No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Animal welfare science, performance metrics, and proxy failure
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 May 2024
Abstract
In their target article, John et al. make a convincing case that there is a unified phenomenon behind the common finding that measures become worse targets over time. Here, we will apply their framework to the domain of animal welfare science and present a pragmatic solution to reduce its impact that might also be applicable in other domains.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Broom, D. M. (1986). Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal, 142(6), 524–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browning, H. (2020). If I could talk to the animals: Measuring subjective animal welfare (PhD thesis). Australian National University. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/206204Google Scholar
Browning, H. (2022a). Assessing measures of animal welfare. Biology and Philosophy, 37(36), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-022-09862-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, H. (2022b). The measurability of subjective animal welfare. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 29(3–4), 150–179. https://doi.org/10.53765/20512201.29.3.150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, H. (2023). Validating indicators of subjective animal welfare. Philosophy of Science, 90(5), 1255–1264. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, H., & Veit, W. (2023). Studying animal feelings: Bringing together sentience research and welfare science. Journal of Consciousness Science, 30(7–8), 196–222. https://doi.org/10.53765/20512201.30.7.196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veit, W., & Browning, H. (2020). Perspectival pluralism for animal welfare. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(9), 1–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00322-9Google Scholar
Yeates, J. W., & Main, D. C. J. (2008). Assessment of positive welfare: A review. The Veterinary Journal, 175(3), 293–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Target article
Dead rats, dopamine, performance metrics, and peacock tails: Proxy failure is an inherent risk in goal-oriented systems
Related commentaries (20)
An updated perspective on teleonomy
Animal welfare science, performance metrics, and proxy failure
Behavioral proxies compete by the time courses of their rewards, including endogenous rewards
Changing the incentive structure of social media may reduce online proxy failure and proliferation of negativity
Dynamic diversity is the answer to proxy failure
Genies, lawyers, and smart-asses: Extending proxy failures to intentional misunderstandings
It's the biology, stupid! Proxy failures in economic decision making
Navigating proxy failures in education: Learning from human and animal play
On abstract goals’ perverse effects on proxies: The dynamics of unattainability
Proxies, heuristics, and goal alignment
Proxy failure and poor measurement practices in psychological science
Proxy failure as a feature of adaptive control systems
Proxy failure in academia: More than just another example
Proxy failure in social policies as one of the main causes of persistent sexism and racism
Proxy failures in practice: Examples from the sociology of science
Reductionism and proxy failure: From neuroscience to target-based drug discovery
Regulator and agent sophistication as an explanation-generating engine for proxy failure dynamics
Subjective and objective corruption of intuition and rational choice
The cost of success or failure for proxy signals in ecological problems
The determinants of proxy treadmilling in evolutionary models of reliable signals
Author response
Teleonomy, legibility, and diversity: Do we need more “proxynomics”?