Field conditions may scientifically never be truly standardized because of perception constraints, logistic constraints or continuous dynamics in nature. The need to standardize experimental environments may depend on the scientific problems addressed or model systems considered. As an example, between-population variation in timing of reproduction in blue tits (a small European nest-box breeding bird) is sometimes larger in scientifically more standardized aviary conditions than in scientifically less standardized free-ranging conditions. Responses of blue tits to ‘artificial’ versus ‘semi-artificial’ conditions may result from scientifically ‘uncontrolled’ organism-environment interactions. Not all study populations may be preadapted to captivity and scientists most often don’t know this when they initiate laboratory experiments. Veterinarians may advise to use sterilized test cages minimizing infection. The practical problem is that blue tits will not breed in these highly artificial environments or that some populations cope better with captivity than other populations. Outdoor aviaries with ‘semi-controlled’ natural vegetation might be more appropriate for captive wildlife breeders, simply because they better simulate wildlife conditions. How can a veterinarian or members of ethical commissions that never worked with blue tits provide constructive advice about both scientifically and ethically acceptable experiments? Should ‘environmental sterility’ or the ‘mental state of captives’ been used to make decisions about how to conduct experiments? Do sanitary recommendations proposed by people not familiar with model species complicate execution of scientifically acceptable experiments that take background knowledge from model species into account? Sanitary conditions are never truly controlled in wildlife conditions anyway.
Definitely not, Veterinarian commission should be an expert to provide adequate ethical advice concerning wildlife species
Example
Animal Ethics Committee
- The provision of facilities for experimental animals that meet the highest international standards.
- The training of specialized professional and technical staff who can assist and supervise researchers in carrying out approved research projects involving experimental animals.
- Assuring that all ethical and legal requirements for the care and use of experimental animals, as set out in the National Standard, are met, thus protecting both the researcher and the University against possible legal actions.
- The improvement of the general standard of animal experimentation and ensuring that animal use is justified.
http://www.up.ac.za/animal-ethics-committee-aec/
Perhaps different species have characteristics in common so that advice from a 'generalist' might be useful.
If the answer is NO how to identify an expert? Based on what (Publications, field work, etc.).
This would imply that people with much experience should be able to launch experiments without passing ethical/veterinarian commissions.
Overlapping knowledge is required in all areas not only in veterinary. But for a commission, it requires Subject Area Expert (SAE)
Thus, medical doctors cannot replace vets, and vets cannot replace experienced wildlife specialists?
Potential mental problems with (wildlife) captives (for discussion?)
The origin of 'useless' behavior: ennui in wildlife
Does wildlife suffer from mental ennui?
+ Does mental ennui cause so-called useless individual behavior simply aimed to be mentally or physically occupied?
+ Does mental ennui result in so-called useless behavior from a survival point of view? For instance, is mental ennui at the origin of nest decoration or wildlife art? Are nest decoration or wildlife art examples of 'useless' behavior' from an adaptive point of view?
+ Is mental ennui causing so-called 'useless' behavior environment-dependent? For instance, does wildlife suffer more from mental ennui in richer/poorer than in poorer/richer habitat, or vice versa, and is useless behavior therefore more often expressed in one environment than in another?
+ Is so-called useless behavior that results from mental ennui adaptive as a signal when it provides information on body condition, individual activity or habitat richness? For instance, well fed individuals from rich environments suffering from mental ennui want to be occupied, and therefore express more often 'useless' behavior that may become a signal reflecting habitat richness.
+ What is the link between curiosity, mental ennui, and well-being?
BBC World: US chimpanzee Tommy 'has no human rights' - court
Are judges/lawyers wildlife specialists? I don't think so! In other word, perhaps specialists that know chimps better would probably would have taken another decision.
As always, the questions of dear Marcel are clever, deep, and of high value. There are real objective scientists & there are "fake" scientists. The second category thinks that, by doing a postgraduate research & by reading, say, one hundred books & articles, a mastery of several subjects has been attained so you will find this type of quasi-scientists ready to answer any question raised and to scatter advice in every direction. Of course, this "acting" cannot work well when there is ,at least, one true scientist present to uncover the illusion. The more mature scientist knows the limitations of his/her knowledge & is ready to learn all the time. No one becomes a teacher all the time, as simple as that.
@Nizar/All,
I think all the comments/suggestions/remarks I receive are very constructive
Cheers
Dear All,
Earlier, many of us discussed on ethics. The consequence was that ethics cannot be taught at schools but during experience and ethics is part of the general culture of society. Wildlife belongs to our common property. Even veterinarians should have basic information about it. As far as I know veterinarians study more on wildlife than physicians, engineers or historians. I think a veterinarian commission is able to formulate an ethical advice which may be adequate too. Of course, this must have a certain likelihood and uncertainty.
I note, MPs without biological knowledge vote on wildlife laws.
Regarding Marcel’s example: The information provided is not sufficient.
Being ethical to whom?
Advice or recommendation is not decision!
Dear Marcel,
The decision made by judges/lawyers concerned not animal rights but society relationships. This is the difference. A remark: each day I meet humans causing immoral, evil and wicked outcomes.
In the academic training of most veterinarians are scarce knowledge of ecology and evolution. Consequently, decisions on research topics related ethics or wildlife are often biased. A clear example is advocating the conservation of species in captivity, without considering that the evolutionary and functional processes are not maintained in isolated populations with low genetic diversity that do not interact with their environment.
Guidelines published in the journal Animal Behaviour.
Perhaps some guidelines may be model species-specific
Why can any citizen buy animals in pet stores without requiring certificates? What is the difference with treatment of animals in a science framework?
The ethical committee is there to ensure the well-being of the animals under study. Your challenge is to convince the committee members (whatever their background, since often they may come from diverse fields) that you are doing everything you can to ensure that the specimens under study are not unduly stressed or, if response to stressors is the object of the study, that the study is warranted and cannot be undertaken in any other way. You give reasoned arguments in your question as to why you cannot employ sterilized cages - I presume that you explained all this to the committee. Your phrasing suggests that you think this committee is not fit for purpose or that they are not sure what their role actually is.....in which case, your job now is to make sure not only for your own research projects but those of your colleagues that they do understand the functions of an Ethics Committee, i.e. to ensure that research is undertaken professionally, without bias, in adherence with all relevant legislature and with minimal suffering to the subjects where it can be avoided.
Not only for veterinary or other specific discipline or field; but in general
Audit committee: leading practices and trends of Ernst & Young quotes,
The composition of the committee is critical to its effectiveness. Members with requisite skills, knowledge, independence and judgment are important. Their level of commitment and availability is also critical to the audit committee’s ability to perform its responsibilities effectively. A range of diverse perspectives and thinking helps strengthen the quality of audit committee deliberations and delivers real value for companies and shareholders, especially for companies that operate globally
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=39&ved=0CEsQFjAIOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ey.com%2Fpublication%2Fvwluassetsdld%2Fauditcommitteeleadingpractices_bb2278_february2012%2F%24file%2Fauditcommitteeleadingpractices_bb2278_february2012.pdf%3FOpenElement&ei=xTGJVIO2NMbnUse_hNgD&usg=AFQjCNFe1dij0drqSXvzWIWyrbEnxrL23w&cad=rja
Dear Francesca,
Marcel is among us the only ornithologist. However, it would be good to know the name of your local birds, that of the trees and the type of habitat.
I hope, brother down-voter is on duty!
Oh downvoting is without any value. Please contradict and give arguments. All of us, who are no downvoters, will agree. We are not perfect with our comments and try to learn!
Does wildlife 'useless behaviour' exists or we may can't give an explanation to it?
I think an intimate knowledge of the ecology, (and, if relevant, of the social behaviour) of any organism would be a prerequisite for an ethical decision about it, be it bird, grasshopper, or starfish. All a veterinarian could offer would be an opinion on likely pathologies. Make sure you have a competent zoologist on your ethics committee.
And each model species has a different Ecology. Good luck for the veterinarians!
How much years of experience/education do you need to truly know a single species, like humans? A lifetime is certainly not enough?
Dear Marcel: Ethics are transversal to all areas. In my opinion, all members of any commission should be fully competent, that is, they all require having expertise (deep knowledge) on the specific area of the commission (the commissions/Juris should not be a group of friends sharing personal commons interests).
I agree with your last answer.
My point is that those that will conduct animal studies are often more competent than the commissions judging these studies.
Administrative procedures may be irrelevant in many cases. If there is unethical practice, editors/referees helping scientific journals might also refuse publication of results judged to be unethical, or not?
Dear Marcel: With respect to your sentence “If there is unethical practice, editors/referees helping scientific journals might also refuse publication of results judged to be unethical, or not?” In my opinion, in that case you mention, editors/referees have the duty to refuse publication and explain clearly the reasons. However, I do not intend to participate in any type of crusade or eventual personal quarrel (?), because in my opinion those procedures are not ethical too.
No personal quarrel, Antonio. Simply discussion of potential cases
BBC World News (22 December 2014) Psychology: Why boredom is bad... and good for you
A message for (elderly) zoo animals (how to fight ennui?)?
What do ethical commissions know about habitat enrichment in captive model species, e.g. to prevent/reduce boredom and stimulate curiosity?
Zoos are generally not nice for wildlife though I am a strong supporter of ex situ breeding as an 'insurance' for the species in situ. In my experience one has to 'feel' him/herself a tiger, gorilla, parrot, etc. to understand what each species need to prevent/reduce boredom. Good study of the species ecology is, of course, fundamental. Knowledge and practice can't work separately to understand how to keep properly wildlife in controlled environments. To generalize on ethical commissions skills it is not appropriate as their ability depends on the presence of the two prerequisites in the group components.
For any commission, as for any field, reputation is a priceless asset, similarly for a Vertinary commission reputation as responsible wild life must be maintained and safeguarded to grow and prosper by its findings and recommendations. All stake holders to the commission should feel extremely proud of the commission's reputation, and believe every member and head shares in that pride
At what level do commissions handling ethics in humans versus animals differ in competence and approaches?
For instance, some claim that medical commissions handling human-based ethics in medical treatment of adults do not (always) have the competence to handle ethical aspects in medical treatment of children.
For instance, some claim that human ethics mainly involves protection of individuals/patients whereas wildlife animal ethics mainly involves protections of whole populations.
As a professor emeritus at a major university for agriculture, veterinary science, and biology/ecology, I have found the community of veterinarians to be a mixed bag. Some are certainly qualified to offer excellent advice on aspects of the handling of wildlife species and do so. Then, some of our veterinarians have ventured into issues of ecology and made some amazingly arrogant claims and blunders. One veterinary epidemiologist once informed me that "ecology is a sub-discipline of epidemiology". Another claimed that "ecologists are not concerned with humanity" (that one sparked quite a row on campus). I suspect that some veterinarians can and do offer appropriate insights in ethical issues concerning wildlife, while others are too full of themselves to acknowledge the limits of their technical expertise (which they probably regard as scholarship) in this area. Select veterinarians with care.
But all these people will think they are expert and able to judge, perhaps because they don't know they are unable to do the job properly? Do ethical commissions judging ethical commissions exist?
There are different standard protocols by species group, and these are the ones that should be used. The Ornithological Council, for instance, has protocols for birds.
General site for the OC: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/orncounc/index.html
Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research:
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/guide/index.html
The Director of the OC constantly researches/is in touch with all the US government's proposed rules/regulations or established ones with which bird researchers may have had issues. She helps policy makers understand which new rules just won't work in real life or which rules that are already established need to be changed.
There are similar protocols for mammals (get in touch with the American Society of Mammalogists http://www.mammalsociety.org/) and herps/amphibs, etc.
Perhaps the rules are region/country/continent-specific? For instance, what is not allowed in country C might be allowed in country F, e.g. treatment of animals with hormones or other chemical substances?
I conduct research in Wildlife management in a small university (UQAT). When I arrived as a new professor, our institutional animal care ethical committee already had one veterinarian, but he was not familiar with research procedures with wild animals. Following his recommendation, my institution added another member to this committee, a veterinarian specialised in wild animals for studies conducted in the field. He is responsible for giving advices on my research protocols. He joins the local committee by telephone conference calls when my protocols are discussed.
This veterinarian is hired as a consultant by my university. I beleive that I am really lucky to benefit from his experience. In my opinion, any institution responsible for reviewing protocols in wildlife reserach should have such a professional to evaluate the valididy of research protocols, and suggest effective modifications when required.
Some ethical thoughts: Thousands and thousands of birds are killed to protect humans against diseases
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2017/01/26/97002-20170126FILWWW00106-grippe-aviaire-l-abattage-preventif-des-canards-et-oies-etendu.php
Now let's go to bird nests: All small cavity-nesting passerines with naked underdeveloped hatchlings build a nest assumed to protect the bird occupants against harsh biotic/abiotic conditions. This should imply that removing the whole nest during the different stages of egg and nestling development should have important fitness conséquences compared to controls (e.g. the nest is briefly removed and then placed back in the nesting cavity).
If ethical commissions decide that this experiment is unacceptable from an ethical point of view before the experiments were conducted, can we conclude or is this evidence that nests are indeed very import to protect eggs and/or nestlings in these species?
Dear Marcel,
I think your proposed experiment is without consequences for the population. Just imagine the marking of young predater birds to identify them later on. I dont know any complication of this thechnique. So my answer to your question about the ethical commisions is a clear no.
Pour information… Why does ethical practice differ between biology-associated research (involving small animal populations) and Economy (involving large animal populations)?
https://www.msn.com/fr-fr/actualite/france/une-alternative-au-broyage-des-poussins-fait-ses-premiers-pas-en-france/ar-AAAVAE3?ocid=spartandhp
Why should someone follow a formation in how to handle wildlife species X every six years when that person is using the same monitoring methods for more than 30-40 years and those that provide courses in animal ethics are not familiar with wildlife species X?
PS: Millions of ducks/poultry have been killed to prevent disease spread and millions of fish have been killed for consumption....
Why in this framework veterinarian commisions do not read publications to judge whether someone is able to ethically handle wildlife, or not? Interesting is that the impact of methods on animals differs between research fields (e.g., pharmacy, behaviour, physiology, ecology, medicine, etc....), but that all are allowed to conduct their research activities....
I have the impression that true ethics aimed to protect and understand animal life is only applied in a safe living environment (e.g. university environments studying animals impose research rules to minimise animal suffering). However, when humans face disease (e.g. massive killing of birds to prevent bird flu spread), or hunger (e.g. massive fishing to prevent starvation), or aggression (e.g. massive bombing to defend a territory), true ethics aimed to protect and understand animal life will rarely or not be applied.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India