQ whereby intrinsic personal (IP) relates with idealism while extrinsic social religious orientation (ES)-where religion is perceived as an instrument for social gain, membership and support-relates with relativism. However, using multiple regression analysis to examine both EPQ and ROS relation to acceptability for harming animals suggests mixed results. We found that, idealism and IP relate to a lower acceptability for harming animals, while relativism and ES correlate to a higher acceptability for harming animals. In another model where we calculate all the main variables with all the demographical and other determinants, we found that only ROS consistently relates to acceptability for harming animals. Additionally, we identify, explain and discuss significant demographic determinants along with this study's limitations., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Article 23(2) of the European Union Directive 2010/63/EU, which regulates welfare provisions for animals used for scientific purposes, requires that staff involved in the care and use of animals for scientific purposes be adequately educated and trained before they undertake any such work. However, the nature and extent of such training is not stipulated in the Directive. To facilitate Member States in fulfilling their education and training obligations, the European Commission developed a common Education and Training Framework, which was endorsed by the Member States Competent Authorities. An Education & Training Platform for Laboratory Animal Science (ETPLAS) Working Group was recently established to develop further guidance to the Learning Outcomes in the Framework, with the objective to clarify the levels of knowledge and understanding required by trainees, and to provide the criteria by which these Learning Outcomes should be assessed. Using the Framework document as a starting point, assessment criteria for the Learning Outcomes of the modules required for Function A persons (carrying out procedures on animals) for rats, mice and zebrafish were created with sufficient detail to enable trainees, providers and assessors to appreciate the level of knowledge, understanding and skills required to pass each module. Adoption and utilization of this document by training providers and accrediting or approving bodies will harmonize introductory education and training for those involved in the care and use of animals for scientific purposes within the European Union, promote mutual recognition of training within and between Member States and therefore free movement of personnel.

Scientific excellence is a necessity for progress in biomedical research. As research becomes ever more international, establishing international collaborations will be key to advancing our scientific knowledge. Understanding the similarities in standards applied by different nations to animal research, and where the differences might lie, is crucial. Cultural differences and societal values will also contribute to these similarities and differences between countries and continents. Our overview is not comprehensive for all species, but rather focuses on non-human primate (NHP) research, involving New World marmosets and Old World macaques, conducted in countries where NHPs are involved in neuroimaging research. Here, an overview of the ethics and regulations is provided to help assess welfare standards amongst primate research institutions. A comparative examination of these standards was conducted to provide a basis for establishing a common set of standards for animal welfare. These criteria may serve to develop international guidelines, which can be managed by an International Animal Welfare and Use Committee (IAWUC). Internationally, scientists have a moral responsibility to ensure excellent care and welfare of their animals, which in turn, influences the quality of their research. When working with animal models, maintaining a high quality of care ("culture of care") and welfare is essential. The transparent promotion of this level of care and welfare, along with the results of the research and its impact, may reduce public concerns associated with animal experiments in neuroscience research., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no competing financial interests., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Elite horse athletes that live in individual boxes and train and compete for hours experience long-term physical and mental stress that compromises animal welfare and alters the gut microbiota. We therefore assessed if a temporary period out to pasture with conspecifics could improve animal welfare and in turn, favorably affect intestinal microbiota composition. A total of 27 athletes were monitored before and after a period of 1.5 months out to pasture, and their fecal microbiota and behavior profiles were compared to those of 18 horses kept in individual boxes. The overall diversity and microbiota composition of pasture and control individuals were temporally similar, suggesting resilience to environmental challenges. However, pasture exposure induced an increase in Ruminococcus and Coprococcus that lasted 1-month after the return to individual boxes, which may have promoted beneficial effects on health and welfare. Associations between the gut microbiota composition and behavior indicating poor welfare were established. Furthermore, withdrawn behavior was associated with the relative abundances of Lachnospiraceae AC2044 group and Clostridiales family XIII. Both accommodate a large part of butyrate-producing bacterial genera. While we cannot infer causality within this study, arguably, these findings suggest that management practices maintained over a longer period of time may moderate the behavior link to the gut ecosystem beyond its resilience potential.

Despite the importance for both animal welfare and scientific integrity of effective welfare assessment in non-human primates, there has been little or no consensus as what should be assessed. A Delphi consultation process was undertaken to identify the animal- and environment-based measures of welfare for laboratory-housed macaques and to determine their relative importance in on-site welfare assessments. One-hundred fifteen potential indictors were identified through a comprehensive literature search, followed by a two-round iterative electronic survey process to collect expert opinion. Stable group response and consensus about the validity, reliability, and feasibility of the proposed indicators (67.5% agreement) was achieved by the completion of Round Two. A substantially higher proportion of environment-based measures (72%: n = 44/61) were considered as valid, reliable, and feasible compared to the animal-based measures (22%: n = 12/54). The indicators that ranked most highly for assessing welfare were the presence of self-harm behaviours and the provision of social enrichment. This study provides an empirical basis upon which these indicators can be validated and then integrated into assessment tools developed for macaques and emphasises the need to include both animal- and environment-based indicators for accurate welfare monitoring.

Background: Veterinary animal welfare advocacy can be undertaken at individual, community, national and international levels. The People's Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), a veterinary charity with 48 Pet Hospitals UK-wide, created a consultative staff network to put an explicit organisational focus on animal welfare-focused veterinary practice., Methods: PDSA created a national internal committee-a Pet Wellbeing Task Force-composed of veterinary staff representatives. Together with recruited hospital-based Champions who serve as a focus for animal welfare and ethics within their clinical teams, the resulting staff network has described a vision of animal welfare and ethics within companion animal veterinary practice, with accompanying practice-level actions. These actions have formed the basis for national clinical audit, repeated three times since 2013., Results: The audit, alongside targeted interventions, has driven organisational change (eg, new policies), led to measurable improvements in pet wellbeing (eg, improved pain assessment and management) and stimulated collaborative practice-based research with universities., Conclusion: A dedicated staff network has facilitated organisation-wide communication on animal welfare and ethics; offered a safe space to raise and discuss animal welfare and ethical issues; and fostered leadership, by working towards model veterinary practice with respect to animal welfare and ethics, with benefits for pet patients, staff and the wider veterinary and veterinary nursing professions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© British Veterinary Association 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Patient outcomes for hedgehog ( Erinaceus europaeus ) casualties are not limited to release versus euthanasia; some hedgehogs have conditions that do not preclude their ability to survive in captivity with human intervention. This research explored the welfare implications and ethical issues of keeping disabled hedgehogs in permanent captivity. Currently, there is very little in the literature and the subject is highly emotive and controversial. A questionnaire was used to assess welfare and these data contrasted with the normal behaviors, environment, and diet of free-living hedgehogs. The most convincing argument for keeping wild animals in captivity is species conservation; however, hedgehogs are not currently listed as endangered. Sixty-six datasets were obtained, representing 194 hedgehogs kept in permanent captivity. Results were mixed, i.e., many respondents providing suitable habitat features (for example, grass and soil 83.3% of respondents, shrubs and/or hedges 69.7% of respondents) observing "positive" behaviors such as foraging for natural foods (69.7% of respondents), and observing appropriate behavioral responses to humans; and some areas for concern, i.e., habitat size (22.7% of respondents reported habitats <10m 2 ), presence of badgers (only 48.5% of respondents reported no badgers in the area), evidence of aggressive behavior (22.7% of respondents had observed non-food-related aggression between hedgehogs) and seven hedgehogs having sustained bite wounds whilst in captivity. The authors are cautious about drawing any definitive conclusions from this research, though it would appear that some of the hedgehogs in the survey had welfare comparable to their free-living counterparts.