David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Kirsten M. Parris, Sarah C. McCall, Michael A. McCarthy, Ben A. Minteer, Katie Steele, Sarah Bekessy & Fabien Medvecky
Journal of Applied Ecology 47 (1):227-234 (2010)
Summary 1. Ecologists and conservation biologists consider many issues when designing a field study, such as the expected value of the data, the interests of the study species, the welfare of individual organisms and the cost of the project. These different issues or values often conflict; however, neither animal ethics nor environmental ethics provides practical guidance on how to assess trade-offs between them. 2. We developed a decision framework for considering trade-offs between values in ecological research, drawing on the field of ecological ethics. We used a case study of the population genetics of three frog species, in which a researcher must choose between four methods of sampling DNA from the study animals. We measured species welfare as the reduction in population growth rate following sampling, and assessed individual welfare using two different definitions: (i) the level of suffering experienced by an animal, and (ii) the level of suffering combined with loss of future life. 3. Tipping the tails of tadpoles ranked as the best sampling method for species welfare, while collecting whole tadpoles and buccal swabbing of adult frogs ranked best for the first and second definitions of individual welfare, respectively. Toe clipping of adult frogs ranked as the worst sampling method for species welfare and the first definition of individual welfare, and equal worst for the second definition of individual welfare. 4. When considering species and individual welfare simultaneously, toe clipping was clearly inferior to the other sampling methods, but no single sampling method was clearly superior to the other three. Buccal swabbing, collecting tadpoles and tail tipping were all preferred options, depending on the definition of individual welfare and the level of precision with which we assessed species welfare. 5.Synthesis and applications. The decision framework we present can be used by ecologists to assess ethical and other trade-offs when planning field studies. A formal decision analysis makes transparent how a researcher might negotiate competing ethical, financial and practical objectives. Defining the components of the decision in this way can help avoid errors associated with human judgement and linguistic uncertainty.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
G. K. D. Crozier & Albrecht I. Schulte-Hostedde (2015). Towards Improving the Ethics of Ecological Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (3):577-594.
Similar books and articles
Yew-Kwang Ng (1995). Towards Welfare Biology: Evolutionary Economics of Animal Consciousness and Suffering. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 10 (3):255-285.
Ben A. Minteer & James P. Collins (2008). From Environmental to Ecological Ethics: Toward a Practical Ethics for Ecologists and Conservationists. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (4):483-501.
Kirsten Schmidt (2011). Concepts of Animal Welfare in Relation to Positions in Animal Ethics. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (2):153-171.
Marc Bekoff & Lofe Gruen (1993). Animal Welfare and Individual Characteristics: A Conversation Against Speciesism. Ethics and Behavior 3 (2):163 – 175.
David J. Mellor (2009). The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Wiley-Blackwell.
H. M. Nielsen, I. Olesen, S. Navrud, K. Kolstad & P. Amer (2011). How to Consider the Value of Farm Animals in Breeding Goals. A Review of Current Status and Future Challenges. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):309-330.
Jacky Turner & Joyce D'Silva (eds.) (2006). Animals, Ethics, and Trade: The Challenge of Animal Sentience. Earthscan.
James W. Yeates (2010). Death is a Welfare Issue. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (3):229-241.
J. F. Hurnik & Hugh Lehman (1988). Ethics and Farm Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (4):305-318.
Paul B. Thompson (1997). Ethics and the Genetic Engineering of Food Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 10 (1):1-23.
C. R. W. Spedding (2000). Animal Welfare. Earthscan Publications.
Jean-Paul Moatti (1999). Ethical Issues in the Economic Assessment of Health Care Technologies. Health Care Analysis 7 (2):153-165.
M. B. M. Bracke & H. Hopster (2006). Assessing the Importance of Natural Behavior for Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (1):77-89.
Michael L. Draney (1997). Ethical Obligations Toward Insect Pests. Ethics and the Environment 2 (1):5-23.
Cynthia Petrie Smith (2000). Animal Welfare and Ethics Resources for Youth and College Agricultural Educators. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center.
Added to index2011-01-16
Total downloads8 ( #422,776 of 1,938,528 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #449,297 of 1,938,528 )
How can I increase my downloads?