Cited by 370Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal Law and WelfareAnimal testing and alternatives

A History of Animal Welfare Science

Broom, Donald M.·2011·Acta Biotheoretica

Abstract

Human attitudes to animals have changed as non-humans have become more widely incorporated in the category of moral agents who deserve some respect. Parallels between the functioning of humans and non-humans have been made for thousands of years but the idea that the animals that we keep can suffer has spread recently. An improved understanding of motivation, cognition and the complexity of social behaviour in animals has led in the last 30 years to the rapid development of animal welfare science. Early attempts to define welfare referred to individuals being in harmony with nature but the first usable definition incorporated feelings and health as part of attempts to cope with the environment. Others considered that welfare is only about feelings but it is argued that as feelings are mechanisms that have evolved they are a part of welfare rather than all of it. Most reviews of welfare now start with listing the needs of the animal, including needs to show certain behaviours. This approach has used sophisticated studies of what is important to animals and has replaced the earlier general guidelines described as freedoms. Many measures of welfare are now used and indicate how good or how poor the welfare is. Naturalness is not a part of the definition of welfare but explains why some needs exist. In recent years, welfare has become established as one of various criteria used to decide on whether a system is sustainable because members of the public will not accept systems that…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10441-011-9123-3

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Broom suggests that the evolution of animals in their natural environment has resulted in each species having certain tolerable physiological limits to allow coping, as well as certain behavioural or psychological needs.

    “Broom [114] suggests that the evolution of animals in their natural environment has resulted in each species having certain tolerable physiological limits to allow coping, as well as certain behavioural or psychological needs.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Broom, D. M.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Broom, Donald M.
Venue
Acta Biotheoretica
Published
2011-02-24
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
121-137
ISSN
  • 0001-5342 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8358
OpenAlex
W2057338862
Cited by
370
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
11.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Biotheoretica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
Keywords
animal welfare science, history of animal welfare, animal sentience, animal suffering, animal cognition, animal motivation, animal social behavior, animal needs, animal welfare assessment, naturalness, animal ethics
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animal Welfare, Attitude, Behavior, Animal, Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Stress, Psychological, Animal Rights, Ethical Theory, Animal Experimentation, Biomedical Research, History, 20th Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review