Animal behaviour and welfare research: A One Health perspective

Abstract

Animal behaviour and welfare research are part of a wider endeavour to optimize the health and wellbeing of humans, animals and ecosystems. As such, it is part of the One Health research agenda. This article applies ethical principles described by the One Health High Level Expert Panel to animal behaviour and welfare research. These principles entail that animal behaviour and welfare research should be valued equitably alongside other research in transdisciplinary and multisectoral collaboration. It should include and promote a multiplicity of marginalized voices, including those of animals, and it should apply and describe a harmonious balance between human—animal-environment interactions. Lastly, it should describe how humans need to change behaviour, adopt sustainable solutions and recognize the importance of animal welfare and the integrity of the whole ecosystem.

Keywords

Animal welfare animal behaviour ethology healthy environment One Health research

Introduction

One Health can be defined as ‘an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent’ (World Health Organisation (WHO), 2021). It aims to mobilize multiple sectors, disciplines and communities to collaborate to foster wellbeing, tackle threats and to improve health and wellbeing outcomes for humans, animals and the environment (WHO, 2021).

Animal behaviour and welfare research are directly relevant to One Health, and vice versa. One Health incorporates a concern for animal welfare in its reference to wellbeing and in its connection to the World Health Organization’s definition for human health that includes physical and mental wellbeing, and the World Organisation for Animal Health’s definition of animal welfare as ‘the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies’ (WHO, 2023; World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), 2023). Animals’ health and wellbeing matter to those animals insofar as they are determinants of animals’ behaviour and choices (Dawkins, 1990, 2004) and involve unpleasant or undesired states and experiences (Duncan, 2005; Webster, 2005). They matter scientifically in that they are part of the world (Broom, 1988; Dawkins, 1998; Fraser et al., 1997). They matter ecologically insofar as they affect the survival, interactions and responses of ecosystems (Yeates, 2022). They matter ethically as part of moral agents’ considerations in making research and other decisions (Balcombe, 2009; Singer, 2023). The concept of One Health is incomplete or misguided to the extent that it does not recognize and incorporate these values, alongside concern for the health and wellbeing of humans and the wider environment (Capps, 2022; Lederman et al., 2021; Lederman and Capps, 2018; Lindenmayer et al., 2022; Mumford et al., 2023).

The One Health High Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) has described foundational principles of One Health (Adisasmito et al., 2022; One Health High Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), 2021). This paper aims to explore how we might apply these principles to considerations of animal behaviour and welfare research, in terms of what subject matter is studied and how it is studied within animal behaviour and welfare research.

OHHLEP One Health Definition Foundational Principles (Adisasmito et al., 2022; OHHLEP, 2021).

1. Equity between sectors and disciplines.

2. Sociopolitical and multicultural parity (the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities) and inclusion and engagement of communities and marginalized voices.

3. Socio-ecological equilibrium that seeks a harmonious balance between human—animal-environment interaction and acknowledging the importance of biodiversity, access to sufficient natural space and resources, and the intrinsic value of all living things within the ecosystem.

4. Stewardship and the responsibility of humans to change behaviour and adopt sustainable solutions that recognize the importance of animal welfare and the integrity of the whole ecosystem, thus securing the wellbeing of current and future generations.

5. Transdisciplinarity and multisectoral collaboration which includes all relevant disciplines, both modern and traditional forms of knowledge and a broad representative array of perspectives.

Equity between sectors and disciplines

Animal behaviour and welfare science is part of the wider effort to understand (and improve) the health and wellbeing of humans, animals and the environment. It contributes to creating a collective body of knowledge alongside other scientific disciplines, which can be seen as complementary and integrable components of this collective scientific endeavour. For example, since environmental harms often involve harms to animals’ health and welfare such as pollution/toxicity, disease and starvation of the animal members of species, communities and ecosystems, it can be useful to consider the health and wellbeing of animals within or alongside the assessment of environmental harms and impacts (Paquet and Darimont, 2010; Broom, 2019; Lanzoni et al., 2023; Sekar and Shiller, 2020), and reciprocally to consider the impacts of environmental harms on the animals within the ecosystems affected (Finn and Stephens, 2017; Fraser and MacRae, 2011). Researchers in animal behaviour and welfare science and other health and wellbeing fields should consider proactively the inter-relations of research questions, methodologies and data from these different fields, and endeavour to align and integrate them equitably.

In order to facilitate equality between One Health disciplines, animal behaviour and welfare and other relevant research can and should investigate health and wellbeing at individual and population levels (de Azevedo and Young, 2021; Hertel et al., 2020; Manteca and Deag, 1993; Merrick and Koprowski, 2017). Several aspects of ecological assessment require whole animal approaches (e.g. phenotypic plasticity: Forsman, 2015) and inter-individual variation is an important aspect of experimental variability (Voelkl et al., 2020) that should be considered when designing (van der Goot et al., 2021a) and interpreting (Volsche et al., 2023) research. Understanding animals’ experiences of their states or conditions provides one source of information about those conditions and potential changes that would improve them. This is particularly important where there can be intraspecific differences in responses between individuals of a given species, which suggest that animals’ health and welfare needs or impacts are variable and contingent (e.g. Allan et al., 2020; Honda et al., 2018; Komdeur, 2006; MacKay and Haskell, 2015; Mason, 2010; McDougall et al., 2006; Shepherdson et al., 2013; Stuber et al., 2022). Such inter-individual variation is important for animal behaviour and welfare science (e.g. Richter and Hintze, 2019; Winckler, 2019; Yeates, 2013), psychological sciences (e.g. van der Goot et al., 2021b), ecological science (Clutton-Brock and Sheldon, 2010; Réale et al., 2007; Sheldon et al., 2022), climate science (Wells et al., 2022), and conservation science (e.g. Dominey, 1984; Ferraro et al., 2023).

There should also be equity and integration between animal behavour and welfare and other disciplines and sources of data in how they are considered and applied in decision-making. Decisions should equitably draw upon data from all relevant fields in their assessments of situations and options and in their frameworks for decision-making. For example, economic forecasts should not be unthinkingly given greater weight by policymaking processes over data about non-market concerns (Berry et al., 2017), although Dewi et al. (2023) found economic instrumental concerns to tend to be presented formally while harmony-oriented relational concerns for nature tended to be expressed as stakeholder preferences.

Equality between disciplines relates also to data concerning different stakeholders (insofar as health and wellbeing disciplines are often defined primarily in terms of their primary stakeholders, e.g. medical vs veterinary science) and implies equality across how different groups of stakeholders’ interests are conceptualized, assessed, presented and considered in evidence-based decision-making. This has been recognized in considerations of human stakeholders, in the context of the need for sociopolitical and multicultural parity (e.g. Schaafsma et al., 2023), and can be applied to stakeholders of different species. Animal behaviour and welfare are often presented differently to humans’ (e.g. economic assessments, stakeholder interviews and participatory methods usually include direct representations of only the former). Alongside the assessments of human wellbeing factors, impacts on animal behaviour and welfare should be assessed (McCulloch and Reiss, 2017), and included or integrated with data on human and environmental impacts. Such assessments might not eliminate ethical debates about the underlying values (Sandøe and Gamborg, 2017), but they can help to frame discussions and at least ensure all data sources are considered.

Sociopolitical and multicultural parity, inclusion and engagement of communities and marginalized voices

Animal behaviour and welfare research should aim to include a diversity of voices in study design (Asmal et al., 2022), including those of research participants and others for whom the results are relevant (e.g. for human-animal interaction: Leighton et al., 2022). This should include stakeholders outside hegemonic power structures and animal use practices, such as affected indigenous communities (Adenle et al., 2014; Camino et al., 2023; Datta, 2018; Tugendhat et al., 2023) and the animals themselves (Meijer, 2019). At the same time, animal behaviour and welfare science is a key way to include animals’ voices in policy design (although the absence of scientific data should not mean voices are ignored or marginalized further).

Animals’ responses and motivations are a source of information about what animals assess as harms and benefits (Dixon et al., 2013; Leach et al., 2004; Mason and Mendi, 1993; Meijer, 2013; Rushen, 1996). A feature of sentient animals is that they have the capacity to evaluate situations, which may manifest in their emotions, moods, motivations and preferences, and which they may display though physiological changes and behaviour (Broom, 2014; Browning and Birch, 2022; Webster, 2022). Animals may be motivated to engage in rewarding research, for example, on play, palatability, curiosity, affective relationships and conditioned interactions (Held and Špinka, 2011; Yeates and Main, 2008). Conversely, animals might exhibit resistance or dissent to a research protocol or the background conditions, for example, through non-verbal communication, stress indicators, antagonistic behaviour, avoidance or escape behaviour (Hribal, 2010; Kantin and Wendler, 2015).

Taking participants’ voices into account can help in the project design and evaluation, and this is true for both human participants (Dresser, 2015; Hoddinott et al., 2018; McDonald et al., 2013) and animal participants (Edelblutte et al., 2023; Johnson, 2023; Sueur et al., 2023). Improving animals’ welfare can refine protocols (Neville et al., 2023) and study validity (Brill et al., 2021; de Waal, 2016; Schaller, 2023; Würbel, 2017) and information about the welfare of animal participants should inform our evaluations and interpretations of experiments (Volsche et al., 2023). There have been questions about data from studies using methodologies that compromise animals’ welfare, such as forced swim tests in depression research. For example, participants might stop swimming due to different psychological states such as despondency or because they have learnt that they will get removed from the water by a lab technician (Carvalho et al., 2021; Reardon, 2019). One meta-analysis by Stupart et al. (2022) found unconditioned tasks, such as the open field test and elevated plus maze, to be generally unreliable in demonstrating differences between control and separated groups, with small or non-existent pooled effect sizes.

One consideration for the acceptability of experimental interventions or experimental conditions may be whether there is (alongside other criteria) assent by participants (Ferdowsian et al., 2020; Healey and Pepper, 2021; Kantin and Wendler, 2015; Van Patter and Blattner, 2020). This approach has been suggested as a way to gain insights into procedures from the participants’ perspectives in order to design studies in line with their preferences, and to allow some degree of volitional choice within the protocols (e.g. Anthes, 2022; Fenton, 2014; Mancini, 2017). Animal behaviour and welfare science is a core method for ascertaining animals’ voices (Duncan, 2006). Researchers can also provide incentives to engender participants’ voluntary engagement with some protocols, particularly through designing enjoyable protocols or reinforcing positive associations (Perlman et al., 2012).

Participants need to meaningfully understand the procedures and risks involved, with sufficient information (Sreenivasan, 2003; O’Sullivan et al., 2021) that they can understand depending on their knowledge, communication, evaluations, and natural adaptive responses, including contexts’ similarity to subjects’ experiences or ecological niche (Yeates, 2018a).

In designing protocols, researchers might consider a combination of information that is specific to the individual participants and information that is more generically applicable. Information about individuals can inform us about their preferences, perception, evaluation and contextual responses to their protocols, so that we can tailor designs to their needs, preferences and welfare state (e.g. behavioural studies involving participant’s familiar companions in the protocol) or in real-time responses to participants’ experiences of the research (e.g. removing stressed animals from protocols). More general information about animals, based on intraspecific and interspecific extrapolations and generalisations, can help inform us what we can reasonably expect would cause health or wellbeing compromises without having to subject animals to those conditions (e.g. assuming that injuries are painful without needing to see individuals’ responses to them) This can also be helpful where we think particular individuals’ assessments might be prone to error (e.g. because of animals’ inexperience or lack of knowledge about medical procedures). We might combine these into overall assessments of what animals would want, in a way comparable to clinical decisions that combine veterinarians’ assessments about what generally involves poor health tailored to individual patients depending on their responses to treatment (Yeates, 2016).

Socio-ecological equilibrium that seeks a harmonious balance between human—animal-environment interaction and acknowledging the importance of biodiversity, access to sufficient natural space and resources, and the intrinsic value of all living things within the ecosystem

Sentience constitutes one aspect of animals’ and ecosystems’ intrinsic value (Lan et al., 2022), and respecting animal sentience is an important requirement for achieving a harmonious relationship with nature (United Nations, 2020). Animal behaviour and welfare sciences are important sources of data for determining what counts as meaningful access to natural space and resources of sufficient quality and quantity (e.g. Ross et al., 2009) to allow the fulfilment of postural, locomotive and other motivations, meet health needs, and facilitate interactions such as social grouping. Animal behaviour and welfare sciences thus informs efforts to protect the health, abundance and thriving that are needed for the maintenance of biodiversity (Beausoleil et al., 2018). As examples, assessment of enrichment can help assess conservation practices such as translocation (Gross et al., 2024), and field studies can identify challenges to biodiversity by identifying stress to individual animals at an earlier stage, before major impacts at a population level, the unravelling of ecosystems and the loss of human livelihoods (e.g. Baker et al., 2013; Hing et al., 2016; Huber et al., 2019; Sheriff et al., 2011).

Socio-ecological equilibrium and a harmonious balance can be understood as matters of justice, an important component of One Health (Ferdowsian, 2023; Lysaght et al., 2017). Acknowledging the importance of biodiversity, access to sufficient natural space and resources, and intrinsic value includes a recognition that humans should not treat other humans, animals or the environment as ‘mere means’, commodities or mere ‘research subjects’. This implies that basic broadly applicable protections should be afforded to human, animal and environment subjects (Coghlan et al., 2021). These might include protection from severe suffering (Lilley et al., 2014) or a life worse than death (Mehrkam and Fad, 2020; Yeates, 2011), having their basic natural needs fulfilled (Beauchamp and DeGrazia, 2019) and a degree of meaningful control or choices in scenarios for which their naturally evolved evaluative and decision-making capacities are adaptive (Yeates, 2018a), or using alternative research methods that do not require any harm to participants. Researchers should ensure that research participants are at least no worse off than they might be under natural conditions, specifically with regard to space and resources (Yeates, 2018b). Where sufficient space and resources cannot be provided, or their intrinsic value cannot be respected, the protocols should be adapted or those participants should not be included.

The recognition of the intrinsic value of humans and animals also implies that we might align ethical considerations of human and animal participants (Lund and Forsberg, 2009). Petkov et al. (2022) suggest combining principles from various sources including the Helsinki declaration; the 3Rs of replacement, reduction and refinement (Russell and Burch, 1959; Zemanova, 2021, 2023); the 3Ss of good science, good sense and good sensibility (Smith and Hawkins, 2016); and others (Tannenbaum, 2017; Beauchamp and DeGrazia, 2019; Würbel, 2017). We might similarly integrate ethical principles applied to specific areas of research, for example animal behaviour (e.g. Barnard, 2007; Cuthill, 1991; Olsson et al., 2022; Sherwin et al., 2003) and human psychiatric research (e.g. Jain et al., 2017; Roberts and Roberts, 1999; Tsao et al., 2008).

Decisions on what experiments are acceptable draw on animal behaviour and welfare assessments of animals’ interests and capabilities. Where this involves assessing what constitutes a legitimate ‘balance’ of interests between those involved and affected (Bateson, 1986; WOAH, 2023), the OHHLEP principles would suggest that this balance should be assessed holistically, unbiasedly, fairly, with the inclusion of marginalized voices, and with parity between stakeholders and disciplines. This includes minimizing biases against certain people or species (Arathoon, 2024; Hutchinson et al., 2021; Jackson, 2019), for example, not prioritizing measures of human wellbeing above those of animals or environment in project evaluations without thinking (Bovenkerk and Poort, 2019; Pound and Blaug, 2016; Sebo, 2023).

A socio-ecological equilibrium also requires guarding against undue influences on research, publication and policymaking. In recent years, there have been some concerns over the potential influences on policymaking from powerful actors with commercial interests in given outcomes (Dyer, 2019; Field and Lo, 2009; Nejstgaard et al., 2020; Rahman-Shepherd et al., 2021; Elver, 2017). For example, Legg et al. (2021) identified five potential strategies that might be used to increase the volume, credibility, reach, and use of industry-favourable science, while inhibiting or casting doubt about scientific evidence of the harms of industry practices or the efficacy of policies. Addressing unequal power-relations is required to achieve the needed transformation (Berry et al., 2017; Arias-Arévalo et al., 2023), and this should apply to power relations in science, in assessments (Jacobs et al., 2023) and in decision-making, including human-animal power relations, to ensure the voices of all affected people and animals are influential in policymaking.

Stewardship and the responsibility of humans to change behaviour and adopt sustainable solutions that recognize the importance of animal welfare and the integrity of the whole ecosystem, thus securing the wellbeing of current and future generations

Stewardship involves a responsibility to others. This includes our responsibilities to animals both in themselves (Seamer, 1998) and as part of environmental stewardship (Narayanan, 2016; Szücs et al., 2009). These responsibilities, in the One Health context, include a responsibility to protect the health and wellbeing of humans, animals and the environment (Sellars et al., 2021). The explicit mention of both animal welfare and ecosystem integrity both reinforces that researchers should take care of participants in their studies whether the subjects are humans, other sentient animals, or ecosystems, and highlights the relevance of animal behaviour and welfare sciences to behavioural ecology, epidemiology and other ecological and health sciences, and to identifying and describing sustainable solutions and human behaviour change to secure the wellbeing of current and future generations.

Animal behaviour and welfare science helps by identifying risks and benefits for animals, as well as benefits and risks for people and ecosystems, to help ensure that efforts to improve the health of one stakeholder subset do not harm others. For example, research within slaughterhouses might aim to improve animal welfare and human safety (Grandin, 2019). Similarly, many conservationists and animal welfare scientists are concerned with avoiding or minimizing harms to animals and ecosystems (Bruskotter et al., 2019) and would consider animal welfare to be an ethically relevant concern for wildlife management and conservation (Dubois et al., 2017; Gamborg et al., 2012; Kirkwood and Sainsbury, 1996; Minteer and Collins, 2005).

More widely, animal welfare and One Health are important aspects for sustainable development (Broom, 2010; Di Marco et al., 2020; Keeling et al., 2019, 2022; Labonte, 1991; Mumford et al., 2023; Sinclair et al., 2019; Stentiford et al., 2020; WFA, 2023). Sustainable development is itself an integrated, balanced approach across economic, social and environmental concerns (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). Animal behaviour and welfare science can play an important role in determining key drivers and inhibitors of sustainable development, accelerating sustainable development, and protecting future sustainable development from the impacts of poor animal welfare practices, not least from the setbacks of future zoonotic pandemics (Fourpaws, 2022; Guterres, 2023) that might have impacts similar to those of COVID-19 (see Shulla et al., 2021; United Nations, 2023). The population of ‘current and future generations’ might well be taken to include animals. Either way, safeguarding animal health and welfare is also necessary to secure the wellbeing of current and future generations of humans.

Achieving a harmonious relationship with nature will require transformative change (Díaz et al., 2019; United Nations Environment Programme, 2021; Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2021). Animal behaviour and welfare science can encourage positive human behaviour change. Studies often focus on disharmonious human-animal-environment interactions such as those that occur in intensive farm, laboratory or zoological collection settings, and identify behaviour change that could rebalance the interactions. Because One Health aims to optimize health and wellbeing, with a focus on equality, it favours upstream preventive interventions that can benefit a full range of beneficiaries (OHHLEP, 2023). To support this, animal welfare research should always be contextualized within underlying anthropogenic drivers (e.g. production and consumption systems) and the upstream economic, social, cultural, political and technological determinants (Paixao, 2021). This requires avoiding bias against research that questions current practices (Phillips and Molento, 2020; Phillips and Petherick, 2015; van der Schot and Phillips, 2013) and ensuring findings are widely applicable and disseminated (Eggel and Würbel, 2021).

Transdisciplinarity and multisectoral collaboration which includes all relevant disciplines, both modern and traditional forms of knowledge and a broad representative array of perspectives

The study of animal behaviour and welfare could be mutually enriched through multidisciplinary perspectives (Gao and Clark, 2023; Webb et al., 2019), including between researchers and practitioners (Gredig et al., 2021; Leighton et al., 2022). Transdisciplinary collaboration can help researchers to identify translational ideas and address shared practical or ethical challenges (Ferdowsian and Gluck, 2015; Webb et al., 2019).

Animal welfare might be better integrated with human health and environmental sciences. For instance, animal welfare and behavioural ecology study behaviour through particular lenses, which should be seen as complementary (Beausoleil et al., 2018). Conservation science is constantly evolving (Franklin and Seebacher, 2012; Madliger et al., 2018; Wikelski and Cooke, 2006) and becoming more integrative and interlinked (Cooke et al., 2020); the same is true for animal welfare science (Freire and Nicol, 2019). There have been recent efforts towards alignment of these disciplines (Beausoleil et al., 2018; Fraser, 2010; Soriano et al., 2017; Wallach et al., 2018), even if the approaches to integration to date have attracted some criticism (see Coghlan and Cardilini, 2022).

The equitable integration of multiple disciplines could be facilitated by methodologies to assess health and wellbeing that are applicable across humans, animals and environment. However, at present, there are many health and wellbeing concepts (e.g. Bracke, 2007; Diener, 2006; Kahnman and Riis, 2005; Kirkden and Pajor, 2006; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; McMillan and Yeates, 2019; Nordenfelt, 2006), as well as variations in understanding of concepts such as suffering, biodiversity and value of life. The One Health approach implies that we should at least avoid reductive differentiation and see these as a compatible ‘cluster’ of related concerns. We should also recognize where differences between concepts are not conceptual distinctions between species, but just different methodological approaches to assessment for different research subjects (e.g. verbal versus non-verbal reportage or assessments at individual versus population levels).

The One Health approach calls on us to consider how we might align in our aims, scientifically and morally. This requires the pluralistic recognition of multiple worldviews within transdisciplinary collaboration (Hakkarainen et al., 2020) and its application to decision-making (Pascual et al., 2023), in an inclusive way (Raymond et al., 2023). For example the multiple ways in which nature is valued means we should not focus solely on market-driven values assessed by economic analyses (IPBES, 2022) and this should include the values related to animal (including human) sentience (Yeates, 2022). We need to recognize multiple values together, within a common, shared goal – this is needed for meaningful collaboration. These values and goal need to include the intrinsic value of the health and wellbeing of humans, animals and environment, human moral concerns, and animals’ perceived values as evidenced by animal behaviour and welfare science. An integrated and holistic approach to research needs to consider these and more, to create an overall approach that is applicable to research on the wellbeing of humans, animals and environment.

Discussion

The One Health principles described by the OHHLEP provide a useful framework for animal behaviour and welfare research to optimize the health and wellbeing of humans, animals and the environment.

While this paper provides an overview, further work is needed, for example, to explore how ethical principles applied to human health and wellbeing research might be applied to animal behaviour and welfare research, and to explore how well current research (and practice) conforms to the One Health principles.

There is a risk that scientific concepts or data in relation to animal behaviour and welfare are misused in ways that mean they do not achieve the necessary protection for animals (Reis and Molento, 2020; Souza et al., 2015). So any scientific claims that a practice does not harm animal welfare or sustainability should be well evidenced and justified by the data before a practice is expanded or extended (Ekstrand and Nilsson, 2011). Furthermore, insofar as misleading claims might be seen as linked to or part of environmental greenwashing (c.f. Furlow, 2010; de Freitas Netto et al., 2020; Pimonenko et al., 2020; Szabo and Webster, 2020; Toscano et al., 2022), it may be valuable to consider the risks of misleading information about animal health and welfare within assessments of potential greenwashing (Nemes et al., 2022).

Further work is also needed to integrate the principles, and their application, of One Health with those of other integrative approaches such as One Medicine (Humanimal Trust, 2023), Just One Health (Pheonix Zones Initiative, 2022), One Welfare (Pinillos, 2018; Tarazona et al., 2019), Ecohealth (Rapport, 2007), Planetary Health (Horton et al., 2014) and One Digital Health (Benis et al., 2021). Each of these have particular focuses, which can be useful. However, as approaches that aim to be holistic and systems-based (for instance, Pongsiri et al., 2017), and share some underlying concepts and history (for instance, Zinsstag et al., 2011) or the possibility of convergence (for instance, Zinsstag, 2012), they should aim to be compatible with one another. In the meantime, they too might be seen as a ‘cluster’ of approaches that can be used together without unnecessary differentiation. The principle of equity of disciplines might also be applied to and within holistic approaches, to ensure holistic approaches do not then exclude or deprioritise some concerns, subsystems or stakeholders. In any case, this review would suggest that animal behaviour and welfare should be considered part of all of these approaches.

Footnotes

Funding

The author is employed by the World Federation for Animals. All articles in Research Ethics are published as open access. There are no submission charges and no Article Processing Charges as these are fully funded by institutions through Knowledge Unlatched, resulting in no direct charge to authors. For more information about Knowledge Unlatched please see here:

ORCID iD

James William Yeates

References

Adenle

Stevens

Bridgewater

(2014) Stakeholder visions for biodiversity conservation in developing countries. Sustainability 7(1): 271–293.

Adisasmito

Almuhairi

Behravesh

, et al. (2022) One Health: A new definition for a sustainable and healthy future. Plos Pathogens 18(6): e1010537.

Allan

ATL

Bailey

Hill

(2020) Habituation is not neutral or equal: Individual differences in tolerance suggest an overlooked personality trait. Science Advances 6(28).

Anthes

(2022) Why did the chicken cross the barn? To sign up for the scientific study. NewYork Times. 22 November.

Arathoon

(2024) Towards a research agenda for animal and disability geographies: Ableism, speciesism, care, space, and place. Social & Cultural Geography 25(2): 1–19.

Arias-Arévalo

Lazos-Chavero

Monroy-Sais

, et al. (2023) The role of power in leveraging the diverse values of nature for transformative change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64.

Asmal

Lamp

Tan

(2022) Considerations for improving diversity, equity and inclusivity within research designs and teams. Psychiatry Research 307.

Baker

Gobush

Vynne

(2013) Review of factors influencing stress hormones in fish and wildlife. Journal for Nature Conservation 21(5): 309–318.

Balcombe

(2009) Animal pleasure and its moral significance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118(3–4): 208–216.

10.

Barnard

(2007) Ethical regulation and animal science: Why animal behaviour is special. Animal Behaviour 74(1): 5–13.

11.

Bateson

(1986) When to experiment on animals. New Scientist 109: 30–32.

12.

Beauchamp

DeGrazia

(2019) Principles of Animal Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

13.

Beausoleil

Mellor

Baker

, et al. (2018) “Feelings and fitness” not “feelings or fitness”–The raison d'être of conservation welfare, which aligns conservation and animal welfare objectives. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 5: 296.

14.

Benis

Tamburis

Chronaki

, et al. (2021) One digital health: A unified framework for future health ecosystems. Journal of Medical Internet Research 23(2).

15.

Berry

Pascual

Balvanera

, et al. (2017) Revealing the diversity of values of nature and its benefits to people for a good quality of life: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26: 7–16.

16.

Bovenkerk

Poort

(2019) Institutionalized ethical assessments of animal experiments. In: Fisher

(ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. Milton Park: Routledge, 225–238.

17.

Bracke

(2007) Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 229–231.

18.

Brill

Guerrero-Martin

Metcalf Pate

(2021) The symbiotic relationship between scientific quality and animal research ethics. ILAR Journal 60(3): 334–340.

19.

Broom

(1988) The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20(1-2): 5–19.

20.

Broom

(2010) Animal welfare: An aspect of care, sustainability, and food quality required by the public. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 37(1): 83–88.

21.

Broom

(2014) Sentience and Animal Welfare. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

22.

Broom

(2019) Animal welfare complementing or conflicting with other sustainability issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 219: 104829.

23.

Browning

Birch

(2022) Animal sentience. Philosophy Compass 17(5).

24.

Bruskotter

Vucetich

Dietsch

, et al. (2019) Conservationists’ moral obligations toward wildlife: Values and identity promote conservation conflict. Biological Conservation 240.

25.

Camino

Aghababyan

Agvaantseren

, et al. (2023) New global alliance to help improve the practice of biodiversity conservation. Oryx 57(3): 284–285.

26.

Capps

(2022) One health ethics. Bioethics 36(4): 348–355.

27.

Carvalho

Herrmann

Marques

, et al. (2021) Time to abolish the forced swim test in rats for depression research? Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 4(2): 1–9.

28.

Clutton-Brock

Sheldon

(2010) Individuals and populations: The role of long-term, individual-based studies of animals in ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25(10): 562–573.

29.

Coghlan

Cardilini

APA

(2022) A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate. Conservation Biology 36(1).

30.

Coghlan

Capon

, et al. (2021) A bolder One Health: Expanding the moral circle to optimize health for all. One health outlook 3(1): 21–24.

31.

Cooke

Madliger

Cramp

, et al. (2020) Reframing conservation physiology to be more inclusive, integrative, relevant and forward-looking: Reflections and a horizon scan. Conservation Physiology 8(1).

32.

Cuthill

(1991) Field experiments in animal behaviour: Methods and ethics. Animal Behaviour 42(6): 1007–1014.

33.

Datta

(2018) Traditional storytelling: An effective indigenous research methodology and its implications for environmental research. Alternative An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 14(1): 35–44.

34.

Dawkins

(2004) Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare 13(S1): S3–S7.

35.

Dawkins

(1990) From an animal’s point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13(1): 1–9.

36.

Dawkins

(1998) Evolution and animal welfare. Quarterly Review of Biology 73(3): 305–328.

37.

de Azevedo

Young

(2021) Animal personality and conservation: Basics for inspiring new research. Animals 11(4): 1019.

38.

de Freitas Netto

Sobral

MFF

Ribeiro

ARB

, et al. (2020) Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe 32(1): 1–12.

39.

de Waal

(2016) Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

40.

Dewi

Mulia

Johana

, et al. (2023) Integrating relational and instrumental values of nature in planning land use for multiple ecosystem services (LUMENS): Tools and process. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64.

41.

Díaz

Settele

Brondízio

, et al. (2019) Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366(6471).

42.

Diener

(2006) Guidelines for national indicators of subjective wellbeing and ill-being. Journal of Happiness Studies 7: 397–404.

43.

Di Marco

Baker

Daszak

, et al. (2020) Sustainable development must account for pandemic risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(8): 3888–3892.

44.

Dixon

Sandilands

Bateson

, et al. (2013) Conditioned place preference or aversion as animal welfare assessment tools: Limitations in their application. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 148(1–2): 164–176.

45.

Dominey

(1984) Alternative mating tactics and evolutionarily stable strategies. American Zoologist 24: 385–396.

46.

Dresser

(2015) Research subjects’ voices: The missing element in research ethics. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 43(3): 297–299.

47.

Dubois

Fenwick

Ryan

, et al. (2017) International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conservation Biology 31: 753–760.

48.

Duncan

(2005) Science-based assessment of animal welfare: Farm animals. Revue scientifique et technique 24(2): 483.

49.

Duncan

IJH

(2006) The changing concept of animal sentience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100(1–2): 11–19.

50.

Dyer

(2019) New red meat guidelines are undermined by undisclosed ties and faulty methods, say critics. British Medical Journal 367: l6001.

51.

Edelblutte

Krithivasan

Hayek

(2023) Animal agency in wildlife conservation and management. Conservation Biology 37(1).

52.

Eggel

Würbel

(2021) Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research. Laboratory Animals 55(3): 233–243.

53.

Ekstrand

Nilsson

(2011) Greenwashing. European Food and Feed Law Review 6: 167.

54.

Elver

(2017) Report of the Special Rapporteur on pesticides and the right to food (A/HRC/34/48). Available at: https://hilalelver.org/resources/thematicreports/pesticides-and-food/ (accessed 7 September 2023).

55.

Fenton

(2014) Can a chimp say “no”? Reenvisioning chimpanzee dissent in harmful616 research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 23(2): 130–139.

56.

Ferdowsian

(2023) A silent call for a socially and ecologically just one health approach. CABI One Health ohcs20230005. DOI: 10.1079/cabionehealth.2023.0005.

57.

Ferdowsian

Johnson

LSM

Johnson

, et al. (2020) A belmont report for animals? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29(1): 19–37.

58.

Ferdowsian

Gluck

(2015) The ethical challenges of animal research: Honoring henry Beecher’s approach to moral problems. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24(4): 391–406.

59.

Ferraro

Arietta

AZA

, et al. (2023) Revisiting two dogmas of conservation science. Conservation Biology 37: e14101.

60.

Field

(eds) (2009) Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington: National Academies Press.

61.

Finn

Stephens

(2017) The invisible harm: Land clearing is an issue of animal welfare. Wildlife Research 44(5): 377–391.

62.

Forsman

(2015) Rethinking phenotypic plasticity and its consequences for individuals, populations and species. Heredity 115: 276–284.

63.

Fourpaws (2022) Preventing pandemics. Available at: https://media.4-paws.org/6/5/5/f/655f0d3a1393fa4b036fbefb53944f6d86fae67e/2022-10_PAW_positioningpaper-long.pdf (accessed 1 September 2023).

64.

Franklin

Seebacher

(2012) Conservation physiology: integrating physiological mechanisms with ecology and evolution to predict responses of organisms to environmental change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367(1596): 1607–1779.

65.

Fraser

(2010) Toward a synthesis of conservation and animal welfare science. Animal Welfare 19: 121–124.

66.

Fraser

MacRae

(2011) Four types of activities that affect animals: Implications for animal welfare science and animal ethics philosophy. Animal Welfare 20(4): 581–590.

67.

Fraser

Weary

Pajor

, et al. (1997) A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6(3): 187–205.

68.

Freire

Nicol

(2019) A bibliometric analysis of past and emergent trends in animal welfare science. Animal Welfare 28(4): 465–485.

69.

Furlow

(2010) Greenwashing in the new millennium. Journal of Applied Business and Economics 10(6): 22.

70.

Gamborg

Palmer

Sandoe

(2012) Ethics of wildlife management and conservation: What should we try to protect? Nat Education Knowledge 3: 8.

71.

Gao

Clark

(2023) An interdisciplinary conception of human-wildlife coexistence. Journal for Nature Conservation 73.

72.

Grandin

(ed.) (2019) Livestock Handling and Transport. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

73.

Gredig

Heinsch

Amez-Droz

, et al. (2021) Collaborative research and development: A typology of linkages between researchers and practitioners. European Journal of Social Work 24(6): 1066–1082.

74.

Gross

Wilson

Wolak

(2024) The fitness consequences of wildlife conservation translocations: A meta-analysis. Biological Reviews 99(2): 348–371.

75.

Guterres

(2023) Secretary-general’s remarks at the high-level political forum on sustainable development. Available at: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2023-07-17/secretary-generals-remarks-the-high-level-political-forum-sustainable-development-bilingual-delivered-follows-scroll-down-for-all-english-and-all-french?_gl=1*186g1wl*_ga*MTEzMzEyMTg1NC4xNjc2NDY1Nzgw*_ga_TK9BQL5X7Z*MTY5MzU4MDgwMS45LjAuMTY5MzU4MDgwMS4wLjAuMA (accessed 1 September 2023).

76.

Hakkarainen

Anderson

Eriksson

, et al. (2020) Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science. Environmental Science & Policy 105: 11–18.

77.

Healey

Pepper

(2021) Interspecies justice: Agency, self-determination, and assent. Philosophical Studies 178: 1223–1243.

78.

Held

SDE

Špinka

(2011) Animal play and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 81(5): 891–899.

79.

Hertel

Niemelä

Dingemanse

, et al. (2020) A guide for studying among-individual behavioral variation from movement data in the wild. Movement Ecology 8(1): 30–18.

80.

Hing

Narayan

Thompson

RCA

, et al. (2016) The relationship between physiological stress and wildlife disease: Consequences for health and conservation. Wildlife Research 43(1): 51–60.

81.

Hoddinott

Pollock

O'Cathain

, et al. (2018) How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research. F1000Research 7: 752.

82.

Honda

Iijima

Tsuboi

, et al. (2018) A review of urban wildlife management from the animal personality perspective: The case of urban deer. Science of the Total Environment 644: 576–582.

83.

Horton

Beaglehole

Bonita

, et al. (2014) From public to planetary health: A manifesto. Lancet 383(9920): 847.

84.

Hribal

(2010) Fear of the Animal Planet. New York, NY: AK Press.

85.

Huber

Marasco

Painer

, et al. (2019) Leukocyte coping capacity: An integrative parameter for wildlife welfare within conservation interventions. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6: 105.

86.

Humanimal Trust (2023) One Medicine. Available at: https://www.humanimaltrust.org.uk/one-medicine (accessed 5 March 2024).

87.

Hutchinson

Stephens-Griffin

Wyatt

(2021) Speciesism and the wildlife trade: Who gets listed, downlisted and uplisted in cites? International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy 10(3): 191–209.

88.

IPBES (2022) The assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature. Available at: https://ipbes.net/the-values-assessment (accessed 21 November 2022).

89.

Jackson

(2019) Speciesism predicts prejudice against low-status and hierarchy-attenuating human groups. Anthrozoös 32(4): 445–458.

90.

Jacobs

Kelemen

O’Farrell

, et al. (2023) The pitfalls of plural valuation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64.

91.

Jain

Kuppili

Pattanayak

, et al. (2017) Ethics in psychiatric research: Issues and recommendations. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 39(5): 558–565.

92.

Johnson

(2023) A new strategy for animal research: Attending to dissent. Animals 13(9): 1491.

93.

Kahnman

Riis

(2005) Living and thinking about it: Two perspectives on life. In: Hupper

Baylis

Keverne

(eds) The Science of Wellbeing. Oxford: OUP, 285–304.

94.

Kantin

Wendler

(2015) Is there a role for assent or dissent in animal research? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24(4): 459–472.

95.

Keeling

Tunón

Olmos Antillón

, et al. (2019) Animal welfare and the United Nations sustainable development goals. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6: 336.

96.

Keeling

Marier

Olmos Antillón

, et al. (2022) A global study to identify a potential basis for policy options when integrating animal welfare into the UN sustainable development goals. Frontiers in Animal Science 3.

97.

Kirkden

Pajor

(2006) Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals’ feelings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 29–47.

98.

Kirkwood

Sainsbury

(1996) Ethics of interventions for the welfare of free-living wild animals. Animal Welfare 5: 235–243.

99.

Komdeur

(2006) Variation in individual investment strategies among social animals. Ethology 112(8): 729–747.

100.

Labonte

(1991) Econology: Integrating health and sustainable development. Part One: Theory and background. Health Promotion International 6(1): 49–65.

101.

Lan

Sinhababu

Carrasco

(2022) Recognition of intrinsic values of sentient beings explains the sense of moral duty towards global nature conservation. PLoS One 17(10).

102.

Lanzoni

Whatford

Atzori

, et al. (2023) Review: The challenge to integrate animal welfare indicators into the life cycle assessment. Animal 17.

103.

Leach

Bowell

Allan

, et al. (2004) Measurement of aversion to determine humane methods of anaesthesia and euthanasia. Animal Welfare 13(S1): S77–S86.

104.

Lederman

Capps

(2018) Expanding a shared benefit approach in one health research. American Journal of Bioethics 18(10): 47–49.

105.

Lederman

Magalhães-Sant’Ana

Voo

(2021) Stamping out animal culling: From anthropocentrism to one health ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34(5): 27.

106.

Legg

Hatchard

Gilmore

(2021) The science for profit model-how and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice. PLoS One 16(6).

107.

Leighton

Nieforth

Chastain Griffin

, et al. (2022) Researcher-practitioner interaction: Collaboration to advance the field of human-animal interaction. Human-Animal Interactions 2022.

108.

Lilley

Hawkins

Jennings

(2014) A ‘road map’ toward ending severe suffering of animals used in research and testing. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: ATLA 42(4): 267–272.

109.

Lindenmayer

Kaufman

Baker

, et al. (2022) One health ethics: “What then must we do?” CABI One Health.

110.

Lund

Forsberg

(2009) Beauchamp and Childress’ four principles applied to animal ethics issues. In: Millar

Hobson-West

Nerlich

(eds) Ethical Futures: Bioscience and Food Horizons. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 346–351.

111.

Lysaght

Capps

Bailey

, et al. (2017) Justice is the missing link in one health: Results of a mixed methods study in an urban city state. PLoS One 12(1).

112.

Lyubomirsky

King

Diener

(2005) The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin 131: 803–855.

113.

MacKay

Haskell

(2015) Consistent individual behavioral variation: The difference between temperament, personality and behavioral syndromes. Animals 5(3): 455–478.

114.

Madliger

Love

Hultine

, et al. (2018) The conservation physiology toolbox: Status and opportunities. Conservation Physiology 6(1).

115.

Mancini

(2017) Towards an animal-centred ethics for animal–computer interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 98: 221–233.

116.

Manteca

Deag

(1993) Individual differences in temperament of domestic animals: A review of methodology. Animal Welfare 2(3): 247–268.

117.

Mason

Mendi

(1993) Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2(4): 301–319.

118.

Mason

(2010) Species differences in responses to captivity: Stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25(12): 713–721.

119.

McCulloch

Reiss

(2017) The development of an animal welfare impact assessment (AWIA) tool and its application to bovine tuberculosis and badger control in England. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30: 485–510.

120.

McDonald

Kidney

Patka

(2013) ‘You need to let your voice be heard’: Research participants’ views on research. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 57(3): 216–225.

121.

McDougall

Réale

Sol

, et al. (2006) Wildlife conservation and animal temperament: Causes and consequences of evolutionary change for captive, reintroduced, and wild populations. Animal Conservation 9(1): 39–48.

122.

McMillan

Yeates

(2019) The problems with well-being terminology. In: Mental Health and Wellbeing in Animals, 2nd edn. Oxfordshire: Cab International, 8–20.

123.

Mehrkam

Fad

(2020) Animal welfare science and “a life worth living” for wild and captive elephants. Animal Sentience 5(28): 10.

124.

Meijer

(2013) Political communication with animals. Humanimalia 5(1): 28–52.

125.

Meijer

(2019) When Animals Speak: Toward an Interspecies Democracy, vol. 1. New York, NY: NYU Press.

126.

Merrick

Koprowski

(2017) Should we consider individual behavior differences in applied wildlife conservation studies? Biological Conservation 209: 34–44.

127.

Minteer

Collins

(2005) Ecological ethics: Building a new tool kit for ecologists and biodiversity managers. Conservation Biology 19: 1803–1812.

128.

Mumford

Martinez

Tyance-Hassell

, et al. (2023) Evolution and expansion of the one health approach to promote sustainable and resilient health and well-being: A call to action. Frontiers in Public Health 10: 1056459.

129.

Narayanan

(2016) Where are the animals in sustainable development? Religion and the case for ethical stewardship in animal husbandry. Sustainable Development 24(3): 172–180.

130.

Nejstgaard

Bero

Hróbjartsson

, et al. (2020) Association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: Systematic review. BMJ 371: m4234.

131.

Nemes

Scanlan

Smith

, et al. (2022) An integrated framework to assess greenwashing. Sustainability 14(8): 4431.

132.

Neville

Lind

Mendl

, et al. (2023) A mapping review of refinements to laboratory rat housing and husbandry. Laboratory Animals 52(3): 63–74.

133.

Nordenfelt

(2006) Animal and Human Health and Welfare: A Comparative Philosophical Analysis. Wallingford: Cabi.

134.

Olsson

IAS

Nielsen

Camerlink

, et al. (2022) An international perspective on ethics approval in animal behaviour and welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 253.

135.

One Health High Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) (2021) Annual report. Available at: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/food-safety/onehealth/ohhlep-annual-report-2021.pdf#page=19 (accessed 31 December 2022).

136.

One Health High Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) (2023) Prevention of zoonotic spillover: From relying on response to reducing the risk at source. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/prevention-of-zoonotic-spillover (accessed 28 July 2023).

137.

O’Sullivan

Feeney

Crowley

, et al. (2021) An evaluation of the process of informed consent: Views from research participants and staff. Trials 22(1): 544.

138.

Paixao

(2021) Values and ethics as upstream determinants of population health. In: Zölzer

Meskens

(eds) Research Ethics for Environmental Health. Abingdon: Routledge, 12–31.

139.

Paquet

Darimont

(2010) Wildlife conservation and animal welfare: Two sides of the same coin? Animal Welfare 19(2): 177–190.

140.

Pascual

Balvanera

Anderson

, et al. (2023) Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620(7975): 813–823.

141.

Perlman

Bloomsmith

Whittaker

, et al. (2012) Implementing positive reinforcement animal training programs at primate laboratories. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 137: 114–126.

142.

Petkov

Flecknell

Murphy

, et al. (2022) Unified ethical principles and an animal research ‘Helsinki’ declaration as foundations for international collaboration. Current Research in Neurobiology 3.

143.

Pheonix Zones Initiative (2022) What is just One Health. Available at: https://www.phoenixzonesinitiative.org/what-is-just-one-health/ (accessed 9 February 2022).

144.

Phillips

CJC

Molento

CFM

(2020) Animal welfare centres: Are they useful for the improvement of animal welfare? Animals 10(5): 877.

145.

Phillips

CJC

Petherick

(2015) The ethics of a co-regulatory model for farm animal welfare research. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 127–142.

146.

Pimonenko

Bilan

Horák

, et al. (2020) Green brand of companies and greenwashing under sustainable development goals. Sustainability 12(4): 1679.

147.

Pinillos

(2018) One Welfare: A Framework to Improve Animal Welfare and Human Well-Being. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

148.

Pongsiri

Gatzweiler

Bassi

, et al. (2017) The need for a systems approach to planetary health. The Lancet. Planetary health 1(7): e257–e259.

149.

Pound

Blaug

(2016) Transparency and public involvement in animal research. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: ATLA 44(2): 167–173.

150.

Rahman-Shepherd

Balasubramaniam

Gautham

, et al. (2021) Conflicts of interest: An invisible force shaping health systems and policies. Lancet Global Health 9(8): e1055–e1056.

151.

Rapport

(2007) Sustainability science: An ecohealth perspective. Sustainability Science 2: 77–84.

152.

Raymond

Anderson

Athayde

, et al. (2023) An inclusive typology of values for navigating transformations towards a just and sustainable future. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64.

153.

Réale

Reader

Sol

, et al. (2007) Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biological Reviews 82(2): 291–318.

154.

Reardon

(2019) Depression researchers rethink popular mouse swim tests. Nature 571(7766): 456–457.

155.

Reis

Molento

CFM

(2020) Emerging market multinationals and international corporate social responsibility standards: Bringing animals to the fore. Journal of Business Ethics 166: 351–368.

156.

Richter

Hintze

(2019) From the individual to the population – And back again? Emphasising the role of the individual in animal welfare science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 212: 1–8.

157.

Roberts

(1999) Psychiatric research ethics: An overview of evolving guidelines and current ethical dilemmas in the study of mental illness. Biological Psychiatry 46(8): 1025–1038.

158.

Ross

Schapiro

Hau

, et al. (2009) Space use as an indicator of enclosure appropriateness: A novel measure of captive animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121(1): 42–50.

159.

Rushen

(1996) Using aversion learning techniques to assess the mental state, suffering, and welfare of farm animals. Journal of Animal Science 74(8): 1990–1995.

160.

Russell

WMS

Burch

(1959) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.

161.

Sandøe

Gamborg

(2017) Animal welfare impact assessments: A good way of giving the affected animals a voice when trying to tackle wild animal controversies? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30: 571–578.

162.

Schaafsma

Ahn

Castro

, et al. (2023) Whose values count? A review of the nature valuation studies with a focus on justice. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64.

163.

Schaller

(2023) Volsche et al. 2022. Putting animals first to improve science. Available at: https://faunalytics.org/putting-animals-first-to-improve-science/ (accessed 8 September 2023).

164.

Seamer

(1998) Human stewardship and animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59(1–3): 201–205.

165.

Sebo

(2023) Integrating human and nonhuman research ethics. In: Valdés

Alberto Lecaros

(eds) Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Volume I: Decisions at the Bench. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 685–701.

166.

Sekar

Shiller

(2020) Engage with animal welfare in conservation. Science 369(6504): 629–630.

167.

Sellars

Bernotas

Sebo

(2021) One Health, COVID-19, and a right to health for human and Nonhuman Animals. Health and Human Rights 23(2): 35.

168.

Sheldon

Kruuk

LEB

Alberts

(2022) The expanding value of long-term studies of individuals in the wild. Nature Ecology & Evolution 6(12): 1799–1801.

169.

Shepherdson

Lewis

Carlstead

, et al. (2013) Individual and environmental factors associated with stereotypic behavior and fecal glucocorticoid metabolite levels in zoo housed polar bears. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 147(3-4): 268–277.

170.

Sheriff

Dantzer

Delehanty

, et al. (2011) Measuring stress in wildlife: Techniques for quantifying glucocorticoids. Oecologia 166(4): 869–887.

171.

Sherwin

Christiansen

Duncan

, et al. (2003) Guidelines for the ethical use of animals in applied ethology studies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81(3): 291–305.

172.

Shulla

Voigt

Cibian

, et al. (2021) Effects of COVID-19 on the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Discover sustainability 2(1): 15.

173.

Sinclair

(2019) Importance of a One Health approach in advancing global health security and the Sustainable Development Goals. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 38(1): 145–154.

174.

Singer

(2023) Animal Liberation Now. New York, NY: Random House.

175.

Smith

Hawkins

(2016) Good science, good sense and good sensibilities: The three Ss of Carol Newton. Animals 6(11): 70.

176.

Soriano

Branco

ARV

Schnaider

, et al. (2017) Compassionate conservation: Concept and applications. Archives of Veterinary Science 22: 116–130.

177.

Souza

de Oliveira Sans

Müller

, et al. (2015) Broiler chicken welfare assessment in globalgap® certified and non-certified farms in Brazil. Animal Welfare 24(1): 45–54.

178.

Sreenivasan

(2003) Does informed consent to research require comprehension? Lancet 362(9400): 2016–2018.

179.

Stentiford

Bateman

Hinchliffe

, et al. (2020) Sustainable aquaculture through the One Health lens. Nature Food 1(8): 468–474.

180.

Stuber

Carlson

Jesmer

(2022) Spatial personalities: A meta-analysis of consistent individual differences in spatial behavior. Behavioral Ecology 33(3): 477–486.

181.

Stupart

Robbins

Dalley

(2022) “The wrong tools for the right job”: A critical meta-analysis of traditional tests to assess behavioural impacts of early life stress. Psychopharmacology 240(11): 2239–2256.

182.

Sueur

Zanaz

Pelé

(2023) Incorporating animal agency into research design could improve behavioral and neuroscience research. Journal of Comparative Psychology 137: 129–143.

183.

Szabo

Webster

(2020) Perceived greenwashing: The effects of green marketing on environmental and product perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics 171: 719–739.

184.

Szücs

Geers

Sossidou

(2009) Stewardship, stockmanship and sustainability in animal agriculture. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 22(9): 1334–1340.

185.

Tannenbaum

(2017) Ethics in biomedical animal research: The key role of the investigator. In: Conn

(ed) Animal Models for the Study of Human Disease. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1–44.

186.

Tarazona

Ceballos

Broom

(2019) Human relationships with domestic and other animals: One health, one welfare, one biology. Animals 10(1): 43.

187.

Toscano

Balzarotti

(2022) Sustainability practices and greenwashing risk in the Italian poultry sector: A grounded theory study. Sustainability 14(21).

188.

Tsao

Layde

Roberts

(2008) A review of ethics in psychiatric research. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 21(6): 572–577.

189.

Tugendhat

Castillo

Figueroa

, et al. (2023) Respecting the rights and leadership of indigenous peoples and local communities in realizing global goals. Oryx 57(3): 275–276.

190.

United Nations (2020) Harmony with nature report of the secretary-general. 2020. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3892593 (accessed 18 November 2022).

191.

United Nations (2023) SDG progress report 2023. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/documents/sdg-progress-report-2023-52208 (accessed 1 September 2023).

192.

United Nations Environment Programme (2021) Making peace with nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. Available at: https://www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature (accessed 21 November 2022).

193.

United Nations General Assembly (2015) Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 September 2015 transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/70/. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3923923 (accessed 18 November 2022).

194.

van der Goot

Keijsper

Baars

, et al. (2021b) Inter-individual variability in habituation of anxiety-related responses within three mouse inbred strains. Physiology & Behavior 239.

195.

van der Goot

Kooij

Stolte

, et al. (2021a) Incorporating inter-individual variability in experimental design improves the quality of results of animal experiments. PLoS One 16(8).

196.

van der Schot

Phillips

(2013) Publication bias in animal welfare scientific literature. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26: 945–958.

197.

Van Patter

Blattner

(2020) Advancing ethical principles for non-invasive, respectful research with nonhuman animal participants. Society and Animals 28(2): 171–190.

198.

Visseren-Hamakers

Razzaque

McElwee

, et al. (2021) Transformative governance of biodiversity: Insights for sustainable development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 53: 20–28.

199.

Voelkl

Altman

Forsman

, et al. (2020) Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 21(7): 384–393.

200.

Volsche

Root-Gutteridge

Korzeniowska

, et al. (2023) Centring individual animals to improve research and citation practices. Biological Reviews 98(2): 421–433.

201.

Wallach

Bekoff

Batavia

, et al. (2018) Summoning compassion to address the challenges of conservation. Conservation Biology 32: 1255–1265.

202.

Webb

Woodford

Huchard

(2019) Animal ethics and behavioral science: An overdue discussion. Bioscience 69(10): 778–788.

203.

Webster

(2005) The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: Theory into practice. Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties 24(2): 723.

204.

Webster

(2022) Animal Welfare: Understanding Sentient Minds and Why It Matters. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

205.

Wells

Barbier

Nelson

, et al. (2022) Life history consequences of climate change in hibernating mammals: A review. Ecography 2022(6).

206.

Wikelski

Cooke

(2006) Conservation physiology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 38–46.

207.

Winckler

(2019) Assessing animal welfare at the farm level: Do we care sufficiently about the individual? Animal Welfare 28(1): 77–82.

208.

World Federation for Animals (WFA) (2023) Unveiling the Nexus The Interdependence of Animal Welfare, Environment & Sustainable Development. Available at: https://wfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Unveiling-the-Nexus-The-Interdependence-of-Animal-Welfare-Environment-Sustainable-Development.pdf. (accessed 5 March 2024).

209.

World Health Organisation (WHO) (2021) One Health. Available at: www.who.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1 (accessed 31 December 2022).

210.

World Health Organisation (WHO) (2023) Constitution. Available at: www.who.int/about/governance/constitution (accessed 27 June 2023).

211.

World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) (2023) Terrestrial code. Available at: www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=chapitre_aw_introduction.htm (accessed 27 June 2023).

212.

Würbel

(2017) More than 3Rs: The importance of scientific validity for harm-benefit analysis of animal research. Laboratory Animals 46(4): 164–166.

213.

Yeates

(2011) Is ‘a life worth living’ a concept worth having? Animal Welfare 20(3): 397–406.

214.

Yeates

(2018b) Naturalness and animal welfare. Animals 8(4): 53.

215.

Yeates

(2013) Individualism and nonindividualism in the application of nonhuman animal welfare to policy. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 16(3): 254–271.

216.

Yeates

(2016) Ethical principles for novel therapies in veterinary practice. Journal of Small Animal Practice 57(2): 67–73.

217.

Yeates

(2018a) Why keep a dog and bark yourself? Making choices for non-human animals. Journal of Applied Philosophy 35(1): 168–185.

218.

Yeates

(2022) Sentience, harmony and the value of nature. Animals 13(1): 38.

219.

Yeates

Main

(2008) Assessment of positive welfare: A review. Veterinary Journal 175(3): 293–300.

220.

Zemanova

(2021) Making room for the 3Rs principles of animal use in ecology: Potential issues identified through a survey. European Journal of Ecology 7(2): 18–39.

221.

Zemanova

(2023) 3Rs principles in wildlife research. Available at: https://3rswildlife.info (accessed 28 June 2023).

222.

Zinsstag

(2012) Convergence of ecohealth and one health. EcoHealth 9(4): 371–373.

223.

Zinsstag

Schelling

Waltner-Toews

, et al. (2011) From “one medicine” to “one health” and systemic approaches to health and well-being. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 101(3–4): 148–156.