Workshop 1
Title: “From Principle to Practice: Advancing Harm–Benefit Analysis under EU Directive 2010/63/EU”
Hosts: Name-Last Name (Affiliation) and Email Address(es)
Dominik Hajosi1,2
Dh2906@cumc.columbia.edu
Herwig Grimm1
Herwig.grimm@vetmeduni.ac.at
1Messerli Research Institute, Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
2Institute of Comparative Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Topic: This workshop explores how harm–benefit analysis (HBA) can be operationalized in practice using the Compound Model (CM), a structured framework integrating key elements from existing guidance. Participants will examine conceptual challenges, apply the model to case examples, and discuss its potential to support transparent and consistent ethical review.
Participants: The workshop is intended for members of ethics committees, animal welfare bodies, competent authorities, IACUCs, researchers, project applicants, laboratory animal veterinarians, and scholars interested in animal research ethics, governance, ethical review, and decision-making. It is particularly relevant for individuals involved in project evaluation and review under Directive 2010/63/EU. No prior experience with the Compound Model is required.
Methods: The workshop will combine a brief introduction to the challenges of HBA with an interactive presentation of the CM. Participants will apply the model to practical case studies, either individually or in small groups, and compare their assessments in a facilitated discussion. The session will focus on identifying key decision points, evaluating which components from existing guidance are essential for HBA, exploring sources of disagreementand differences, and evaluating how a structured approach may improve consistency and transparency in the HBA’s application during the project evaluation process.
Outcomes: Participants will gain familiarity with the CM and its practical application in HBA. They will develop a better understanding of common challenges in the evaluation and decision-making process, learn how to systematically evaluate individual HBA components, and critically reflect on the strengths and limitations of structured HBA approaches, including their normative foundations. The workshop aims to advance understanding of and promotediscussion on how HBA can be implemented more consistently and transparently across regulatory and institutional contexts.
Literature:
Hajosi D, Grimm H (2025) Solving the riddle by puzzling it out: overcoming the challenges of harm–benefit analysis by assembling a compound model and practice-oriented tool. Front. Vet. Sci., doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1593954
Hajosi D, Grimm H (2024) Mission impossible accomplished? A European cross-national comparative study on the integration of the harm-benefit analysis into law and policy documents. PLoS ONE, doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297375
Workshop 2
Title: Developing EthoInsights: A Participatory Workshop on Ethics and AI for Animal Behaviour
Hosts: Name-Last Name (Affiliation) and Email Address(es)
Caatje Kluskens (Wageningen University & Research, EthoInsights)
caatje.kluskens@wur.nl
Bernice Bovenkerk (Wageningen University & Research)
bernice.bovenkerk@wur.nl
**One additional co-host will be invited to support the workshop.
Research Topic: This workshop introduces EthoInsights, a platform that brings together existing open-source AI models, covering species identification, object detection, pose estimation, action recognition, and visual and acoustic analysis, into a single, user-friendly interface designed specifically for animal behaviour researchers. Using the platform as a case study, participants will discuss questions of open-source access, the interpretation of animal behaviour by AI systems, and the ethical values of the platform.
Participants: This workshop is aimed at animal and AI ethicists, and others interested in the ethical discussions surrounding AI in animal behaviour research. No specific background is required.
Methods: The workshop starts with a short demonstration of EthoInsights, an introduction to AI for animal behaviour research in general and some surrounding ethical discussions. Participants are then divided into three groups. Each group discusses one ethical question: (1) should AI tools for animal behaviour research be open-source or governed through admission criteria, if so, what should such criteria look like; (2) when does AI move from detecting behaviour to interpreting it, can such interpretation be responsible; and (3) how do the current formulated values hold up, and where do they require refinement? Additional background information will be provided in printed form.
Outcomes: Each discussion group will be accompanied by one of the hosts, who will document the discussion and recommendations. The workshop will identify key ethical tensions surrounding AI for animal behaviour research and its report afterwards will provide concrete feedback for the future development of EthoInsights. Where appropriate, recommendations may be incorporated into the platform’s governance, strategy, or ethical framework.
Workshop 3
Workshop Summary – Gender & Intersectionality Gaps in AI for Agrifood
Hosts: Kelly Rijswijk (kelly.rijswijk@wur.nl) Mark Ryan (mark.ryan@wur.nl)-Wageningen University & Research
Title of Workshop: Gender & Intersectionality Gaps in AI for Agrifood
Topic: This workshop explores gender and broader intersectionality gaps in AI-driven agrifood systems. Participants critically examine AI use cases, identify overlooked impacts on diverse groups, reflect on biases, and formulate research gaps to support more inclusive and responsible AI innovation in agriculture and food systems.
Participants: The workshop targets professionals working at the intersection of AI and agrifood, including researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and civil society representatives. Participants may have a background in ELSA of AI communities, digital agriculture initiatives, and ethical and social impacts of agriculture and food.
Methods: Using a structured 2 hour co-learning format, participants engage in positionality reflection, small-group case analyses, intersectionality stress testing, and collaborative research-gap identification. Discussions focus on AI agrifood applications such as advisory systems, autonomous machinery, and farm management tools. Facilitated plenary reflections promote awareness of biases and systemic blind spots.
Outcomes: Participants will gain greater awareness of gender and intersectionality dimensions in AI for agrifood, identify critical evidence gaps, and reflect on their own assumptions and research practices. The workshop will generate a set of research-gap statements and foster dialogue on how future AI and agrifood research can become more inclusive, equitable, and socially responsible.