RESEARCH THEMES
Animal Welfare
​
We are interested in developing new methods of animal welfare assessment, with a particular focus on finding ways to assess positive emotional states in animals. A strong theme of our current work is in creating new welfare assessment tools that use a range of animal-based indicators of emotional state, but use complex mathematical modelling and machine learning algorithms to simply the assessment and improve reliability.
​
In one of our research themes, we are looking at tiny molecules called microRNA's to see if they can tell us about animals' emotions. These molecules reflect changes occurring in animals' genes. We're comparing this with other methods that we already know about to see if these molecular markers might be useful as novel methods to assess animal welfare.
​
A number of our researchers are trying to discover how we can better assess pain in animals, plus the impact that husbandry practices such as tail docking or virtual fencing has on animal pain. We are using a combination of behavioural measures and tests of bodily activation, such as stress hormones to do this. In a long-running program of work we have investigated how facial expression can be used as a measure of pain; 'the grimace scales'. We have been particularly focussed on uncovering whether the grimace scales are reliable for all types of pain and what factors may cause them to be less reliable.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Pain physiology in the rat and how it links with the 'grimace' response. Mota-Rojas et al 2020.
​
We are also exploring how animal emotion affects cognitive processes. We know from human studies that people in a more negative emotional state will respond to a difficult to read situation more negatively than those who have positive mental health. These tests called 'cognitive bias' tests may prove to be reliable ways of assessing welfare state since animal decisions or activity can be measured fairly simply. We have successfully applied these tests in rodents and are currently exploring use of these tests in reptiles, an understudied group of animals in relation to welfare.
​
The ultimate goal of all our work is to find reliable and simple ways to assess animal well-being throughout the lifespan.
​
Cognitive Neuroscience
​
Our program of work in cognitive neuroscience is trying to understand why people who have had chemotherapy treatment for cancer, experience cognitive complaints; a condition called "cancer related cognitive impairment." This happens to around a third of people who are treated with chemotherapy for cancer. It impacts their ability to problem solve and even remember names of their friends, or the way to drive home from work. It can be particularly serious when children experience this condition as it impacts their education and ability to have fully independent lives as an adult.
​
We think that chemotherapy may be causing a type of inflammation that damages the cells of the brain, causing memory loss. Our current research is investigating this process. With this understanding, we might be able to stop this happening to treat or even prevent the memory changes from happening. In a current clinical trial funded by Channel 7 Children's Research Foundation we are testing a novel gaming intervention in children who have had cancer to see if it improves their memory and ability to perform other tasks.
​
Evidence to policy and societal viewpoints on animal use
​
We are looking at how people and animals interact, especially how laws designed to protect animals actually work.
​
Right now, we are examining something called the 'enforcement gap' in animal law. This is the difference between the penalties that courts give to people convicted of animal cruelty and the maximum penalties laid out in the laws. We are exploring what the public understand about animal cruelty laws and how their viewpoints change based on species and nature of cruelty.
In other work conducted as part of ESIAVS we are developing new methodologies for summarising evidence in the animal sciences. This includes ways to assess the evidence for reliability and provide some indication to readers of the level of confidence we have in the evidence. We believe this is critical to ensure a sound evidence-base for decision-making, as well as encouraging transparency around the scientific basis of decisions.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
