|
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Wias Course DataWGS course Ethics and Philosophy of Animal Science
Additional Information:
Schedule Ethics and Philosophy of Animal Science 2009
All meetings are held on afternoons from 13.30h to 16.30h. (The meeting on March 19 starts 15 minutes later)
1. March 5: Thinking about yourself as a scientist
Room: V63 Biotechnion
Dr Henk van den Belt
2. March 11: Five views on science and technology development
Room: V63 Biotechnion
Dr Henk van den Belt
3. March 19: Reflexive and interactive design of poultry husbandry systems
Room: Rode Zaal Agrotechnion (available from 13.45h)
Dr Bram Bos, Dr Henk van den Belt
4. March 26: Simulating the Ethical Review Committee for Animal Experiments
Room: V63 Biotechnion
Prof Dr Elsbeth Stassen
5. April 2: Eliciting Fundamental Moral Attitudes towards Animals: An Empirical Model
Room: V55 Biotechnion
Drs Nina Cohen, Prof Dr Elsbeth Stassen
6. April 9: Animal ethics, mapping the arguments that are around
Room: V63 Biotechnion
Dr Franck Meijboom, Prof Dr Elsbeth Stassen
Ethics and Philosophy of Animal Science; a WGS PhD course
Staff
Franck Meijboom, Ethics Institute, University of Utrecht
Elsbeth Stassen, Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University
Henk van den Belt, Applied Philosophy Group, Wageningen University (Coordinator)
Background
By writing a PhD-thesis you are delivering a scientific product. In your thesis you will contribute to the body of scientific knowledge and you will show that you have acquired relevant scientific competences. Presupposed in writing a thesis is an idea of what science is and what good scientists do. Explicating and scrutinizing these tacit ideas of ‘good science’ and ‘good scientific practice’ are necessary in order to develop yourself consciously as a scientist.
As an animal scientist you (presumably) work with animals: you may use animals directly in your research and/or your research might be directed at implementation in animal production or in other (economic) uses of animals. Do you – as an animal scientist – have specific responsibilities with regard to these animals? And if so, how are these responsibilities related to responsibilities vis-à-vis others on whom your research might have an impact (e.g. farmers, consumers, financiers of research, society at large)? Does it make a difference if you are working at ‘pure science’ (or ‘basic’ research) or at ‘applied science’ or technology? Can such a distinction be made at all?
As an animal scientist you work in a societal context. On the one hand, scientific expertise is not only used in research, but also in technological design and in policymaking in government, industry and commerce. Wageningen University subscribes to the idea of ‘science for impact’. To what extent can you as an animal scientist contribute to desirable forms of impact and take responsibility for the consequences of your research? Such questions will be analyzed with the help of some core concepts from philosophy of science and technology.
On the other hand, there are strong ideas in society on the acceptability and desirability of research, especially of research with animals. What are the notions and concepts behind these ideas? With the help of some core concepts from animal ethics we will elaborate these questions.
Objectives
The general objective of the course is to develop competence in handling and discussing ethical and philosophical issues in animal science. In order to develop this competence PhD-students learn
· to explicate and scrutinize their tacit ideas of ‘good science’, ‘good scientific practice’ and ‘scientific responsibility’,
· to reflect on their role as scientist and scientific expert in (modern) expert oriented democracies,
· to develop a perspective on responsibility for animals and society at large as a point of departure for ethical deliberation on research(projects) in animal science.
Meetings and tasks:
One week before the first meeting
Task 1: Prepare a small text (maximum 1000 words) in which you describe:
· the core question of your PhD-project and scientific approach that you use in approaching (answering) that question;
· the way animals are involved in your research and what – according to you – might be the impact of (the implementation of) your research on animal production and society at large
· your ideas on your responsibility as a scientist with regard to this impact.
E-mail to Henk van den Belt with ‘task 1’ as subject
In preparation of the first meeting
Task 2: Read The Wageningen Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice: Principles of good scientific teaching and research
(http://www.intranet.wur.nl/research-education/onderzoek/ethiek/Pages/FB-ethiek.aspx) and ask yourself whether this Code will provide you with sufficient guidance to navigate the dilemmas you might expect to confront as an animal scientist.
1. March 5: Thinking about yourself as an animal scientist
Henk van den Belt
In this first meeting we start with your research project and the ideas of ‘good science’, ‘good scientific practice’ and ‘scientific responsibility’ that are implicit in your work and in the academic context of your work.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Task 3: Read: Henk van den Belt, ‘Five views on science and technology development’ (manuscript in reader)
Task 4: Devise a suitable schematic representation for each of the fives views discussed in Van den Belt’s paper, using arrows between Sc (Science), T (Technology), So (Society) and E (Economy).
Task 5: Choose the view that agrees most with your own vision and determine what this implies for your own role and responsibility as an animal scientist.
2. March 11: Five views on science and technology development
Henk van den Belt
In the second meeting we get an overview of five current theoretical approaches on the science-technology relationship and the dynamics of technological development. These different views allow for more or less influence of economic and social factors on science and technology development and for more or less scope for deliberate steering. You should therefore become aware of what particular view you hold yourself, as this will also have implications about how you see your role and responsibility as an animal scientist.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Task 6: Read: A.P. (Bram) Bos, ‘Instrumentalization Theory and Reflexive Design in Animal Husbandry’, Social Epistemology 22.1 (2008): 29-50. [Reading instruction: Do not focus on the details of Feenberg’s instrumentalization theory, but concentrate on the description and analysis of the ‘Houden van Hennen’ project]
Task 7: Ask yourself whether the reflexive and interactive design described by Bram Bos can be used for other agricultural sectors and (perhaps) for other socio-cultural contexts than poultry farming in the Netherlands.
Task 8: Prepare one or more critical questions for Bram Bos.
3. March 19: Reflexive and interactive design of poultry husbandry systems
Bram Bos & Henk van den Belt
What can be done to develop animal production systems that better meet the societal demands with regard to sustainability and animal welfare? In this meeting we will look more closely at a recent research project in the Netherlands aimed at the development of new and sustainable husbandry systems for laying hens. The project, called ‘Houden van Hennen’ in Dutch, followed the methodology of reflexive and interactive design. We will have occasion to discuss the possibilities and limitations of this approach with a key-figure in the project, Bram Bos.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Task 9: Read: Text of the animal experimentation legislation in the reader
4. March 26: Simulating the Ethical Review Committee for Animal Experiments
Elsbeth Stassen
Scientific responsibility – of individuals as well as of the scientific system – has been (partly) institutionalized. Research subjects – humans as well as animals – are protected under legislation. In this meeting we act as an animal welfare committee and discuss in a role-play about a research proposal. After the role-play we discuss about the specific case we assessed as well as the legal institutionalization of ethical assessment. Goal of this meeting is not the ‘practical preparation’ of a DEC-protocol, but an insight in the ethics and dynamics of protocol discussions
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
Task 10: Read Nina Cohen’s papers in the reader.
5. April 2: Eliciting Fundamental Moral Attitudes towards Animals
Elsbeth Stassen & Nina Cohen
Our moral convictions about animals are deeply rooted in our total belief system, which includes everything that is important to us: ourselves, other people, animals and the natural world. People have different moral convictions, which can be the cause of conflict. When people work together for instance in the field of animal science, animal experimentation or livestock keeping, there can be misunderstandings about the right use and treatment of animals. This may be due to different social, cultural or religious backgrounds which shape one’s convictions about animals. To learn more about these differences in moral convictions we devevloped a model to describe people’s fundamental moral attitudes (FMAs). FMA is defined as the fundamental convictions of a person, or a group of people, on the hierarchical position of animals, their value, doing good (to care for for and protect), and their rights. The model will be discussed in the course.
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
Task 11: Read: ‘What are our duties to animals?’, Chapter 2 from Sandoe & Christiansen, Ethics of Animal Use, Blackwell, 2008, pp. 15-31.
Task 12: Read: ‘Ethical issues raised by animal research’, in Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Ethics of Research Involving Animals, London, 2005, pp. 38-53.
6. April 9: Animal ethics, mapping the arguments that are around
Franck Meijboom, Elsbeth Stassen
In this meeting we get an overview of core concepts from animal ethics. We get acquainted with different approaches from ethical theories and we specify these theories with regard to the ethics of the human-animal relationship. We will specifically focus on the practical impact of the different theories and on the significance of a plurality of theories.
Course fee:There is no fee for WIAS PhD students with an approved TSP (WIAS pays the fee) Other PhD students of WU with an approved TSP of one of the WGS and postdocs of WU registered at one of the WGS will pay 225 euro. All others pay 450 euro.
|
 |
|
| 8 April, 2008 , WIAS.nl © Wageningen UR 2005. |  |