Exploring the Gaps in Practical Ethical Guidance for Animal Welfare Considerations of Field Interventions and Innovations Targeting Dogs and Cats

Abstract

Simple SummaryLarge populations of domestic dogs and cats are found living, or in close association with humans. They are often targeted by field interventions or innovations to enhance their welfare or to reduce conflict with communities or wildlife. Ethical review is a cornerstone of responsible engagement that aims to promote animal and human wellbeing. For the review process to be robust, identifying and understanding the ethical dilemmas that may be encountered when working with dogs and cats in field contexts, together with their human communities and in multi-stakeholder partnerships would be advantageous. We explored existing guidance from other disciplines (regulated animal research, veterinary and human clinical trials, and research conducted on wildlife) and identified gaps in ethical frameworks that do not adequately address the specific and practical needs of nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations, government agencies or independent researchers working with dogs and cats in field contexts. Navigating practical ethical concerns in complex, highly variable field contexts necessitates the development of additional resources that can better inform reliable ethical review processes, and subsequently enhance the humaneness and effectiveness of future interventions and innovations.AbstractDomestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and cats (Felis silvestris catus) are common species targeted by nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations, veterinarians and government agencies worldwide, for field interventions (e.g., population management, rabies vaccination programs) or innovations (e.g., development of technologies or pharmaceuticals to improve animal welfare). We have a moral responsibility to ensure that the conduct of this work is humane for dogs or cats, and to consider the human communities in which the animals live. Ethical review is widely accepted as being integral to responsible practice, and it is fundamental to good science that underpins innovation. Despite the necessity of field interventions or innovations to advance the welfare of individuals or populations of animals, we found a lack of specific guidance and review processes to help navigate ethical dilemmas surrounding the conduct of such work. This can be detrimental to the wellbeing of animals and their human communities. Here we identify the gaps in existing ethical frameworks (specifically application of Reduction and Refinement principles, challenges of obtaining meaningful informed consent with variations in the quality of human-animal relationships, and limited resources regarding considerations of local stakeholders), and outline the need for additional tools to promote ethical conduct in the field.

Development of male and female models of long urethral strictures in swine

“…The male rabbit urethra, composed of epithelium and corpus spongiosum, has similar histological morphology and structure to that of humans, however the penile urethra is ∼3 cm long and therefore is anatomically limited in its capacity to create long urethral strictures (4–8 cm) with high recurrence rates encountered in patients [ 39 , 40 ]. Canine models do possess urethras >4 cm [ 36 ], and are potential candidates for the creation of a long urethra stricture model, however their status as companion animals raises ethical issues which restricts their widespread use in research settings [ 41 ]. Electrocoagulation has been reported to generate short urethral strictures (1–2 cm in length) in male swine amenable to urethroplasty procedures [ [42] , [43] , [44] ], however the use of this species to simulate long urethral strictures (≥4 cm in length) in both sexes has yet to be described in the literature.…”

The Ethics of Innovation: Ethical Decision-Making and Review for Field Studies and Projects Targeting Dogs and Cats

“…To date, independent ethical oversight of companion animal welfare initiatives in the United States and other countries has been limited and, in some instances, inadequate [ 4 ]. A variety of factors contribute to this, beginning with an often-blurred line in animal welfare between “innovation” and “research.” While the projects that are a focus of the following commentary would reasonably be called “research,” many projects conducted by organizations focused on the welfare of companion animal species would not.…”

“…The IACUC process, and the Committee’s questions prior to a rapid approval, further highlighted the fact that traditional animal care and use committees are not structured well for field projects in which both animals and humans—owners, guardians, and the broader community—have a major stake. They were established to evaluate traditional laboratory research, and their design reflects this [ 4 ].…”