Annual/Termination Reports:

[01/03/2002] [03/12/2002] [06/12/2003] [07/28/2004] [06/11/2005]

Report Information

Participants

Members present: Bergfeld, Bloome, Cherney, Comstock, Davis, Kunkel, McGlone, Reynnells, Schillo, Swanson,Tiedeman, Thompson, Varner, Weber, Wylie

Brief Summary of Minutes

Chair Steve Davis called the meeting to order at 8:30 am January 4, 2001. Registration payment was discussed and committee member introductions were made. The nomination and election of officers resulted in the following: Davis (Chair), Cherney (Vice Chair) and Swanson (Secretary). Bloome advised members of the duties of the offices and rotation. A motion for yearly rotation and lower officer positions to ascend to the next position was offered by McGlone, seconded by Thompson, accepted by unanimous vote.



The body of the morning discussion focused on the difference between a coordinating committee and a regional project (Reynnells), committee membership (Reynells) and a presentation of the objectives of WCC 204 (Davis). Reynnells pointed out the major difference between a coordinating committee (CC) and a regional project (RP) is funding through the AES. AES directors are not obligated to commit money for expenses for participation in a CC. The WCC 204 has been approved for a period of 5 years. Discussion then centered on the initial strategy of securing a CC rather than an RP. Bloome (Davis and Reynnells) explained that if there is no established research program in the specified area, it is very difficult to successfully establish an RP. Bloome outlined the criteria for a RP. RPs must have clearly stated objectives in which each participant has a role, is multistate, multi-disciplinary, has a specified set of outcomes, and is responsive to CSREES goals.



Reynnells led a discussion regarding WCC 204 membership and ad hoc members. The emphasis in making the working group inclusive and diverse. A suggestion was made to include definitions for various memberships in a set of by-laws or within the objective of the committee. A short discussion regarding different stakeholders, industry ad hoc advisers and general criteria led to the conclusion that the committee could not act on this issue until a clear mission for the committee has been established. Chair Davis concluded the discussion by indicating a need to get projects and collaborative efforts in place before appointing ad hoc members. No action was taken.



Chair Davis provided members with an historical over view of the WCC 204 and its objectives as stated in the founding proposal. The initial impetus for the establishing the committee was to increase the number of courses offered in the area of animal bioethics, to create outreach programs, and to develop a new regional project within the Hatch system. Thompson recapped his JAS paper that served as the motivating force behind the initial proposal. Davis then reviewed each of the four original objectives. Committee members discussed each objective and areas of refinement and definition were identified. Objective 3 and 4 were identified as needing further clarification (Varner, Kunkel, McGlone, Thompson, Bloome). Several ideas emerged regarding the focus of the committee and the potential for future collaborative activities.





WCC 204 minutes



A committee brainstorming session involved the spontaneous listing of issues and subjects for collaborative activity. The following statements, topical areas or questions emerged:

Economic pressures or realities

Scientific practice - how we practice our science

The place of preference testing in assessing animal welfare

Risk analysis and assessment

Normative versus descriptive inquiry

Individual versus social issues

Which animals are conscious?

Who decides ethical versus production issues?

Is there a difference between consumer behavior and public moral sentiment?

What is the relative value of human and animal life and quality of life?

Ecological ethics and animal agriculture

Intellectual property rights

Meat eating and gender, class and race

Environmental racism and animal agriculture

Social distance and the way we think animals ought to be treated

Intensive versus extensive animal production and the structure of rural communities and

environmental considerations

Epistemic neutrality and the conception of risk

Proscriptive versus voluntary animal production models

Somatic cell nuclear technologies

Specisim

Ethics research and animal agriculture -exploration of "should" and "ought" questions



An examination of the list led to the development of two areas for potential collaborative focus: animal welfare and sustainable animal agriculture. Two groups were then formed for a break out session to discuss the assigned topic area and to develop specific researchable questions. Each group presented their questions/statements.



Sustainable Agriculture (Cherney):



1. Conceptualization (reframing) animal science and livestock production in a post-industrialist society.

- How do we conceptualize the environment and ecology?

- How should we practice good science?

2. What is a system and what does it take to re-generate it?

- restructuring of science

- theoretical approach to defining sustainability

3. Distributive justice and world agriculture

- role of animals in agriculture

- western style agriculture

- intellectual property rights and patents

- gender and race





WCC 204 minutes



Animal Welfare (Swanson)



1. Do animals have intrinsic value?

- What are the components of animal welfare?

- What is the moral significance of each component?

- What are the features of an ethically defensible system of animal production?

- How do we assess the relative quality of life of humans and animals?

- How do we decide which tradeoffs in quality of life between humans and animals are morally defensible?

2. What is the relative value of human and animal life?



After a discussion of each presentation the meeting was adjourned for the day.



Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 8:30 January 5, 2001.



Respectfully submitted by,



Janice Swanson

Secretary, WCC 204

Accomplishments

Paul Thompson gave a short presentation on research methods. Thompson summarized research methods used in the field of applied ethics and contrasted them to the scientific method. A research methods matrix was then developed with Science (McGlone), Ethics (Thompson) and Sociology (Tiedeman) categories and their corresponding objectives, method, analysis and interpretive frameworks. Examples of techniques/methods were provided within each of the matrix blocks (eg. Science/Objectives). After the discussion a suggestion was made to develop an advanced training workshop for committee members to learn how to incorporate ethics and social science research into their programs. The committee agreed that a writing team (Davis, Thompson, Swanson) be formed to advance a proposal for USDA-CSREES Innovation Funds for the workshop. The proposal would be forwarded to Reynnells by January 12th. The suggested sites for the workshop were Portland or Lubbock. Oregon State University would administer the funding for the workshop.<br /> <br><br /> <br>A second writing team (McGlone, Thompson, Wiley) was formed to independently develop a grant proposal to submit to USDA- IFAFS for funding. <br /> <br>

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Bloome, Peter (peter.bloome@oregonstate.edu) - Oregon State University; Cherney, Deborah (djc6@CORNELL.EDU)  Cornell University; Comstock, Gary (comstock@IASTATE.EDU)  Iowa State University; Croney, Candace (candace.croney@oregonstate.edu) - Oregon State University; Davis, Steve (steve.davis@oregonstate.edu); Johnson, Brian (bh-johnson@tamu.edu)  Texas A&M University; Kunkle, Harry (hokunkel@ansc.tamu.edu)  Texas A&M University; Swanson, Janice (jswanson@oznet.ksu.edu) - Kansas State University; Thompson, Paul (pault@purdue.edu) - Purdue University; Tiedeman, Gary (gtiedeman@orst.edu); Weber-Nelson, Miriam (msw@MSU.EDU) - Michigan State University

Brief Summary of Minutes

Minutes WCC 204 Animal Bioethics

Portland, Oregon January 3-5, 2002





Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 8:30 am on January 3, 2002. A review of the agenda and brief review of last years meeting and accomplishments were provided. The first day was devoted to a workshop to further advance the committees understanding of the ethical, sociological and scientific components of animal bioethics.





Paul Thompson provided the committee with an introduction to applied ethics methodology. Using an approach published in a paper authored by David Fraser, Thompson broke down philosophical approaches into two general categories, Essentialist and Pragmatist. A discussion ensued with a note that the trends in applied ethics is similar to that in animal welfare science, it is becoming more pluralistic. Gary Tiedeman led a discussion on the sociological perspective including, social constructionism, society, and methods of sociological research. A suggestion was made to have WCC 204 create a set of papers for a session to be held at a sociology conference. Tiedeman will solicit a session and work to recruit more sociologists into our group. Gary Comstock then outlined a proposal to have an Animal Ethics Institute in 2003. This project would most likely be attached to the summer Bioethics Institute. A case study was presented, the group divided and each used methodologies discussed that morning to analyze the case.





The following day the committee worked on the development of a professional code of ethics to be presented to the ASAS Board. Professional codes of ethics from the Society for Range Management, American Fisheries Society, American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Society of Agronomy were reviewed as examples and potential templates. A draft professional code was constructed and Davis, Cherney and Swanson were charged with developing the final draft to send to Ellen Bergfeld to present to the ASAS Board. A discussion concerning the WCC 204 web site ended with a subcommittee appointment of Cherney, Wylie, and Croney will put together a web page. Thompson, Comstock, Varner, Rollin, Tiedeman and Swanson were proposed to develop a primer. The inclusion of a dictionary of philosophical terms, reference list, and links were all discussed as potential components of the website.





Jim Males presented information on the FAIR 2002 research priorities. He indicated that the language developed by the FAIR 2002 effort has been widely adopted by ARS, CSREES and commodities for funding purposes. Our efforts fit under two goals detailed by FAIR 2002. He recommended that WCC 204 develop a national project. The remaining time was spent on identifying areas of collaboration in research, extension and teaching. The following is a summary of the chart developed by the committee.







Collaborative Ideas:





I Teaching

‘ CD-ROM  based on the WCC web page content including

‘ Primer

‘ Presentations

‘ Case studies

‘ Book  a collection of selected readings

‘ Audience?

‘ Multi-author

‘ Use NRC committee model?

‘ Team-teaching efforts

‘ Guest lectures by committee members

‘ Extension sponsored

‘ Use streaming video/pictel

‘ Teaching Guide

‘ Animal Bioethics course

‘ Challenge grant?

‘ Symposia at national meetings

‘ Regional

‘ Local

‘ Bioethics Institute 2003

‘ Virtual field trips

‘ Teaching Methods

‘ Web based course

‘ Streaming video

‘ Interactive teaching, video workbook





II. Extension

‘ Development of the web page

‘ Audience: public, industry, media

‘ Evaluation methods, groups..

‘ Brochure

‘ Animal species (ag communications expertise needed)

‘ White papers

‘ State of the issue

‘ Shortcourses

‘ Animal Welfare certification programs

‘ Fast food

‘ Labeling

‘ Standards

‘ Environmental

‘ Popular press articles (ethics, consumer responsibility)





III. Research

‘ Does denying telos cause suffering?

‘ What constitutes evidence of suffering?

‘ Clarification of terminology

‘ How can scientists contribute to understanding the moral status of animals?

‘ Focus on species

‘ Relate capacity to moral standing

‘ What capacities matter in relation to moral standing?

‘ What do people think matters?

‘ Is there something besides sentience we should consider?

‘ What are the impacts of different production systems on human-animal and human-human relationships and on the community?

‘ Scale of operation

‘ Types of interactions humans have with animals in the system

‘ Is there cognitive dissonance?

‘ What variables affect husbandry systems?

‘ What constitutes a farmer?

‘ A good farmer

‘ Publics definition of a farmer

‘ What is the ultimate impact of acting in a manner that contradicts good husbandry?

‘ Does husbandry count more than technology?

‘ What is husbandry?

‘ Must we re-define for the 21st century?

‘ What would ethically responsible husbandry be?

‘ How do contemporary animal scientists define animal welfare?

‘ How to best instill an animal ethic into students?

‘ What is the difference in the ethics of students focused on food animals versus companion animals?

‘ How do varying formats of animal science education affect the acquisition of ethics?





The business meeting was held on 1/5. Members in attendance were Davis, Kunkle, Bloome, Tiedeman, Weber-Nielsen, Swanson, Cherney, and Croney. Bloome asked members to share their reasons for becoming interested in this project. Bloome captured the responses and will produce a summary. The question of increasing participation and membership resulted in Tiedeman volunteering to recruit more social scientists. A brief description/presentation of the WCC 204 would be useful in recruiting new members. It was decided that a symposium for the PSA meeting in 2002 was not realistic but 2003 is a possibility. Rich Reynnells will be contacted to provide clarification for the suggestion. In June a meeting of the Agriculture Food and Human Values Society will take place in Chicago. It has been recommended by membership as a good meeting for the WCC 204 members to attend or to meet in conjunction. A follow-up will be conducted with Thompson and Stricklin to explore and establish the relationship and perhaps get a spot on the program for a representative of WCC 204 to present our project.





Davis reported that WCC 204 is committed through 2003 to have a Bioethics symposium at the annual ASAS/ADSA meetings. These will be included in the Contemporary Issues Program. Keith Schillo is organizing the 2002 symposium. The symposium this year was approved and programming is moving forward. Speakers have been contacted and secured. The Contemporary Issues committee has agreed to sponsor our symposia until 03 but suggested that we form our own planning committee. A volunteer is needed to organize the symposium in 2003.





The election of officers of WCC 204 resulted in the following: Chair: Deb Cherney

Vice Chair: Janice Swanson, Secretary: Miriam Weber-Nielsen. Chair Davis and Bloome reviewed the obligations and goals set during the meeting. Chair Davis and Harry Kunkle was thanked for their role in bringing the WCC 204 together. The meeting was adjourned.

Accomplishments

o A workshop was held to advance the committees understanding of the ethical, sociological and scientific components of animal bioethics. <br /> <br>o A proposal is being prepared for an Animal Ethics Institute in 2003.<br /> <br>o A session of WCC204 papers to be presented at a sociology conference is being pursued.<br /> <br>o A subcommittee is developing a WCC 204 web page.<br /> <br>o A subcommittee is developing a primer.<br /> <br>o The committee is seeking additional social scientists.<br /> <br>o A joint meeting with the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society is being investigated.<br /> <br>o WCC204 will provide a Bioethics symposium as part of the Contemporary Issues Program at the annual ASAS/ADSA meetings through 2003.<br /> <br><br /> <br>

Publications

Impact Statements

1. o Created a draft professional code of ethics for the ASAS Board.
2. o Developed a comprehensive list of potential multidisciplinary collaborations in research, extension, and teaching.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Debbie Cherney (djc6@cornell.edu)  Cornell U., James Males (James.Males@orst.edu) - Oregon State U., Candace Croney (candace.croney@oregonstate.edu) - Oregon State U.,
Harry Kunkel (hokunkel@ansc.tamu.edu) - Texas A&M U., Donald Lay (layd@purdue.edu) - USDA-ARS, Edmond Pajor (pajor@purdue.edu)  Purdue U., Ray Stricklin (ws31@umail.umd.edu) - U. Maryland, Paul Thompson (pault@purdue.edu) - Purdue U.,
Gary Varner (gary@philosophy.tamu.edu) - Texas A&M U.

Brief Summary of Minutes

Teaching animal bioethics. The first item of discussion led by Gary Varner centered on teaching ethical issues. Varner noted that his website was available for use to those teaching ethics courses. He added that the point of ethics exercises: to tease out what people arent always able to articulate, to recognize differences among rights-based views, utilitarian views and decision-making and to sensitize students to systematic reasoning in ethics. The group also discussed what individuals are doing in their ethics classes and commonly faced problems and challenges. Common challenges included defensiveness of production-oriented students when challenged (Males), mixed response of students using Rollins Animal Welfare text (Pajor) and low ratings of many ethics courses (Stricklin). Other concerns included problems with evaluation forms that may contribute to low ratings, questions about whether restructuring of animal sciences curricula is needed to better support ethical thinking and concerns about potentially radicalizing some students. The group agreed that having more animal production-based case studies would be very useful for facilitating teaching ethics in the animal sciences. Thompson suggested Animals & the Agrarian Ideal as well as Pigs, Profits and Rural Communities, and The Udder-All Dairy case as references.



Writing a case. Varner discussed the basics of writing a case. Major considerations are length, whether the case is hypothetical or real, and the goal of the case (is it for students to learn facts, to learn about moral values, their own values, evaluate arguments?). The procedure should be painfully clear. Varner suggested that his ethics-engineering procedure might be made available to the group. Varner then reviewed a few case studies with the group, including Emily the student taken from the New Life Science Ethics text and the Case of the Blind Hens. Cherney questioned whether students should be required to take ethics courses. Varner suggested that ethics across the curriculum would be ideal.



Society/Meeting Organization/Participation by Members Last Year.



 Mary Beck and Chris Cuomo participating in last years ASAS symposium. This meeting, organized by Keith Schillo and Janice Swanson, was very well attended.



 The Animal Ethics session at The Pacific Coast Sociology Meeting in April 2003 organized by Gary Tiedeman (OSU), with presentations given by Thompson, Swanson and Croney.



 AFHVS/ASFS symposium in Austin, TX on Agricultural ethics and the future of food, organized by Harry Kunkel with Pajor and Stricklin as speakers. Though not as well attended as hoped, we did develop a short list of possible collaborators in the social sciences



 Symposium on bio-ethical considerations in animal production at the annual Poultry Science Association meeting in July 2003 coordinated by Rich Reynnells, with speakers including Reynnells, Davis, and Cherney.



WCC-204 Web Page Posted. The Web page for WCC 204 is posted. There was some discussion about what possible uses the web could be used for, in addition to a resource for those interested in animal bioethics.



Advanced Bioethics Course. The group discussed the need for an advanced bioethics course, a followup to the institute run by Gary Comstock. A proposal may be submitted to FLAD, NSF and/or USDA.



Proposal to Turn WCC-204 into a Regional Project. The committee discussed whether or not WCC 204 should evolve into a regional project. After deciding in the affirmative, Paul Thompson was charged with leadership on writing the proposal to turn WCC 204 into a regional project. Other contributors are Reynnells and Cherney. The timeline for writing the proposal is January-February for the Western section.



Challenge Grant. Thompson suggested writing a challenge grant to get support for a regional project. Challenge grant ideas include modules (on-line) for teaching animal ethics. This would include templates for an ethical approach to situations. It was suggested that 3 to 10 collaborators might put together a module-based book or course that would help instructors teach courses in animal bioethics. Stage 1 of this project would begin with developing modules and having each instructor use them as he/she sees fit. Volunteers to work on developing modules included Pajor, Stricklin, Thompson, Cherney and Croney. Others will be solicited via e-mail. Cherney will take leadership on coordinating the challenge grant. The time frame for this activity is prior to Christmas break.

Accomplishments

This project was formed in October 200 with the objectives of creating a forum in which animal scientists and non-animal scientists (philosophers, social scientists, etc.) may work together to examine and discuss contentious social issues, provide a means of encouraging the development of and coordinating the activities of research projects dealing with bioethics of the animal sciences, develop mechanisms of outreach that would allow animal scientists to interact with consumers and our critics who may question our science and / or production methods, and provide the means for ongoing critical analysis of the animal science profession in the context of its ability to address moral and socio-political issues with the hoped for outcome to be increased credible dialog between science and non-scientist community about contentious social issues, increased cooperative research between Animal Scientists, social scientists and philosophers, and development of new methods of publishing Animal Science information in forms that are both easily accessible by society and easily understandable to the greater public. <br /> <br><br /> <br>Outputs:<br /> <br><br /> <br>1. Organized symposium for 2002 American Society of Animal Science Annual Meetings- Contemporary and Emerging Issues: Critical Perspective of Animal Agriculture, July 20-25, 2002.<br /> <br>2. Organized session at the 2003 Pacific Sociological Meeting -Animal Ethics: Issues and Applications, Pasadena, California, April 3-6, 2003.<br /> <br>The following papers were at this session:<br /> <br>Swanson, Janice C. Fast Food, Freedom, and Animal Welfare: A Scientists Perspective.<br /> <br>Croney, Candace, Open Minds? Obstacles to Teaching and Applying Ethics in Animal Agriculture.<br /> <br>Thompson, Paul B., Getting Pragmatic about Farm Animal Welfare: Philosophical Pragmatism and the Problematization of Livestock Production.<br /> <br>3. Organized session at the Joint Meeting of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and Society., Austin, TX, June 12-15, 2003. <br /> <br>The following papers were presented at this meeting:<br /> <br>Pajor, Ed, Historical Perspectives of Animal Welfare Research<br /> <br>Lay, Don, Animal Welfare Research Currently Being Done<br /> <br>Stricklin, Ray, What Animal Scientists Need Most from AFHVS Researchers<br /> <br>4. Organized symposium for Annual Poultry Science Association Meeting -Bio-Ethical Considerations in Animal Production, Madison, WI, July 6-9, 2003.<br /> <br>5. A web site designed to assist those interested in learning more about animal bioethics was put on the web. The address is http/www.ansci.cornell.edu/wcc204/.<br /> <br>6. A half-day workshop was held to advance the committees understanding of the issues involved in the teaching of animal bioethics.<br /> <br><br /> <br>Project Impacts:<br /> <br><br /> <br>This committee has helped to focus discussions of animal bioethics at national meetings including the American Dairy Science Association/American Society of Animal Sciences Joint Meeting, the Poultry Science Association meeting, the Pacific Sociological Meeting, and the Joint Meeting of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and Society. This results in a broader audience understanding the issue of animal bioethics.

Publications

Beck, M.M. and J.C. Swanson. 2002. Value-added Agriculture: Inclusion of race and gender in the professional formula. J. Anim. Sci. 80(Suppl. 1):144. (Abstr.)<br /> <br><br /> <br>Reynells, R.D. 2003. Introduction. Poultry Science Association 92nd Annual Meeting Abstracts, Poscal 82 (Suppl. 1):56.

Impact Statements

1. Organized a group to write proposal to become a regional project.
2. Organized group to develop a proposal for a challenge grant to develop modules and case statements for use in teaching Animal Bioethics.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Davis, Steve (steven.l.davis@oregonstate.edu) - Oregon State Univ; Skaggs, Chris - Texas A & M; Libby, Dave - NCA & SU; Mensch, Joy (jamench@ucdavis.edu) - UC Davis; Hodges, John - EAAP; Reynnells, Richard -USDA; Johnson, Anna - Pork Board; Appleby, Mike - HSUS; Cherney, Deb (djc6@cornell.edu) - Cornell; Males, Jim (james.males@oregonstate.edu) - Oregon State Univ; Croney, Candace (candace.croney@oregonstate.edu) - Oregon State; Kunkel, Harry - Texas A&M; Lay, Don - USDA-ARS; Brooks, Ray - U. Maryland; Stricklin, Ray (ws31@umail.umd.edu) - U. Maryland; Weber-Nielsen, Miriam (msw@msu.edu) - Michigan State Univ; Gardner, Brittany - Oregon State Univ; Swanson, Janice - Kansas State Univ

Brief Summary of Minutes

July 26, 2004

In attendance: Steve Davis (Oregon State)., Chris Skaggs (Texas A & M), Dave Libby (NCA & SU), Joy Mench (UC Davis), John Hodges (EAAP), Richard Reynnells (USDA), Anna Johnson (Pork Board), Mike Appleby (HSUS), Deb Cherney (Cornell), Jim Males (Oregon State), Candace Croney (Oregon State), Harry Kunkel (Texas A&M), Don Lay (USDA-ARS), Ray Brooks (U. Maryland), Ray Stricklin (U. Maryland), Miriam Weber-Nielsen (Michigan State Univ), Brittany Gardner (Oregon State). Chair Weber-Nielsen called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m.

The administrative report was given by Males. There was an overview of land grant universities in relation to regional committees/projects; he also gave a brief history of WCC 204.
Davis added comments regarding making a regional committee into a regional project. There must be a current, existing project dealing with bioethics (research, extension, teaching). Preferably, there should be a link between animal scientists, veterinarians, philosophers & others interested in animal production and ethics.

There was discussion that there should be representatives from WCC 204 on the ASAS bioethics planning committee.

Hodges noted that the European Association sets up a working group when a new topic comes up; this may become a main commission; last year their ethics working group led to a bioethics program to be held in Slovenia in November 2004.

The group suggested that we need a new way of discussing ethical issues across disciplines.

Next there was discussion about following up the panel discussion on Bioethics that was held at the ASAS meeting. Stricklin suggested that student presentations could become an important part of our programs, but we also need more participation from social scientists.
Kunkel stated that those of us in animal science tend to focus on problems rather than really looking at ethics; he suggested that we are forcing out social scientists with this approach. Where have all the philosophers gone? Davis suggested they are fulfilling their other responsibilities. We need to invite new philosophers and other social scientists who can contribute to WCC 204s efforts.

The group then discussed last years WCC planned activities. Mench said that she and Jerry Tannenbaum would be interested in working on the proposed idea to develop book of case studies useful for teaching ethics in animal science.

Hodges noted that the EA group is working on an ethics for animal sciences book suitable for students. It is due out later this year. (Editor: Michael Mali; Wageningen Academic Press)

Stricklin felt a post-graduate ethics seminar (advance bioethics seminar, as suggested at last years meeting) could still be worthwhile.

Weber Nielsen then addressed the problem we have with retaining active, participating members. Reynnells suggested that the incentive for membership will come with the committee attaining regional project status. The application for the regional project must be submitted by February to be approved by summer. A literature review of what has been done by the committee, including end products (e.g., symposia with published proceedings is needed).

The committee to write the regional project proposal includes: Cherney, Weber Nielsen, Reynnells and Croney. The group should invite some of the philosophers, including Keith Schillo, Paul Thompson (definitely should be asked), Gary Varner and perhaps recruit Wes Jamison.

Hodges suggested taking strategic and tactical approaches to writing the regional project. He suggested targeting large philosophical foundations for funding (e.g., Ford Foundation, Kellogg, William and Charlotte Parks).

Cherney will take the lead on the challenge grant. Varner will be asked to take the lead on the advanced bioethics program.

The next item of business was when and where to hold the next WCC 204 meeting. Options were at the next ASAS meeting or in conjunction with the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society. The group decided to get information about the AFHVS meeting before making a decision on Wednesday 28, 2004.

The next item of business was election of officers. Officers voted in for 2003-2004 include: Chair: Weber Nielsen, Vice chair: Croney, Secretary: Cherney. It was noted that term limits for officers should go into the regional project proposal.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Minutes from 7/28/04

In attendance: Steve Davis (Oregon State), Dave Libby (NCA & SU), John Hodges (EAAP), Richard Reynnells (USDA), Mike Appleby (HSUS), Deb Cherney (Cornell), Candace Croney (Oregon State), Harry Kunkel (Texas A&M), Ray Brooks (U. Maryland), Ray Stricklin (U. Maryland), Brittany Gardner (Oregon State) (Janice Swanson, Kansas State Univ).

Croney called the meeting to order at 12:04 p.m. following the Bioethics symposium panel discussion.

The group debriefed from the two symposia it co-sponsored at the meeting. The first, Ethics and the Costs of Food: What is the impact of lessening food prices on citizens, producers, animals, and the environment? was held on July 27. The other was on Bioethics on July 28th. Both were extremely well attended, with standing room only at the first. Both symposia were chaired by Stricklin.

Stricklin stated that we need to recruit for free papers for next years symposium and perhaps give an award fro the best student presentation. HSUS may work with us on this.

Possible activities for next year:

Hodges suggested a roundtable at the next ASAS meeting (5-7 speakers followed by discussion around a general topic) as a special session.

It was noted that poultry sciences need to be better represented in WCC 204.

Another suggestion was to have an award for individual or group contributions to animal welfare/bioethics. Perhaps we can come up with a way to offer some reward for incorporating bioethics into disciplines/programs.

Swanson pointed out that there are two issues to address: raising awareness about ethics, and how to accomplish this.

It was suggested that we discuss with Males the possibility of having a plenary session every day at the next ASAS meeting (10:30 was suggested time). Also, there could be a small group working session. Reynnells could possibly coordinate a session.

The group wanted to plan a symposium for next years ASA meeting and send this through the bioethics committee.

The possibility was raised that we could enlist department heads to circulate information and generate interest. It was suggested that WCC 204 give a presentation to department heads during their meeting Feb 1-2. Reynnells, Stricklin or someone else could make the presentation.

The group agreed that next years meeting should be held in conjunction with Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society June 9-12 in Portland, OR.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.

Accomplishments

Two Bioethics symposia held at joint meeting of ASAS/ADSA/Poultry science in July 2004: Ethics and the Costs of Food: What is the impact of lessening food prices on citizens, producers, animals, and the environment? and Bioethics. <br /> <br /> Impact: both symposia were extremely well attended. Approximately 300-350 people (faculty, students, producers and others) attended the symposia. A substantial number expressed a need for and interest in having similar activities become an on-going aspect of the annual ASAS/ADSA/Poultry Science meetings.<br />

Publications

Appleby, M. 2004. Considerations of the relationship between food prices and animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science. 82 (suppl 1): 238.<br /> <br /> Burkhardt, R.J. 2004. Ethics and low priced meat, milk and eggs: Too much of a good thing? Journal of Animal Science. 82 (suppl 1): 239.<br /> <br /> Hogberg, M.G., Kirschenmann, F.L., Honeymann, M.S., and Miranowski, J.A. 2004. Interrealtionships of animal agriculture, the environment and rural communities. Journal of Animal Science. 82 (suppl 1): 239.<br /> <br /> <br />

Impact Statements

1. Both symposia were extremely well attended. Approximately 300-350 people (faculty, students, producers and others) attended the symposia. A substantial number expressed a need for and interest in having similar activities become an on-going aspect of the annual ASAS/ADSA/Poultry Science meetings.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

In attendance: Debbie Cherney (Cornell), Candace Croney (Oregon State University), Steve Davis (Oregon State University), Clare Hinrichs (Pennsylvania State University), Harvey James (University of Missouri), Harry Kunkel (Texas A&M), Jim Males (Oregon State University), Joy Mench (University of California, Davis), Ed Pajor (Purdue University ), Richard Reynells (USDA), and Paul Thompson (Michigan State University).

Brief Summary of Minutes

Minutes
Animal Bioethics (WERA 204)
Portland, OR
June 11, 2005


In attendance: Debbie Cherney (Cornell), Candace Croney (Oregon State University), Steve Davis (Oregon State University), Clare Hinrichs (Pennsylvania State University), Harvey James (University of Missouri), Harry Kunkel (Texas A&M), Jim Males (Oregon State University), Joy Mench (University of California, Davis), Ed Pajor (Purdue University ), Richard Reynells (USDA), and Paul Thompson (Michigan State University). The meeting was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society.

Vice-Chair (acting Chair) Candace Croney called the meeting to order at 11:40 a.m.

1. Jim Males delivered the Administrative report. There are currently 13 persons that have submitted Appendix E forms (available via NIMMS) to be included on the regional project. If your name is not on the list (see attached Table), you need to submit your Appendix E form.

2. The proposal project to convert WERA-204 to a full regional project has been posted on NIMMS (http://www.nimss.umd.edu/). Miriam Webster-Nielson (Chair) submitted four reviewers names and the proposal is now in review. There is still time to make suggestions for changes, as Miriam and Candace will have to make changes per the reviewers suggestions. If you have suggestions, please send them to Candace ASAP.

3. Future program at 2006 ASAS, PSA.
At the 2004 meeting of ADSA/ASAS meeting, the bioethics symposium that WERA-204 hosted, Bioethics: Symposium-Ethics and the Cost of Food: What is the Impact of Lessening Food Prices on Citizens, Producers, Animals and the Environment? was very successful. There were several hundred people in attendance and the subject was well received.

WERA-204 has requested a time at the 2006 Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting to conduct a symposium in the area of bio-ethics. The tentative schedule and speakers are as follows:

Tentative Title: Proactive Approaches to Controversial Welfare and Ethical Concerns in Poultry Science

Total 15 minutes Welcome and Introduction, Richard Reynnells, USDA/CSREES/PAS (WERA-204 Liaison)

Total 45 minutes Welfare as an Ethical Issue: Are Blind Chickens the Answer? Paul Thompson, Michigan State University

Total 90 minutes Panel: Ethical Issues Affecting Poultry Processing
Industry: Perdue/or Tysons/or Foster/or Julie Northcutt, ARS, Athens/

Production Practices PAACO Representative/or Inma Estevez, University of Maryland/or&
Societal Responsibilities Debbie Cherney, Cornell University
Approaches/Alternatives Joy Mench, University of California, Davis/or Candace Croney, Oregon State University/or&

Total 60 minutes Panel: Electric, gas or religious slaughter: Which has better welfare, which is more ethical?
Joe Regenstein, Cornell University/or S-292 Multi-state Research Committee representative/or& Mohan Raj, Bristol University/ or UK/Don Lay, ARS, West Lafayette

Total time: 210 minutes; 3 hours 30 minutes
A decision will be made by July.

WERA-204 will put together a proposal for the joint meeting of the ASAS/ADSA in Minneapolis for next year (2006).

The following suggestions were put forth:

Animal Biotechnology- Ethical Issues (Similar to Pew Foundation Symposium)

Grazing-Social and Environmental Issues

Antibiotic Persistance and Issues Involved-Paul Thompson and Wesley Dean

Certification Issues (Might be better for ASAS,ADSA, PSA, Mexican Societies Joint Meeting in San Antonio, 2007.)

What do producers feel their role is in the obesity problem? Do producers feel they have a moral obligation to deal with the problem? (Harvey James)

The proposal for the Symposium on Biotech had the most discussion.

Potential speakers and topics

Biotechnology in Farm Animals- Jim Murray  UC Davis (jdmurray@ucdavis.edu

Religious Issues University of Victoria, BC group

Peter Sandoe (European Experience

Genetically Engineering Animal Welfare Robert Streiffer (rstreifeer@wisc.edu)

Production Groups-Beyond Niche Markets Oregon Country Beef (Oregon)-Hatfield

Philosophical Issues Ethical Consumption- John Jenson (Luther College, Iowa) (jensjo()1@luther.edu)

Pull Economics- Restructuring of economics- Mary Hendricksen (University of Missouri) (HendricksonM@missouri.edu)

Food Safety and other issues, Laurian Unnevehr (laurian@uiuc.edu), University of Illinois; Jeff Sharp, Penn State

4. Membership in WERA-204
There was a discussion concerning membership in WCC204. It was generally agreed that we would like balance on the committee, but how do we achieve this? Currently membership includes personnel with university affiliations.

Questions:

Do we invite industry collaboration with the committee?
What would the nature of this collaboration be?
If industry collaboration, should NGOs be invited to provide balance?
Do we need rigorous restrictions on membership?
Jim Males pointed out that another way of obtaining outside influence would be to invite individuals to our own symposium.

5. USDA Challenge Grant
This is still something we want to do as a committee. The idea is to develop ethics modules that could serve as parts of a course or a whole course on ethics. Workshops would be included to distribute the materials. One idea is to work on the Challenge Grant at our next meeting. As such, a grant would not be submitted until 2006. Debbie Cherney, Ed Pajor, Harvey James and Candace Croney expressed interest in developing this idea.

6. The next item of business was where and when to have our next meeting.
There was discussion about whether meetings should be held in conjunction with national meetings. While there is some benefit to this, the general consensus was that we should meet just as a group next year. The members present decided that Las Vegas would be a good meeting location due to costs. Members present elected not to decide on a time, as many members were not present at this meeting. We will poll WERA members to determine a meeting date.

7. The last item of business was election of officers. Officers voted in for 2003-2004 include: Chair: Croney, Vice chair: Cherney, Secretary: Pajor.

The meeting was adjourned at 1.20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Debbie Cherney
Secretary

Accomplishments

A bioethical symposium was held June 2005: Incorporating ethical values into animal sciences at the joint annual meeting of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society (AFHVS) and the Association for the Study of Food and Society (ASFS) in Portland, OR. Approximately 27 people (faculty, students, others) attended.

Publications

Davis, S., Cherney, D., Croney, C., Pajor, E. and Tiedeman, G. 2005. Incorporating ethics and social values into Animal Sciences. Proceedings of the joint meeting of Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and Society. Portland, OR. P.42.<br /> <br /> Thompson, P. B. Animal Agriculture and the Welfare of Animals, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 226(2005): 1325-1327.<br /> <br /> Thompson, P. B. Getting Pragmatic about Farm Animal Welfare, in Animal Pragmatism: Rethinking Human-Nonhuman Relationships. E. McKenna and A. Light, Eds. Bloomington, IN: 2004, Indiana University Press, pp. 140-159.<br /> <br /> Thompson, P. B. Research Ethics for Animal Biotechnology, in Ethics for Life Scientists. M. Korthals and R. J. Bogers, Eds. Dordrecht: 2004, Springer. pp. 105-120. <br /> <br /> Burkhardt, Jeffrey, Comstock, Gary, Hartel, Peter G., and Thompson, Paul B.. Agricultural Ethics, CAST Issue Paper Number 29, February 2005. Council on Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA, 12 pp.<br /> <br /> Thompson, P. B. Animal Rights, Animal Wefare and Animal Well-being: How to Communicate with the Outside World, in Local and Global Considerations in Animal Agriculture: The Big Picture, R. Reynnells, Ed. Washington, DC: 2004, USDA/CSREES/PAS, pp. 22-31.<br />

Impact Statements

1. New members were recruited from social sciences as a result of the symposium.

Back to top