top of page

Animal Welfare

The plight of the environment is becoming increasingly clear and we are taking ever greater notice of our own impact on the world around us. Part of that is through how we treat other life, and we have a duty of care to maintain particularly where we are exploiting the natural world. Such exploitation can take various forms, be it for food or other consumables, clothing and similar products, timber etc. However, many also utilise animals in man-made environments such as laboratories, farms or public aquaria; whilst largely these animals are not subjected to invasive protocols, they are still removed from their natural environment and may face a very different kind of stress.

Arguments for and against these uses abound but, without getting stuck into those details, it's simply a matter of fact that animals are and will continue to be used, at least for some time, in these ways. Nevertheless, what we do have control over is how we use animals in these environments, and we can continue to work out those methods which minimise any impact on the animals as possible. Often this knowledge becomes enshrined in law: in 2019, Canada banned the capture and breeding of cetaceans (except for rehabilitation and welfare), and in 2018 Switzerland banned the live boiling of crustaceans. 

Within the lab environment we can continue to improve our practice. This serves two functions:

  • morally we should ensure that, where possible, animals have a high quality of life;  

  • the quality of data produced from any animal is only as good as the health of that animal when surveyed

 

However, what constitutes a stressful or aversive environment? At what point are the stimuli animals are exposed to considered to be noxious? To what extent can these organisms feel or understand negative stimuli and do they have the ability to perceive pain? These are all big questions and, for organisms such as fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and other invertebrates, are divisive among many communities. Active research is seeking to try and find these answers but also to engage communities and ensure that, when we expose animals to a non-natural environment, can we improve welfare and alleviate stress? 

Selected Publications

Thomson, JS, Al-Temeemy, AA, Isted, H, Spencer, JW, & Sneddon, LU (2020) Assessment of behaviour in groups of zebrafish (Danio rerio) using an intelligent software monitoring tool, the chromatic fish analyser. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 328: UNSP 108433.

Deakin, A, Buckley, J, Alzu'bi, HS, Cossins, AR, Spencer, JW, Al'nuaimy, W, Young, I, Thomson, JS & Sneddon, LU (2019) Automated monitoring of behaviour in zebrafish after invasive procedures. Scientific Reports 9: 9042.

​Pounder, KC, Mitchell, JL, Thomson, JS, Pottinger, TG & Sneddon, LU (2018) Physiological and behavioural evaluation of common anaesthesia practices in the rainbow trout. Applied Animal Behaviour Sciences 199: 94-102 [doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.10.014]

White, L, Thomson, JS, Pounder, KC, Coleman, RC & Sneddon, LU (2017) The impact of social context on behaviour and the recovery from welfare challenges in zebrafish, Danio rerioAnimal Behaviour 132: 189-199 [doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.08.017]

Pounder, KC, Mitchell, JL, Thomson, JS & Sneddon, LU (2016) Does environmental enrichment promote recovery from stress in rainbow trout? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 176: 136-142. [doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.01.009]

bottom of page