This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
The use of animals in research entails a range of societal and ethical issues, and there is widespread consensus that animals are to be kept safe from unnecessary suffering. Therefore, harm done to animals in the name of research has to be carefully regulated and undergo ethical review for approval. Since 2013, this has been enforced within the European Union through Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. However, critics argue that the directive and its implementation by member states do not properly consider all aspects of animal welfare, which risks causing unnecessary animal suffering and decreased public trust in the system. In this pilot study, the ethical review process in Sweden was investigated to determine whether or not the system is in fact flawed, and if so, what may be the underlying cause of this. Through in-depth analysis of 18 applications and decisions of ethical reviews, we found that there are recurring problems within the ethical review process in Sweden. Discrepancies between demands set by legislation and the structure of the application form lead to submitted information being incomplete by design. In turn, this prevents the Animal Ethics Committees from being able to fulfill their task of performing a harm–benefit analysis and ensuring Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (the 3Rs). Results further showed that a significant number of applications failed to meet legal requirements regarding content. Similarly, no Animal Ethics Committee decision contained any account of evaluation of the 3Rs and a majority failed to include harm–benefit analysis as required by law. Hence, the welfare may be at risk, as well as the fulfilling of the legal requirement of only approving “necessary suffering”. We argue that the results show an unacceptably low level of compliance in the investigated applications with the legal requirement of performing both a harm–benefit analysis and applying the 3Rs within the decision-making process, and that by implication, public insight through transparency is not achieved in these cases. In order to improve the ethical review, the process needs to be restructured, and the legal demands put on both the applicants and the Animal Ethics Committees as such need to be made clear. We further propose a number of improvements, including a revision of the application form. We also encourage future research to further investigate and address issues unearthed by this pilot study.
Svea Jörgensen; Johan Lindsjö; Elin Weber; Helena Röcklinsberg. Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden. Animals 2021, 11, 708 .
AMA StyleSvea Jörgensen, Johan Lindsjö, Elin Weber, Helena Röcklinsberg. Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden. Animals. 2021; 11 (3):708.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSvea Jörgensen; Johan Lindsjö; Elin Weber; Helena Röcklinsberg. 2021. "Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden." Animals 11, no. 3: 708.
The societal demand for good farm animal welfare (FAW) has increased over time. Yet, very little is known about the economic consequences of improvements in FAW in cow–calf operations. This study investigates on-farm economic consequences of improved FAW measures in cow–calf operations. It uses a stochastic partial budgeting approach to examine the relationship between contribution margins and improvements in FAW in terms of increased space allowance for a typical Swedish cow-calf operation, as compared to current practices. In the current practice, a cow should be given at least 5 m2 and the calf 2.2 m2. We found that a 0.5 m2 increase in space allowance per calf (achieved by a corresponding reduction of herd size) was associated with a 6.9 to 18.7% reduction in contribution margins in the short term. Our analysis does not include possible indirect gains like decrease in disease incidence and enhanced non-use or ‘soft’ values associated with increased FAW. However, our analysis indicates that high FAW standards can be costly and careful cost–benefit analysis should be a part of decision-making processes regarding FAW standards. Our results also suggest a need for government support payments and/or the development of market mechanisms to stimulate farmers to continue producing livestock-based foods with high FAW.
Haseeb Ahmed; Karin Alvåsen; Charlotte Berg; Helena Hansson; Jan Hultgren; Helena Röcklinsberg; Ulf Emanuelson. Assessing Animal Welfare and Farm Profitability in Cow-Calf Operations with Stochastic Partial Budgeting. Animals 2021, 11, 382 .
AMA StyleHaseeb Ahmed, Karin Alvåsen, Charlotte Berg, Helena Hansson, Jan Hultgren, Helena Röcklinsberg, Ulf Emanuelson. Assessing Animal Welfare and Farm Profitability in Cow-Calf Operations with Stochastic Partial Budgeting. Animals. 2021; 11 (2):382.
Chicago/Turabian StyleHaseeb Ahmed; Karin Alvåsen; Charlotte Berg; Helena Hansson; Jan Hultgren; Helena Röcklinsberg; Ulf Emanuelson. 2021. "Assessing Animal Welfare and Farm Profitability in Cow-Calf Operations with Stochastic Partial Budgeting." Animals 11, no. 2: 382.
The United Nations Agenda 2030 contains 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). These goals are formulated in anthropocentric terms, meaning that they are to be achieved for the sake of humans. As such, the SDGs are neglecting the interests and welfare of non-human animals. Our aim in this paper was to ethically evaluate the assumptions that underlie the current anthropocentric stance of the SDGs. We argue that there are no good reasons to uphold these assumptions, and that the SDGs should therefore be reconsidered so that they take non-human animals into direct consideration. This has some interesting implications for how we should understand and fulfil the pursuit of sustainability in general. Most noticeably, several SDGs—such as those regarding zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and wellbeing (SDG 3), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6)—should be achieved for animals as well. Moreover, the measures we undertake in order to achieve the SDGs for humans must also take into direct account their effects on non-human animals.
Olle Torpman; Helena Röcklinsberg. Reinterpreting the SDGs: Taking Animals into Direct Consideration. Sustainability 2021, 13, 843 .
AMA StyleOlle Torpman, Helena Röcklinsberg. Reinterpreting the SDGs: Taking Animals into Direct Consideration. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (2):843.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOlle Torpman; Helena Röcklinsberg. 2021. "Reinterpreting the SDGs: Taking Animals into Direct Consideration." Sustainability 13, no. 2: 843.
The recovery of many populations of large carnivores and herbivores in major parts of Europe and North America offers ecosystem services and opportunities for sustainable utilization of wildlife. Examples of services are hunting, meat, and skin, along with less invasive utilization such as ecotourism and wildlife spotting. An increasing number of studies also point out the ecosystem function, landscape engineering, and cascading effects of wildlife as values for human existence, biodiversity conservation, and ecosystem resilience. Within this framework, the concept of rewilding has emerged as a means to add to the wilderness through either supplementary release of wildlife species already present or reintroduction of species formerly present in a certain area. The latter involves translocation of species from other geographical areas, releases from captivity, feralization, retro-breeding, or de-domestication of breeds for which the wild ancestor is extinct. While all these initiatives aim to reverse some of the negative human impacts on life on earth, some pose challenges such as conflicts of interest between humans and wildlife in, for example, forestry, agriculture, traffic, or disease dynamics (e.g., zoonosis). There are also welfare aspects when managing wildlife populations with the purpose to serve humans or act as tools in landscape engineering. These welfare aspects are particularly apparent when it comes to releases of animals handled by humans, either from captivity or translocated from other geographical areas. An ethical values clash is that translocation can involve suffering of the actual individual, while also contributing to reintroduction of species and reestablishment of ecological functions. This paper describes wildlife recovery in Europe and North America and elaborates on ethical considerations raised by the use of wildlife for different purposes, in order to find ways forward that are acceptable to both the animals and humans involved. The reintroduction ethics aspects raised are finally formulated in 10 guidelines suggested for management efforts aimed at translocating wildlife or reestablishing wilderness areas.
Carl-Gustaf Thulin; Helena Röcklinsberg. Ethical Considerations for Wildlife Reintroductions and Rewilding. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2020, 7, 1 .
AMA StyleCarl-Gustaf Thulin, Helena Röcklinsberg. Ethical Considerations for Wildlife Reintroductions and Rewilding. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2020; 7 ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleCarl-Gustaf Thulin; Helena Röcklinsberg. 2020. "Ethical Considerations for Wildlife Reintroductions and Rewilding." Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7, no. : 1.
There is an increased concern among many stakeholders in society that livestock production systems provide a low-quality life to the animals and therefore advocate improved farm animal welfare (FAW). On the other hand, producers are concerned that stricter welfare regulations would decrease their profits and hence their competitiveness. Given the relevance of the debate surrounding FAW especially in Sweden, and the lack of studies related to the beef sector, this study examined the impact of changes in FAW practices on economic performance of Swedish beef fattening operations. We modelled a herd of 50 cattle of either beef or dairy breed reared for meat production to examine the impact of increased space allowance, including a corresponding decrease in herd size, and increased forage-to-concentrate (FC) ratio. We found that a 1-m2/animal increase in space allowance was associated with a decrease of 18.9 and 10.8% in short-run, per animal profits in beef and dairy breeds, respectively. Sensitivity analysis suggested that an increase in weight gain and short-run loss in herd size due to increased space allowance were the most important factors. We estimated that an increase in the FC ratio from 40:60 to 65:35 was associated with a reduction in per animal profits of about 21 to 34% in beef breeds and 17 to 53% in dairy breeds, respectively. Sensitivity analysis indicated that reduced growth due to increased FC ratio was the most important factor. Our results suggest that an increase in space allowance or FC ratio in Swedish beef fattening operations may reduce farm profitability. They also imply that consequences of any policy instrument should be carefully examined to reach the goal of improved FAW along with improved profitability and sustainability for the farmer.
Haseeb Ahmed; Karin Alvåsen; Charlotte Berg; Helena Hansson; Jan Hultgren; Helena Röcklinsberg; Ulf Emanuelson. Assessing economic consequences of improved animal welfare in Swedish cattle fattening operations using a stochastic partial budgeting approach. Livestock Science 2020, 232, 103920 .
AMA StyleHaseeb Ahmed, Karin Alvåsen, Charlotte Berg, Helena Hansson, Jan Hultgren, Helena Röcklinsberg, Ulf Emanuelson. Assessing economic consequences of improved animal welfare in Swedish cattle fattening operations using a stochastic partial budgeting approach. Livestock Science. 2020; 232 ():103920.
Chicago/Turabian StyleHaseeb Ahmed; Karin Alvåsen; Charlotte Berg; Helena Hansson; Jan Hultgren; Helena Röcklinsberg; Ulf Emanuelson. 2020. "Assessing economic consequences of improved animal welfare in Swedish cattle fattening operations using a stochastic partial budgeting approach." Livestock Science 232, no. : 103920.
Tom Regan encapsulated his principle of harm as a prima facie direct duty not to harm experiencing subjects of a life. However, his consideration of harm as deprivation, one example of which is loss of freedom, can easily be interpreted as a harm, which may not be experienced by its subject. This creates a gap between Regan’s criterion for moral status and his account of what our duties are. However, in comparison with three basic paradigms of welfare known in nonhuman animal welfare science, Regan’s understanding coheres with a modified version of a feelings-based paradigm: not only the immediate feelings of satisfaction, but also future opportunities to have such feelings, must be taken into account. Such an interpretation is compatible with Regan’s understanding of harm as deprivation. The potential source of confusion, however, lies in Regan’s own possible argumentative mistakes.
Külli Keerus; Mickey Gjerris; Helena Röcklinsberg. Deprivation as Un-Experienced Harm? Society & Animals 2019, 27, 469 -486.
AMA StyleKülli Keerus, Mickey Gjerris, Helena Röcklinsberg. Deprivation as Un-Experienced Harm? Society & Animals. 2019; 27 (5-6):469-486.
Chicago/Turabian StyleKülli Keerus; Mickey Gjerris; Helena Röcklinsberg. 2019. "Deprivation as Un-Experienced Harm?" Society & Animals 27, no. 5-6: 469-486.
H. Röcklinsberg; A. Gräns; A. Kornum; M. Gjerris. 37. Ethical aspects of farming of wild fish. Sustainable governance and management of food systems 2019, 1 .
AMA StyleH. Röcklinsberg, A. Gräns, A. Kornum, M. Gjerris. 37. Ethical aspects of farming of wild fish. Sustainable governance and management of food systems. 2019; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleH. Röcklinsberg; A. Gräns; A. Kornum; M. Gjerris. 2019. "37. Ethical aspects of farming of wild fish." Sustainable governance and management of food systems , no. : 1.
A.H. Karlsson; H. Röcklinsberg. 47. The perfect beef? Ethical aspects of grass-fed beef of high meat quality. Sustainable governance and management of food systems 2019, 1 .
AMA StyleA.H. Karlsson, H. Röcklinsberg. 47. The perfect beef? Ethical aspects of grass-fed beef of high meat quality. Sustainable governance and management of food systems. 2019; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleA.H. Karlsson; H. Röcklinsberg. 2019. "47. The perfect beef? Ethical aspects of grass-fed beef of high meat quality." Sustainable governance and management of food systems , no. : 1.
Helena Röcklinsberg. Still schreien die Fische. Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik 2019, 63, 59 -64.
AMA StyleHelena Röcklinsberg. Still schreien die Fische. Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik. 2019; 63 (1):59-64.
Chicago/Turabian StyleHelena Röcklinsberg. 2019. "Still schreien die Fische." Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik 63, no. 1: 59-64.
In the EU, research projects using animals must be evaluated and approved by an ethical committee prior to start to balance potential harm to the animals with potential benefit to humans, in order to ensure moral standards, scientific validity, and public trust. However, different levels of knowledge among committee members, different views on which ethical aspects are relevant, member hierarchies, and a discrepancy between prevailing scientific norms of objectivity and the necessary conditions of a proper ethical evaluation makes it challenging. If applications are not properly evaluated, this can cause distrust in the ethics committees by society. We analyzed the role of scientific norms among Swedish committee members, application of the harm–benefit model, and the role of emotions in the ethical decision-making process. Researchers and chairpersons were most positive, whereas laypersons from animal welfare organizations were most negative. Laypersons more often felt emotionally engaged in the evaluation, but also that they felt they had less influence. We argue that the prevailing scientific norms are preventing necessary conditions for sound ethical evaluation consideration by excluding some members from the discourse. We propose that alternative models for ethical decision-making could contribute to an improved process and hence meet public trust. Ethical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory within the EU and other countries. However, the evaluation process has been subject to criticism, e.g., that the committees are not balanced or democratic enough and that the utilitarian weighting of harm and benefit that is normally prescribed is difficult to carry out in practice. In this study, members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) completed a survey aiming to further investigate the decision-making process. We found that researchers and animal laypersons make significantly different ethical judgments, and hold disparate views on which ethical aspects are the most relevant. Researchers were significantly more content than laypersons with the functioning of the committees, indicating that the ethical model used suited their preferences better. We argue that in order to secure a democratic and proper ethical evaluation, the expectations of a scientific discourse must be acknowledged, while giving room for different viewpoints. Further, to fulfil the purpose of the project evaluations and meet public concern, the functions of the different AEC member categories need to be clarified. We suggest that one way of achieving a more thorough, balanced and inclusive ethical evaluation is to allow for more than one model of ethical reasoning.
Elisabeth Tjärnström; Elin M. Weber; Jan Hultgren; Helena Röcklinsberg. Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees. Animals 2018, 8, 181 .
AMA StyleElisabeth Tjärnström, Elin M. Weber, Jan Hultgren, Helena Röcklinsberg. Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees. Animals. 2018; 8 (10):181.
Chicago/Turabian StyleElisabeth Tjärnström; Elin M. Weber; Jan Hultgren; Helena Röcklinsberg. 2018. "Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees." Animals 8, no. 10: 181.
H. Röcklinsberg; M. Gjerris. 68. Potato crisps from CRISPR-Cas9 modification – aspects of autonomy and fairness. Professionals in food chains 2018, 1 .
AMA StyleH. Röcklinsberg, M. Gjerris. 68. Potato crisps from CRISPR-Cas9 modification – aspects of autonomy and fairness. Professionals in food chains. 2018; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleH. Röcklinsberg; M. Gjerris. 2018. "68. Potato crisps from CRISPR-Cas9 modification – aspects of autonomy and fairness." Professionals in food chains , no. : 1.
M. Gjerris; C. Gamborg; Helena Röcklinsberg. 67. Could crispy crickets be CRISPR-Cas9 crickets – ethical aspects of using new breeding technologies in intensive insectproduction. Professionals in food chains 2018, 1 .
AMA StyleM. Gjerris, C. Gamborg, Helena Röcklinsberg. 67. Could crispy crickets be CRISPR-Cas9 crickets – ethical aspects of using new breeding technologies in intensive insectproduction. Professionals in food chains. 2018; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleM. Gjerris; C. Gamborg; Helena Röcklinsberg. 2018. "67. Could crispy crickets be CRISPR-Cas9 crickets – ethical aspects of using new breeding technologies in intensive insectproduction." Professionals in food chains , no. : 1.
Developing large scale production systems for farmed insects to supplement or replace feed and food ingredients from vertebrate livestock is often heralded as a more sustainable way to produce animal protein than currently used livestock production methods and is receiving increased interest from a diverse set of stakeholders ranging from political decision makers, environmental interest groups, farmers, industry and scientists. This is hardly a surprise, as sustainability has been widely embraced as a broad and inclusive political (ideological) as well as managerial (practical) framework. Ideally sustainability is a balance between a one-sided focus on productivity and profit on the one hand, and uncompromising demands for nature preservation and calls for radical changes in the agricultural production on the other. But there are different views on how to strike that balance – to some extent reflecting different values – which in turn gives rise to different challenges on how insects can contribute to food systems around the world.
Christian Gamborg; Helena Röcklinsberg; Mickey Gjerris. Sustainable Proteins? Values Related to Insects in Food Systems. Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems 2018, 199 -211.
AMA StyleChristian Gamborg, Helena Röcklinsberg, Mickey Gjerris. Sustainable Proteins? Values Related to Insects in Food Systems. Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems. 2018; ():199-211.
Chicago/Turabian StyleChristian Gamborg; Helena Röcklinsberg; Mickey Gjerris. 2018. "Sustainable Proteins? Values Related to Insects in Food Systems." Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems , no. : 199-211.
In many cases, different animal welfare inspections are taking place at an animal farm over time, as the farmer has to comply with both the legislation and with various private standards. In this study, we compared official inspections carried out by CAB (the County Administrative Board, a governmental agency) with private inspections carried out by Arla Foods (a private company) on dairy farms in one Swedish county. For example, we looked at seasonal effects and compared the incidence of different non-compliances. This study shows that long time periods were sometimes allowed for correction, that follow-up systems are diverse, and that there were differences in the inspection result between CAB and Arla due to different focuses during the inspections. Dirty dairy cattle were, however, a common non-compliance found by both CAB and Arla. Tie-stall housing and winter season (Dec–Feb) were risk factors for non-compliance, while the risk was lower for both CAB and Arla to find non-compliances at organic farms compared to conventional farms. We conclude that the presence of both similarities and differences between different control systems underlines the need for transparency, predictability, and clarity of inspections. Farmers often have to comply with several sets of animal welfare regulations, since private standards have been developed in addition to legislation. Using an epidemiological approach, we analysed protocols from animal welfare inspections carried out in Swedish dairy herds by the County Administrative Board (CAB; official control of legislation) and by the dairy company Arla Foods (private control of Arlagården standard) during 2010–2013 in the county of Västra Götaland. CAB and Arla inspections were not carried out simultaneously. We aimed to identify common non-compliances, quantify risk factors of non-compliance, and investigate if non-compliances were based on animal-, resource-, or management-based requirements, as well as determining the time period allowed for achieving compliance. Non-compliance was found in 58% of CAB cases, and 51% of Arla cases (each case comprising a sequence of one or several inspections). Dirty dairy cattle was one of the most frequent non-compliances in both control systems. However, the differences in control results were large, suggesting a difference in focus between the two systems. Tie-stall housing and winter season (Dec–Feb) were common risk factors for non-compliance, and overall organic farms had a lower predicted number of non-compliances compared to conventional farms. The presence of both similarities and differences between the systems underlines the need for transparency, predictability, and clarity of inspections.
Frida Lundmark Hedman; Jan Hultgren; Helena Rocklinsberg; Birgitta Wahlberg; Charlotte Berg. Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows. Animals 2018, 8, 72 .
AMA StyleFrida Lundmark Hedman, Jan Hultgren, Helena Rocklinsberg, Birgitta Wahlberg, Charlotte Berg. Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows. Animals. 2018; 8 (5):72.
Chicago/Turabian StyleFrida Lundmark Hedman; Jan Hultgren; Helena Rocklinsberg; Birgitta Wahlberg; Charlotte Berg. 2018. "Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows." Animals 8, no. 5: 72.
Since the first successful attempt to clone a dog in 2005, dogs have been cloned by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) for a variety of purposes. One of these is to clone dogs as companion animals. In this paper we discuss some of the ethical implications that cloning companion dogs through SCNT encompasses, specifically in relation to human–dog relationships, but also regarding animal welfare and animal integrity. We argue that insofar as we understand the relationship with our companion dogs as one of friendship, the meaningfulness of cloning a companion dog is seriously questionable. Cloning may both disrupt the uniqueness of the relationship, as the shared history underlying the relationship can neither be repeated nor copied, and it may violate the meaning we attribute to friendship, as the notion of singularity inherent in our understanding of friendship is incompatible with the replaceability embedded in the practice of cloning. We further argue that the application of cloning technology to companion dogs can be interpreted as a violation of the integrity of dogs on at least two accounts: negative welfare implications associated with the cloning process, and the instrumentalisation of the dog inherent in cloning.
K. Heðinsdóttir; S. Kondrup; H. Röcklinsberg; M. Gjerris. Can Friends be Copied? Ethical Aspects of Cloning Dogs as Companion Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2018, 31, 17 -29.
AMA StyleK. Heðinsdóttir, S. Kondrup, H. Röcklinsberg, M. Gjerris. Can Friends be Copied? Ethical Aspects of Cloning Dogs as Companion Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2018; 31 (1):17-29.
Chicago/Turabian StyleK. Heðinsdóttir; S. Kondrup; H. Röcklinsberg; M. Gjerris. 2018. "Can Friends be Copied? Ethical Aspects of Cloning Dogs as Companion Animals." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31, no. 1: 17-29.
The current shift moves the governance of animal welfare away from the government towards the private market and the consumers. We have studied the intentions, content, and on-farm inspection results from different sets of animal welfare legislation and private standards with an aim to highlight the most important opportunities and risks identified in relation to the trend of increasingly relying on private standards for safeguarding or improving farm animal welfare. Our results show that different focuses, intentions, animal welfare requirements, inspection methods (i.e., methods for measuring and evaluating the compliance with a regulation), and inspection results, together with the use of vague wordings and a drive towards more flexible regulations does certainly not facilitate the interpretation and implementation of animal welfare regulations, especially not in relation to each other. Since farmers today often have to comply with several animal welfare regulations, including private standards, it is important to stress that a given regulation should never be seen as a single, stand-alone phenomenon, and the policymakers must hence consider the bigger picture, and apply the standards in relation to other existing regulations. This is especially relevant in relation to the legislation, a level that a private standard can never ignore.
Frida Lundmark; Charlotte Berg; Helena Röcklinsberg. Private Animal Welfare Standards—Opportunities and Risks. Animals 2018, 8, 4 .
AMA StyleFrida Lundmark, Charlotte Berg, Helena Röcklinsberg. Private Animal Welfare Standards—Opportunities and Risks. Animals. 2018; 8 (1):4.
Chicago/Turabian StyleFrida Lundmark; Charlotte Berg; Helena Röcklinsberg. 2018. "Private Animal Welfare Standards—Opportunities and Risks." Animals 8, no. 1: 4.
The hot topic of genetic modification and genome editing is sometimes presented as a rapid solution to various problems in the field of animal breeding and genetics. These technologies hold potential for future use in agriculture but we need to be aware of difficulties in large-scale application and integration in breeding schemes. In this review, we discuss applications of both classical genetic modifications (GM) using vectors and genome editing in dairy cattle breeding. We use an interdisciplinary approach considering both ethical and animal breeding perspectives. Decisions on how to make use of these techniques need to be made based not only on what is possible, but on what is reasonable to do. Principles of animal integrity, naturalness, risk perception, and animal welfare issues are examples of ethically relevant factors to consider. These factors also influence public perception and decisions about regulations by authorities. We need to acknowledge that we lack complete understanding of the genetic background of complex traits. It may be difficult, therefore, to predict the full effect of certain modifications in large-scale breeding programs. We present 2 potential applications: genome editing to dispense with dehorning, and insertion of human genes in bovine genomes to improve udder health as an example of classical GM. Both of these cases could be seen as beneficial for animal welfare but they differ in other aspects. In the former case, a genetic variant already present within the species is introduced, whereas in the latter case, transgenic animals are generated-this difference may influence how society regards the applications. We underline that the use of GM, as well as genome editing, of farm animals such as cattle is not independent of the context, and should be considered as part of an entire process, including, for example, the assisted reproduction technology that needs to be used. We propose that breeding organizations and breeding companies should take an active role in ethical discussions about the use of these techniques and thereby signal to society that these questions are being responsibly addressed.
S. Eriksson; Elisabeth Jonas; Lotta Rydhmer; Helena Röcklinsberg. Invited review: Breeding and ethical perspectives on genetically modified and genome edited cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 2018, 101, 1 -17.
AMA StyleS. Eriksson, Elisabeth Jonas, Lotta Rydhmer, Helena Röcklinsberg. Invited review: Breeding and ethical perspectives on genetically modified and genome edited cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018; 101 (1):1-17.
Chicago/Turabian StyleS. Eriksson; Elisabeth Jonas; Lotta Rydhmer; Helena Röcklinsberg. 2018. "Invited review: Breeding and ethical perspectives on genetically modified and genome edited cattle." Journal of Dairy Science 101, no. 1: 1-17.
Al Kornum; Helena Röcklinsberg; M Gjerris. The concept of behavioural needs in contemporary fur science: do we know what American mink ( Mustela vison ) really need? Animal Welfare 2017, 26, 151 -164.
AMA StyleAl Kornum, Helena Röcklinsberg, M Gjerris. The concept of behavioural needs in contemporary fur science: do we know what American mink ( Mustela vison ) really need? Animal Welfare. 2017; 26 (2):151-164.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAl Kornum; Helena Röcklinsberg; M Gjerris. 2017. "The concept of behavioural needs in contemporary fur science: do we know what American mink ( Mustela vison ) really need?" Animal Welfare 26, no. 2: 151-164.
Helena Rocklinsberg; Mickey Gjerris; Anna Olsson. Research Ethics. The Future of Animal Research: Guesstimates on Technical and Ethical Developments 2017, 1 -14.
AMA StyleHelena Rocklinsberg, Mickey Gjerris, Anna Olsson. Research Ethics. The Future of Animal Research: Guesstimates on Technical and Ethical Developments. 2017; ():1-14.
Chicago/Turabian StyleHelena Rocklinsberg; Mickey Gjerris; Anna Olsson. 2017. "Research Ethics." The Future of Animal Research: Guesstimates on Technical and Ethical Developments , no. : 1-14.
The use of animals in research has always been surrounded by ethical controversy. This book provides an overview of the central ethical issues focusing on the interconnectedness of science, law and ethics. It aims to make theoretical ethical reasoning understandable to non-ethicists and provide tools to improve ethical decision making on animal research. It focuses on good scientific practice, the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement), ethical theories applied to specific cases and an overview of regulatory issues. The book is co-authored by experts in animal research, animal welfare, social sciences, law and ethics, and provides both animal researchers and members of animal ethics committees with knowledge that can facilitate their work and communication with stakeholders and the public. The book is written to provide knowledge, not to argue a certain position, and is intended to be used in training that aims to fulfil EU Directive 2010/63/EU.
Helena Rocklinsberg; Mickey Gjerris; I. Anna S. Olsson. Animal Ethics in Animal Research. The Future of Animal Research: Guesstimates on Technical and Ethical Developments 2017, 1 .
AMA StyleHelena Rocklinsberg, Mickey Gjerris, I. Anna S. Olsson. Animal Ethics in Animal Research. The Future of Animal Research: Guesstimates on Technical and Ethical Developments. 2017; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleHelena Rocklinsberg; Mickey Gjerris; I. Anna S. Olsson. 2017. "Animal Ethics in Animal Research." The Future of Animal Research: Guesstimates on Technical and Ethical Developments , no. : 1.