By Ros Rouse

Visiting Researcher, University of the West of England  | Humanimal Trust Science Committee Member

Ros Rouse, research integrity and ethics professional, visiting researcher at the University of the West of England, and member of the Humanimal Trust Science Committee talks about how a broader concept of One Medicine can be a ‘clarion call’ to help us navigate the ‘moral maze’ that confronts us when we consider how we should think about the rights, dignity and place of all animals, not just humans. 

Our thought leadership blogs are a series of articles designed to provoke thinking and discussion around the concept and application of a One Medicine approach. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not represent those of Humanimal Trust or any other organisation mentioned. 

 

One Medicine means that animals count. Period. One Health, historically, means animals count only insofar as they matter for human health. Sure, the dialogue often includes the necessity for a healthy ecosystem with key documents including reference to animal health (and one hopes that the One Health Joint Plan of Action (1) will bear fruit in the future in this regard) but in general, so far, animal health largely only matters in relation to the animal’s utility to us (so farm animals being healthy), or in relation to zoonotic disease (animals giving us diseases, the concern usually being that way round, rather than us giving diseases to animals). Why is this? 

Clearly, it is premised on humans believing they matter more than other animals. As I write this, it is hard to watch the news without being faced with reminders that even human life is not always seen to matter. When we see images of children being killed and maimed in the current conflicts in the Middle East and the Ukraine, or dying of hunger and preventable disease in poor and unstable countries, how on earth are we to argue that animals matter? 

Animal dignity

People have tried, for example ‘The Nonhuman Rights Project’ in the US has sought to obtain enforceable legal rights for animals. Martha Nussbaum (2) has pointed out “The way we have designed the world’s legal systems, animals do not have this simple privilege. They do not count’”.  A further approach relates to the rights of animals to have ‘dignity’. The Pledge for Animal Dignity (3) states: 

‘We declare that the dignity of animals originates in their agency and autonomy, and in species capacities including but not limited to their rich emotional lives, relational qualities, cultures, and creativity. We declare that to acknowledge and assert the dignity of animals is to refrain from actions that degrade them to the status of objects or things.’ 

All of these approaches share a fundamental view that animals have intrinsic value, and that value is not just to us, but to themselves.  

It is important here to include a short note on sentience, and many debates about the rights and wellbeing of animals are premised on sentience, and in particular the ability to suffer. Often, this is assumed to mean we only need to concern ourselves with ‘higher order’ animals. However, our understanding of sentience is emergent, and this has been reflected over recent years, for example by the inclusion of cephalopods and decapod crustaceans in UK animal protection legislation.  

Taking this further, invertebrate sentience is also a field where understanding is increasing, for example the work of Lars Chittka (4) on the consciousness of bees at Queen Mary University London, and others such as Lambert (5) (who ‘found evidence of cognitive capacities and sentience in a range of insect species’), and de Souza (6), who also argues that even where evidence of sentience cannot yet be found, we should adopt the precautionary principle. This brief discussion is included here as part of the underpinning that every animal matters, and that actually that means all animals (Kingdom Animalia). 

Each animal matters

So, if we take the view (which I do) that all animals matter, and each animal matters, and that they deserve a good life in their own terms, where does that leave us with One Medicine? 

For me, the elephant in the room here (or maybe the mouse in the room) is the use of animals in laboratory science. If you take the above approach, this is unconscionable. In terms of absolutes, we should stop this immediately. But then it is not quite so simple, is it? Some people refuse to take medications tested on animals, but the vast majority of us (myself included) will take medicine to make us better.  

Imagine a scenario where you, or a loved one, have a life-threatening disease, are you really going to refuse the treatment? So, whilst in principle considering that experimenting on animals is a harm which should be stopped, some hypocrisy may creep in here. Realistically, we cannot just ‘stop’ (the extent to which we can push the boundaries of the 3 Rs is beyond the scope here). So, what can we do? This is where One Medicine is a huge part of the answer.

Studying naturally occurring disease

Firstly, whilst of course laboratory science has been massively successful in discovering new treatment options for humans, ‘model’ animals are often not that good a model, actually, for humans. And that model in laboratory circumstances is even less equivalent to a human life lived ‘in the wild’.  

The study of naturally occurring disease in animals is an important part of the picture. A greater focus here could enable insights not only for animals (thus decreasing the need for laboratory models for veterinary medicine) but also provide important insights applicable to humans.   

Secondly, prospective studies involving both animal and human patients could provide important insights for both – companion animals share their human’s environment and lifestyle (to a degree, dogs may often run around more!), so an assessment of health and disease in both would be illuminating in terms of the extent to which those environmental factors are influencing both, or not. 

Thirdly, we must consider reciprocity- making any new treatments, where clinically safe and appropriate, available to animal species that helped to develop the treatment, not just humans. That is not a simple thing – we need to know drugs developed for animals are safe for the particular animal patient, it needs to be in a form which can be delivered to that animal, and it has to be affordable (as a gross simplification of an extremely complex process).  

However, if we don’t start to ‘do’ this seriously, for example linked human/veterinary drug trials, then we will continue to be in the position where only humans benefit from the suffering of animals (a change would not of course make the suffering of those individual animals any less ethically reprehensible, so we have to work towards redundancy in laboratory animal use).  

AI for One Medicine

In this context, we need to consider the opportunities (and risks) presented by AI (such as has begun in toxicology testing), as whatever we do next will be in the context of the sea change of potential AI impact on this as all other spheres. We are not considering One Medicine in the world as it is now, but in the world as it will become with AI.  

The extent to which the potential of AI developments in medical science is steered to be of benefit to animals as well as humans (rather than simply making better use for humans of ‘animal models’) is a critical issue. 

Finally, when laboratory science does take place, not only do we need to be certain sure that those animals are needed, but we need to be cognisant also of the laboratory materials used which involve animals.  

A One Medicine approach (where animals ‘count’) must consider all aspects of animal welfare and suffering in relation to the medical research process. (This author was a member of the Animal Materials Working Group which has produced the ‘Ethical framework for obtaining materials from sentient animals’ (7)). This is a tool to support institutions in making ethical decisions when obtaining animal derived materials.  

We must embrace difficult questions – examples from zoonotic infectious disease

But there is a further dimension here. The veterinary part of One Medicine tends to be talked about in the context of veterinary practice, where there are paying customers for owned animals. However, infectious disease illustrates another way in which One Medicine is crucial, for wild as well as owned animals.  

The COVID pandemic was an illustration of the complexity of a One Medicine approach to infectious diseases affecting both humans and animals. For example even though a vaccine for cats was available (from Zoetis) this was not approved for use, except in relation to ‘susceptible’ big cats in zoos (8). This is an exemplar of the issues arising from such a situation– where a vaccine has been developed, has the vaccine been safety evaluated, and for what animals; what is the relative harm (domestic cats and dogs were rarely significantly affected by COVID); and, given that there is not enough supply for all humans (especially those in poor countries), would it be ethical to use up the vaccine supply capacity for people’s pets? 

 In this case, wild animals in captivity did benefit, as ‘big cats’ were unfortunately proven to be susceptible, and suffered severe illness having caught the virus from their keepers (Great Apes at San Diego zoo also later received the cat and dog vaccine despite uncertainties at the time (9)).  There was also significant concern for susceptible animals in the wild, such as big cats, and also vulnerable gorilla populations. 

Would we adopt a One Medicine approach to a bird flu Pandemic?

So as another hypothetical exemplar to take this argument further, let us consider bird flu (HPAI – Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza). Imagine if this becomes a global pandemic with a high human death toll. We have a vaccine (because we already have flu vaccines so not unreasonable to assume we will have one). We did not learn the lessons, so we are still struggling for vaccine capacity. Birds have become something to fear.  

Do we develop and safely test a bird vaccine? Along with a practicable delivery method? If so, do we restrict its use to farmed birds such as chickens, as a matter of economics and food security? Do we seek to vaccinate and save all the swans (for example) or do we wait for them all to die, or even exterminate all healthy birds to reduce the risk of transmission to us? And how will this relate to charismatic animals (e.g. swans, robins) vs ones we regard as a ‘pest’ (e.g. pigeons, who live alongside us in almost all settings).  

What if it has spread to other mammals who may or may not be sick, and may or may not represent a source of infection for others, what are we going to do about the bats, foxes, mice, rats, hedgehogs, and badgers (who we have already ably demonstrated we are prepared to cull rather than vaccinate, for economic reasons)? Will we (be made to) kill all our pets? There is precedent here e.g. we cull for foot and mouth, we have culled badgers, and Geronimo the Alpaca (10), and the Government in the UK did reportedly briefly consider a cull of household cats during the early days of the COVID Pandemic (11). 

One Medicine can be a ‘clarion call’

It can be seen from these examples, drawn from infectious disease, that One Medicine is crucial in our preparedness to address such moral and ethical dilemmas. If we are to say that animal health matters, that needs to be considered in our planning, and considered in terms of the health, wellbeing and survival of individual animals (owned, captive and wild), and animal species, as well as ourselves.  

In that sense, One Medicine is a clarion call to us all. It is not just ‘getting vets and human medics to work together’ (structurally and culturally not itself, of course, by any means a simple proposition) so that both humans and animals can benefit from that collaboration. It is also about us all investigating our own understandings of the primacy of humans, and what we actually think about the rights, dignity and place of all animals in our world.  

A broader concept of One Medicine

One Medicine in this sense is a much broader concept, it includes:  

• cultural and social understandings (do we care, and who cares, and precisely about what, what are the vested interests and who has power, who has influence) 

• science and structural issues (can we practically do this research and vaccine/drug development together even if we accept we want to)  

• where will the money come from -public funding tends to look at either humans or animals so can that substantively change, commercial funding looks to where it can make a profit, so how can One Medicine contribute to that profit 

• how might commercialisation of this approach play out in a Pharma sector currently (largely) divided into human and animal medicine with different business models, and what incentives might better encourage a joint approach 

• can regulation support One Medicine and how do we get that to happen 

• how will emergent One Medicine approaches be situated within law, regulation and policy making across the world, and, finally, can we live with the alternative, where animals are ‘used’ in harmful and ethically unsustainable ways, where there is redundancy of effort; where we are denying both humans and animals the benefits One Medicine can bring.  

We need this approach to be embraced by the national, international and supranational organisations that provide the context for efforts in this space, and to do that, we have to be able to make a convincing case. 

If One Medicine is to be the answer, we, as a broad community of clinicians, academic thinkers and thought leaders, funders, politicians, policy makers, regulators, business, and all people who care need to address issues such as these. One Medicine is, in my view, unequivocally the right thing to do, but the issue is how do we do it. The Humanimal Trust is uniquely placed to support this kind of debate and conversation.   

 

 

References:

 

1 https://www.who.int/teams/one-health-initiative/quadripartite-secretariat-for-one-health/one-health-joint-plan-of-action  

2 Nussbaum, M.C. (2023) Justice for Animals: Our collective responsibility. Simon and Schuster. 

3 https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/latest/press-releases/animal-dignity-declaration/#:~:text=The%20Declaration%20has%20inspired%20the,from%20animal%2Dbased%20food%20systems. 

4 Chittka L; Janbon M. The exploration of consciousness in insects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Volume 380, Issue 1939 13 November 2025 

 5 Lambert, H., Elwin, A. and D’Cruze, N. (2021) Wouldn’t hurt a fly? A review of insect cognition and sentience in relation to their use as food and feed. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 243, 105432. 

 6de Souza Valente, C. (2025) Rethinking sentience: invertebrates as worthy of moral consideration. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 38, 3. 

7https://ukrio.org/ukrio-resources/ethical-framework-for-obtaining-materials-from-sentient-animals/ 

8 Hancock, J.T., Rouse, R.C. and Craig, T.J. (2024) Animal welfare in a pandemic: what does COVID-19 tell us for the future? CRC Press.  

9 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/first-great-apes-at-us-zoo-receive-coronavirus-vaccine-made-for-animals  

10 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-58255378 

11 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/01/uk-cat-cull-was-considered-early-in-covid-crisis-ex-minister-says 

Author bio:

Ros Rouse originally studied Psychology at the University of Bristol. She is a science policy expert with extensive Research Council experience, with a significant portfolio of commissioned research across health and biosciences. She also has considerable expertise in relation to both human and animal research integrity, governance and ethics, including many years as an ethics committee member. She has a strong, lifelong personal commitment to the welfare of animals, and believes that every animal counts. Ros is committed to a vision of One Medicine, in which the health and wellbeing of animals is considered, in addition to the impact of their health on humans. She has co-authored a book and several articles on COVID-19 and animals. As an artist, Ros is committed to using her wildlife art to enhance the love in the world for the beautiful creatures whose home we share.

If you enjoyed this blog, please consider making a donation. As a charity, we rely on your support to enable us to continue our work, connecting human and animal medical professionals to advance the health of people and animals alike. Donate here.

READ MORE BLOGS FROM OUR ONE MEDICINE THOUGHT LEADERSHIP SERIES

Find out more about the Humanimal Trust Science Committee.