Hide table of contents

Andrew Crump, Bob Fischer, & Meghan Barrett

 

Disclaimer: We apologize that we won’t be monitoring this post to answer questions.


About the Insect Welfare Research Society:

The Insect Welfare Research Society is an academic-led research society. It aims to support 1) the global insect/invertebrate welfare research community and 2) relevant stakeholders to incorporate evidence-based information on insect/invertebrate welfare into policy and practice. The society is run and staffed by entomologists, animal welfare scientists, and ethicists.

Many researchers on the Forum are interested in invertebrate welfare. This post is meant to inform these stakeholders about the IWRS guidelines for use in their work. The guidelines are intended to help researchers already committed to the use of invertebrates (e.g., having passed the ‘replace’ and ‘reduce’ steps of the 3Rs). They provide guidance on how to further refine research programs using the best available evidence for humane practice. So far, the IWRS has focused on producing guidelines for insects and decapod crustaceans.

The 2024 guidelines for insects and decapod crustaceans can be found here.

The insect guidelines (Fischer et al. 2024) are an updated version of those produced in 2023. They were collaboratively produced by animal ethicists, welfare scientists, and entomologists, and reviewed by a dozen entomologists from different sub disciplines before publication. As there are 1 million known species of insects (and 5.5 million species estimated in total), these guidelines are meant to be general and should be applied in a species-specific manner by individual researchers. The guidelines cover the central welfare-related issues associated with capturing, housing, and using insects in research, to include sampling, transportation, environmental conditions, nutrition and water, disease management, invasive methods, analgesia/anesthesia, release, euthanasia, and disposal.

Building on the insect guidelines, the decapod crustacean guidelines cover research on crabs, lobsters, crayfish, and shrimp (Crump et al. 2024). Decapods are a much smaller group than insects, with only around 15,000 species. They nonetheless encompass incredibly diverse body plans, and numerous commercially- and scientifically-important species. To reflect this diversity, the guidelines were written by eleven experts who work on various decapods and animal welfare/ethics. The recommendations broadly mirror those for insects, covering collection, husbandry, invasive procedures, and humane killing or release. Key differences in the physiology, life history, and neurobiology of decapods and insects means that there are significant differences in the promotion of their welfare, warranting two sets of guidelines. 

Please share these documents with anyone researching insects or decapod crustaceans, and get in touch if you have any feedback. The guidelines will be updated annually each January.

 

@Bob Fischer @Meghan Barrett

22

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as