Animal welfare scientific literature has accumulated rapidly in recent years, but bias may exist which influences understanding of progress in the field. We conducted a survey of articles related to animal welfare or well being from an electronic database. From 8,541 articles on this topic, we randomly selected 115 articles for detailed review in four funding categories: government; charity and/or scientific association; industry; and educational organization. Ninety articles were evaluated after unsuitable articles were rejected. The welfare states of animals in new treatments, conventional treatments or control groups with no treatment were classified as high, medium or low according to one or more. More articles were published in which the welfare of animals in new treatments was better than that of animals in the conventional or no treatment groups, demonstrating a positive result bias. Failure to publish studies with negative or inconclusive results may lead to other scientists unnecessarily repeating the research. The authors’ assessments of the welfare state of the groups were similarly rated high, medium or low, and it was found that new treatments were rated lower if the research was funded by industry, and higher when funded by charities, with government funding agencies intermediate. These differences were not evident in the Five Freedoms assessment, demonstrating an authors’ assessment bias that appeared to support the funding agencies’ interests. North American funded publications rated the welfare of animals in New treatments higher and those in a Conventional or No Treatment lower, compared with European-funded publications. It is concluded that preliminary evidence was provided of several forms of publication bias in animal welfare science
Keywords Animal welfare  Five Freedoms  Industry  Publication bias  Research funding
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10806-012-9433-8
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,209
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Ethics of a Co-Regulatory Model for Farm Animal Welfare Research.C. J. C. Phillips & J. C. Petherick - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (1):127-142.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Animal Welfare.C. R. W. Spedding - 2000 - Earthscan Publications.
Animal Welfare and Ethics Resources for Youth and College Agricultural Educators.Cynthia Petrie Smith - 2000 - U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center.
Death is a Welfare Issue.James W. Yeates - 2010 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (3):229-241.
Ethics and Farm Animal Welfare.J. F. Hurnik & Hugh Lehman - 1988 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (4):305-318.
Are Animals Capable of Deception or Empathy?S. Kuczaj, K. Tranel, M. Trone & H. Hamner Hill - 2001 - Implications for Animal Consciousness and Animal Welfare. Animal Welfare Supplement 10.


Added to PP index

Total views
26 ( #423,424 of 2,455,351 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,153 of 2,455,351 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes