With this score, Animal Welfare is now ranked 30th out of 170 journals in Veterinary Sciences and 17th out of 181 in Zoology, placing it in the first quartile (Q1) in both subject categories. This marks a continued recognition of the journal’s influence in the field.

This achievement is a testament to the commitment and expertise of Animal Welfare's global community of authors, editors, and reviewers, whose work ensures the journal remains a trusted, scientifically rigorous platform for research that informs improvements and understanding in animal welfare across species and settings.

Commenting on the news, Joint Editor-in-Chief of Animal Welfare, Dr Birte Nielsen, said:

"We are a small journal with a focused mission, but this result demonstrates the broad and meaningful impact of our work. We are receiving more submissions of greater scientific quality, and this is now reflected in the number of citations our articles obtain.”

Professor Bas Rodenburg, Joint Editor-in-Chief of Animal Welfare, added: “

“Our dedication to scientific integrity and to publishing research of the highest standard continues to resonate within the academic community and beyond. Animal Welfare is now the go-to journal for the latest in animal welfare science."

The Animal Welfare team extends sincere thanks to the many authors, reviewers, and readers who support the journal’s mission.

To learn more or explore recent research, visit: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare

Katie Koralesky and Bianca Vandresen (University of British Columbia, Canada), Jamie Ahloy-Dallaire (Laval University, Quebec, Canada) and Jen-Yun Chou (Prairie Swine Centre, Saskatchewan, Canada) also led a panel discussion at the Summit titled: “How can we avoid a polarized future for farm animal welfare in Canada?”. The session brought together animal welfare researchers from three different institutions, a representative from the National Farm Animal Care Council[1] and a PhD student in Applied Animal Biology representing future leaders in farm animal welfare, to explore how scientific evidence and inclusive dialogue can help foster unity.  

At each conference, the team designed interactive activities where delegates were invited to share their thoughts about farm animal welfare through a combination of surveys, interviews and workshops. Attendees were first invited to answer the question: “What does good farming mean to you?” from their own perspective, before being asked to spin a wheel and consider the same question from a different perspective - such as how a farmer, policymaker, animal, scientist or veterinarian would answer the same question. The task aimed to spark curiosity and encourage empathy amongst participants. More than 50 people took part in the activities across each conference, the results of which will be published by the team in the coming months.  

UFAW was pleased to support this project through our Travel, Training and Events Grant scheme, recognising the potential for the project to arrive at practical and implementable solutions to improve farm animal welfare.  

[1] The National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) is a collaborative partnership of animal welfare groups, farmers, government and enforcement agencies in Canada working to advance farm animal welfare. https://www.nfacc.ca/about-nfacc 

Click here to read more

The new laws aim to reduce unnecessary suffering caused by these inhumane devices, which in addition to causing severe suffering to the rodents, often harm non-target animals like birds, hedgehogs, and even pets.

To use glue traps legally under the new law, pest controllers must obtain a special license. These licenses are strictly regulated and only issued for specific situations where all other humane control methods have been exhausted. There are two main types of licenses available: a class license for urgent cases and an individual license for specific incidents. This licensing system allows controlled usage in exceptional cases to manage severe infestations, balancing public health needs with humane practices in pest control.

Unfortunately, glue traps are still being sold in many DIY stores and online, often without clear information regarding the laws. This inconsistency undermines the purpose of the ban, perpetuating animal suffering and putting the public at risk of unintentionally committing offences. UFAW, alongside other animal welfare organisations, urge the UK, Welsh, and Scottish governments to implement a GB-wide ban on glue trap sales, ensuring consistent regulations and better protection for animals.

For further information on humane rodent control, please refer to UFAW’s detailed advice webpages here.

The College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine Promotions and Honorary Status Committee has conferred this prestigious title upon Dr Nielsen, recognising her high academic distinction and her significant contributions to the fields of animal welfare and applied ethology. This professorship also highlights the close working relationship between UFAW, HSA, and the University of Edinburgh in advancing research, teaching, and infrastructure support.

The appointment is a testament to Dr Nielsen's exceptional leadership and dedication to science-based approaches to animal welfare, which align with the core values of UFAW and HSA, both of which are deeply rooted in scientific research and evidence-based practice.

Upon receiving the appointment, Dr Nielsen expressed her enthusiasm: “I am honoured to have been given this title, which will provide great opportunities to collaborate with the University of Edinburgh, exploring new ways to promote applied ethology and animal welfare science. In my position as Research Director for UFAW and the HSA, the appointment also the continuing importance of these scientific organisations in expanding our knowledge and applying evidence-based animal welfare in practice.”

This Visiting Professorship not only highlights the global impact of Dr Nielsen's work, but also reflects the ongoing commitment of UFAW and HSA to uphold the highest standards of animal welfare research and education.

As part of the UFAW LINK scheme, the Animal Welfare Club at Makerere University has successfully launched several initiatives to raise awareness of animal welfare among students, with the aim of improving animal welfare practices in Uganda.

Led by the club's committee, key activities funded by UFAW included:

The Club’s efforts have successfully increased awareness and fostered a passion for animal welfare among students.

The club, led by Chairperson Ssebagala Ahmed and Club Editor Mwine Arnold, expressed gratitude to UFAW for their support: “As a club, we would like to thank UFAW for making our project happen. Thank you for always supporting our animal welfare projects. We would like to continue working with UFAW on more projects.”

The UFAW LINK scheme is our international outreach initiative that encourages engagement with animal welfare science at a global network of participating universities and colleges. The scheme is an integral part of our work to develop scientific solutions to animal welfare problems and to disseminate evidence-based animal welfare information.

For more information about the scheme, or to become a LINK for your institution, please contact Dr Stephen Wickens at wickens@ufaw.org.uk. 

The UFAW Medal for Outstanding Contributions to Animal Welfare Science recognises the exceptional achievements of an individual scientist who has made fundamental contributions to the advancement of animal welfare over a number of years. The award is open to individuals anywhere in the world, whose research, teaching, service and advocacy has significantly benefited the welfare of animals. The 2024 winner of the UFAW Medal is Professor Emeritus Robert Elwood of Queen’s University Belfast.

Professor Elwood was nominated for the award in recognition of his pioneering work on the experience of pain in decapod crustaceans. His ground-breaking research has not only expanded our knowledge about invertebrate welfare but has been instrumental in influencing policy, resulting in decapod crustaceans being included in the UK’s Animal Sentience Act.

The impact of his work, and benefit to the welfare of animals, extends internationally, with his research informing legislation and policy in both Switzerland and Australia. Professor Elwood’s work was also pivotal in the establishment of Crustacean Compassion, an animal welfare organisation dedicated to the humane treatment of decapod crustaceans. It has also influenced concern for decapod welfare by UFAW as well as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), the British Veterinary Association, the Humane Slaughter Association, the Australian RSPCA and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Prof Elwood has authored an extensive list of over 200 publications including a chapter on the welfare of decapods used in research in the newly published 9th edition of UFAW’s Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals. His contributions to the area of animal welfare also include supervising 39 PhD students to completion and establishing an MSc in Animal Behaviour and Welfare at Queen’s University Belfast. He has also been active in running major international societies including the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

In response to receiving the award, Professor Elwood said: “I have been astounded by the attention given to my work on possible pain in decapod crustaceans and how that has impacted the welfare concerns for these animals. This award from UFAW will encourage policy makers to ensure that these animals are treated humanely. Thank you.”

Commenting on Professor Elwood’s award, Dr Huw Golledge, UFAW Chief Executive, said: “Professor Elwood has made an exceptional contribution to animal welfare science. More specifically, his research on pain in decapod crustaceans has greatly enhanced our understanding of this important topic and has been pivotal in enshrining their welfare in law. His career and achievements epitomise science in the service of animal welfare, making him a truly worthy recipient of this award.”

The UFAW Early Career Animal Welfare Researcher of the Year Award recognises the achievements of early career scientists who have made significant contributions to improving the welfare of animals. The recipient of the UFAW Early Career Researcher of the Year Award 2024 has been named as Dr Vikki Neville.

Dr Neville is the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Discovery Fellow and Proleptic Lecturer at Bristol Veterinary School. She was nominated for the award to recognise her academic excellence, drive and leadership in improving the welfare of laboratory animals.

Dr Neville drives welfare science forward using her groundbreaking skill for developing and applying novel approaches to address important welfare questions. She has diverse research interests, but the bulk of her work focuses on using high quality fundamental science studies that enable us to better understand animal emotion and hence welfare. She has studied a range of companion and laboratory species including starlings, rabbits, and rats.

Beyond her impressive research skills, Dr Neville’s exceptional passion for welfare science is further evidenced in her dedication to mentoring colleagues and students in the use of quantitative approaches to animal welfare issues.

In response to receiving the award, Dr Neville said: "I'm incredibly honoured to receive this year's UFAW Early Career Animal Welfare Researcher of the Year Award. It is a joy and privilege to be an animal welfare researcher, and this award is the cherry on top of the cake. I'm hugely grateful to my wonderful colleagues and mentors, particularly Prof. Mike Mendl, Dr Liz Paul, Prof. Peter Dayan and Prof. Iain Gilchrist, for their support and encouragement."

Dr Huw Golledge concluded: “We are delighted to be able to recognise the significant impact that Dr Neville has made to the field of animal welfare science so early on in her career. She has already established herself as an accomplished animal welfare scientist whose work has continued positive impact on animal welfare. Her impressive array of skills and passion for welfare science, combined with her dedication to supporting her peers make her a truly worthy recipient of the ECR award.

I look forward to hearing both Professor Elwood and Dr Neville present their work at the UFAW International Animal Welfare Conference 2024 in Porto in July.”

Dr Abeyesinghe’s presentation summarised the use of behaviour and cognition to assess welfare in chickens, emphasising the need for rigorous experimental design. She also highlighted the benefits and challenges of behavioural experimental models to assess welfare, and the need for critical analysis of results, especially when results are not as expected. 

A Q&A session followed where Dr Abeyesinghe shared her pathway to a career in science, providing students with helpful advice on how to approach career planning.

The seminar was hosted by Dr Lottie Hosie and organised by Professor Tessa Smith who both acknowledged the kind support of UFAW.

The UFAW LINKS scheme is our international outreach initiative that encourages engagement with animal welfare science at a global network of participating universities and colleges. The scheme is an integral part of our work to develop scientific solutions to animal welfare problems and to disseminate evidence-based animal welfare information.

For more information about the scheme, or to become a LINK for your institution, please contact Dr Stephen Wickens at wickens@ufaw.org.uk.  

How does this edition differ from the original one? What areas have you expanded or added?
My goal for the first edition was to write a synthesis of the field, partly to clear up some of the confusion that had arisen when different scientists used different research methods and drew different conclusions about animal welfare. Back then, my intended audience was mostly scientists, graduate students and policymakers.

It soon became clear, however, that the book was also being used as a textbook for undergraduate courses in animal welfare, and I had some very good feedback from students, sometimes describing it as the first textbook that they actually enjoyed reading.

For the new edition, therefore, as well as adding two new chapters (see below) and greatly updating the research, I tried to make the book fully accessible for undergraduates by assuming a little less background knowledge and by doubling the number of photographs and other illustrations. I also tried to broaden the appeal of the book by using many more examples from companion animals, zoo animals and laboratory animals.

Has your view of animal welfare changed since the first edition and if so, in what way?
The early animal welfare research was focused quite strongly on the environments where animals are kept – cages for hens, stalls for sows and so on. But the research made it clear that human actions – by farm workers, animal owners, zoo visitors and others – have major effects on animal welfare regardless of what environment is used, and that the welfare of the animals is often linked to the welfare of the people involved. Therefore, in this edition I included a chapter on the “human dimension” of animal welfare, sometimes invoking the phrase “One Welfare” to emphasize the connections between human and animal welfare.

I have also become more focused on the welfare of free-living wildlife. In the late 1900s, the major issue in animal welfare was the institutionalized use of animals in intensive farming, biomedical research and so on. But that same century saw many new human technologies: cars that now injure millions of vertebrate animals every day, large glass windows that kill or injure billions of birds each year, and of course the technologies that are changing the climate. Thus we are now in a century when human actions are having profound effects on the welfare of free-living wildlife. I therefore included a chapter to introduce some key findings in this area.

What do you think are the most impactful changes animal welfare science has had on the way we care for animals, and what are the greatest future challenges?
In 1975, when I published a paper on the welfare of sows in stalls, I never dreamed that countries would start banning those stalls 25 years later. This is one of several cases where research helped lead to the elimination of highly restrictive housing and other bad practices.

But the challenge is to ensure that the alternatives are really better. As just one example, when farms began to move away from sow stalls, some of the alternatives – such as uncontrolled group housing with high levels of aggression – were really terrible. This was partly because the staff had no idea how to manage sows in open housing. So it’s good to abolish harmful housing and other bad practices, but we need to make sure that the alternatives are truly better. And that includes attending to the human factors such as having enough staff, having staff who are skilled and attentive, and having staff that like animals and enjoy working with them.

You state that animal welfare is best seen as a conglomerate concept, existing as an intersection of the concepts of health, affect (feelings) and nature/naturalness. Can a focus on one of these guide us in asking questions about animal welfare and finding how best to improve it?
Many scientists and others have tried to “define” animal welfare to encompass only affect, or only health, or only natural living. But animal welfare is a field of “mandated” science along with food safety, environmental sustainability and many other topics. These are fields where science is asked to provide guidance to meet certain concerns that have arisen in society. In these fields, scientists are not free to redefine the concept to suit their beliefs or priorities, but rather need to listen to what the societal concerns are. And when we do this, we hear people express concerns over all three aspects: are animals healthy, are they happy, and can they live in accordance with their nature? Thus, scientists are off track if they focus on only one aspect, for example by creating systems that seem natural but involve heavy parasite loads, or pathogen-free buildings where animals are healthy but highly restrained. We need to find ways to address and balance the various concerns.

A good approach is to focus on animal welfare not as a concept but as a set of problems in all their diversity. Some animal welfare problems involve affective states such as pain, fear, or lack of pleasure. Some involve illness, injury and the functioning of the body. Some involve animals in unnatural environments, or not being able to use their natural abilities, or not being able to exert a natural level of “agency” over their lives. We will not make progress if we try to reduce all of these to a single theme by saying that welfare is only affect, only health or only naturalness. But we can make progress if we accept the plurality of animal welfare concerns and try to address them in practical ways, without trying to reduce welfare to any one theme.

You outline the gamut of approaches to measuring/assessing animal welfare - which of these do you see as having the greatest chance of improving the welfare of animals going forward? 
Here again, it helps to see animal welfare as a broad term that encompasses many different problems which require very different research methods. We can address health problems through the conventional tools of pathology, epidemiology and other health sciences. We can address problems of affect by studying vocalizations, bodily movements, facial expression, physiological responses and so on. And we can help animals better use their natural adaptations by studying their natural behaviour, how they use their environment, how to give them control over events in their lives, and so on. The key is to recognize the wide range of problems and choose the methods best suited to each case.

In your book you argue that the science of animal welfare is not value-free. This is at odds with the view that science is purely “objective”. Can you explain?
As observant people have argued for many years, science is interlaced with human values at every turn. Just as examples, what we choose to study depends on what we think is important; thus scientists began studying topics such as animal welfare, conservation and sustainability when these topics were recognized as important by society and/or by the scientists themselves. Which animals we study also depends on which ones we think are worthy of concern; this is why we study the welfare of pigs but not earthworms even though our agricultural practices harm far more earthworms than pigs. And whether a scientist studies pain and fear, or injuries and illnesses, or the animal’s ability to live as it would choose – these decisions are often underlain by what the scientist thinks is important for the animals.

There are also value systems within science itself. For example, many scientists value experimentation and measurement ahead of naturalistic observation and description. This has a profound influence on the topics scientists choose to study and what conclusions they draw.

The influence of values is especially significant in the study of animal welfare because Western culture, where most animal welfare science developed, actually includes some quite different value systems. These have led to different conclusions about what is important for “quality of life”, whether for humans or for animals. As just one example, values that have been promoted since the Industrial Revolution emphasize good functioning linked to productivity, while those of the Romantic Movement emphasize emotions and naturalness. These different values remain deeply rooted in our culture. To understand animal welfare science, we need to understand how such values influence the science. As the book title implies, we need to see the science “in its cultural context”.

Held at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls in the USA, the contest consisted of three individual welfare assessments and a team scenario. For the individual welfare assessments, students were presented with three scenarios focusing on farmed bison, tortoises in a zoo and cage-free laying hens. Students were required to select which facility they felt encouraged better animal welfare and then deliver a three-minute oral presentation defending their choice. The presentation outlined the advantages and disadvantages of each facility alongside suggestions for further improving the animals’ welfare. For the team scenario, the students presented an animal welfare assessment of a laboratory rat facility to a panel of animal welfare experts.

In the individual welfare assessments, Catherine LeBlond was awarded second prize and Abigail Penney-Wiseman was awarded third prize. In the team scenario, the second year AVC team took first place. AVC placed as the first overall team (second-year team) and fifth overall team (first-year team).

Speaking about the experience, Abigail Penney-Wiseman said: “It was a great opportunity to put into practice what we were learning in our animal behaviour and welfare class.” Gabrielle Doron added: “It’s a very fun way to learn a lot about species that we do not get to learn about in our normal veterinary curriculum.” Kyra Norton concluded: “The contest provided a unique chance to connect with like-minded students and be able to speak to exerts in the field who had great advice for us about careers in animal welfare.”

The students’ attendance at the contest was supported through the UFAW LINKS Scheme. The scheme is our international outreach initiative that encourages engagement with animal welfare science at a global network of participating universities and colleges. If you would like some more information about the scheme or are interested or are interested in becoming a Link for your institution, please

The aim of the scheme is two-fold. Firstly, it ensures that students and staff at participating institutions remain up-to-date with UFAW’s ongoing activities, grants and other opportunities. For example, at Makerere University, Uganda:

The scheme also provides support for activities and events organised by the LINK institutions themselves, such as those summarised below:

Ekiti State Polytechnic, Nigeria

The Animal Welfare Club at Ekiti State Polytechnic, Nigeria was launched in June 2023 where interested staff and students listened to a number of presentations including from Professor Olufemi Alabi (Bowen University, Nigeria) and Dr Oluwaseun Iyasere (Humboldt University, Germany).

The LINKS scheme also supported a trip to an abattoir for first- and second-year students of the Agricultural Technology Department. This trip would not have been possible without the support of the LINKS scheme as it was outside of the current curriculum.

Makerere University, Uganda

The Animal Welfare Club, Makerere University carried out inauguration of the sixth cabinet and officially launched the Animal Welfare Competence Centre for Africa (AWeCCA) in September 2023. Attendees at the event heard from a number of speakers who each aimed to increase knowledge of and interest in animal welfare science in Uganda.

For more information about the UFAW LINKS scheme, including updates from all our members, visit: https://www.ufaw.org.uk/university-links-scheme/university-links-scheme

This is the first systematic, book-length discussion of the ethics of wildlife conservation and management. What issues have you looked to address?
Well, the book is very wide-ranging, as we thought a systematic account should be. The first half of the book deals with more theoretical issues, though every chapter also contains at least one case study. We began by exploring some of the key values at stake in the conservation and management of wild animals, such as the value of species and biodiversity, whole ecological systems, wildness, and animal welfare. We then look at some different theoretical approaches to wildlife ethics, including ecocentric, utilitarian and virtue-based approaches. We also thought it important to discuss more traditional value frameworks for thinking about wildlife ethics, including the North American Model of wildlife management and ideas from conservation biology. Then we turned our attention to some challenges to those traditional frameworks, challenges arising from the growth in the environmental justice movement and concern about individual animal welfare.

The second half of the book is very different. It’s composed of chapter-length contemporary real-world case studies. These case studies are centered on ethical questions raised by a wide variety of issues, including the trade in rhino horn, the merits of Predator Free New Zealand, the spread of zoonotic diseases from bats, the threats posed by windfarms to flying wildlife, and conflicts over Indigenous people’s consumptive use of wildlife. The case studies span several continents and have all played out over recent years – we wanted to cover a wide range of pressing ethical issues.

Tell us about your co-authors. You have a range of backgrounds and different views on wildlife ethics, did you manage to come to a consensus on some of the issues?
Yes, the co-authors for this book have diverse backgrounds, although we all have a history of engagement with, and publication in, the fields of environmental and animal ethics. One of the early decisions we made as authors is that this book would not advocate for a single ethical approach, but would present a plurality of ethical perspectives. We consider that this feature makes the book especially useful for readers navigating conversations with colleagues from different disciplinary and professional backgrounds, as well as with different ethical commitments. This also meant that we didn’t need to come to consensus, because we weren’t trying to defend just one view. In fact, I think having a diversity of perspectives between ourselves was helpful, in terms of being sure we took different perspectives seriously. For instance, we definitely have different views about culling hyperabundant wild animals, but the format of the book allowed us to present multiple positions on that issue. This isn’t to say we didn’t have disagreements – but these were more about things like what case studies to select and what photos to include!

Is wildlife ethics special? What differs from the ethics of our interactions with captive animals?
Well, when you say “captive animals,” that sounds like you mean wild animals being kept in captivity. We do actually include zoo animals in the book – we have a case study about breeding Giant Pandas in zoos. Of course, captive wild animals are dependent on people in ways that free-roaming wild animals are not; and that is likely to generate additional ethical responsibilities in terms of providing appropriate food, social grouping, space to move about and so on. Questions about how much assistance or consideration we owe to animals living somewhat independent lives are much more challenging. More generally, however, what makes wild animals especially interesting is that they are both individuals who can be harmed and benefited, and members of what are often highly-valued ecological wholes, such as ecosystems and species. Some of the most complex ethical problems arise where the protection of ecosystems and species seems to come at the expense of the welfare of individual animals, as I think emerges in a number of these questions.

Broadly, we can separate wild animal welfare challenges into those that occur “naturally” and those that are a result of human activity. Is there a difference in how we should approach welfare challenges depending on whether they are human-generated or not?
This is a really interesting question, and we discuss different answers to it in the book. On some views, if animal welfare challenges are “anthropogenic”, meaning a result of human activity, then humans (or, at least, some humans) have a special moral responsibility to do something to try to fix them. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that humans have any general obligations to improve wild animal welfare. After all, ecological processes that cause considerable suffering such as predation and parasitism drive natural selection, the process that has generated the biodiversity we have today. But there are also increasingly popular and somewhat radical arguments, especially within the academic field of animal ethics, that if we can reduce animal suffering, including naturally-caused wild animal suffering, without causing something worse to happen, we should. This could entail practices such as vaccinating wild animals to protect them (rather than us) from infectious diseases, and assisting them after natural disasters. We don’t explicitly defend one view over the other in the book, but we do discuss a number of cases where human impacts might be argued to generate special obligations to wild animals, including the anthropogenic introduction of species and the impacts of anthropogenic climate change.

The book contains a wealth of information. Who do you think would benefit most from reading it?
We wrote this book for a wide audience. We think it will be helpful to wildlife professionals, including those who manage, use, control or protect wild animals. The content will also be beneficial for students training in wildlife management and conservation, who may increasingly be encountering ethical conundrums in their work. We also had an audience of conservation biologists in mind, as well as those working in conservation social science, ecology, animal science and wildlife veterinary care. Obviously, the book could also be of interest for scholars within animal and environmental ethics. And we hope it is approachable enough to be read by anyone who is simply interested in wildlife – this might include suburban residents contemplating whether or not to feed their backyard birds. To cover all of these bases, we have done our best to ensure that the book is accessible: avoiding jargon, explaining key terms, and so on.

In the book, you discuss a range of scenarios where you explore the tension between conservation and the welfare of wild animals. Which of these do you think are the most commonly encountered, and which do you see as the most difficult to address?
We think the most common and difficult issues here are about introduced species and hyperabundant native species. We discuss the former in a chapter on the Predator Free New Zealand policy, which is attempting to eradicate some non-native animals from an entire island nation; we discuss the latter in a chapter focused on white-tailed deer in the United States. These are cases where sentient animals are perceived to be threatening the health of ecosystems or the persistence of native species, and so attempts are made to eradicate (in the case of New Zealand) or to reduce (in the case of the US) their populations. Such cases are often highly controversial, especially if they involve methods of lethal control that impose considerable negative animal welfare impacts, such as anti-coagulant poison baits. Interestingly, though, we also raise the issue that methods of management often thought to be “welfare-friendly,” such as pharmaceutical fertility control, may have welfare costs to the animals that need to be taken more seriously – such as the disturbance of the animals’ social structures and the loss of positive welfare states associated with reproduction.

How do you see the relationship between conservation and wild animal welfare developing? Do you have any suggested approaches?
The relationship between conservation and animal welfare is already highly complex. Research suggests that there’s currently a shift, at least in post-industrial countries and especially in urban populations, to seeing wild animals less as resources and more as beings who are community members and for whom one should care. Related ideas are also becoming more popular among conservationists, with a growth in the idea of what’s become known as “Compassionate Conservation”. However, there are still plenty of conservationists who strongly prioritize whole species and ecosystems (ecocentrists), and who understand negative impacts on wild animal welfare as a natural, unavoidable and morally acceptable part of the lives of wild animals. Attempts to prioritize wildlife welfare also risk escalating the degree and frequency to which humans intervene in the lives of wild animals. This has the potential to reduce wildness value, and  - while “wildness” can be interpreted in many ways, and is somewhat controversial - it is nonetheless a central tenet of increasingly influential conservation paradigms such as “rewilding”. The main thing on which all of us, as co-authors, broadly agreed is that we should be pluralistic about values – that everything that matters can’t be cashed out in terms of just one value. Admittedly that makes decision-making more difficult, and we have a chapter in the book where we discuss both internal and community decision-making where values seem to conflict.

Do you see any novel issues emerging in the future?   
We talk in the final chapter of the book about what issues we think are likely to be prominent in the near future. One thing we expect is the intensification of concern about issues that are already troubling: climate change, species extinction, the loss of habitat, over-exploitation of wildlife, and the increase in pollution. We also expect human-wildlife conflicts, including wild animal attacks on humans, to increase as human population and development continues to expand. But the most likely novel issues – both in terms of threats and benefits to wildlife – concern technological developments, including the use of drones, AI, gene drives, and so on. These may well change the face of conservation, and certainly seem to be pushing it in more interventionist directions.

UFAW seeks to support research to improve or better understand animal welfare issues. Where might research be most useful in some of the ethical challenges you identify?
Given that UFAW has particular expertise in the application of animal welfare science, we see enormous scope for increasing scientific focus on the welfare of wild animals. Research in this field to date has mostly focused on narrow assessments of clearly anthropogenic activities (for example, rodent traps), and the relatively few animals that are directly and intentionally harmed by such processes. In the Anthropocene, there are an escalating number of processes originating in human activity that harm wild animals, but do so in subtle ways that are both unintentional and indirect - for example, changes in infectious disease epidemiology caused by climate change. We expect to see more scientific studies that consider wildlife welfare holistically – including negative and positive welfare as well as assessing the welfare impacts of not doing anything (non-intervention) in many contentious contexts such as droughts. We believe that such studies could lessen uncertainty around vexing animal welfare questions, and allow animal welfare values to be more confidently balanced with other values in ethical decision-making.

The seminar brought together six speakers from industry, with a particular focus on farm animal welfare:

·       Dennis Kigiri – Nakuru Living Lab
·       Dr Gilbert Kirui – Engerton University
·       Dr Mosiany Kisipan – Egerton University
·       Dr Mike Muigai – Northrift Veterinary Service
·       Dr Richard Kibochi – Vetcare Initiative
·       Elkam Ekwam – Utuzi Initiative

The event aimed to stimulate increased student engagement in farm animal welfare in Kenya and was attended by 72 students from different disciplines. 

A key aim of the UFAW LINKS scheme is to ensure that students at staff at participating institutions remain well-informed about UFAW’s ongoing activities, grants, awards and other opportunities. As the first UFAW-supported event at Egerton University, Dr Samuel Nyaga (UFAW LINK, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery) explained the work of UFAW to attendees, including an interactive walk-through of the UFAW website.

The UFAW LINKS scheme is our international outreach initiative that encourages engagement with animal welfare science at a global network of participating universities and colleges. The scheme is an integral part of our work to develop scientific solutions to animal welfare problems and to disseminate evidence-based animal welfare information. If you would like more information about the scheme, or to become a LINK for your institution, please contact Dr Stephen Wickens at wickens@ufaw.org.uk.  

The UFAW Early Career Animal Welfare Researcher of the Year Award (formerly Young Animal Welfare Scientist) is an award that recognises the achievements of young scientists who have made significant contributions to improving the welfare of animals.

The winner of this award will be presented with a framed award certificate and receive a £1000 cheque.

The award is open to students currently studying for a PhD and to individuals within six years of the end of their PhD work.

Nominations close 10 December 2023

The UFAW Medal for Outstanding Contributions to Animal Welfare Science is awarded to recognise the exceptional achievements of an individual scientist who has made fundamental contributions to the advancement of animal welfare over a number of years. The award is open to individuals whose research, teaching, service and advocacy has significantly benefited the welfare of animals.

The winner of this award will receive a commemorative medal and a framed award certificate. Help us to recognise an individual whose work has significantly benefited animal welfare.

Nominations close 10 December 2023

Find out more here

Are you a fundraiser with outstanding relationship-building skills? Or have you previously worked in marketing, customer care or sales and are interested in switching over to the highly rewarding charity sector?

UFAW (the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare) and the Humane Slaughter Association (HSA) are two sister charities focussed on the promotion of scientific, evidence-based approaches to animal welfare. We fund research, support the animal welfare science community and advocate for evidence-based improvements to animal welfare worldwide.

Both charities rely upon fundraising to support their activities and currently enjoy support from committed supporters in the form of legacies, membership income and ad hoc donations. However, with a renewed strategy and Fundraising Review, the charity is now seeking to grow its voluntary income to help achieve our ambitious plans over the long term. The Fundraising Review led by external consultants, identified significant potential for both charities to increase their incomes through a comprehensive fundraising programme, through which both charities aim to substantially grow their income from legacies, major donors, corporate support and memberships/regular giving.  The Trustees have agreed to make a substantial investment from the charities’ reserves to support this  development

As a result, we are looking for an ambitious Fundraising Manager with the skills and enthusiasm to revitalise our fundraising efforts. The candidate will lead the establishment of fundraising activities, including the development of fundraising programmes, implementation of fundraising systems, donor relationships and stewardship as well as the recruitment of junior fundraising staff.

As a small charity team, the postholder will need to be a self-starter who can work alongside the Senior Management Team and Trustees to rebuild our fundraising capacity. The role offers an outstanding opportunity for the right person to establish themselves as an innovative and successful fundraiser.

The ideal candidate will enjoy working as part of a multi-disciplinary team but also be confident to take the lead and work unsupervised when necessary.

This position can be office-based, or predominantly home-based: however, the postholder will be expected to attend some meetings at our offices in Hertfordshire as well as undertake travel within the UK and possibly overseas for conferences/ meetings and other relevant events- some of which may occur at weekends or in the evening. Because we’re based in the UK, the appointee will need to be UK-based and legally entitled to work in the UK.

Closing date: 8 September 2023

To learn more and to apply, please download the application pack.

You can also apply anonymously at  https://www.charityjob.co.uk/jobs/universities-federation-for-animal-welfare-humane-slaughter-association/fundraising-manager/922798?tsId=36

The UFAW Medal for Outstanding Contributions to Animal Welfare Science recognises the exceptional achievements of an individual scientist who has made fundamental contributions to the advancement of animal welfare over a number of years. The award is open to individuals anywhere in the world, whose research, teaching, service and advocacy has significantly benefited the welfare of animals. The 2023 winner of the UFAW Medal is Professor Per Jensen, Professor of Ethology at Linköping University, Sweden.

The UFAW Early Career Animal Welfare Researcher of the Year Award recognises the achievements of early career scientists who have made significant contributions to improving the welfare of animals. The joint recipients of the UFAW Early Career Researcher of the Year Award 2023 have been named as Dr Sara Hintze and Dr Jordan Hampton.

Click here to read more about the winners

Open to veterinary, undergraduate and graduate students, the contest teaches participants to assess the welfare of animals in a variety of settings using science-based methods and reasoning. This year, the contest was held at North Carolina State University and involved 225 registrants representing 23 universities from across North America. Participants completed in-person assessments of the welfare of show chickens, dairy-beef cattle, an octopus in an aquarium and dogs and cats in an animal shelter and presented their findings to an expert panel of scientists and veterinarians. A live scenario was also assessed.

In the Team Veterinary Division, Atlantic Veterinary College Team 1 placed second, Atlantic Veterinary College Team 2 placed third and Long Island University Team 1 placed fourth. Hannah Spitzer from Atlantic Veterinary College placed fourth in the Individual Graduate Division and was also the top placing individual in the Live Assessments.

In the Individual Veterinary Division Category, Magnus Yoshimura of Long Island University placed second making Long Island University the only US veterinary school to place in both the individual and team veterinary student categories.

We would like to pass our congratulations to all the teams from Long Island University, Iowa and Atlantic Veterinary College who participated in the contest.

The students’ attendance at the contest was supported through the UFAW LINKS scheme. The scheme is our international outreach initiative that encourages engagement with animal welfare science at a global network of participating universities and colleges. We are keen to expand the network, so if you would like to become a LINK for your institution, or you would like some more information, please email Dr Stephen Wickens at wickens@ufaw.org.uk.

The RSB is a single unified voice for biology: advising Government and influencing policy; advancing education and professional development; supporting their members, and engaging and encouraging public interest in the life sciences. The Society represents a diverse membership of individuals, learned societies and other organisations. 

By becoming a MO, UFAW has the opportunity to help formulate the UK’s science policy with respect to the biological sciences, and to work collaboratively with other organisations for science outreach and engagement.

Dr Huw Golledge, Chief Executive and Scientific Director of UFAW, said: “We are delighted to become members of the RSB. At UFAW, we promote animal welfare as a scientific discipline, and we look forward to contributing evidence-based animal welfare advice and guidance to the single unifying voice for biology.

“Through our work, we aim to discover what matters to animals, develop scientific solutions to animal welfare problems and disseminate evidence-based animal welfare information. Our vision and mission align closely with that of the RSB, and we look forward to working with the RSB and other membership organisations to improve life for all.”

Dr Mark Downs CBiol CSci FRSB, Chief Executive of RSB, welcomed UFAW, stating: “We are so pleased to have UFAW on board with us at RSB. It is great to have a fantastic organisation that uses an evidence-informed approach to developing standards, the research agenda, and practice in animal welfare.

“UFAW has an admirable track record of funding scientific work that translates to concrete positive impacts for animals, for example the original development of the 3Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) principles in laboratory animal research, for which they are recognised globally.

“In addition, we look forward to helping develop coordination and communication with and between UFAW, their stakeholders and other MOs.”

For more information about the RSB, visit their website.