Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T14:04:34.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal welfare science, performance metrics, and proxy failure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2024

Heather Browning Open the ORCID record for Heather Browning [Opens in a new window]  and
Walter Veit Open the ORCID record for Walter Veit [Opens in a new window]
Heather Browning*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK https://www.heatherbrowning.net/
Walter Veit
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Reading, Reading, UK wrwveit@gmail.com, https://walterveit.com/
*
Corresponding author: Heather Browning; Email: DrHeatherBrowning@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e70
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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