P2. Human relationships with animals in Asia Pacific countries and bioethics

Journal: pp. 324-337 in Bioethics in Asia, N. Fujiki & D.R.J. Macer, eds. (Eubios Ethics Institute, 1998).
Author: Darryl R. J. Macer and Kyoko Yokoyama

Tables not yet on line.

Introduction
It is said that no person is an island of themselves. We are surrounded by many other beings, of the same species and different. The interactions between humans, animals and the environment have shaped human values and ethics, not only the genes that we are made of. Until about 8000 years ago humans hunted wild animals, then gradually domestically them for agriculture. In addition to agriculture, pets have long been kept, and animals played important roles in religion in many ancient cultures. The issue of animal rights is a recent extension of the animal welfare movement which began at least a century ago, which emerged out of this long history of interactions. Changes to prescriptive ethics over the last few decades in human treatment of animals have been expressed in guidelines and laws, especially in humane killing in slaughter houses and in vivisection in scientific research and teaching.

The animal rights movement challenges human beings to reconsider interactions between humans and other animals, and may be connected to the environmental movement that begs us to recognize the fact that there are symbiotic relationships between humans and all other organisms. This movement is based on the concept that to cause pain and suffering is wrong (Singer, 1976; Regan, 1983), and has found wide public support These factors were basic to the introduction of animal welfare legislation and guidelines which have made researchers more aware of the pain that they can cause to animals involved in experiments.

There are a diversity of views on the use of animals within each society, as indicated by adherence to vegetarianism, or approval with animal experimentation. Analysis of a survey question on animal research “Scientists should be allowed to do research that causes pain and injury to animals like dogs and chimpanzees if it produces new information about human health problems” in fifteen countries found a range of agreement, with women being less supportive (Pifer et al. 1994). Japan and the USA show less disagreement than most European countries. That analysis also found some association between interest in environmental issues and rejection of animal research, but not with scientific knowledge. Overall it suggested that persons in less industrialized countries may have a tendency to be more pragmatic about animal research because they have more contact with farm animals compared to developed countries where people are mainly in contact with pets as companions. Females are also reported to be more empathic and knowledge about animals than males (Kellert & Berry, 1987).

In this paper we would like to start at the level of relationships between humans and animals inside the broad society and environment that we live. Hills (1993) reported from a survey of members of animal rights groups, urban public and farmers in Western Australia that there were significant trends between these three groups with empathy (farmers least), viewing animals as an object or instrument (farmers most), and underlying world views on the place of non-human animals compared to humans. Some other associations with personality have been reported for people more sympathetic to animal experiments, including support for access to guns, support of interpersonal violence, exhibiting racial prejudice, opposing abortion rights (Nibert, 1994), and generally less empathetic (Broida et al. 1993).

In 1993 an International Bioethics Survey was conducted in 10 Asian-Oceanic countries, and comparisons of the views of animals inside each society, and between societies is made. The similarities and differences in perception of different animals and the relationships that determine those perceptions are presented (Macer, 1994).

Differences between types of animals and situation
Relationships that we observe between people and animals around us depend upon the circumstances, so we should consider the situation and type of animals. The same place can be viewed in different ways by different people. For example, the public view a farm as nice place to grow animals, or as scenery, or the production of wheat or meat. A farmer sees animals as property, money, or as companion for life together in the farmland image of nature, or as production of a certain quality or quantity of steak or wool, etc. Farmer’s children may see some animals as pet. A farmer themselves, may think of a pet dog as a pet, but sheep dogs or working animals as either work companions or instruments. There may be pet chickens to lay eggs, or turkeys for celebrating visits of guests or special occasions.

People with pets see animals as companion. Children see their first pet as a warm cuddly or new addition to the family. This changes over development. One child family children may see the cat as close as a sister or brother, or as a moving and warm cuddly toy. But a rival dog can be a threat, or noisy, or dirty, or a disease vector. Stray cats are chased away, but the house cat is loved by a warm lap. There have been some studies of peoples images of pets. Teachers of biology may see animals as sacrifices for the education of students, or tools for demonstration of what they think people should know. Researchers may take the same species and perform experiments. Is it more ethical to do these on stray cats or cats bred especially for research? The answer depends upon the relationships that we suppose the cats have, and the relationships that society has to the animals.

There have been several attempts to explain the types of relationships. Kellert and Berry (1987). suggested instrumental-ethical distinctions as well as empathy or love to animals. Results of a survey looking at the types of attitudes that people in Japan, Germany and the USA have towards animals suggest differences in the types of relationship (Kellert, 1991; 1993). His surveys were based over a ten year time period, and found that the most common feeling towards wildlife was appreciation, and affection for particular wildlife species. Hills (1993) suggested there are three motivational bases for attitudes to animals, instrumentality, empathy/identification, and values and beliefs. Broida et al (1993) found intuitive and feeling personality types were more likely to oppose animal experimentation than sensate and thinking types.

In a biocentric viewpoint we may see animals as fellow survivors of life, given the grace to live with us on this planet. We are still left with the personal and social question, how much interaction should we have with them? Should we leave them alone unless we need to farm them. We may eat meat, or kill them if we think it is better for us, only for eating. We may dislike hunting, but appreciate food killed “humanely” in shops. Should we adopt animals as companions is another interaction that the euthanasia of stray cats and dogs raises. In 1997 the fate of 1500 retired chimpanzees was decided (National Research Council 1997). The fact that they were not euthanised is another sign that the relationship to animals, some at least, includes the duty to care for them. Those with a purely anthropocentric view of life will argue that it makes humans kinder to each other, or provides psychological relief, however the media and the scientific discussion suggests that biocentric views are being used as a standpoint towards many issues.

Attitudes towards animal rights
During 1993 mail response surveys were conducted among the general public and students in Australia, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore and Thailand, with collaborators (Macer, 1994). This International Bioethics Survey was performed in order to look at how people think about life, nature, and selected issues of science and technology, biotechnology, genetic engineering, and genetic technology. One question asked the agreement with the statement "Q1i. Animals have rights that people should not violate". We find the highest level of agreement with this statement in Japan; and the strongest agreement in all countries was seen among the public respondents, rather than students. However, in responses to other open questions about bioethics among the public we did not find Japanese respondents expressed any more concerns about animal rights than in other countries, and in many questions less comments were given including animals. The responses may be ideal, considering that many of those who strongly agree will be eating animals.

Images of animals
A deeper examination of the attitudes to animals was made by analysis of the open comments expressed in questions, "Will you please express freely, in sentences and/or pictures, the images which come to mind when you hear the word "nature", and/or any ideas you have on "nature"“; and the same wording for "life". All the comments with animals were examined, and the quantity of the comment, type of animal, and the type of relationship were examined. This question is less leading and may be a better measure of how much people think of animals. There are differences in the proportion of comments which mentioned animals (Table 1). We should note that in Russia, Israel and India, 25%+, significantly more respondents to the survey who did not write any comment, whereas 90% of respondents in other countries wrote something in response to these questions (Macer, 1994; Macer et al., 1996).

There were more comments including animals in response to the open question on images of nature than in images of life. The proportion of the total comments that included animals ranged from 12-56% for nature, and from 5-28% for life. Russian respondents were the least likely to mention animals, and Australians the most likely, for both questions.

In sociobiology the concept of "biophilia" (Wilson, 1984), suggests people have more specific reactions towards living organisms than inorganic ones, because it is linked to evolutionary benefits of ecosystem harmony. Whether or not we have special genetic relationships, there is a concern felt for animals and plants, beyond that felt for stones, and this is seen across the countries surveyed. Whether the quantity of animals expressed in these images is a measure of specific closeness to animals is a matter for further research. One interesting aspect is that in images of nature (“shizen”) and life (“inochi”) in Japan the public and medical students were less than half as likely to mention living things or animals as in New Zealand (Table 1). Results of a survey found contrary results for young persons. It was conducted on children 11-18 years old in New Zealand and Japan in late 1996 (Macer et al. 1997), following the “Biocult” survey of Chadwick and Levitt (1996), which modified the wording of the “nature” question to ask for images of “natural”, found that living things were mentioned by 41% of children in Japan, whereas only by 9% in New Zealand, 8% in the UK, 7% in Finland, 19% in Germany and 18% in Spain. While these surveys were in selected schools, the schools in New Zealand included rural schools where the students would be expected to have more exposure to animals, however there was no difference in the proportion who mentioned animals. In Japan it is less likely to have relationships to animals, yet significantly more students mentioned them. What is interesting for biophilia is that in the same question 19% of the Japanese students mentioned physical objects of nature, 1% in New Zealand, and a low proportion in the European countries (where it was not distinguished from living things as a category). This suggests either linguistic differences in the phrase “shizen no mono” from “natural” in English, or there may be something different that could be age dependent.

Attitudes to, and the practice of, animal experiments were surveyed among school teachers in Australia, Japan, and New Zealand in 1993 (Macer 1994; Macer et al., 1996; Tsuzuki et al., 1998). At the beginning of the International Bioethics Education Survey questionnaire the open question, Q5. "What do you think bioethics is?" was asked (Asada et al. 1996). There were significant differences in the number of teachers who expressed concerns about animal rights or experiments: NZb 16%, NZs 10%, Ab 5%; As 2%, Jb 1% and Js 1%; and those who mentioned animals in other comments: NZb 0%, NZs 1%, Ab 0%; As 0%, Jb 1% and Js 1%. At the end of the questionnaire, 85% agreed with another open question, Q21. "Do you think that bioethics education is needed in education?". There were also significant differences in the number of teachers who responded with a comment about animal experiments, with results being: NZb 8.4%, NZs 1.1%, Ab 5.2%; As 0%, Jb 2.6% and Js 0% (Tsuzuki et al., 1998). The finding that Japanese teachers were less likely to express animal experiment issues, is consistent with the results of surveys among biology teachers in Japan in 1991 (Macer, 1992) compared to New Zealand in 1990 (Couchman & Fink-Jensen, 1990).

There were also questions on animal experiments. Among the biology teachers, 90% in New Zealand used animals in class, 71% in Australia and 69% in Japan. About two thirds of all the samples said that they had had ethical concerns about animal experiments, which were examined in responses to open questions. The concept of humane use was expressed less in Japan than Australasia. 72% of biology teachers in New Zealand, 63% in Australia and 12% in Japan said there were guidelines at their schools for using animals in class. The impact of animal welfare guidelines is discussed, together with the general attitudes to animal use. It is a future question to see whether such images may impact the way that animals are used in teaching, but it appears that the modern animal rights movement, and the introduction of animal welfare guidelines, have had more direct impact on changing the educational use of animals than the general perceptions of animals.

Relationships to animals expressed in images of life and nature
The images of animals as nature or life were more common in some countries than in others. Does this also apply to relationships? Are there differences between countries? Results of a survey looking at the types of attitudes that people in Japan, Germany and the USA have towards animals suggests differences in the types of relationship (Kellert, 1991; 1993). His surveys were based over a ten year time period, and found that the most common feeling towards wildlife was appreciation, and affection for particular wildlife species. The data in the International Bioethics Survey is consistent with the idea that a country with frequent exposure to wildlife of various species was more likely to mention animals in the case of Australia, which is globally famous for the variety of wildlife found there (Table 2).

There are various ways to divide the types of relationships, as discussed above. The categories that we employed were basically following those of Kellert (1993). These included: aesthetic (physical attractiveness, symbolic appeal), naturalistic (show interest in nature and outdoors, scenery), ecologistic (ecocentrism, focusing on ecosystem), biocentric (focusing on individual organism and their view of world), pollution (focusing on pollution damage or being untouched by human beings - note that the question on nature followed a set of questions on genetic engineering), harmony including humans (mentioned humans in the image together with other animals), humanistic (focusing on individual species for conservation like wild animals), utilitarian (practical value of animals, or subordination of animals for practical benefit, like a farm), doministic (mastery or control), scientific (physical attributes or biological functioning), moralistic (right and wrong treatment to animals, as opposed to pollution which is damage to ecosystem or being untouched), and negativistic (avoiding animals, indifference, dislike or fear).

Among the images of nature which included animals, the most common types of relationships were: aesthetic (36%), naturalistic (27%), discussing pollution (17%), ecologistic (13%), biocentric (9%), harmony including humans (9%), humanistic (6%), utilitarian (4%), scientific (1%), with moralistic, negativistic and doministic comments less than 1%. Among the images of life which included animals, the most common types of relationships were: biocentric (32%), ecologistic (17%), aesthetic (16%), discussing pollution (11%), naturalistic (10%), humanistic (8%), harmony including humans (7%), moralistic (6%), scientific (6%), utilitarian (2%), negativistic (1%), and doministic (0.3%).

There were few differences between countries, for example, there were more naturalistic comments in India, Hong Kong, the Philippines and Singapore; more ecologistic in Australia; more biocentric comments in Australia and Japan; and more comments with the idea of harmony including humans in Thailand. Comparisons to other questions were made, and in general, respondents who mentioned animals were more supportive of the statement that “animals have rights that humans should not violate”; and less positive and more negative in their perceptions of science; and less willing to approve of genetic engineering of a sports fish. However, there were very few differences based on environmental attitudes.

Table 1: Types of relationships to animals expressed in images of life and nature

Table 2: Types of relationships to animals expressed in images of life and nature with demographic variables

The types of relationships expressed by the total sample of persons who mentioned animals in all the countries is presented in Table 2 together with comparisons among some divisions within the sample. There was a significant trend (p<0.05) for older respondents (60 years and over) to express more moralistic and ecologistic comments in the images of nature than young persons (up to 35 years old), but not in images of life. Interestingly in the images of life more persons in the middle age group (36-59 years old) had ecologistic comments. In the images of life female respondents had a tendency to express more biocentric comments, but not for nature. There was a tendency for both questions for very religious persons, and those living in rural areas, to express more aesthetic relationships. The answers expressed as pictures were significantly more likely to be categorized as aesthetic (P<0.01), which could alter the responses for Thai respondents who used many pictures for their answers to these questions.

The trends are more significant for the absence of relationships, for example those agreeing with the animal rights statement (Q1i) were just average in their giving moralistic comments about animals. Those who agreed with the environment has a value statement were just average in giving biocentric comments about animals.

Extrinsic and intrinsic values
The study of relationships can suggest what factors are important in the daily attitudes and actions that we have towards animals. We can think of ethical factors intrinsic to an organism (e.g. pain, self-awareness, planning for the future, the value of being alive), and those which are extrinsic to the organism (e.g. human necessity / desire, human sensitivity to animal suffering outside, causing harm leads to brutality in humans, other animals’ disapproval, benefit of an ecosystem or other organisms, the religious status of animals).

In most people's minds there are some differences between animals and plants, though they often appeared together in comments about nature or life. Philosophers can argue that there are morally significant differences between animals and plants, such as the capacity to feel pain. More fundamental than this is the concept of "do no harm", which has a basis for protecting nature at a more fundamental level - the level of being alive. Agreement with the statement “Q1c. The natural environment has a valuable property that humans should not tamper with” is a measure of people’s ideas on an intrinsic value to nature. There was strong agreement with this except in Thailand (Macer, 1994). Following these questions in the survey were some more practical questions on environment action, for example “Q2c. During the past 12 months, have you contributed money to an environmental cause?”. Chi square analysis of Q1c and Q2c found no significant relationship in public samples, though there were several significant relationships in Australian and New Zealand public with some other practical environmental questions. However, generally there was not a relationship between practice and theoretical agreement as is discussed elsewhere (Macer, 1994). This supports the suspicion noted above with the animal rights question, that people do not apply what they say - even if that is what they think in an ideal case.

Arguably, the most important criteria used in guidelines for judging the use of animals is　 Arguably, the most important criteria used in guidelines for judging the use of animals is　avoing the infliction of pain. Suffering can be defined as prolonged pain of a certain intensity (Regan, 1983), and it is claimed that no individual can suffer who is incapable of experiencing pain. The capacity for suffering and/or enjoyment has been described as a prerequisite for having any interests (Singer, 1976). Pragmatism would say we must try to balance the pain caused by the benefit (Porter, 1992).

The question of the value of life and nature can be investigated by open questions as attempted in this paper. Several comment categories can be considered as arising from intrinsic values (moralistic, ecologistic, biocentric) and others from extrinsic (humanistic, aesthetic, utilitarian, doministic, negativistic), while naturalistic, pollution and harmony could stem from either way of thinking. Additionally, the idea of what is natural will change with time as new techniques such as genetic engineering are used to later the intrinsic characters of animals, for example altering their capacity to feel pain (Macer, 1989).

Rural views
The proportion of rural respondents was somewhat lower among the respondents who mentioned animals in comments about nature in 9/14 samples (Russia did not have that question), but higher for those who mentioned animals in images of life in 11/14 samples compared to the total respondents for each question (Table 1). Over half of the New Zealand public (54%) and students (55%) who mentioned animals in their image of life were rural respondents compared to 23% and 15% respectively in the total samples. The trend was also marked in Thailand were the public (83%) and students (73%) who mentioned animals were significantly more likely to be rural than in the total, 46% and 42% respectively. The association with the image of life would be logical with the idea that people express the image they are familiar with as animals are more common in the rural areas. Rural respondents had a significant (p<0.05) tendency to express more comments in the relationship we categorized as harmony including humans (Table 2).

One of the basic relationships between other animals and human beings is that as a result of the food chain, although some people alter their diet in vegetarianism to avoid eating animals. Does diet change alter relationships in general? People will continue to eat animals, and practical ethics must improve the ethical treatment for all animals. It is interesting that many farmers in the International Survey expressed concerns about animal use, they clearly perceive images of what is a "natural" and "just" life for an animal, and what is not. One question of particular concern is whether animals should be in a field or in a caged box, or factory farm. The main ethical question is confinement of animals, such as veal calves, pigs and poultry in small cages. There have been several countries which have banned the use of battery caged hens, and in some of the countries in the survey free range eggs are available, but few comments were made by respondents. The possible boredom of animals on factory farms (Appleby, 1991) may be another ethical argument against their use. People need to decide how much more they are prepared to pay economically for better treatment of animals, such as the costs of eliminating battery farming, or the costs in not using new animal treatments that produce cheaper milk or meat such as bovine growth hormone. The European Commission banned growth hormones because it has to subsidize over-production already (Maddox, 1995), as well as other factors, which raise questions about the limit of making animals grow fast.

Types of Animals
A wide range of types of animals was found in the comments (Macer et al. 1996; Tsuzuki et al. 1998). Kellert (1993) also suggested that preoccupation with a particular species is not the best approach for conservation. The diversity of animals that were mentioned in peoples images of nature and life suggests no particular species is the focus of the concern. However, it was not a conservation question, and some animals are symbols of conservation efforts .

Not only species can vary but types include wild or pet. Is there a difference between having pets in house or outside on a chain or in a pet house? Do we have less contact with animals now? Do we reject them. How can we observe if people keep animals in their rooms - only when they walk their dog (Donnelley, 1989)? Is this representative of the overall relationship. People may hide their relationship with stray cats because they cannot keep pets in their rooms, so they satisfy their desire for a relationship by feeding strays. Official regulations may intrude into the relationships for those living in apartments. Does the basic feeling continues? How do measure this? We can see this in people who have a desire to feed strays. Two parts of people’s relationship - outside and inside. Are cats a nuisance to gardeners, so that could a factor in causing rejection of wandering cats, especially for tomcats.

Field Observations
Field work was conducted in Australasia, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan and Thailand. One key question is how can we integrate both types of observation methods of descriptive bioethics, surveys and field observations, to form a model of animal relationships, and the observed bioethic of human behaviour towards other animals? The survey data itself is not sufficient to obtain an adequate understanding of descriptive bioethics, therefore field notes, photographs and videos have been taken from field work in a variety of countries to look at the real-life relationships. The following examples show some of the types of relationships towards animals, and illustrate an approach using field work. There is not room to print all photos, or videos, but in each case shown some background information is given, and some of the questions that they raise are listed.

Figure 1: Wild animals in national parks

Flamingo and pelican just as they fly up from the waters of Lake Nalsarovar (Gujarat, India). The lake is shallow and muddy, and we approached on boat. An elephant family roaming on the grass next to the lake in Periyar Tiger Reserve (Kerala State, India). The lake was made by a dam.

Relationships: Aesthetic and Utilitarian. Both of these are utilized not only for sightseeing by visitors, who may have aesthetic relationships also, but also local people profit from the tourism.

Notes: When the boat went away, the elephants came back into the water’s edge. In India there are many national parks. On the other hand there is no more field to cultivate. They seem to have used up their available land and nature before they realized the extra value of nature. In mid-1997 a law to stop timber use from many of their forests was introduced, which will save some remaining forests, and switch to imported timber. In early 1997 when we took the photo there were many trucks carrying timber. Land use faces strong population pressure, associated with economical problems.

Questions: What does their religion and ethics say about nature? What is their history of relationships between humans and nature especially about national parks? What lessons are there from their history?

Figure 2: Animals next to people

A regular visiting stray cat around an apartment in Tsukuba. Monkeys on trees in the carpark of Periyar Tiger Reserve (Kerala State, India).

Relationships: Harmony and Negativistic. We have a conflict between people who like animals in the towns, and those who don't like them. For example, the problem of stray cats in town is mainly sanitary, with some people worried by the noise.

Notes: We have ejected some parts of nature from towns. Apartment owners send notices forbidding rentees from feeding strays, and encouraging notification for their removal by city authorities. On the other hand there is a project of biodome (to construct natural part in city) in town for our comfort, and Tsukuba has many recreation parks.

Questions: What is the relationship between humans and nature in urban areas? What should it be like?

Figure 3: Animals utilized in farming

Buffalo and cow market in a valley in Kerala, India. Camels used to pull a load in India. Men washing a cow in a pond in Tamil Nadu, India.

Relationships: Utilitarian and Doministic.

Notes: Many people in the countryside live with animals to earn money. The people utilize animals in various ways, for example, the power of work like the camels. Some of the camels had diarrhea but seemed not to be given care. We didn't interview them so we don't know how they feel towards their animal, but we felt these animals had worked very hard. On the other hand, people washed their cow in the pond to look after them.

Questions: India has regions which are at different economic level. In poor regions are people unable to look after their animals well?

Figure 4: Fishing

Chinese fishing nets in Cochin, India. Fish farming in Songkhla, Thailand.

Relationships: Utilitarian.

Note: Fish is an important source of animal protein for the very numerous population. But we have to control the number of fish caught.

Questions: Is it possible to have a relationship with fish in a farm, whereas it is not possible with animals hunted blindly like most mass fishing?

Figure 5: Pets and displays

Bird in cage of a historical museum in Songkhla, Thailand.

Relationships: Aesthetic and Scientific.

Notes: Many birds are kept in cages so they cannot fly away. This bird may not be for scientific study, but for amusement of people as an accessory, like tropical fish tanks.

Question: Is a relationship where the bird is free to fly away to be valued more than a relationship where one member is a captive?

Conclusion
It is said that no person is an island of themselves. We are surrounded by many other beings, of the same species and different. The interactions between humans, animals and the environment have shaped human values and ethics, not only the genes that we are made of. Changes to prescriptive ethics over the last few decades in human treatment of animals have been expressed in guidelines and laws, especially in humane killing in slaughter houses and in vivisection in scientific research and teaching. The animal rights movement challenges human beings to reconsider interactions between humans and other animals, and may be connected to the environmental movement that begs us to recognize the fact that there are symbiotic relationships between humans and all other organisms.

There are a diversity of views on the use of animals within each society. Relationships that we observe between people and animals around us depend upon the circumstances, so we should consider the situation and type of animals. The same place can be viewed in different ways by different people, and by different animals.

Humans have a tendency to use ugly, tiny or useful animals cruelly or for example to eat them. There are some exceptions like cockroaches. What are the criteria or parameters to use animals? Ecological or scientific knowledge and ethical theory can effect our instincts. Both cruelty and tenderness are human instincts. Historically we received custom based on our ancestor's experience.

We can eat animal meat while tenderly holding other kinds of animal, or even the same species. The responses are more varied if the animal, the object of our senses, is both cute and dirty. It will be different depending on particular characters and the way people balance these. Distance is not only a physical factor but also the basis of our judgment about nature. One obvious difference is that we judge on closeness, those near and far. We basically want to have our own way around us. If we cannot do that, we eject something as an annoyance or keep them in a cage like the beautiful bird in Figure 5. This reveals our way to live in a city. Untouched or wild nature is far from our place of living. Human habitat is expanding, so nature is suffering, but it does not need to destroy our relationships with animals, rather we can explore new ones.

Further study is needed to examine whether relationships are changing and how this relates to environmental ethical values in general. We welcome your comments, and please help us understand why we form different relationships to animals, often based on their external characters, e.g. ugly or beautiful. What are the criteria or parameters to use animals? ... How can we examine these parameters and values?

Acknowledgments
The International Bioethics Survey was conducted with many international collaborators, listed in Macer (1994). The initial selection of comments of life and nature that included animals was made with Miho Tsuzuki, and reported in Macer et al. (1996).

References
Appleby, M. "Frustration on the factory farm", New Scientist (30 March 1991), 34-6.

Chadwick, R. and Levitt (1996), Biocult Survey, University of Central Lancashire, UK.

Couchman, PK. & Fink-Jensen, K. Public Attitudes to Genetic Engineering in New Zealand, DSIR Crop Research Report No. 138. DSIR Crop Research, Private Bag, Christchurch, NZ, 1990.

Donnelley, S. "Speculative Philosophy, the troubled middle, and the ethics of animal experimentation," Hastings Center Report 19(Mar./Apr. 1990): 15-21.

Hills, A.M. (1993). The motivational bases of attitudes toward animals. Society and Animals 1: 111-128.

Kellert, S.R. and Berry, J.K. (1987). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 363-371.

Kellert, S.R. (1991) “Japanese perceptions of wildlife”, Conservation Biology 5: 297-308.

Kellert, S.R. (1993) “Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife among the industrial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany”, J. Social Issues 49: 53-69.

Macer, D. "Uncertainties about "painless" animals," Bioethics 3 (1989), 226-235.

Macer, D.R.J. Attitudes to Genetic Engineering: Japanese and International Comparisons.(Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, N.Z. 1992).

Macer, D.R.J. Bioethics for the People by the People.(Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, N.Z. 1994).

Macer, D.R.J., Asada, Y., Tsuzuki, M., Akiyama, S. & Macer, N.Y., Bioethics in High Schools in Australia, Japan and New Zealand (Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, N.Z. 1996).

Macer, D., Obata, H., Levitt, M., Bezar, H. & Daniels, K. (1997) “Biotechnology and young citizens: Biocult in New Zealand and Japan”, EJAIB 7, 111-114.

Maddox, J. (1995) “When to help farm animals grow faster”, Nature 377: 381.

Pifer, L., Simizu, K. and Pifer, R. (1994). Public attitudes toward animal research: Some international comparisons. Society and Animals 2: 95-114.

Porter, D.G. (1992) Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature, 356: 101-2.

Regan, T. (1983) The Case For Animal Rights. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Singer, P. (1976) Animal Liberation. London: Jonathan Cape.

Singer, P. "The significance of animal suffering," Brain & Behavioural Science, (1990)

Tsuzuki, M., Asada, Y., Akiyama, S., Macer, N.Y. & Macer, D.R.J. “Animal experiments and bioethics in high schools in Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.” J. Biological Education (1998).

Wilson, W.O. (1984) Biophilia: The Human Bond with Other Species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

To Papers list
To Eubios Ethics Institute book list
To Eubios Ethics Institute home page

Please send comments to Email < d.macer@unescobkk.org >.