Ascribing Sentience: Evidential and Ethical Considerations in Policymaking

Abstract

Deciding which animals are sentient is an important precursor for decisions about the application of animal welfare legislation, and the wider assessment of the impacts of policies on animal suffering. We ascribe sentience in order to inform decisions about how animals should be treated, and how their treatment should be regulated. This ascription is both an ethical and an evidential process, and what evidence to use and require are ethical questions. Policymakers, therefore, cannot simply rely on scientific evidence in an ethically neutral way, but must be conscious of the ethical assumptions and positions underlying the process of ascription and its application in policy and law. As such, ethical principles that apply to policymaking apply to the ascription of sentience. This paper considers the implications of the Nolan principles for public service on the ascription of animals.

Research Animal Behavioral Management Programs for the 21st Century

“…Behavioral management programs are not a new concept for research animals but considerations for implementing them, at least in North America, have largely been limited to a few species of higher public interest, such as dogs and primates. As our understanding of animal sentience has evolved [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] and many in the field have embraced a care-based ethical approach [ 4 , 5 ], the research community has shifted to emphasize positive animal welfare states [ 6 , 7 , 8 ] and animal welfare assessments have expanded to become more wide-ranging, employing an updated Five Domains assessment model [ 9 ], rather than focusing primarily on physical health and minimizing pain and distress. Through this evolution of research animal ethics, assessment of care, and animal welfare science, gaps in our approach to care for some species, such as mice, rats, and pigs, have become evident.…”