Thank you very much for the introduction. I'm going to not try to cover the whole of this subject of tourism and animal welfare, because we had a lovely array of speakers with different areas of expertise, but perhaps to introduce some of the dilemmas, some of the areas which we're going to be talking about. And so to start with, then, I will consider-- start with the ethical issues and a general question which you can consider, and that is, is most of life about competition? Do most of our decisions concerning how we treat people and individuals of other species relate to competition? Obviously some does. But I would say that most don't. Most of the things that we do in relation to other people, and most of the things that other animals do in relation to one another, are not mainly about competition. It's part of life, but there is a lot of action which is aimed at benefiting others, tolerating others, deriving benefit from others, and perhaps cooperating with others. And so there are various behaviors that animals, especially that live in long-lasting groups, have, which more to do with tolerance or to do with in some cases cooperating with others. And logically, if we are living in a long-lasting group, if a group of cows or a herd of bison or a shoal of fish are living in the same group over a long period, then it must be that the majority of behavior is not about competition. It's about living with others, in the general sense. And so moral systems, then, I would argue, have evolved in humans and in other species. And they've evolved because cooperation and tolerance are successful strategies. There are times when there is competition, but they are a minority of times. And as a result of this overall situation, this way that life actually occurs, we all think that we have moral obligations to other individuals. And we think that we have moral obligations to individuals of other species as well. So what obligations do we have? We could consider to start with what obligations we have to other people. And I'm selecting a few areas which might be relevant to what we are going to talk about today. So we can say things like, is it acceptable to force people or indeed pay people to be gladiators in a fight until one of them is seriously injured or dies? And everybody can consider their position on these things. Is it acceptable to force people or pay people to be boxers to fight if brain injury is a possibility? And how great a possibility do you have to have before you'd say no? And what about other things that we pay people to do, like be a racing driver or a rugby player or a jockey? There are various activities where you might-- there is a slight dilemma, I think. And you can see parallels, I'm sure, with what we do in relation to other species as well. And then we've got things like, should we pay to see deformed or disabled people and laugh at them? Should we laugh at or ostracize people because they're mentally retarded or they can't walk very well or they have a speech defect or they have gender or practices or something which don't fit with our ideas, or they don't speak our language, or they wear unfashionable clothes? OK. You can see that we have dilemmas in relation to people. And then what about the rest of the world? What about how we behave towards the rest of the world, to the environment we live in, to other animals, to other living organisms? What actions in those respects are moral and right, and what are not? What actions are sustainable? So sustainability is something that we talk about quite a lot. And the term is mentioned much more often now than it used to be. So is this practice, whatever we're talking about, it can be something you do in your daily life or something that other people do that you like to criticize, is it sustainable? So this is what I mean by sustainable. It's something which is acceptable now, and its effects going into the future are acceptable. And that might be to do with how resources are being used, or whether they're all disappearing rapidly because of the activity we're talking about. It might be that something to do with the functioning is causing damage of some sort. It may be that the actions themselves are not moral. So things can be unsustainable for various reasons. And we can say, we can consider what are the consequences of acts or system functioning which might be unacceptable. So there might be harms because the action, harms to people involved in some production process. And when I say production, it might be a chemical factory, it might be an animal production or a plant production system. It might be managing animal activity of some kind. And so it might be harms to the people who are involved. It might be harms to other animals in that their welfare is poor. It might be harms to the environment in general, the environment of people, the environment of other animals and plants. And animal welfare, which is one of our topics, a major topic for today, is one of the key aspects of sustainability. And a lot of the public say, I don't like this product, I don't like this activity because something which is being done is bad for the welfare of animals. And I think that's wrong. OK, so animal welfare. This is a term which is used for all animals, including humans. We don't use it for plants or inanimate objects. And the welfare of an individual is its state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment. Lots of mechanisms to try to cope with the environment. Welfare varies from very good to very poor. And we can measure it. We can assess its scientifically. And there's been a major development in the last 30 years or so in scientific evaluation of animal welfare, finding out what animals need by asking questions of the animals and looking at the consequences of giving them the resource or not, and evaluating welfare directly. Those are two important areas. And this is the way in which people are largely thinking now. We have this five freedoms concept, which I think in the past has been quite a useful general guide. But it's now generally replaced by the more scientific concept of need. So scientific assessment of welfare, obviously there's not time to say very much about it. But here's an example of a study. This is a study of sheep being transported. And what you see is the cortisol concentration in the blood of the sheep, sampled at intervals while the animals are being transported. And what happens is that the sheep are loaded into a vehicle. And you can see the numbers along the bottom going up to 30. So this is at 31. This is a 31 hour journey, with a short gap in the middle. And what you can tell from this is that when the sheep are loaded into the vehicle, which has never happened to these sheep before, they're very disturbed by it. There's a big increase in cortisol. And cortisol is indicating that the animal is finding it a difficult situation. There are two groups of sheep, so two lines. So the big effect is that they respond to being loaded. And once they're loaded, after a few hours they settle down. And they're going over a motorway, and the level goes back to the baseline, except at the end. And what happens at the end is that they turn off the motorway and they go onto windy roads. And when the sheep are going on the windy roads, it's difficult for them to keep their balance. This is a normal commercial journey, and the driver is not trying to do anything wrong. But actually, he's going around the corners in such a way that it's disturbing to the sheep, and braking and accelerating. So the message from this is, by measuring something we can find out something about the welfare of the animals during this journey. And then after that you can give advice on what you should or shouldn't do, in terms of the management of that kind of animal. And here's another sheep example. If this small baby here has a pin stuck into it, it does this. And you can imagine yourself, right, somebody is sticking a pin into you now. You can just feel it. And what you tend to do is you change your face in a particular way. And little babies do it, and we do it. There are various-- you can describe all the muscles which are involved in the movement and so on. And what we now know is that lots of animals do it. When there is a significant acute pain, there is a facial change. It occurs in rats and mice and rabbits and sheep and horses and goats, and to some extent in cats and dogs. And so we actually did a study in which we were looking at sheep, and we described this in such a way that people could evaluate the extent of pain which was being felt by a sheep. We actually did it with sheep which had disease conditions, but it would also work with other painful things. So this general area of what can you measure, of course, is something that I've been working on for quite a long time-- that is, how do you assess welfare in the short term? And also how do you assess it over a longer time scale? We're going to get here a number of examples of that from the various speakers today. That is, what could we actually find out about welfare? So animal welfare, then, refers to a whole wide range of coping mechanisms. I've only referred to two things which change. One is a hormone, cortisol, and the other is a behavioral change. But there are lots of physiological and behavioral methods of trying to cope. And we have these things we call feelings, which are very important and valuable methods of trying to cope with the environment. So why do you have pain? Why did you feel fear? These are adaptive biological mechanisms which you use to try to cope with things which are happening in real life. Why do you feel happy in certain circumstances? Why are some things pleasurable and other things not pleasurable? Those are scientifically-- those are mechanisms which are all part of this scientific evaluation of animal welfare. So the feelings that individuals have are very important. Also the responses to pathology are an important part of welfare. That is, health. So what's health? Well, here's the foot of a cow which has got a sole ulcer. It hurts. The cow can't walk very well. It changes its behavior. The cow can't get to resources very easily. So there are several effects on welfare of that, which is a clinical condition. You can describe the etiology of the disease. You can describe what sort of pathology is occurring. And the animal is trying to cope with that pathology. And that is to do with its health, and health is a key part of welfare. It's not a separate thing. It's a key part of welfare. So it's the state of the individual which is to do with pathology and attempts to cope with it. So health is a very important thing whenever we're talking about welfare. And welfare is the wider term. And I just mentioned the WHO definition of health, which was written in 1948-- bit out of date now, I would say. So welfare, then, is a characteristic of an individual animal. But you can also think about the average welfare of a group of animals. Can't talk about the welfare of a population, but you could talk about the average wealth within it. So welfare is not the same as animal protection. Animal protection is a human activity which may-- hopefully does-- have some effect on animal welfare. But it's not the same thing. And indeed, animals-- in Germany, the word [GERMAN] means animal protection, and this is sometimes used to mean welfare. But it's not a good way to do it. I mention that because [INAUDIBLE] is here, and he will probably not be needing to say that, but--. And also, translating "welfare" into other languages is a variable difficulty. So I've emphasized that welfare can be very good and very poor, very positive and very negative. That's harder in Spanish than in English, isn't it? But animal protection, then. We have laws. But the laws only protect certain animals. Why do we protect some animals in a different way from others? Because there is protection of various animals, but there is variation in that. Another word which we use, which is used very greatly by clinicians in human medicine and veterinary medicine, is quality of life. Quality of life means welfare. It's the same idea, but it's not usually used for short time-scale things. But you can use the scientific measurement of animal welfare in assessing quality of life. Coming back to which animals we might want to protect, it's affected by this idea of sentience. Sentience means having the awareness and cognitive ability which is necessary to have feelings. It's not having the feelings, it's having the mechanisms to have feelings. So having the capacity to have pain and fear or various forms of pleasure. And so which animals are sentient is a key question if you are not going to protect all animals equally. So an individual protozoa, an individual nematode, an individual housefly, an individual dog, and an individual human might be protected in different ways. Is that logical? There is some logic in it, I think. So at the moment, we have a situation where we do consider humans in a different way. But I would emphasize that not all humans are sentient. So if it's an embryo which hasn't developed to the stage of being a functioning human, it's not sentient, and then it becomes sentient. And also if you have brain damage to the point where you are not-- you don't have the awareness, then you stop being sentient. So there are humans who are not sentient. And there are animals which are not sentient, because they haven't developed or because they're brain damaged in the same way. But generally at the moment, we are tending to protect animals more if they're sentient. And these are at present-- it varies a bit from country to country, but it's mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish, so all vertebrates. And then cephalopods, octopus, squid, cuttlefish, crabs, lobsters, and prawns. And there's a debate in the UK about that at the moment. Some other countries are already protecting crustacea, decapod crustacea. And in the long run there might be some others which are protected. OK the next general point I would make is that these words, welfare and health, have the same meanings for humans and for other species. The word means exactly the same. So health of a cockroach, health of a cow, health of a dog, it means the same thing. You measure different things, you have different diseases, but it means the same thing. And welfare means the same for all of the species as well. And that's one of the reasons for the current interest in these concepts, in one the health and one welfare. That is, we need to be thinking across the board of species, especially in particular, I think, in relation to use of medicines which could be used in different kinds of animals, humans and other species. But there are some direct links, and one of them is that the welfare of individuals is poor-- if the welfare is poor, then there is a greater susceptibility to disease. So improving welfare generally reduces disease. And that means you don't need as much use of antibiotics. But at the moment, the biggest problem in the world is almost certainly going to be, in the next 20 years, anti-microbial resistance. So we're going to move quite rapidly to a situation where bacterial diseases will be the main cause of death of humans, killing more people than cancer and heart disease, because of the development of anti-microbial resistance. And therefore I would say that's an important thing. So that's why I rate it here. And it is, of course, one of the topics of the [INAUDIBLE] welfare campaigns. So improved welfare, better immune system function, you don't need as much anti-microbial product. So there are these interesting links. So I would say another consequence of this is that we ought to use the same terminology for humans and for non-humans. And here's an example of it. This is the word "euthanasia." So, my grandmother is in terrible pain and would like to die. The word "euthanasia" is relevant to my grandmother. She may decide that she would like to do that. There are questions about whether you do it or not, and some countries allow it and some don't. But there's no doubt what the word means. It means killing the individual for the benefit of that individual in a humane way. That's what it means. And we should use it in the same way for non-humans. So if you're killing an animal because you're fed up with it, or you're killing an animal for some other purpose which is not for the benefit of that animal, then I would say you shouldn't use the word "euthanasia." You should kill it humanely, so "humane killing" is the right word. So we ought to use the same terminology for humans and non-humans. Another term which I think we do use in rather the same way is care. Care for people who need care, care for other animals. This is a concept which is in UK legislation and legislation of a number of countries, that we have a duty of care to animals which we use. And I think that's a very valuable concept. It means you've got to consider each individual, each individual animal. OK, so back to obligations. So most people in this room would probably agree that humans are animals. But in general conversation, people often distinguish them and say humans and animals. We shouldn't really say humans and animals if humans are animals. And indeed, it raises the question, are humans special in some way? Are humans are different in some way? Of course they're different from other species. But are they special isn't quite the same question. Are humans so special that we should think of them in a completely different way from everything else? And all our responsibilities are to humans rather than all other kinds of organism. Well, we actually share almost all of our genes with other species. So we're not very different from them. It's actually very, very difficult to find any human ability which other animals don't have. And you may wish to question that. So there are these words like welfare, health, emotion, and cognition. They mean the same thing for humans and other animals. And there are concepts like this one. We are given dominion over the world and all the living things in it. So what does that mean? And how should we interpret that? Well, one of the questions is, who are we? So who are the individuals who have responsibility for the world and the living things in it? It could be that it doesn't just mean humans, it means humans and other sentient beings that have some possibility of having an influence over their surroundings. So "we" is not just humans. And then what does dominion mean? So, what I would say, and I think many people now feel, is that dominion doesn't mean dominate, it means care for and preserve. So there are these sorts of terms to consider. But how these things are interpreted alters how people think about humans in relation to other animals. So I just put in a couple of examples. But here's one. Whales. Should we catch whales and kill them? Should we watch whales? Two questions. So whales are sentient animals, no question about that. They're good at learning, they have a pain system. So I wrote this paper only a few years ago, at a point when the International Whaling Commission had never allowed the word "welfare" to appear on any of its documents. Because it was always vetoed by the whaling countries. And they were allowed "conservation," because that was in the Constitution of the International Whaling Commission, but they didn't allow "welfare." And it was really because they knew that the welfare was a bit of a problem. And so was I was asked to do was to consider the welfare of animals, in particular when they're being subject to being killed by a whaling boat. So the boat approaches. The boat chases the whale. Harpoon goes into the whale. It's pulling on the line. Maybe it's an explosive harpoon. It depends on where it goes, what the consequence is, and how quickly the changes occur, what are the procedures when the whale pulled up onto a boat. So that's looking at that sort of aspect of welfare. And in fact, because of the initiative of a number of individuals, like the [INAUDIBLE] here, the International Whaling Commission did then put animal welfare on the agenda. So that's a good thing. But we still have questions in relation to tourism. And there's not much tourism to go and kill whales. But there is tourism associated with whales. So how are whales affected by tourists boats, is a significant question. And suppose the boat's a kilometer away or 300 meters away or 20 meters away-- what's the effect on the whale? This is a relevant question. What's the effect of welfare, and in the long run, perhaps an effect on populations, if it affects breeding. And so we can also ask questions about how can we prevent boats or large ships from killing or injuring whales. So these are some of the questions. You're going to get lots more of these sorts of questions from the various people who are presenting here, and obviously not just with whales. But I think I might just say a word about how clever different kinds of animals are. Because it's an area where we actually have a lot of good information now. This is one study which was done by Keith Kendrick in the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. And what he did was to record from the brains of sheep when they were shown pictures. And the most interesting result, I think, was that there were units in the brain which only responded to one individual sheep. If it was this sheep, there was a response. If it was another sheep that looked almost the same, there wasn't. And that's just finding-- it's a sensory thing that it's finding a unit in the brain. There's lots of behavioral evidence for that, but somehow this evidence of Keith Kendrick's carried more weight with some scientists, that maybe sheep actually can respond to individuals. I've deliberately given you three sheep examples, because people often say, well, sheep are stupid, aren't they? An sheep don't have any real ability. And that's not true. OK so what sorts of studies have we got? Well here's one area. It used to be said that there were lots of animals that couldn't-- if you put food behind a fence they wouldn't be able to get to it. But if they could go around the fence they could get to it. So dogs can do it, chickens can do it, tortoises can do it. Probably more animals if we take the trouble to do the test. So it means they have to go away from the object and out of sight of it in order to get to it. Here's another sort of study that's mirrors. Which animals can use information from a mirror? Well, it's not very many at the moment. But the number may increase. We did studies on pigs which showed that pigs could learn what is in the mirror. And at the moment, I think the list is chimpanzees, capuchin monkeys, perhaps one other primate, dolphins, elephants, magpies, and parrots are the animals where it's been clearly demonstrated that they can use information from a mirror. Which is quite a difficult thing to do, because you've got to be aware that what you look at is on this side, and it's at a certain angle to you and so on. It's quite difficult to learn that. But these animals can do it. There have been studies, which some of you may have read, with an African gray parrot, which is very useful to humans. Because it uses words, and so it's easy for us to understand what they can do what they can't do. And the parrot can use words and identify 50 objects, seven colors, five shapes, and numbers from one to six. Several others have been shown to be able to count up to eight, in fact. And then there are studies like [INAUDIBLE] hiding food and retrieving it later. And they retrieve the food which is going to decay earlier than food which is not going to decay. That means they have a concept of time, when it's going to decay. So that's-- and the idea that we are the only animals with a concept of time is completely nonsensical, whenever you look at behavior in detail. And what about fish? Well this was a study done by [INAUDIBLE] group with cleaner fish, which clean animals on the reef. And they were able to learn to take ephemeral food, which is going to go away if you don't take it quickly, before reliable food, which is going to stay there. And these fish were actually better than chimpanzees at learning, similar to parrots, but better than all the primates which have been tested. OK, so which animals should we protect? Well, there are quite a few different kinds of animals. And we could say all living animals. We could say animals which are sentient. We could say animals with high levels of cognitive ability. And we tend, at the moment, to protect sentient animals in relation, for example, to whether you use pain killers. So we also have animals which we don't want to protect, even though they're obviously sentient-- for example, rats. So these are some of the issues, then, which are discussed in the book, Tourism and Animal Welfare, which you'll hear a bit more about, and also a bit in some other things which I've written, which are here. OK. Thank you very much.