Gene editing in animals: What does the public want to know and what information do stakeholder organizations provide?

Organizations involved with gene editing may engage with the public to share information and address concerns about the technology. It is unclear, however, if the information shared aligns with what people want to know. We aimed to understand what members of the public want to know about gene editing in animals by soliciting their questions through an open-ended survey question and comparing them with questions posed in Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) webpages developed by gene editing stakeholder organizations. Participants (338 USA residents) asked the most questions about gene editing in general and animal welfare. In contrast, FAQ webpages focused on regulations. The questions survey participants asked demonstrate a range of knowledge and interests. The discrepancy between survey participant questions and the information provided in the FAQ webpages suggests that gene editing stakeholders might engage in more meaningful public engagement by soliciting actual questions from the public and opening up opportunities for real dialogue.

Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology.

Genetic engineering of animals has been proposed to address societal problems, but public acceptance of the use of this technology is unclear. Previous work has shown that the source of information proposing the technology (e.g. companies, universities), the term used to describe the technology (e.g. genome editing, genetic modification), and the genetic engineering application (e.g. different food products) affects technology acceptance. We conducted three mixed-method surveys and used a causal trust-acceptability model to understand social acceptance of genetic engineering (GE) by investigating 1) the source of information proposing the technology, 2) the term used to describe the technology, and 3) the GE application for farm animals proposed. Further, participants expressed their understanding of technology using a range of terms interchangeably, all describing technology used to change an organism's DNA. We used structural equation modelling and confirmed model fit for each survey. In each survey, perceptions of benefit had the greatest effect on acceptance. Following our hypothesized model, social trust had an indirect influence on acceptance through similar effects of perceived benefit and perceived risk. Additional quantitative analysis showed that the source of information and technology term had little to no effect on acceptance. Applications involving animals were perceived as less beneficial than a plant application, and an application for increased cattle muscle growth was perceived as more risky than a plant application. When assessing the acceptability of applications participants considered impacts on plants, animals, and people, trust in actors and technologies, and weighed benefits and drawbacks of GE. Future work should consider how to best measure acceptability of GE for animals, consider contextual factors and consider the use of inductive frameworks.

Animal sheltering: A scoping literature review grounded in institutional ethnography.

A diverse research literature now exists on the animals, staff and organisations involved in animal sheltering. We reviewed this research through the lens of institutional ethnography, a method of inquiry that focuses on the actual work that people do within institutions. The main topics, identified through a larger ethnographic study of animal sheltering, were: (i) research about shelter staff and officers; (ii) the relinquishment of animals to shelters; and (iii) animals' length of stay in shelters. After reviewing the literature, we held focus groups with shelter personnel to explore how their work experiences are or are not represented in the research. The review showed that stress caused by performing euthanasia has attracted much research, but the decision-making that leads to euthanasia, which may involve multiple staff and potential conflict, has received little attention. Research on 'compassion fatigue' has also tended to focus on euthanasia but a granular description about the practical and emotional work that personnel undertake that generates such fatigue is missing. Published research on both relinquishment and length of stay is dominated by metrics (questionnaires) and often relies upon shelter records, despite their limitations. Less research has examined the actual work processes involved in managing relinquishment as well as monitoring and reducing animals' length of stay. Institutional ethnography's focus on people's work activities can provide a different and more nuanced understanding of what is happening in animal sheltering and how it might better serve the needs of the animals and staff.

Using institutional ethnography to analyse animal sheltering and protection I: Animal protection work.

Animal protection laws exist at federal, provincial and municipal levels in Canada, with enforcement agencies relying largely upon citizens to report concerns. Existing research about animal protection law focuses on general approaches to enforcement and how legal terms function in the courts, but the actual work processes of animal law enforcement have received little study. We used institutional ethnography to explore the everyday work of Call Centre operators and Animal Protection Officers, and we map how this work is organised by laws and institutional polices. When receiving and responding to calls staff try to identify evidence of animal 'distress' as legally defined, because various interventions (writing orders, seizing animals) then become possible. However, many cases, such as animals living in deprived or isolated situations, fall short of constituting 'distress' and the legally mandated interventions cannot be used. Officers are also constrained by privacy and property law and by the need to record attempts to secure compliance in order to justify further action including obtaining search warrants. As a result, beneficial intervention can be delayed or prevented. Officers sometimes work strategically to advocate for animals when the available legal tools cannot resolve problems. Recommendations arising from this research include expanding the legal definition of 'distress' to better fit animals' needs, developing ways for officers to intervene in a broader range of situations, and more ethnographic research on enforcement work in jurisdictions with different legal systems to better understand how animal protection work is organised and constrained by laws and policies.

Using institutional ethnography to analyse animal sheltering and protection II: Animal shelter work.

Efficient adoption is an important aim of animal shelters, but it is not possible for all animals including those with serious behavioural problems. We used institutional ethnography to explore the everyday work of frontline shelter staff in a large animal sheltering and protection organisation and to examine how their work is organised by standardised institutional procedures. Shelter staff routinely conduct behavioural evaluations of dogs and review intake documents, in part to plan care for animals and inform potential adopters about animal characteristics as well as protect volunteers and community members from human-directed aggression. Staff were challenged and felt pressure, however, to find time to work with animals identified as having behavioural problems because much of their work is directed toward other goals such as facilitating efficient adoption for the majority and anticipating future demands for kennel space. This work is organised by management approaches that broadly aim to maintain a manageable shelter animal population based on available resources, decrease the length of time animals spend in shelters and house animals based on individual needs. However, this organisation limits the ability of staff to work closely with long-stay animals whose behavioural problems require modification and management. This also creates stress for staff who care for these animals and are emotionally invested in them. Further inquiry and improvements might involve supporting the work of behavioural modification and management where it is needed and expanding fostering programmes for animals with special needs.

Dairy farmer advising in relation to the development of standard operating procedures.

Standard operating procedures (SOP) are increasingly required on farms participating in animal welfare assurance programs, such as the Dairy Farmers of Canada's proAction initiative and the National Dairy FARM Program in the United States. However, little is known about the use of SOP on farms and who is involved in their development. Literature from other industries shows the importance of including advisors when developing SOP. Despite veterinarians being viewed by many farmers as trusted sources of information, little is known about their involvement in SOP development. The aim of this study was to better understand: (1) what advice from researchers and veterinarians is considered when developing an SOP and (2) what factors affect advice adherence. Participants in this study were farmers (n = 9) from 6 dairy farms in the Fraser Valley region of British Columbia, Canada and their herd veterinarians (n = 5). Structured and semi-structured interviews and participant observation were undertaken from April to December 2018, and the resulting data were analyzed using thematic analysis. In relation to the first aim, we identified 3 main themes: (1) the purpose of the SOP, (2) developing an SOP, and (3) accountability and tracking of procedures. For the second aim, 5 themes emerged: (1) feasibility of the advice, (2) resources required, (3) priority of the advice, (4) other actors involved, and (5) the importance of data. Collectively, these findings suggest that a farm-specific SOP that actively tracks procedures is most beneficial, and that advice adherence is context dependent.

Perceptions of on-farm emergency slaughter for dairy cows in British Columbia.

Some jurisdictions permit on-farm emergency slaughter (OFES) as one end-of-life option for dairy cows and other animals that cannot be transported humanely but are deemed fit for human consumption. Anecdotal reports suggest that OFES is controversial among dairy industry professionals, but to date their perceptions of OFES have not been studied systematically. Twenty-five individual interviews and 3 focus groups with 40 dairy producers, veterinarians, and other professionals in British Columbia, Canada, revealed positive and negative perceptions of OFES influenced by (1) individual values, (2) the perceived operational legitimacy of OFES, and (3) concern over social responsibility and public perception of the dairy industry. Study participants valued cow welfare but were divided on whether OFES quickened or delayed death for injured animals. Views on the operational legitimacy of OFES varied because of different perceptions and concerns regarding regulatory, veterinary, and meat inspector oversight, a possible conflict of interest for veterinarians, and concerns over carcass hygiene and transport. Whereas many appreciated that OFES prevented transport of compromised cows, others saw OFES as merely a stopgap measure. Seven recommended actions could address concerns while retaining the benefits of OFES: (1) specifying precise timing parameters for OFES, (2) clarification of allowable cow conditions for OFES, (3) consultation with dairy industry professionals if OFES is to be expanded, (4) more proactive culling and the development of euthanasia protocols on farms, (5) the designation of veterinarians as the first point of contact in the OFES process, (6) veterinarian training on animal inspection and allowable conditions for OFES, and (7) the use of proper procedures and equipment during the OFES process to ensure food safety.

Use of on-farm emergency slaughter for dairy cows in British Columbia.

On-farm emergency slaughter (OFES), whereby inspection, stunning, and bleeding occur on the farm before the carcass is transported to a slaughterhouse, is permitted in some jurisdictions as a means to avoid inhumane transportation while salvaging meat from injured animals. However, OFES is controversial and its use for dairy cows has been little studied. Inspection documents for 812 dairy cows were examined to identify how OFES was used for dairy cows in British Columbia, Canada, over 16.5 mo. Producers used OFES for dairy cows aged 1 to 13 yr (median of 4 yr). Leg, hip, nerve, spinal, foot, and hind-end injuries or conditions (in that order) were the most common reasons for OFES, and some cases may have been a consequence of calving. Foot conditions were disproportionately common among cows 5 yr and older, and hind-end conditions were disproportionately common among cows 6 yr and older. Producers used OFES promptly after traumatic injury (within 1 d) for some cows, but OFES was delayed for others, sometimes until cows had been nonambulatory for 2 to 6 d. In some cases, OFES was used for nontraumatic chronic conditions, such as lameness and hind-end weakness, rather than traumatic injuries such as fractures and dislocated hips. Use of OFES appears to conform to the purpose of the program when used promptly after traumatic injuries, but clear guidelines are needed to avoid inappropriate use and delays that may prolong animal suffering.

Toward a harmonized approach to animal welfare law in Canada.

Animal protection law in Canada varies across the country. Federal animal protection law exists in the Criminal Code, in regulations for the transport of animals, and in regulations for humane handling and slaughter at abattoirs that are inspected by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Provincial animal protection laws often include provisions that i) describe a duty of care toward animals; ii) prohibit causing or permitting animal "distress;" iii) specify exemptions from prosecution; and iv) reference various national and other standards. Inconsistencies lead to duplication of effort, create difficulty in working across jurisdictions, and may erode public trust. A more consistent approach might be achieved by i) referencing a common suite of standards in provincial statutes; ii) citing the federal transport and humane slaughter regulations in provincial regulations; iii) establishing agreements so provincial authorities may enforce federal regulations; iv) wider and more uniform adoption of enforcement tools that require people to take immediate action to protect animal welfare; v) developing new standards; and vi) national consultation to define frequently used terms.

Vers une harmonisation législative du bien-être animal au Canada. La réglementation applicable en matière de protection animale est variable au Canada. Au niveau fédéral, on retrouve des règles de protection au sein du Code criminel, de la réglementation sur le transport et de celle sur la manipulation et l'abattage lorsque ce dernier a lieu dans les abattoirs inspectés par l'Agence Canadienne d'Inspection des Aliments. Les règles de protection animale applicables au niveau provincial prévoient généralement i) la définition d'un devoir de diligence envers les animaux, ii) l'interdiction de causer ou de permettre une 'détresse' chez l'animal, iii) des dispenses à l'exercice de poursuites, et iv) la description de standards, notamment nationaux. L'absence d'uniformisation des textes nuit à l'efficacité des efforts réalisés, complique la compréhension et l'application des textes existants et peut alimenter la méfiance du public. Une approche plus rationnelle pourrait être appliquée en, i) adoptant une liste commune de standards au sein des lois provinciales, ii) citant les normes fédérales régulant le transport et l'abatage des animaux dans les lois provinciales, iii) établissant des accords visant à faire appliquer les lois fédérales par les provinces, iv) élargissant et uniformisant l'adoption d'outils juridiques permettant de prendre des actions immédiates afin de protéger le bien-être des animaux, v) en développant de nouveaux standards et vi) à travers une consultation nationale visant à définir les termes fréquemment utilisés.(Traduit par les auteurs).