Animal welfare v wildlife research?

Christopher R. Tidemann*, Michael J. Vardon

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)


In this paper we review difficulties with two recent research proposals to a university animal experimentation ethics committee and two court injunctions, initiated by community groups, purportedly for animal welfare and/or conservation benefits. The common thread in the ethics cases and the court cases is that individuals delayed or prevented actions that were subsequently shown to be in the best interests of animal welfare and/or conservation. We conclude that community groups or individuals, claiming to represent animal welfare and/or conservation, should be accountable for their actions and should be able to demonstrate the factual basis for their decisions, as are scientists and other professionals. Lay individuals seeking appointment to ethics committees, or other committees concerned with animal welfare or scientific experimentation, should have their suitability and credentials to undertake these roles formally reviewed. Ethics committees need to be able to make majority decisions to prevent abuse of process by unscrupulous individuals. We recommend an urgent review of the operation of ethics committees and cognate non-government organizations to resolve the destructive case of Animal Welfare v Wildlife Research.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)71-72
Number of pages2
JournalPacific Conservation Biology
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2002


Dive into the research topics of 'Animal welfare v wildlife research?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this