【24h】

Thinking outside our cages.

机译:在笼子里思考。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Researchers seem to be stuck reiterating the now-familiar argument that barren boxes are bad for welfare and that rodents are due ethical consideration. But the prerequisites for real progress are new kinds of arguments, new types of data, and removal of very real practical and cultural obstacles to implementation of meaningful enrichment. We must discover what we have to do to effectively change the practices of people who have care and control of rodents in the laboratory, not just husbandry staff but those who develop the institution's protocols, job descriptions, and resourcing. Researchers are inventers of information, and like any inventor we should experience no satisfaction until our ideas are fully implemented-and we must be an active participant in that process. If we are asking animal caretakers to make deep, paradigmatic changes in their thinking, it is imperative that we in turn develop an emotionally positive understanding of areas important to them. For unless the welfare advocates truly understand the issues such as budgets, biosecurity, and branding, why should the people responsible for those subjects listen to us?
机译:研究人员似乎坚持重申现在已经熟悉的论点,即贫瘠的盒子不利于福利,而啮齿动物是出于道德考虑。但是,要取得真正的进步,先决条件是新的论据,新的数据类型,以及消除真正有意义的实践和文化障碍,以实现有意义的丰富化。我们必须发现我们必须采取的措施,以有效地改变在实验室中对啮齿动物进行照顾和控制的人员的行为,不仅是饲养人员,还包括那些制定机构规程,工作说明和资源配置的人员。研究人员是信息的发明者,像任何发明者一样,在我们的思想得到完全实施之前,我们不应该感到满足-我们必须积极参与这一过程。如果我们要求动物看护者对他们的思想进行深刻的,范式上的改变,那么我们必须反过来对他们重要的领域发展出积极的情感理解。因为除非福利倡导者真正了解预算,生物安全和品牌等问题,否则负责这些主题的人们为什么要听我们的话?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号