20 May 2026
Vet Karen Hiestand said it was “it was embarrassing how much I didn’t know” when first studying animal welfare science.
Chris Simpson
Job Title
Image: ICONS FOR YOU / Adobe Stock
Vets should play a greater role in animal welfare advocacy but need to “massively upskill” to do so, Animal Welfare Foundation (AWF) Discussion Forum delegates were told.
Speaking in the session “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”, animal welfare lawyer Mike Radford urged the veterinary profession to engage with policymaking.
But RCVS-recognised specialist in animal welfare science, ethics and law Karen Hiestand suggested clinicians require significant education on such issues first.
Asked how well-equipped vets are to advocate for animal welfare, she said: “We are not. We need to work with our animal welfare science colleagues, and we need to massively upskill.”
Dr Hiestand said when she first studied animal welfare science – with more than 10 years’ clinical experience under her belt – “it was embarrassing how much I didn’t know” and “utterly humbling”.
The RVC lecturer added: “That is a really difficult process for any veterinarian to go through… realising, actually, despite all the effort I put into becoming a vet, I actually don’t know that much about what animals’ lives are like.
“[It] is a really important and difficult process that I do think we need to address, and we need to go through.”
Mr Radford argued vets’ voices carry significant weight, however.
He said: “It’s really important that animal welfare researchers and animal welfare professionals, such as the veterinary profession, look beyond the publication of their research papers and look beyond the bench in the consulting room and engage with public policymaking, because you are the experts.
“You are the people who have the first-hand experience. You have the expertise, you have the knowledge, you have the credibility. Don’t be afraid of putting your head above the parapet.”
He added: “[Animals] can’t advocate for themselves… we’ve got to have the courage to challenge the status quo.”
Asked whether vets should take a more prominent role in advocating on welfare issues of extreme conformations, Dr Hiestand suggested vets “worry that we can’t offend the public” or risk losing their trust or business.
However, she added: “[The perceived risks] may not be as real as you think they are.
“Maybe the public might expect the veterinary profession to be more outspoken on welfare concerns, as opposed to maybe the risks that we aren’t weighing up, of them seeing us as complicit and losing trust that way.”
Mr Radford observed the BVA had become “more outspoken” on welfare issues and said it “can be an extremely influential voice”, although he questioned how representative its views are of the entire profession, as AWF delegates are the “tip of a very large iceberg”.
The pair noted the legal protections an animal has depend on the situation it is in and its relationship to humans.
Dr Hiestand gave the example of rats, which can be considered as being pets, food, dangerous or even holy in different parts of the world.
She said: “What we as humans find acceptable to do to these animals changes astronomically, depending on the category we’ve decided to put that individual or that group in.”
Mr Radford argued “it’s not a fair fight” as human benefits are prioritised over potential harm to animals, but “science really is the game-changer” in the ethical debate.
He concluded: “The more we understand about human treatment of animals, human use of animals, the greater the moral responsibility on us to have regard to that scientific evidence.”