Partners or tools? Ethical framings shape welfare research on dogs and horses in animal-assisted services
- 1Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen , ,
- 2Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Aarhus University , ,
Abstract
The welfare of dogs and horses involved in animal-assisted services (AAS) has received increasing scholarly attention, reflecting growing recognition of the ethical complexity of human-animal interactions in these settings. However, ethical framings of animal welfare in research on AAS vary substantially, ranging from an emphasis on avoiding harm to animals while pursuing human benefit to the view that AAS should create mutual benefits for both humans and animals. This critical review examines how ethical framings shape AAS welfare research and aims to make underlying assumptions more transparent to support more consistent research and policy. To this end, we analyzed 116 peer-reviewed papers (2000–2025), focusing on conceptual frameworks (e.g., One Health) and their implications for the interpretation of results and conclusions. Included papers covered direct welfare measures in dogs and/or horses, indirect welfare assessments, and conceptual welfare analyses. We identified three key findings. First, ethical frameworks in AAS welfare research are highly diverse and at times insufficiently specified. Second, studies may combine multiple ethical framings, reflecting a pluralism of ethical perspectives. Conceptual conflation may arise, however, when positive and negative welfare perspectives are combined without acknowledging their fundamentally different understandings of welfare. Third, a recurring pattern across the literature is a relational framing of ethical considerations, highlighting the need for greater attention to different understandings of good or justified human-animal relationships. Overall, greater transparency about ethical framing is needed to improve the interpretation, comparability, and communication of welfare findings.
Related
- Perceived factors associated with self-reported AI-assisted academic cheating among undergraduate students: Evidence from ethical ambiguity, technological affordances, institutional gaps, academic pressure, and peer comparison
- Speech Restoration & Mental Surveillance as Conflicting Ethical Concerns in Neural Speech-Decoding Research.
- Digital twin-assisted edge-local query resolution for privacy–utility trade-off in location-based services
- Investigating strategies to enhance access to HIV services among children in Malawi: A multifaceted research approach, study protocol
- Assessing the Capacity of Health Facilities to Deliver Concomitant HPV Vaccination and HPV-Based Cervical Screening Services to Vulnerable Populations – An Implementation Research Protocol
BibTeX
@article{zenker2026partners,
title = {{Partners or tools? Ethical framings shape welfare research on dogs and horses in animal-assisted services}},
author = {Friederike Zenker and Karen Thodberg and Peter Sandøe},
journal = {Frontiers in veterinary science},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fvets.2026.1960144},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13725112},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Partners or tools? Ethical framings shape welfare research on dogs and horses in animal-assisted services
AU - Friederike Zenker
AU - Karen Thodberg
AU - Peter Sandøe
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/19
JO - Frontiers in veterinary science
DO - 10.3389/fvets.2026.1960144
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13725112
AB - The welfare of dogs and horses involved in animal-assisted services (AAS) has received increasing scholarly attention, reflecting growing recognition of the ethical complexity of human-animal interactions in these settings. However, ethical framings of animal welfare in research on AAS vary substantially, ranging from an emphasis on avoiding harm to animals while pursuing human benefit to the view that AAS should create mutual benefits for both humans and animals. This critical review examines how ethical framings shape AAS welfare research and aims to make underlying assumptions more transparent to support more consistent research and policy. To this end, we analyzed 116 peer-reviewed papers (2000–2025), focusing on conceptual frameworks (e.g., One Health) and their implications for the interpretation of results and conclusions. Included papers covered direct welfare measures in dogs and/or horses, indirect welfare assessments, and conceptual welfare analyses. We identified three key findings. First, ethical frameworks in AAS welfare research are highly diverse and at times insufficiently specified. Second, studies may combine multiple ethical framings, reflecting a pluralism of ethical perspectives. Conceptual conflation may arise, however, when positive and negative welfare perspectives are combined without acknowledging their fundamentally different understandings of welfare. Third, a recurring pattern across the literature is a relational framing of ethical considerations, highlighting the need for greater attention to different understandings of good or justified human-animal relationships. Overall, greater transparency about ethical framing is needed to improve the interpretation, comparability, and communication of welfare findings.
SN - 2297-1769
ER -