J. Anim. Sci. 2003. 81:2908-2911
© 2003 American Society of Animal Science
Critical perspectives in animal agriculture: A response
M. S. Weber Nielsen*,1 and
E. Bergfeld
* Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824 and
and
American Society of Animal Science, Savoy, IL 61874
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
People who work in the animal industries are faced with questions and criticisms about a variety of contentious issues, including animal management practices, ethics, diversity in animal agriculture, and animal welfare. Formulating responses to these questions requires a critical evaluation of our own work and open discussion of these controversial issues. Effective debate on these issues can be accomplished only with input from philosophers and social scientists skilled in such discussions, in addition to animal scientists. Therefore, animal scientists must engage in discussions of controversial issues among themselves and with entities outside agriculture. Furthermore, we must accept responsibility for the application of research results and any potential negative consequences. Because society is increasingly concerned with issues of animal welfare and the effects of new technologies, we should increase communications and transparency with the public. Increased diversity of race and gender will increase the ability of animal agriculture to connect with our stakeholders and to communicate the relevance of our work to society. Animal scientists need a professional ethic that espouses a higher level of understanding and commitment to philosophical discussions of contentious issues.
Key Words: Animal Production • Ethics • Society
|
Introduction
|
|---|
A major goal of this symposium was to stimulate a critical evaluation of what we do in animal agriculture and why we do it. To quote Dr. Allen Tucker, professor in animal science at Michigan State University: "To improve the quality of your work, [you must] learn to seek, not avoid, input and comments from peers." The other papers in this symposium have discussed the need for changes in animal agriculture and have proposed strategies for dealing with issues of ethics and diversity. In this response to some points made in the companion papers (Beck and Swanson, 2003
; Cuomo, 2003; Hodges, 2003; Schillo, 2003), we give our perspectives in relation to our own experiences as executive director of ASAS and as an assistant professor in animal science. We need to make time for such a critique because, as Hodges (2003) mentioned, there is a growing public unease with the direction being taken in livestock production.
|
Science and Animal Production
|
|---|
With the emphasis on viewing livestock production as a "business," animal management practices focus more and more on business management and less on animal husbandry. As a result, animals are increasingly valued only for their profit potential and, to a degree, as "disposable" resources as long as more productive, younger replacements can be obtained. New technologies are developed to solve biological "inefficiencies" that hinder these intensified management practices. The science we do, when applied in the short and long term, has a significant effect on livestock production, so we are directly responsible. Why do animal scientists do the work that they do? Some of the reasons we use to justify our research may be naïve or outdated in today’s environment. "To increase efficiency" may be a narrow view of science’s impact if application affects animal welfare or potentially increases health risks to consumers of our products. "Because it’s fundable" ignores the need to evaluate possible adverse consequences of the research.
|
Discussing Contentious Issues
|
|---|
So, how do we distinguish between what we can do and what we should do? Hodges (2003) noted that human progress requires different specialists to work together and that an effective linkage requires both transparency of actions and accountability. For most of us, our training in animal science, including obtaining a Ph.D., did not provide us with enough emphasis or instruction with regard to making this distinction between "can" and "should." We learned a lot about a little in our specific disciplines, but probably did not have to address philosophical questions regarding broader issues of animal science and agriculture in a meaningful manner. Therefore, we should embrace the opportunity to engage with philosophers and social scientists who can provide insight on methods to address difficult questions. The danger of not doing so is that we ignore potential risks to our industries and to consumers of our products.
Unfortunately, animal scientists are generally not eager to tackle these broader issues. As Schillo (2003) and Hodges (2003) pointed out, we are at a disadvantage because we do not understand—or are not familiar with—basic philosophical concepts and terminology. As a result, we commonly portray our opponents as ignorant, biased, and irrational, and do not consider their views as relevant. This may be because we are not experienced in arriving at a set of empirical data that refute what they say and affirm our own set of beliefs, which is one reason why we hesitate to engage nonbiological scientists in discussion. Instead, we choose to avoid the discussions altogether or attempt to discredit their arguments by stating that others are not able to fully understand the complex situation. When confronted with good, open philosophical debate, most of us elect one of three responses: avoidance or "flight," confrontation or "fight," or less frequently, we will attempt to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas. The majority of animal scientists choose to avoid the discussion, using the rationale that it’s not their job. If it’s not our job, then whose is it? And why are we not doing a better job of training new graduates, as well as ourselves, in the broad discipline of philosophy, if for no other reason than to be better equipped to engage in such discussions—especially as the likelihood of being faced with them is certainly increasing?
Certainly, there are several reasons why we avoid engaging in such meaningful discussions. First, the issues are complex and require a fairly broad understanding not only of animal agriculture, but also of philosophical and social constructs, business decision making, and global issues, etc. Although opportunities may exist to participate in philosophical debates, the importance of the activity is not emphasized as a part of one’s professional responsibilities (Thompson et al., 1999). Second, we may lack interest in philosophical discussions because we do not see how they influence our day-to-day activities. We are trained, and this attitude is reinforced, to pay attention to scientific, data-based conclusions, and to be skeptical of other statements. There is a clear lack of emphasis on the utility of challenging existing practices, and often we hear colleagues criticize those who do question "the way we have always done it." Third, time is already scarce for us to do what we have to do. Thus, we may decide that our time would be better spent on job responsibilities for which we will be evaluated at the end of the year. We may also be concerned that we will alienate our employers or our funding sources and that we will have a difficult time regaining their support. Further, we may be unwilling or afraid to attempt to change our current direction because we cannot predict whether we will be successful.
|
Unforeseen Consequences
|
|---|
So, is the public unease with animal agriculture our fault? Hodges (2003) noted that we cannot always know what adverse consequences may result from decisions we believed to be sound at the time we made them. For example, genetically modified foods offer great potential for increased nutritional quality, therapeutic value, or enhanced productivity. But we do not know what risks may be involved until we study their effects. Regardless, we must accept the responsibility of addressing the remaining questions underlying our decisions and respond to any unforeseen consequences.
|
Society’s Response
|
|---|
Regardless of how much blame we accept for the past, our changing society is influencing the way we must work in the future. Hodges (2003) pointed out that society is increasingly aware of the impact of food on human health. Today, consumers want natural and tasty foods that are produced and harvested in a manner consistent with their personal values. The public wants to see detailed information on how the animal was raised and managed prior to slaughter, in addition to paying a reasonable price. Regardless of how often opinion polls are quoted to demonstrate that a majority of consumers in America care mostly about buying inexpensive food, a growing number of consumers have concerns about food quality, safety, and animal welfare. As Hodges (2003) noted, "everyone has to eat" and deserves some voice in the decisions that affect the food chain. If we don’t serve them, why should they continue to buy our products?
What remains true today is that capitalism drives animal agricultural practices. Like any other business, agriculture is based on profits. As Cuomo (2003) indicated, the intensification of production that we have experienced since the early 1980s has been driven by profit. One of the questions we considered in this symposium was whether the business of animal agriculture should be viewed differently from other businesses. The reason for the argument is largely that animals require a higher standard of care as animate, sentient beings, whereas other businesses produce inanimate, insentient products. The ethics of the appropriateness of applying science to animal agriculture is left largely untouched by those of us directly involved. As scientists, should we not be more engaged in how our science is applied to production practices?
As we are noticing today with the declining trust in agricultural business, the public has not seen an open and transparent discussion of how we can support a shift in livestock handling practices while still espousing that we emphasize animal husbandry. How can we continue to assert that animal care is our highest priority when we support animal management practices that are based solely on profit generation? Often, we state that animal production is only profitable when the animals are well treated; however, we do a poor job in defining "optimal" production in terms other than those of profitable growth and reproduction. Most of us in animal agriculture are sincerely concerned about animals; however, the level of attention to individual animals has declined a great deal in the past 20 yr and will continue to shift as animals are managed less by people with income tied implicitly to the animals’ welfare.
According to Cheeke (1999), intensive production practices result in a decreased level of care for both the animals and the persons hired to care for them. This happens because of the shift in financial benefit. The people hired to care for the animals do not have an immediate, apparent financial return on their time invested. Instead, the profit goes to the few at the top of the ladder. Moreover, the people hired as animal caretakers are generally not well compensated, nor have they been trained to provide optimal care to the animals. Cuomo (2003) indicates that she is not trying to convince animal agriculture that humane treatment of animals, fair treatment of workers, and ethical scientific and technological practices ought to be the main focus of animal science. Likely many of us feel these are inherently supported. However, this is not reality in all cases. Do we spend enough time considering how to make changes when problems exist in the treatment of animals and workers and in scientific and technological practices? It is apparent that we have not been transparent enough in doing so, given the public’s opinion.
Cuomo (2003) pointed out that animal science in particular is resistant to change, especially on the issue of humane treatment of animals. Perhaps the difficulty with this question is pulling back from being scientists and considering how our recommendations are interpreted and how the science is eventually applied in animal production. What is the effect on animals in beef, pork, dairy, and poultry operations? Are we conducting the right experiments to address concerns that emerge regarding animal welfare? If we are questioned about current management practices, can we justify these practices with biological data showing no adverse effects on animal comfort and behavior? How can we increase the transparency of the rationale for our work as animal scientists to address the growing public concern with regard to humane treatment of animals?
|
Diversity in Animal Agriculture
|
|---|
Beck and Swanson (2003) noted that the face of animal science is also changing in terms of gender and race, although it is probably true that these changes are occurring more slowly than those in animal management. I think we all would agree that there is value in diversity. The perspectives of women and minorities certainly drive us to address new issues that increase our connectedness with diverse communities. Women and minorities broaden teaching and learning in animal science and enhance mentoring of women and minority students for their careers in animal agriculture. Moreover, diversity among us helps prepare our students to function in diverse environments themselves.
Beck and Swanson (2003) noted that women and minorities currently are underrepresented in animal agriculture. The reasons for this are complex and not grounded simply in qualified women and minorities being passed over for jobs in favor of white males. Perhaps equally as, or more, important is the fact that standards of achievement and excellence in science are based on a traditional patriarchal model that has functioned effectively in a historically male-dominated field. Success within this model is based on subtle customs that shape the way science is conducted, as well as the criteria upon which individuals are evaluated for promotion. Graduate students and faculty may adapt to this model in order to succeed, but in doing so may suppress their normal preferences, causing personal frustration and discontent. Thus, diversification of the discipline does not really occur, and younger women and minorities observe and are discouraged by these negative experiences of their older mentors or colleagues. Also, women are likely underrepresented in academia because of a lack of career flexibility for women interested in having a family.
To increase diversity in animal agriculture, Beck and Swanson (2003) suggested some strategies for change. What are the qualities we look for in making decisions to accept graduate students, hire new faculty, or promote individuals? Should we value dedication, perseverance, and teamwork above the traditional qualities of assertiveness, competitiveness, and individualism? Can we re-evaluate our expectations about progress toward a degree or tenure, realizing that women and minorities often face challenging circumstances? The ultimate reward is that greater diversity enhances our ability to connect with our students and with our communities, making animal science more relevant in today’s society.
|
Changes in Research and Development
|
|---|
Of course there are other issues that deserve our attention today and in the future. Public institutions are increasingly partnering with corporate entities in order to conduct research and obtain additional funding for research. What is the effect on the objectivity with which we conduct research and analyze results? Another shift is in the privatization of research and development by public institutions and the push for faculty to file for patents and create spin-off companies. These activities have increased dramatically in the past 10 yr. Intellectual property "protection," and therefore decreased transparency, is of concern. What does this mean for animal agriculture and for the credibility of our public universities?
|
Moving Forward
|
|---|
Animal scientists can be positive agents for change in animal agriculture given a greater understanding of contentious issues and an increased openness and ability to engage in an exchange of ideas. To do this, we must educate ourselves in the language of philosophy and engage in discussions among ourselves and with entities outside animal agriculture. At the same time, we need to increase communication and transparency with the public regarding animal management practices and the benefits and implications of new technologies. To assess the impact of animal management on animal welfare, a growing concern among consumers, we must encourage and promote the development of scientific methods to evaluate animal welfare. Finally, animal scientists need to critically assess the justification for and the potential consequences of our research, and maintain awareness of how our science is eventually applied to animal management.
|
Implications
|
|---|
Schillo (2003) indicated in his introduction that the vision of the American Society of Animal Science is to be "The Scientific Voice of Animal Agriculture." If we are to legitimately function in this manner, we need to be fully prepared to discuss the science of animal agriculture. What we must realize is that this includes the basic question of "Why do you do what you do?" and espouses a professional ethic that calls for a higher level of understanding and commitment to philosophical thought as well as expression. Schillo (2003) went on to say that we function in a complex network of farmers, consumers, government officials, corporate representatives, and others in animal agriculture. As a result, we must be able to look more broadly at the issues and discuss the validity of alternatives to our current practices. As scientists and educators, we are obligated to do this.
1 Correspondence: 1250E Anthony Hall (phone: 517-432-5443; fax: 517-353-1699; E-mail: msw{at}msu.edu).
Received for publication October 16, 2002.
Accepted for publication March 11, 2003.
|
Literature Cited
|
|---|
Beck, M., and J. Swanson. 2003. Value-added animal agriculture: Inclusion of race and gender in the professional formula. J. Anim. Sci. 81:2895–2904.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Cheeke, P. R. 1999. Shrinking membership in the American Society of Animal Science: Does the discipline of poultry science give us some clues? J. Anim. Sci. 77:2031–2038.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Cuomo, C. 2003. Science, values, and common ground. J. Anim. Sci. 81:2904–2907.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Hodges, J. 2003. Livestock, ethics, and quality of life. J. Anim. Sci. 81:2887–2894.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Thompson, P. B. 1999. From a philosopher’s perspective, how should animal scientists meet the challenge of contentious issues? J. Anim. Sci. 77:372–377.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Schillo, K. 2003. Critical perspectives of animal agriculture: Introduction. J. Anim. Sci. 81:2880–2887.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
K. K. Schillo
Critical perspectives of animal agriculture: Introduction
J Anim Sci,
November 1, 2003;
81(11):
2880 - 2886.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
