Adult-perpetrated Animal Abuse: Development of a Proclivity Scale

There is a clear discrepancy in the reporting of animal cruelty complaints, prosecutions and convictions suggesting that any prevalence figures of abuse are significant under-representations. Therefore, it can be inferred that there is a large number of animal abusers who are unapprehended. Currently there is no validated tool that assesses the proclivity or propensity to engage in animal abuse amongst members of the general public. Such a tool would enable researchers to study individuals who may think like animal abusers or may be unapprehended offenders themselves. This paper presents the newly developed Animal Abuse Proclivity Scale (AAPS) and some preliminary findings. The results from our two studies show that: (1) the psychometric properties of the AAPS indicate that the scale is a highly reliable measure; (2) the AAPS relates to measures assessing offence-supportive attitudes and reflects the gender differences seen in the literature; and (3) the AAPS demonstrates cross-national validity. These findings support that the AAPS, similar to other offending proclivity measures, is a tool that can be used to examine the factors most related to animal abuse propensity. We discuss how the AAPS can contribute to future developments in theory and practice in the field

Responsibility and laboratory animal research governance

The use of animals in experiments and research remains highly contentious. Laboratory animal research governance provides guidance and regulatory frameworks to oversee the use and welfare of laboratory animals and relies heavily on the replacement, reduction, and refinement (3Rs) principles to demonstrate responsibility. However, the application of the 3Rs is criticized for being too narrow in focus and closing down societal concerns and political questions about the purpose of animal laboratory research. These critiques challenge the legitimacy of responsibility in laboratory animal research governance and call for new approaches. With the advent of the "Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI) agenda, we investigate whether the notion of responsibility in the controversial area of animal research governance could be enhanced by examining the 3Rs through RRI. Our analysis reveals RRI has the potential to helpfully augment the 3Rs in three key ways: recognizing the need to include a broader range of experts and publics in animal research governance; emphasizing the importance for animal research scientists of taking societal, and not just role, responsibilities into account; and acknowledging the political questions animal research raises

Standing room only Science and suffering in European live animal transport

Includes bibliographical references. Title from coverAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:m03/26566 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

You and your dog

Describes basic attributes of dogs and their care

Conflict or concord? Animal welfare and the World Trade Organization

Produced in association with Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, Brussels (BE)Available from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:99/37891 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Quarantine reform campaign The case for change

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:98/21003 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Ethics committees for laboratory animals A basis for their composition and function

Available from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m00/35598 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

The assessment of stress in laboratory animals

Available from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:98/11773 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo