Pragmatism bias in farmed animal welfare science

Animal welfare science aims to understand what animals require, their capacities, how they suffer, and the conditions that enable them to thrive. A fundamental role of the discipline is to generate evidence-based knowledge to inform decisionmakers, including policymakers, industry, advocacy groups, farmers, and the wider public. Ideally, animal welfare science should be able to influence decisions at all levels, from husbandry practices to legislation. The contribution of the discipline is strongest when its knowledge accurately and completely reflects animals’ requirements and interests. In this talk, we argue that the knowledge in animal welfare science, particularly for farmed animals, is systematically shaped by pragmatic considerations that influence its research priorities, methods and outcomes. We introduce the term ‘pragmatism bias’ to describe this phenomenon. Pragmatism bias arises through several mechanisms. First, funding is often limited to work that aligns with the interests of various stakeholders, typically industry, governments and NGOs. Second, there are operational constraints. Farmed animals are often housed on commercial farms, which limits experimental designs and permissible interventions. In light of these pressures, researchers may incorporate further constraints into their work, prioritising studies that are economically feasible, likely to secure future funding, or acceptable to funders and partners. Together, these pressures produce a systematically skewed knowledge base. Research attention varies substantially across species and even across breeds within species. Short- term studies and interventions compatible with existing production systems are over- represented. Welfare indicators that are cheap, easy to measure and relevant for production tend to be selected. This undermines the completeness and accuracy of the field's knowledge. Moreover, we suggest that it contributes to the entrenchment of production systems that aim for economic efficiency over welfare, while masking the systemic welfare issues within them. We conclude by outlining four actions that would help in addressing pragmatism bias: explicitly recognising and communicating it (for example via reflexivity statements), expanding independent funding opportunities, strengthening study designs to go beyond standard intervention ranges, and considering animals as central stakeholders in animal welfare science. Addressing pragmatism bias is challenging, but it is fundamental to trustworthy research practice and knowledge in this field.