A History of Animal Welfare Science
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [114]
Cites
Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare
Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M. B., Moe, R. O., Spruijt, B., Keeling, L. J., Winckler, C., Forkman, B., Dimitrov, I., Langbein, J., et al. (2007) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003 · Cited by 1,486 · see citing works
Effects of coping behavior in different warning signal conditions on stress pathology in rats.
Weiss, J. M. (1971) · Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0031583 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
Dawkins, M. S. (1980) · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-5905-7 · Cited by 379 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare
Sherwen, S. L., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2019) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani9060366 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
“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.”
BackgroundAdvances in Applied Zoo Animal Welfare Science
Ward, S. J., Sherwen, S., & Clark, F. E. (2018) · Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science · doi:10.1080/10888705.2018.1513842 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Rethinking the utility of the five domains model
Hampton, J. O., Hemsworth, L. M., Hemsworth, P. H., Hyndman, T. H., & Sandøe, P. (2023) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.1017/awf.2023.84 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Current Knowledge on the Transportation by Road of Cattle, including Unweaned Calves
Buckham-Sporer, K., Earley, B., & Marti, S. (2023) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani13213393 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
- Authors
- Broom, D. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Broom, Donald M.
- ORCID
- 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
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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