Animal welfare concerns are prevalent in discussions about the ethics of animal experimentation, and many institutions that engage in vivisection put forward animal welfare policies that are meant to reassure the wider community. Though such policies often consider the welfare of animals during certain procedures or experiments, they rarely cover broader aspects such as housing, day to day care, transport, ID techniques, and euthanasia. For welfare assessments to be effectively carried out, they require a thorough understanding of the behavior of the animal in question. It is argued that there is a need for better behavioral assessments if these welfare measures are to have any meaningful impact.

This article looks at ways that behavioral researchers can make a positive contribution to lab animal welfare, or what is referred to in the paper as “achieving a good quality of life.” The authors note that, while “negative welfare” is often the focus of assessments, scientists and ethics committees need to measure and pay attention to “positive welfare,” and understand the impact of “non experimental factors,” such as housing and enrichment. Some potential indicators of positive welfare are things like: a “normal activity budget” (meaning that the animals are awake, asleep, and active in ways similar to wild counterparts); showing an interest in pleasurable things (e.g. treats); and positive “anticipatory behavior” (shown when animals look forward to treats, play time, etc).

This study is reminder that, when it comes to promoting “good welfare” in laboratories, it is not enough for scientists to put forward the absence of pain, but a robust concept of positive welfare should also be considered. The paper accepts the use of animals in laboratories and does not question the validity of animal experimentation. Interestingly, though, the article inadvertently makes a strong case that laboratories are no place for animals, as it would be so hard to fulfill the animals’ positive welfare needs in such a setting.