Clive Phillips

Human personality influences the way people interact with dogs. This study investigated the associations between the personality of animal shelter volunteers and behavior during on-leash walks with shelter dogs. Video recording and a canine leash tension meter were used to monitor the on-leash walking. Personality was measured in five dimensions with the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Neurotic volunteers pulled the leash harder and tended to interact with dogs using more body language; dogs being walked by neurotic volunteers in turn displayed more lip-licking and body shaking and were more likely to be rated as well-behaved. Extroverted volunteers were associated with stronger maximal leash tension at both the human and dog ends of the leash, and they praised the dog more, often in a high pitched voice. These volunteers eliciting more tail-wagging and body shaking by the dog. Extroverted volunteers were also more tolerant of different dog behaviors. Volunteers with personalities characterized by “openness to experiences” were less likely to verbally attract the attention of dogs, praise dogs and talk to them in a high-pitched voice; however, dogs walked by these volunteers were more likely to pull on the leash, and engaged in more lip-licking but less sniffing. “Agreeable” volunteers liked to verbally attract the attention of the dogs and more commonly initiated hand gestures and physical contact, causing the dogs to pull less frequently; dogs in these dyads displayed more gazing and lip-licking behaviors. Conscientious volunteers were less likely to pull the leash and tended to have more physical contact with the dogs but did not favor verbal communication and did not use a high pitched voice.

In an increasingly global landscape, NFP initiatives including those addressing animal protection, are increasingly operating cross-borders. Doing so without respect, local engagement, and a thorough understanding of the issues of concern is fraught with danger, and potentially wasteful of resources. To this purpose, we sought to understand attitudes to the importance of 13 major world social issues in relation to animal protection by surveying 3433 students from at least 103 universities across 12 nations. The emergence of a ‘nature trifecta’ was suggested, with animal and environmental protection and sustainable development recurring as the most highly rated in importance across all countries, with these issues also consistently rating amongst the highest in each individual country. It is concluded that significant differences exist between attributed importance of world issues by nation, pointing towards the benefit of tailoring NFP initiatives by country and region. It is also suggested that nation, or more specifically, sociopolitical and cultural region, is a vitally important demographic for consideration in social development.

Animal protection organizations expect their staff to understand and support high welfare standards in animal production. Relationships between Australian animal protection organization workers’ knowledge of chicken production systems, purchasing behavior, and opinion-leading behavior were investigated. Forty-five percent of knowledge questions were answered correctly. Knowledge was mostly gained from animal protection organizations and online literature. Knowledgeable respondents were more critical of both conventional and free range/organic chicken systems and were more likely to avoid eating chicken meat, but not eggs. They were more likely to approach those responsible, in government or industry, about welfare issues and were more likely to discuss animal welfare issues at work and in a social setting. They were also more likely to ask questions about animal welfare standards of food provided at butchers, farmers’ markets, social meals, and restaurants/cafés. Therefore, knowledge was linked to advocacy for improved animal welfare by animal protection organization workers.

We examined attitudes toward nonhuman animal welfare and rights and career aspirations in Australian and Turkish veterinary students. A representative university was selected in each country, with 190 first- and third-year students sampled in each. Survey questions addressed attitudes toward nonhuman animal welfare/rights, and intended career. Australian and Turkish students were predominately female and male, respectively, but attitudes were similar between sexes. Australian students rated keeping companion animals and hormonal desexing more acceptable, and food and rest deprivation, pain during slaughter, and using animals in experiments less acceptable than Turkish students. Keeping companion animals related strongly with students’ moral values, their decision to study veterinary medicine, and program satisfaction. More Australian than Turkish students wanted to enter clinical practice. Thus veterinary students of these two culturally contrasting countries demonstrated both differences and universalities, such as companion animal keeping, which influenced their attitudes toward animals and career aspirations.

The prevalence of companion animal caregiving was estimated, and demographic and psychosocial factors that predict sterilization behaviors in caregivers in Thailand were identified. Thai nationals (n = 494) were recruited by random for the Culture and Human-Animal Interactions (chai) telephone survey. The results showed 74% of respondents had a cat and/or a dog (60% dogs, 23% cats); 22% of dogs and 19% of cats were sterilized. Logistic Regression analyses revealed positive attitudes toward desexing, and the perception that important others would endorse this practice best predicted sterilization practices. For caregivers with unsterilized companions, Hierarchical Multiple Regression analyses revealed perceived capability to sterilize, positive attitudes toward desexing, and perceived normative pressure to sterilize accounted for 35% and 45% of the variance in intentions to sterilize dogs and cats, respectively. Culturally sensitive initiatives targeting negative attitudes, enhancing normative pressure, and increasing perceived personal agency to sterilize may improve sterilization rates in Thailand.

This handbook presents a much-needed and comprehensive exploration of the rapidly growing fields of animal welfare and law. In recent years there has been increasing attention paid to our complex, multifaceted relationships with other animals, and in particular, the depth and breadth of various societal uses of animals. This has led to a reconsideration of their moral and social status, which has sometimes challenged the interests of those who use animals. In such a contested domain, sound evidence and reasoning become particularly important. Through firm commitment to such principles, this book explores the biological foundations for the moral consideration of animals, and for evolving conceptualisations of animal welfare. It reviews in detail the welfare concerns associated with numerous forms of animal use. The inclusion of key recent developments such as climate change, pandemics and antimicrobial resistance, ensure this text is among the most current in its field. The ethical implications of the various uses of animals by society are considered, and chapters provide important recommendations for reforms of practice, law or policy. The status of animal law internationally, and in major world regions, is reviewed. Finally, the book considers human behavioural change, and strategies for improving stakeholder communication and education. The handbook is essential reading for students and scholars of animal welfare, animal law and animal ethics everywhere, and for policymakers and other professionals working in the animal welfare sector.

Slaughter sets the debate about what is acceptable to do to animals at an extremely low bar. Recently, there has been considerable investment in developing cell-based meat, an alternative meat production process that does not require the raising and slaughtering of animals, instead using muscle cells cultivated in a bioreactor. We discuss the animal ethics impacts of cell-based and plant-based meat on human-animal interactions from animal welfare and rights perspectives, focusing on industrial meat production scenarios. Our hypothesis is that the insertion of cell-based meat in the global meat market may alleviate farm animal suffering and potentially restore resources for wild fauna. We employed a conservative estimation of the cell-based meat contribution to the global meat market in the year 2040 to analyze the consequences for human-animal relationships for both wild animals and farmed domesticated animals. We discuss possible effects of an animal cell domestication process, previously described as the second domestication, on human-animal relationships. We consider its potential to reduce the impact of human demographic changes and land use on animal life, in particular whether there would be increased biomass availability and free land for wild animals. We anticipate a major reduction in animal suffering due to the decrease in the number of individual animals involved in food production, which justifies the adoption of cell-based meat from a utilitarian perspective. For the conventional animal food production that remains, further consideration is needed to understand which systems, either high or low welfare, will be retained and the impact of the innovation on the average farm animal welfare. Additionally, it seems likely that there will be less acceptance of the necessity of animal suffering in farming systems when meat production is uncoupled from animal raising and slaughter, supported by a deontological perspective of animal ethics. Consequent to this is anticipated the mitigation of relevant barriers to animal protection and to the recognition of animals as subjects by legislation. Thus, the development of the alternative meats may be related to a significant change in our relationship with non-human animals, with greater benefits than the prima facie effects on farm animals.

Undercover filming is a method commonly used by animal activist groups to expose animal cruelty and it is important to consider the effects of publically releasing video footage of cruel practices on the viewers’ mental health. Previously, we reported that members of the Australian public were emotionally distressed soon after viewing media broadcasts of cruelty to Australian cattle exported for slaughter in Indonesia in 2011. To explore if there were any long term impacts from exposure to media on this issue, a self-selecting group of 15 people who were exposed to a documentary exposé of the cruelty were re-interviewed 12 months later. Nearly all recalled their strong initial reaction to the footage. Approximately one half of the respondents who initially had had a strong emotional reaction to the footage reported negative reactions that were still strong even after this period of time. They reported potential triggers for these feelings. Of the rest, some managed to internalise their feelings. Approximately one half of respondents were unaware of continued live export exposés, suggesting less prominent media coverage. Despite the aversion and repulsion reported after viewing the initial coverage, most respondents said they would choose to watch another broadcast of animal cruelty and nearly all supported undercover investigations as a means of revealing cruelty to animals. We conclude that many people viewing footage of cruelty to animals will have long term memory of this, but that they would prefer to be informed about the issues and not be protected from them

Activists’ investigations of animal cruelty expose the public to suffering that they may otherwise be unaware of, via an increasingly broad-ranging media. This may result in ethical dilemmas and a wide range of emotions and reactions. Our hypothesis was that media broadcasts of cruelty to cattle in Indonesian abattoirs would result in an emotional response by the public that would drive their actions towards live animal export. A survey of the public in Australia was undertaken to investigate their reactions and responses to. The most common immediate reaction was feeling pity for the cattle. Women were more likely than men to feel sad or angry. Most people discussed the media coverage with others afterwards but fewer than 10 % contacted politicians or wrote to newspapers. We conclude that the public were emotionally affected by the media coverage of cruelty to cattle but that this did not translate into significant behavioral change. We recommend that future broadcasts of animal cruelty should advise the public of contact details for counseling and that mental health support contacts, and information should be included on the websites of animal advocacy groups to acknowledge the disturbing effect animal cruelty exposes can have on the public

Cattle production has the potential of being an important component of sustainable agriculture globally. The ability to transform feed not suitable for humans into high-quality food will be of great importance in the long-term for feeding a growing population. Other aspects such as preservation of landscape values and maintenance of rural communities are highly appreciated values, especially in the industrialized part of the world.To exploit the sustainable potential of cattle production systems, problems of pollution (such as ozone destruction, acid rain, and nitrate leaching) and of health and welfare, which are associated with cattle production, are critically reviewed. The possibilities of integrating cattle production with other types of production are evaluated. Cattle can be used for single purposes such as dairy, beef, and draught, but dairy cows can also be used for restricted suckling combining dairy and beef production. In addition a mixture of species makes grazing more efficient, and a combination of cattle and mixed cropping can increase resource efficiency.

Wild animal life has been increasingly expendable at the hands of humans. In my lifetime, we have lost many species through premature extinction, species which took millions of years to evolve. About two thirds of wildlife have disappeared. We have depleted environments so that the biomass of wild non-human animals has plummeted. At the same time, the numbers of unwanted animals are growing, both wildlife and domestic animals. Humans are also usually responsible for the disposal of animals that were produced for their use but are not needed, especially animals in the food and sport industries, but also after they have been used in laboratories or as companion animals. Animals are often viewed as disposable, but not by all. We are devising ways of protecting our animal species, but is it too little, too late?

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

In two parts, this open access work offers a broad and often unconventional approach to animal ethics, written by a pioneer in animal welfare science and ethics. The author Clive Phillips, Australia's first professor of animal welfare, first describes his life experience and career in the field, which enabled him to provide thoughts and possible solutions to some of the key problems in human-animal relations following in section two. His memoirs describe a journey from privileged upbringing in the Christian tradition to confronting Australian livestock industries with some of their traditional practices. Experiences meeting livestock farmers, industry supporters and national representative bodies taught him new approaches to the ways in which we manage animals. After building one of the largest animal welfare centers worldwide, Clive Phillips retired and pursues his animal welfare mission independently. The second part introduces novel aspects that evolved with the author over several decades of involvement in animal welfare science. This part takes a wide perspective, asking how important and unique our animal kingdom is, how did it evolve and why, and what are the key issues for our treatment of other animals? It concludes by considering our future relationship with animals and how this will change with current developments in society and in particular contemporary attitudes toward the consumption of animals. This historical and futuristic look at animal ethics is unique, making this book a thought provoking read for all interested. The audience includes, but is not limited to, the areas of veterinary science, ethics and welfare, animal industries, universities and philosophy departments.

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

I was born into a life of privilegePrivileges, into a family with a proud military history. I lived at a school on the south coast of England, with my father as headmaster, until I was 13. Then I was sent to one of Britain’s private schools for boys, where I developed a passion for the study of biology. Unsettled at school, I find solace working on a small dairy farm and fell in love with the cows and their calves. I came to reject the glorification of warWar and killing things, as I studied all things living, which prepared me for a life learning about animal welfare.

Governance systems that humans have developed to manage animals in societies, both human and non-human, are explored and what this means for our relationship with animals. To begin, the history of human society governance is considered and how this compares with animal societies. Not only might we learn from animal governance systems but also the way in which human society is governed has a major influence on people’s well-being and their willingness and ability to maintain their animals in good welfare. In almost all wild animal societies, cohesion between the members is at a high level to guarantee survival of the population. There is often fighting for access to females, which may be physical and intense, but all-out war is very rare, because it often threatens the survival of one or both warring parties. The bellicose nature of human society today, and our individual desires to better ourselves at the expense of others, is why we have much to learn from animal societies.

Considerations about how we should use animals, if at all, have pervaded human society for millennia. However, it is in the modern era that the necessity to use animals for food and many other uses is most strongly debated. As well as animal welfare and ethics concerns, people are concerned about the inefficiency of using animals to provide food for a growing human population, the associated pollution with intensive animal production systems, and the disease implications. This chapter reviews the major uses of animals and evaluates whether there is any justification for doing so.

A radical change in our approach to ethical treatment of other animals is required to safeguard their future. We could, and should, replace farm animals for food with plant-based food, and/or cultivated “clean” meat, reducing the ethical impact of humans on animals and freeing up land for wildlife. We must address the likely demise of predators and focus on the conservation of animal species on earth. Finally, there is the possibility to secure animals’ future by colonisation of other planets, moons, or galaxies, and the likelihood of this, its desirability, and advantages and disadvantages are considered.

We cannot determine our responsibilities to other animals until we properly understand the reasons for the emergence of animal life. This chapter explores the uniqueness of Earth’s animal kingdom in the universe and asks why other animals of superior intelligence have not contacted us—the Fermi paradox. Animals are distinguishable from other life forms and inanimate, physical entities by well-known but imprecise attributes, such as the sources of food, the ability to move, etc. The emergence of animal life on our planet is, to the best of our knowledge, unique, at least to the extent that there are no extraterrestrial animal life forms that are known to us. This means we should value Earth’s animal life even more highly than if life were common on lots of planets. From an animal ethics perspective, an important question is why early life developed into the complex sentient animal life forms existing today. The ability to morph into different forms is important to successful colonisation of environments that vary in time and space. Earth is constantly exposed to geological disturbances, and there are both random and rhythmical variations in climate because of the Earth’s tilt and external influences, such as space weather. Life forms are most likely to emerge in places where there exists a high level of disequilibria, but changes in the environment over time may have been the prime driver for the emergence of reproduction, as this gave animals a mechanism to adapt to a changing environment, particularly as a result of climatic variation. The unique nature of Earth’s animal life and its adherence to universal natural laws suggests a purposeful design that should drive immense respect for animal life. Respect for the natural world should not only be for highly sentient animals, since sentience is just a tool to help animals gain valuable information from their environments and thus improve their fitness. It should include respect for the diversity of the animal life that has evolved over four billion years. Respect for both less sentient and non-sentient animals and for maintaining animal and genetic integrity warrants serious consideration. Highly varied approaches worldwide to respect for animal life could usefully be harmonised to a standard approach where all animal life is respected for its uniqueness and crucial place in diverse ecosystems. This has major implications for how we should treat animals on Earth, including humans as an animal species.

I spend a year on farms in Sussex, England, before going to Reading UniversityReading University, learning about sheep and cattle production, which helps me to decide if this is the career I want to follow. At university I learn about British agricultural systems in the 1970s, where animal production was intensifying to meet growing demand. Large-scale, fully housed production units were starting, particularly for pigs and poultry, in marked contrast to the small grassland-based farms I was used to. I develop an interest in cattle and sheep production that was to last a lifetime.

This chapter charts the development of cruelty to animals, including humans, asks why humans are especially cruel, and considers whether we can reduce cruelty in society. The place of cruelty in war is discussed, both in human and animal societies, and the growing way in which humans are developing capacity for mass destruction. The worst examples of cruelty, in wars, are a common feature of human society, but this is relatively rare in animals. It concludes that animals can be cruel, but not to the extent of humans.

This chapter envisages a world in which antimicrobials and other medicines in our current armoury against diseases have been replaced by a caring for animals that are healthy because they are happy. Good welfare and happy animals are prerequisites for effective immunity. A greater awareness of improved environments for animals and optimum population sizes (including that of humans) will enable better living conditions to be implemented for the benefit of animal health. While we recognise that a healthy diet, healthy environment, and healthy genetics are needed for intensive animal production, we continue to raise animals in unhealthy conditions. As well as keeping unhealthy animals in farms, laboratories, zoos, and our homes, the risk to the health of wildlife and humans from the spread of diseases is dire.

This chapter considers whether humans are unique and/or superior in the animal kingdom. If we are either of these, then we can rightly claim some authority to control or even manage other animal species. But if we are not, then we must take our place among evolution’s race contestants in the battle for ownership of the planet. If humans were selected by a god to utilise other animals, we might expect them to have some unique characteristics that distinguish them from other animals. This warrants inspection to determine whether humans have any unique characteristics that would make them special. The increasingly common view is that all the characteristics that have been proposed have been found to exist to some extent in other animals, thereby dispelling the long-held view by society that humans are special in some way.

After leaving university employment, I was able to reflect on my research and teaching career in universities. Formulating worthwhile goals had taken time, much of my early career, but now nearing the end, I had a clear idea of what I wanted to achieve for animals. Really innovative and valuable research, and teaching, had been difficult, often thwarted by people with vested interests. But persistence had paid off, and some of the work I had undertaken had had influence and improved animals’ lives.