Dataset Information

Bias and Misrepresentation of Science Undermines Productive Discourse on Animal Welfare Policy: A Case Study.

ABSTRACT: Reliable scientific knowledge is crucial for informing legislative, regulatory, and policy decisions in a variety of areas. To that end, scientific reviews of topical issues can be invaluable tools for informing productive discourse and decision-making, assuming these reviews represent the target body of scientific knowledge as completely, accurately, and objectively as possible. Unfortunately, not all reviews live up to this standard. As a case in point, Marino et al.'s [1] review regarding the welfare of killer whales in captivity contains methodological flaws and misrepresentations of the scientific literature, including problematic referencing, overinterpretation of the data, misleading word choice, and biased argumentation. These errors and misrepresentations undermine the authors' conclusions and make it impossible to determine the true state of knowledge of the relevant issues. To achieve the goal of properly informing public discourse and policy on this and other issues, it is imperative that scientists and science communicators strive for higher standards of analysis, argumentation, and objectivity, in order to clearly communicate what is known, what is not known, what conclusions are supported by the data, and where we are lacking the data necessary to draw reliable conclusions.

SUBMITTER: Jaakkola K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7401611 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bias and Misrepresentation of Science Undermines Productive Discourse on Animal Welfare Policy: A Case Study.

Jaakkola Kelly K Bruck Jason N JN Connor Richard C RC Montgomery Stephen H SH King Stephanie L SL

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI 20200629 7

Reliable scientific knowledge is crucial for informing legislative, regulatory, and policy decisions in a variety of areas. To that end, scientific reviews of topical issues can be invaluable tools for informing productive discourse and decision-making, assuming these reviews represent the target body of scientific knowledge as completely, accurately, and objectively as possible. Unfortunately, not all reviews live up to this standard. As a case in point, Marino et al.'s [1] review regarding the ...[more]

PMID: 32610674

Similar Datasets

Project description:While perceptions of animal welfare have been assessed in veterinary students and students internationally, there remains a gap in research concerning undergraduate and graduate student perspectives of animal welfare in animal science programs at colleges and universities across the United States. A survey was developed to assess current animal science student perspectives of the importance of animal welfare as part of their education, their knowledge of available educational opportunities, and resources they think should be included in animal welfare curricula. An online survey was distributed to a national listserv of university administrators of animal science programs in the United States. A total of 624 survey responses were statistically summarized. Most respondents were undergraduate students (78.0%, n = 487), between the ages of 18 and 24 (85.9%, n = 536), and female (86.1%, n = 537). Results indicated that despite most respondents not taking an animal welfare course previously (60.7%, n = 379), most students strongly agreed that the inclusion of an animal welfare course is an important part of the animal science curriculum (72.0%, n = 449), that animal welfare is an important component of their education (63.1%, n = 394), and that animal welfare courses would be helpful for their future careers (70.0%, n = 437). When asked what attributes would be most important in an animal welfare class, students identified many different types of information and resources. The majority of respondents answered that discussing current hot topics in animal welfare (76.1%, n = 475), ethical discussions (76.0%, n = 474), and practical, applied questions (75.3%, n = 470) were important course components. Suggestions for future research include investigating how animal science student perceptions change before and after taking an animal welfare course and exploring opportunities to expand formal welfare education in animal science departments. Inclusion of animal welfare into the curriculum is critical as many of the students currently enrolled in animal science departments will become the future stakeholders in animal-focused industries.

Project description:Farm animal welfare in the People's Republic of China (henceforth, China) is not well represented in the international scientific literature. This may lead researchers, advocates and those with agricultural partnerships in China to assume that animal welfare is not a field of interest there. This study reports a literature review of published pig and poultry welfare research in China using Chinese scientific databases. We aimed to determine which areas of welfare research have recently received academic attention in China. From an understanding of areas being studied, current and emerging priority areas for research could be determined. This study identified 854 academic publications citing pig or chicken welfare in China published between 2008 and 2018. Within these publications, two broader areas of significant attention were addressed in the context of animal welfare; yield and product quality, such as feeding, biosecurity and antimicrobial resistance, including immunity and second, the relationship of animal welfare with the Chinese philosophy of 'ecological agriculture.' Holistic systems were advocated to maximize sustainability and maintain a healthy environment, such as the creation of fermented bedding for pigs. Environmental enrichment was also a focus of attention, demonstrating an interest in animals' mental welfare, which was usually conjectured from their behavior. Few of the articles were translated into English or other languages and therefore most were largely unavailable to the English-speaking global scientific community. This presents an opportunity to provide relevant animal welfare knowledge, which could improve animal welfare globally. China is a global animal trade leader and the home of the largest agricultural industries in the world. An increase in collaboration on animal welfare research and understanding of the advancements that have been made in China, as reviewed in this manuscript, could advance farm animal welfare from a global perspective.

Project description:Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Dataset Information

Bias and Misrepresentation of Science Undermines Productive Discourse on Animal Welfare Policy: A Case Study.

Publications

Bias and Misrepresentation of Science Undermines Productive Discourse on Animal Welfare Policy: A Case Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets