Animal Welfare Researchers Honest Motivations

Animal Welfare Researchers Honest Motivations

Many people use the New Year and Christmas animal period to reflect on their lives and make resolutions. Resolutions are made about improving our eating habits, exercising, slowing down, and being kind.

It is well-known that how we live our lives has a huge impact on our physical, mental, and spiritual health and the health of society as a whole. Christianity, like many other religions, advocates that we seek the truth about our actions and how they impact others.

Scientists should not be able to escape the truth about our world. My research group provided me with disturbing evidence that suggests that scientists are doing the same thing in 2012.

Agnes van der Schott discover convincing evidence that scientists are heavily influence by funding agencies when they report on animal welfare research

Animal Industry

It seems that scientists who work on studies funded by the animal industry are more likely to report failures in new methods of improving welfare. This is likely because new methods are more costly for animal producers. Contrary to this, scientists who work on animal advocacy groups funded studies are more likely report welfare benefits.

Given the pressure scientists face to receive large grants, these findings shouldn’t be surprising. The study and similar issues in medical science highlight the need to have greater control over how we approach solving today’s problems.

Ethical training should be provided to scientists throughout their careers, not only during their first degrees. Research organizations should not permit scientists to accept grants with conditions that require them to report only favorable results to the funding agency. To screen out claims from scientists that are not justified, journal editors should use peer review as well as their own judgment.

My research group’s main purpose is to expose animal welfare issues. Exporting livestock from the United States to distant countries was a major problem in 2012. It is difficult to ignore the political aspect of this trade, in addition to the biological response to shipping.

Australia’s relations with its neighbours is one of its biggest problems. Australia is no longer an isolate country and is being thrust into the international spotlight. This was evident in 2011 when Indonesia cancelled its cattle exports. However, the impact on Indonesian relations was not felt until 2012.

Government’s Response

The Indonesian government’s response was to reduce the import quota, refuse our shipments of breeding cattle and expand their capacity to produce domestic beef. This was to punish the Australian government’s actions.

As expect, livestock traders turn to other countries to take animals that were not require by Australia. For example, they plan to build feedlots for Chinese farmers. Animal welfare advocates have exposed welfare problems in abattoirs all over the globe that slaughter Australian animals.

My research group has confined its focus to animals’ biological responses to long-distance ship transport. We have evidence that the ship’s movement has an impact on sheep behavior and we have more strong evidence that the ammonia from their excrement can have adverse effects on cattle and sheep.

Australians are more aware of the negative effects of livestock export on animal welfare. We hear a lot about the harm that sheep and beef production can cause to our agricultural land. How many of us actually ate a Christmas meal?

Your actions are important. Eating ethically is one of the best ways we can make a difference in global warming and food insecurity in developing nations.

It is important to remember that how we live our lives affects everything. It has an impact on our health, environment, wellbeing, and the well-being of others.

Comments are closed.