Animal welfare, animal behavior, and animal ethics are topics of increasing importance to the general public. Many animal owners expect veterinarians to be experts on animal behavior, management, and welfare. Over the past few decades, a changing social ethic has resulted in the public having greater moral concern for animals.1 Growing concern for animal welfare has led to increased consumer demand for humanely produced products worldwide.2 Animal welfare issues are complex and involve scientific, ethical, political, and economic factors.3 An understanding of basic animal welfare is necessary for veterinarians to help them advise clients and be meaningfully involved in animal welfare issues and explain those issues to the public.
Animal behavioral issues are commonly seen in veterinary practice. Causes and treatment of behavioral problems can be complex.4 Dogs with behavioral problems are more likely to be relinquished to a shelter than are dogs without behavioral problems.5 Investigators of 1 study6 found that behavioral problems were the number one reason provided by owners for the relinquishment of dogs and the number two reason for the relinquishment of cats. In another survey,7 39 of 80 (49%) people who had relinquished their dogs indicated that problem behaviors strongly influenced that decision. Horse owners also seek veterinary guidance for solving behavioral problems, such as cribbing, weaving, and pawing.8 Additionally, animal behavior is one of the primary measures used to assess animal welfare.9 Often the first indication of illness is a change in behavior, which makes understanding animal behavior crucial for all veterinarians. For veterinarians to address complex behavioral issues, animal behavior must be understood and should be included in the veterinary curriculum.
A basic understanding of animal ethics is essential for making decisions about animal care and use. Veterinary medicine is a high-stress profession, and learning how to use a moral compass to make difficult decisions can help alleviate some of that stress.10 Veterinarians are often most comfortable when working within an objective scientific framework, but successfully dealing with difficult issues may require thinking and working within different ethical frameworks.10 In Europe, the approach to teaching veterinary ethics varies greatly among veterinary schools.11 The same is true among US veterinary schools. However, the public consistently ranks veterinarians among the most honest and ethical professionals.12 To meet the demands of the profession and maintain positive public opinion, veterinarians need education on ethical principles.
On the basis of public demand and professional obligations for veterinarians, all veterinary students should be taught animal welfare, behavior, and ethics in the core curriculum. The objective of the study reported here was to explore the extent to which veterinary colleges and schools accredited by the AVMA COE have incorporated specific courses related to animal welfare, behavior, and ethics.
Materials and Methods
Survey of AVMA COE–accredited veterinary schools (part 1)
A survey (Online Supplement available at http://avmajournals.avma.org) was constructed with 23 questions. Three questions were devoted to identification of the institution and a contact person should additional clarification of any answers be needed. There were 18 multiple-choice questions; 9 focused on animal welfare, 6 focused on animal behavior, and 3 focused on animal ethics. The remaining 2 questions were open ended and requested comments about the inclusion of those 3 focus areas (animal welfare, behavior, and ethics) in the curriculum and about the survey. For each focus area, questions asked specifics about course structure (ie, whether a formal course existed, course name, whether the course was required or elective, number of credits, when the course was offered during the program, and format of the class). Several questions asked about the inclusion of specific topics in the formal courses currently being offered. If no formal course was offered in any of the 3 focus areas, a question was asked about where in the curriculum that material was addressed.
The survey was approved by the Colorado State University Institutional Review Board and the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges. The survey was emailed to the associate dean of academic affairs at all 49 AVMA COE–accredited colleges and schools of veterinary medicine in October 2014, requesting a response within 2 weeks. One reminder was emailed approximately 5 days before the response deadline.
Review of curricula from all 30 AVMA COE–accredited veterinary colleges and schools in the United States (part 2)
After the survey of part 1 was administered, all 30 AVMA COE–accredited colleges and schools of veterinary medicine in the United States were contacted for copies of the current curriculum. Copies of the curricula were collected during the spring of 2015 from the associate dean of academic affairs or from publicly available institution websites. Each curriculum was reviewed for courses relating to animal welfare or well-being, animal behavior, and animal ethics. Courses were or were not categorized into 1 of the 3 focus areas (animal welfare, animal behavior, or animal ethics) primarily on the basis of course titles and descriptions (when available). For courses to be categorized in the animal welfare area, the term welfare or well-being had to be included in the course title. For courses to be categorized in the animal behavior area, the term behavior, behavioral, or ethology had to be included in the course title. For courses to be categorized in the animal ethics area, the term ethics or ethical had to be included in the course title. Courses within the 3 focus areas were further categorized as elective or required and by year of the professional program during which they were offered (when available).
Data analysis
For the survey of part 1, descriptive statistics were generated for each survey response, and responses for US and international institutions were noted. For the curricula review of part 2, descriptive statistics were created. For the institutions that participated in both parts of the study, an attempt was made to validate the self-reported survey results from part 1 by comparing those survey results with the curricula review results of part 2.
Results
Survey (part 1)
Of the 49 AVMA COE–accredited institutions surveyed, 10 of 30 (33%) US institutions and 7 of 19 (37%) international institutions responded. The 7 international institutions that responded were located in Europe (n = 3), Canada (2), Australia (1), and Mexico (1).
Six of the 7 international institutions and 4 of the 10 US institutions that responded indicated that they offered a formal course in animal welfare. The animal welfare course was required at 9 of those institutions and an elective at 1 US institution. Five of the formal animal welfare courses consisted of lecture only, whereas the remaining 5 courses consisted of lecture with some laboratory time. Four of the responding institutions offered > 1 course related to animal welfare. At 9 of the 10 responding institutions, the formal animal welfare course was offered during the first 2 years of the veterinary curriculum, whereas 3 responding institutions offered animal welfare courses during the final 2 years of the veterinary curriculum.
Topics most commonly covered in the formal animal welfare courses included general animal welfare principles (n = 9), companion animal welfare issues (10), equine welfare issues (8), and livestock welfare issues (10). Other topics covered in some courses were laboratory animal welfare, international and cultural differences in animal welfare, euthanasia, zoo and wildlife welfare, and animals in captivity. Seven of the 10 responding institutions had ≤ 1 full-time equivalent faculty or staff devoted to teaching animal welfare, with 3 of those institutions having < 0.25 full-time equivalent faculty or staff devoted to teaching animal welfare.
Of the 7 institutions that did not currently offer a formal course in animal welfare, 2 planned to add a course in the next 5 years, 1 did not plan to add a course, and the remaining 4 were unsure whether they would add an animal welfare course to their curricula. All 7 of the institutions without a formal animal welfare course stated that general animal welfare principles were covered somewhere in the curriculum, and 6 of the 7 institutions reported that other coursework covered companion animal welfare issues, equine welfare issues, and livestock welfare issues.
When the 17 responding institutions were asked to indicate their extent of agreement with the statement “[t]he animal welfare training in our current curriculum adequately addresses the public demand for veterinarians to be knowledgeable of this subject,” all 7 international institutions and 3 of 10 US institutions responded with strongly agree or agree and the remaining 7 US institutions responded with neutral or disagree.
Nine of the 17 responding institutions reported that they offered a formal course on animal behavior, and 5 other institutions reported that they offered a combined course on animal behavior, welfare, and ethics. The animal behavior course was required at all but 1 of those institutions. Of the 14 (6 international and 8 US) institutions with a formal animal behavior course, the format for that course was primarily lecture with some laboratory time at 9, lecture only at 4, and primarily laboratory time with some lecture at 1. Thirteen of the 14 institutions offered an animal behavior course during the first 2 years of the veterinary curriculum, and some institutions offered multiple animal behavior courses. Topics covered in the formal animal behavior courses included companion animal behavior (n = 13), equine behavior (12), and livestock behavior (11). Other topics covered in the animal behavior courses at some institutions were exotic and wildlife behavior, laboratory animal behavior, and learning theory. The 3 institutions that did not offer a formal animal behavior course reported that the topics of companion animal, equine, and livestock behavior were covered in other courses.
Of the 17 responding institutions, 5 of 7 international institutions and 3 of 10 US institutions reported that they had a formal course on animal ethics. The 9 institutions that did not have a formal animal ethics course reported that animal ethics were addressed in other courses. Four of those institutions sponsored animal ethics experts to speak on campus with a frequency of 2 to many times per year, and veterinary students were required to attend most of those sponsored lectures.
Nine institutions provided a response to the following survey query: “We welcome your comments about the inclusion of animal welfare, behavior, or ethics in the professional curriculum.” Those responses included “it is vital,” “it is fundamental for veterinary professionals,” “veterinary medicine is more than the physical health of the animal and should include teaching these topics,” and “it should be a core part of the curriculum”; the remaining 5 responses clarified answers provided to previous questions.
Curriculum review (part 2)
Of the 30 AVMA COE–accredited veterinary colleges and schools in the United States, only 4 provided us with copies of their curricula; the curricula for the remaining 26 institutions were obtained online. Thus, the curricula for all 30 AVMA COE–accredited US institutions were reviewed.
Six of 30 (20%) institutions provided a formal course with the term animal welfare or animal well-being in the title. The course was required at all 6 of those institutions, and 1 institution also offered an elective course on animal welfare. All courses were 1 to 2 credits. The year of the veterinary curriculum during which the required animal welfare course was provided varied among the 6 institutions.
Twenty-two of 30 (73%) institutions provided a formal course with the term animal behavior or ethology in the title. The course was required at 14 institutions, an elective at 7 institutions, and not specified as required or elective at 1 institution. Seven institutions offered an elective course on animal behavior in addition to the required course. The number of credits for the animal behavior course and the year of the veterinary curriculum during which it was offered varied among the institutions. Seven institutions had courses with the term small animal behavior or companion animal behavior in the course title.
Eighteen of 30 (60%) institutions provided a formal course with the term ethics in the title. The course title also included the term law or jurisprudence at 9 of those 18 institutions. The course was required at 17 institutions and an elective at 1 institution. The number of credits for the formal ethics courses ranged from 1 to 3. The year of the veterinary curriculum during which the ethics course was offered varied among institutions.
Comparison of survey responses (part 1) with results of curriculum review (part 2)
Ten US institutions were included in both part 1 and part 2. The results for part 1 were the same as those for part 2 for 5 of the 10 institutions. For 3 institutions, review of the curriculum revealed courses (3 animal ethics courses and 1 animal behavior course) that were not reported in the survey of part 1. Two institutions reported courses (1 animal welfare course and 1 animal behavior course) in part 1 that were not identified in the curriculum review of part 2.
Discussion
Animal welfare, animal behavior, and animal ethics represent only 3 of the many subjects that must be covered in formal veterinary medical education, yet they encompass how and why we care for and use animals. There is a growing body of science surrounding those topics, and the AVMA recognizes 2 related board specialty colleges (American College of Animal Welfare and American College of Veterinary Behaviorists). Veterinary students need to be properly trained on those subjects to meet the needs and expectations of society. Results of the present study provided preliminary information regarding the extent to which courses on animal welfare, behavior, and ethics are being offered in the curricula of AVMA COE–accredited colleges and schools of veterinary medicine.
Findings of the present study suggested that, of the areas assessed (animal welfare, behavior, and ethics), formal training on animal welfare was the area most frequently lacking in the curricula of many veterinary training programs. On the basis of responses to the survey of part 1, 6 of 10 US institutions and only 1 of 7 international institutions lacked a formal animal welfare course. The curricula review of part 2 revealed that only 6 of the 30 AVMA COE–accredited veterinary colleges and schools in the United States offered courses that included the term animal welfare in the title. Although the survey of part 1 had a low response rate, the posted curricula of all US veterinary colleges and schools were reviewed during part 2. We acknowledge that formal courses are not the only method for teaching animal welfare; however, it appeared that not all US institutions addressed animal welfare topics related to specific species, potentially resulting in students who were unaware or uninformed about animal welfare issues. There was a distinct difference in how international and US institutions responded to the statement “[t]he animal welfare training in our current curriculum adequately addresses the public demand for veterinarians to be knowledgeable of this subject.” All 7 international institutions that responded either strongly agreed or agreed with that statement, whereas only 3 of 10 US institutions that responded either strongly agreed or agreed with that statement; the remaining 7 US institutions either were neutral or disagreed with that statement. Those responses were self-reported, with 1 international and 1 US institution strongly agreeing that their curriculum was adequately addressing the public expectations for veterinarians’ knowledge related to animal welfare despite the fact that a formal course on animal welfare was not provided. Unfortunately, there was no method to verify that the responding institutions were or were not meeting public expectations, or whether the person who completed the survey was fully aware of the depth and breadth of animal welfare science. Regardless of whether a formal animal welfare course was offered, the findings of the present study indicated a need to increase the amount of time dedicated to teaching veterinary students about animal welfare at US institutions.
In the survey of part 1, 9 of the 17 responding institutions offered a formal course dedicated to animal behavior, and another 5 institutions offered formal courses that combined animal behavior, ethics, and welfare. In part 2, review of the posted curricula for the 30 US veterinary training institutions revealed that 22 (73%) offered formal courses on animal behavior. Although most institutions offered courses dedicated to animal behavior, 7 had behavior courses with the term small animal or companion animal in the title, which suggested a potential need for courses that focus on the behavior of other species. Understanding the behavior of livestock species is an important aspect of animal welfare assessments and is critical for ensuring the safety of both people and animals during the handling of those species. Additionally, a change in behavior is often the first indication of pain or disease in veterinary patients; therefore, all veterinary students need a basic understanding of animal behavior to address the needs of their future patients and clients.
The survey results of part 1 indicated that only 3 of 10 US institutions and 5 of 7 international institutions offered a formal course on animal ethics. The 9 responding institutions that did not offer a formal course on animal ethics stated that they addressed animal ethics in other courses, and several brought in guest lecturers on the topic. The results of the curriculum review in part 2 indicated that 18 of 30 (60%) US institutions offered formal courses that included the term animal ethics in the title, and 9 of those courses also included the term law, legal, or jurisprudence in the title. Although it is important for veterinary students to learn about veterinary law, that differs from the general principles of animal ethics. Veterinarians need to be cognizant of various beliefs regarding animal use because they will likely encounter people with differing philosophical beliefs about the use of animals during their careers.
For the 10 US institutions that were evaluated in both parts 1 and 2 of the present study, the results of part 1 were identical to those of part 2 for 5. The 5 institutions that had discrepant responses between parts 1 and 2 were more likely to underestimate rather than overestimate their courses during the survey. During the survey, 3 institutions failed to report courses that were identified during the curriculum review, whereas 2 institutions reported courses that were not found during the curriculum review. Three institutions reported that they did not offer a course on ethics, but review of the curriculum for each of those institutions revealed a course with the term ethics in the title. Discrepancies between the results of parts 1 and 2 for some institutions suggested that the posted curricula were not kept up to date, courses changed between the survey and the curriculum review, or the person completing the survey was unaware of all the courses offered at that institution. The 5 institutions that had discrepant results between parts 1 and 2 need to improve the publicizing of their curricula so that it can be better understood by both insiders and outsiders. Additionally, the discrepant findings between parts 1 and 2 highlighted important differences between self-perception or -reporting and an external curriculum review.
In May 2012, the World Organisation for Animal Health published recommendations on competencies for graduating veterinarians.13 That document13 outlines the minimum competencies all graduating veterinarians need to serve the public and stated that all of those competencies should be included in the veterinary curriculum. It states that “veterinarians should be the leading advocates for the welfare of all animals.”13 Animal welfare is a core competency and includes explaining animal welfare and related responsibilities of animal caretakers, identifying animal welfare problems and helping to correct them, and knowing where to find current information on animal welfare standards for animal production, transport, slaughter, and death.13 Veterinary legislation and ethics are another core competency outlined in that document13 and include understanding laws related to veterinary medicine, understanding and applying high standards of veterinary medical ethics, and serving as leaders in society on the use of animals. On the basis of that document,13 all veterinary colleges or schools should be training veterinarians to be leaders in animal welfare and ethics. Results of the present study indicated that not all veterinary colleges and schools are meeting that obligation.
In 2008, the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges created the NAVMEC to address the needs of a changing veterinary profession. The NAVMEC final report14 identified core competencies for graduate veterinarians that included leadership in animal welfare and ethical practice. It also identified evolving societal needs and stated that veterinarians will be expected to take more of a leadership role on animal welfare issues.14 The NAVMEC report14 advised all veterinary colleges and schools in North America to include animal welfare in their curricula in addition to meeting the World Organisation for Animal Health recommendations13 for all veterinary training programs throughout the world. Several years have passed since the NAVMEC report14 was published, yet many US veterinary colleges and schools still do not offer courses on animal welfare.
The purpose of the present study was to review educational programs offered on animal behavior, ethics, and welfare by AVMA COE–accredited veterinary colleges and schools with a focus on formal courses related to those topics. Formal courses are certainly not the only acceptable method of preparing veterinary students to deal with animal welfare, behavior, or ethics. It could be argued that having a culture that focuses on animal welfare and incorporating animal welfare training into all courses would better educate students, compared with having 1 formal course on animal welfare during 4 years of training. For example, animal welfare could be included in a physiology course during discussion about stress and again in a nutrition class and revisited during case management in the clinical training phase. Incorporation of animal welfare material into the curriculum in various ways allows for repetition and increases the likelihood that veterinary students will master the subject matter by the time they graduate. There are many different methods of teaching, and as long as students learn the material, one method is not necessarily better than the other.
An advantage of formal courses is that they allow for transparency of what veterinary students are being taught. One of the authors (TG) is a particularly strong proponent of course transparency and believes that the inclusion of courses in the veterinary curriculum that contain the terms animal behavior and animal welfare in their titles assures the public that veterinarians are being trained in those areas. Additionally, transparent course titles allow students in preveterinary programs who have an interest in animal welfare, behavior, and ethics to compare curricula among veterinary colleges and schools and make informed decisions regarding the program that best suits their interests. Although there is a lot of information on animal welfare and ethics available, not all of it is from credible sources. Making it readily known that veterinarians receive formal training on animal welfare, behavior, and ethics can help promote the positive public image of the profession.
Evaluation of veterinary curricula is challenging owing to the complexity of the curricula and the fairly small number of institutions with doctor of veterinary medicine degree programs. The survey of part 1 resulted in a lower than desired response rate (17/49 [35%]); therefore, the curriculum review of part 2 was undertaken. The low response rate to the survey of part 1 might have been attributable to self-selection of institutions; some institutions that did not offer formal courses on animal welfare, behavior, and ethics may have been less inclined to respond to the survey than those that did offer courses on those topics. Only a limited amount of information could be obtained from review of the posted curricula because not all institutions provided course descriptions along with the course titles. Thus, the courses could only be assessed as posted; we could not assess other courses that might cover animal welfare, behavior, and ethics but for which information about the content of those courses was not provided.
The results of the present study cannot be used to assess how well educated and conversant veterinary graduates are in the areas of animal welfare, animal behavior, and animal ethics, but such an assessment is clearly the ultimate target for further research. All institutions with veterinary training programs should be assessing the level of understanding their students have in those areas. If veterinarians are going to fulfill their role as guardians of animal welfare and as providers of information, guidance, and advice to animal owners, producers, consumers, and policy developers, then they need to be not only aware of the issues but also fluent in the language and conversant on methods to assess and monitor animal welfare, care, and behavior.
ABBREVIATIONS
| COE | Council on Education |
| NAVMEC | North American Veterinary Medical Education Consortium |
References
1. Rollin BE. Animal production and the new social ethic for animals. J Soc Philos 1994; 25 (S1): 71–83.
2. Fraser D. The globalisation of farm animal welfare. Rev Sci Tech 2014; 33: 33–38.
3. Lund V, Coleman G, Gunnarsson S, et al. Animal welfare science-working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2006; 97: 37–49.
4. Turner DC. Treating canine and feline behaviour problems and advising clients. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1997; 52: 199–204.
5. Patronek GJ, Glickman LT, Beck AM, et al. Risk factors for relinquishment of dogs to an animal shelter. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1996; 209: 572–581.
6. Salman MD, Hutchison J, Ruch-Gallie R, et al. Behavioral reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats to 12 shelters. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2000; 3: 93–106.
7. Kwan JY, Bain MJ. Owner attachment and problem behaviors related to relinquishment and training techniques of dogs. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2013; 16: 168–183.
8. Luescher UA, McKeown DB, Dean H. A cross-sectional study on compulsive behaviour (stable vices) in horses. Equine Vet J Suppl 1998; (27):14–18.
9. Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Vet Scand 2008; 50 (suppl 1): S1.
10. Gray C. Similar but not the same: the teaching of veterinary and medical ethics. Vet Rec 2014; 175: 590–591.
11. Magalhães-Sant'Ana M. Ethics teaching in European veterinary schools: a qualitative case study. Vet Rec 2014; 175: 592.
12. Gallup. Honesty/ethics in professions. Dec. 8–11, 2014. Available at: www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx. Accessed May 17, 2015.
13. World Organisation for Animal Health. OIE recommendations on the competencies of graduating veterinarians (‘Day 1 graduates’) to assure National Veterinary Services of quality. Paris: World Organisation for Animal Health, 2012. Available at: www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Support_to_OIE_Members/Vet_Edu_AHG/DAY_1/DAYONE-B-ang-vC.pdf. Accessed Mar 20, 2015.
14. North American Veterinary Medical Education Consortium. Roadmap for veterinary medical education in the 21st century: responsible, collaborative, flexible. Washington, DC: North American Veterinary Medical Education Consortium, 2011. Available at: aavmc.org/data/files/navmec/navmec_roadmapreport_web_booklet.pdf. Accessed Feb 17, 2016.
