Animal research in the UK: Regulation, implementation, welfare and development of new approach methodologies.

Of mice and Mendel. The predicted rise in the use of knock-out and transgenic mice should cause us to reflect on our justification for the use of animals in research.

The Ethical Dilemma of Non-Human Primate Use in Biomedical Research

The use of laboratory animals in biomedical research has significantly advanced scientific understanding, yet it raises ethical concerns about animal welfare and the mental health of researchers Recent research has highlighted the potential for stress and compassion fatigue among researchers working with distressed animals. Attending veterinarians (AVs) are crucial in mitigating the pain and stress experienced by animals and, by extension, researchers. However, the impact of AVs on researchers' psychological well-being remains understudied. This study explores how AVs contribute to researchers' research capability and psychological well-being in animal research institutions. AVs oversee animal housing, health, and welfare; their involvement is mandated or strongly recommended in developed countries. AVs enhance animal welfare by ensuring proper housing, nutrition, and social interaction. They monitor animal health, educate researchers on pain assessment, and promote compliance with post-surgical care. AVs also contribute to researchers' well-being by addressing euthanasia procedures, which can be emotionally challenging. Programs for rehoming animals after experiments offer an alternative to euthanasia and positively impact researchers' psychological well-being. Moreover, AVs promote workplace well-being by fostering positive workplace cultures, offering peer counseling, and providing social support. Programs considering animal welfare and researchers' emotions are crucial for a healthy research environment. In conclusion, AVs are essential in balancing scientific progress with animal welfare and researchers' psychological well-being. Therefore, their role should be recognized as vital in achieving social equity that considers the welfare of humans and laboratory animals.

Broom's (2014) book is a well-researched and thoroughly written exploration and evaluation of the journey from the origins of animal welfare science to what we can say we now know and need to consider in relation to animal sentience and welfare. This book will help to counter any skepticism among academics and policy makers.

Historically, the scientific community—at least in the USA—did not perceive the use of animals in research as an ethical issue. Anyone who raised questions about the way animals were kept and treated during experiments ran the risk of being stigmatized as an anti‐vivisectionist; a misanthrope preferring animals to people; or an ingrate who did not value the contributions of biomedical science to human health and well‐being. I received a full barrage of such charges when I drafted and promoted what eventually became two US federal laws to protect laboratory animals: the 1985 Health Research Extension Act and an ‘Animal Welfare’ amendment to the 1985 Food Security Act. Indeed, a reviewer of my book Animal Rights and Human Morality (Rollin, 1981)—in which I argue for elevating the moral status of animals and codifying that status into law for laboratory animals—wrote that I “exonerate the Nazis” by comparing the killing of animals for science with the Holocaust, and that the book gives “a false cloak of morality” to attacks on research laboratories (Visscher, 1982). To be fair, anti‐vivisectionists were not much more sophisticated at the time—conceptually or morally. The day after I received the published review, abolitionists criticized the book, castigating me for accepting the reality of science, and scolding me for proposing regulations that would result in short‐term improvements for animals, thereby retarding the complete abolition of animal research. My own experience of being vilified as ‘anti‐science’ by the scientific community has been reflected in societal debates on animal research. Although abolitionists argue that using animals in biomedical research produces no benefits for humans, the scientific community has adopted an equally extreme position. The Foundation for Biomedical Research—a non‐profit organization in Washington, DC, USA—produced a film in 1984 entitled Will I Be All Right, Doctor? . The query in the …

With the publication of this editorial Animal Welfare enters a new era in a new format: the Journal is now Gold Open Access with continuous online-only publication of high-quality animal welfare research. Animal Welfare, the longest continuously published animal welfare journal is the scientific journal of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (www.ufaw.org.uk)(UFAW), a nonprofit society dedicated to the promotion of animal welfare science. As a society journal, Animal Welfare is dedicated to the dissemination of evidence-based animal welfare information, which is central to UFAW's mission. The transition to Gold Open Access means the Journal will now do an even better job of fulfilling that mission. Like UFAW, our new publishing partner Cambridge University Press https://www.cambridge.org/ (CUP) is a non-profit organisation, and together we have transitioned the Journal to a sustainable, fully open access model that serves the unique needs of the animal welfare science community. This means we can continue to publish high quality animal welfare research whilst ensuring that it is accessible to everyone as quickly and widely as possible. Since the mission of UFAW and the Journal is to bring about improvements in animal welfare via a better understanding of animal welfare problems and their solutions, it is crucial that anyone who can make use of the research we publish can access it freely. We are delighted that this is now the case. The transition from a printed journal to online-only publication will also reduce our environmental impact, whilst reducing the delay between acceptance of papers and publication. The editorial team https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/information/ about-this-journal/editorial-board are very excited about the move to open access, online publishing. Following the transition, we will continue to work on improving the submission and publishing process. As well as a brand-new cover design, one recent development is a change to format-neutral initial submissions of manuscripts. This means that authors do not need to format their article to the journal style at this initial stage, and figures and tables can be kept in their original locations in the text, which also makes reviewing easier. This is just one example of how we are working to make the Journal user-friendly and accessible to improve the experience for authors and reviewers. Another change is an expansion of the section on ethical considerations, included in all experimental papers, where we encourage authors to describe in detail the ethical considerations concerning of their use of animals (or humans) in research. Whether or not an ethics committee has approved the study, we would like to hear more about the harm-benefit assessments made by the researchers, and a description of how the 3Rs and other ethical principles were implemented. For more details on this, see the section on Ethical Considerations in the author instructions https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/ information/author-instructions. At UFAW, as well as ensuring that anyone who needs to can access the latest animal welfare research we also want to make sure that everyone has the chance to publish their research in Animal Welfare, regardless of their ability to pay Article Processing Charges https://www.cambridge.org/ core/journals/animal-welfare/information/author-instructions/fees-and-pricing (APCs). Some authors will be covered by one of CUP's Transformative Agreements https://www.cambridge.org/ core/services/open-access-policies/read-and-publish-agreements (sometimes known as Read-and-Publish deals) allowing academics at many institutions to publish without directly paying an APC. For authors who are not covered by a transformative agreement, and do not have funding for APCs, the Journal can offer discretionary waivers of the APC as well as automatic full or partial geographic waivers to authors based in a lower income country which is on the Research4Life https://www. research4life.org/access/eligibility/ list. As before, any profits made by the Journal will continue to be ploughed back into the animal welfare work carried out by UFAW, in the form of support for research and dissemination of new knowledge. Alongside this editorial we are publishing the first papers under our new publishing model. These include studies on highly topical areas, that have been the subject of debate for decades such as the control of rats and mice when they come into conflict with humans and emerging areas such as the animal welfare challenges of farming insects for food (Barrett & Fischer 2023; De Ruyver et al. 2023. As a society journal, we hope that you will continue to support Animal Welfare in its new format, as authors, reviewers, members of the editorial boardand as readers.

Despite all the benefits, the use of animals in biomedical research was, and still is, a subject of debate with respect to its true usefulness. The sensitivity of the community and the interest of scientists working in the field of Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare have clearly demonstrated that the use of animals in biomedical research must be conducted under specific scientific, legal and ethical rules.The ethical justification of a research project starts from the initial designing phase of the project until the completion of the study and the review of the obtained results. Main considerations of an ethical documentation are: the precise definition of the goals of the project and the existing probabilities for its success; the selection of the appropriate animal model, the implementation of the 3Rs’ concept for replacement, reduction and refinement; a pilot study and a systematic review of previously published animal research on the topic; the availability of the appropriate facilities, equipment and expertise to guarantee high standards of animal accommodation, husbandry, care and use. The ethical documentation of a project by scientists themselves involves teamwork and a sustainable rather than a one-off procedure.The ethical justification of the laboratory animal research protocols reflects the interest and the responsibility of scientists for reduction and refinement of animal experimentation. This process built a trust relationship between scientists and the society.

Despite all the benefits, the use of animals in biomedical research was, and still is, a subject of debate with respect to its true usefulness. The sensitivity of the community and the interest of scientists working in the field of laboratory animal science and welfare have clearly demonstrated that the use of animals in biomedical research must be conducted under specific scientific, legal and ethical rules. The ethical justification of a research project starts from the initial designing phase of the project until the completion of the study and the review of the obtained results. Main considerations of an ethical documentation are: the precise definition of the goals of the project and the existing probabilities for its success, the selection of the appropriate animal model, the implementation of the 3Rs' concept for replacement, reduction and refinement, a cost/benefit analysis on the expected benefits for science and society with direct consideration to the harm created to animals, a pilot study and a systematic review of previously published animal research on the topic, the availability of the appropriate facilities, equipment and expertise to guarantee high standards of animal accommodation, husbandry, care and use. The ethical documentation of a project by scientists themselvesinvolves team work and a sustainable rather than a one-off procedure. The ethical justification of the laboratory animal research protocols reflects the interest and the responsibility of scientists for reduction and refinement of animal experimentation. Thisprocess built a trust relationship between scientists and the society.

The use of animals for research and teaching began many hundreds of years ago, wherein animal dissection provided education and training for scientists, medical students, and physicians. Such animal use coupled with human’s ownership and subsequent treatment of domesticated species eventually led to the creation of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was the first one, created in the United Kingdom in 1824. The first national law addressing animal experimentation, the Cruelty to Animals Act, was passed in Britain in 1876.Since that time, the presence of those societies and antivivisection and animal welfare organizations, and the passage of associated animal anticruelty laws throughout the hemispheres eventually formed the societal posture upon which laws, regulations, and standards evolved that now form the regulatory and oversight environment we now work under in our pursuit of knowledge through the humane and responsible care and use of animals in biomedical research, education, and testing.In 1947, the Laboratory Animal Bureau was formed in the United Kingdom. The initial directors were R. E. Glover and W. Lane-Petter. They recognized that there was no standardized education system for laboratory animal care providers, and without a standard education and training program, the quality of animal care and research studies would be inconsistent and variable. The bureau organized the first of several conferences for animal care personnel on April 20, 1948, at the Royal Veterinary College of London. Subsequent conferences were held all around the United Kingdom. The organizational meeting for the new Animal Technician Association (ATA) was held on August 27, 1949 (renamed the Institute of Animal Technology [IAT] in 1965). Under the chairmanship of Dr. W. Lane-Petter, the association was ratified on March 30, 1950. The actions to establish a certification program and branches, appoint journal editors, and elect officers were also ratified.

The application of genome editing to animal research connects to a wide variety of policy concerns and public conversations. We suggest focusing narrowly on public opinion of genome editing is to overlook the range of positions from which people are brought into relationships with animal research through these technologies. In this paper, we explore three key roles that publics are playing in the development of genome editing techniques applied to animals in biomedical research. First, publics are positioned by surveys and focus groups as stakeholders with opinions that matter to the development of research technologies. Learning lessons from controversies over genetically modified food in Europe, these methods are used to identify problems in science–society relations that need to be managed. Second, people are recruited into research projects through participating in biobanks and providing data, where their contributions are encouraged by appeals to the public good and maintained by public confidence. Thirdly, patients are increasingly taking positions within research governance, as lay reviewers on funding panels, where their expertise helps align research priorities and practices with public expectations of research. These plural publics do not easily aggregate into a simple or singular public opinion on genome editing. We conclude by suggesting more attention is needed to the multiple roles that different publics expect – and are expected – to play in the future development of genomic technologies.

Many kinds of animal research are occurring in New South Wales (NSW), with biomedical research among the most prominent. As behavioural neuroscientists, we study the neural mechanisms of motivation and cognition in rodents, which is important for developing new treatments for a range of psychological disorders, such as substance use disorder, as well as neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s. The welfare and wellbeing of the animals we study is of critical importance, not only to ensure the quality of our data but to our sense of morality as compassionate human beings. Biomedical animal research is highly regulated and the pharmacological and biological tools we use pose negligible risks to the public. Meanwhile, our research brings enormous benefits to NSW by building expertise and supporting biotechnology companies. Although research on complex behaviours cannot be replaced by non-animal procedures, we believe that there is much scope for refinement and improvement in animal welfare in NSW. For example, investing in a local breeding facility to produce animals used in NSW research projects would significantly reduce the stress associated with importing animals from interstate or overseas. Additionally, standard animal housing could be improved through targeted and ongoing investment to refit animal facilities and support additional caretaker and veterinary staff to provide higher degrees of welfare.

Challenges and published guidelines associated with appropriate care and use of farm animals in agricultural research conducted outside the laboratory are briefly reviewed. The Animal Welfare Act (Title 9 of the 2000 Code of Federal Regulations), which regulates the care and use of agricultural animals in biomedical research, does not include livestock and poultry used in agricultural research. Farm animal research funded (and thereby regulated) by the US Public Health Service is further discussed in the National Research Council's 1996 Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. However, neither of these guidelines adequately addresses the unique attributes of research and teaching designed to improve production agriculture. That information is contained in the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching (the Ag Guide), published by the Federation of Animal Science Societies in 1999. The Ag Guide provides excellent general recommendations for agricultural animal research. It serves as an invaluable resource for institutional animal care and use committees, which attempt to balance the welfare of farm animals and the needs of those working to improve animal agriculture.

Video analysis is a popular and frequently used tool in animal behavior and welfare research. In addition to the actual object of research, video recordings often provide unforeseen information about the progress of the study, the animals or the people involved. Conflicts can arise when this information is weighed against the original intention of the recordings and broader social expectations. Uncertainty may prevent the video observers, often less experienced researchers, to properly address these conflicts, which can pose a threat to animal welfare and research quality and integrity. In this article, we aim to raise awareness of the interrelationship of variables characteristic for video-based animal studies and the potential conflicts emerging from this. We propose stepping stones for a framework which enables a culture of openness in dealing with unexpected and unintended events observed during video analysis. As a basis, a frame of reference regarding privacy and duty of care toward animals should be created and shared with all persons involved. At this stage, expectations and responsibilities need to be made explicit. During running and reporting of the study, the risk of animal welfare and research integrity issues can be mitigated by making conflicts discussible and offering realistic opportunities on how to deal with them. A practice which is outlined and guided by conversation will prevent a mere compliance-based approach centered on checklists and decision trees. Based on these stepping stones, educational material can be produced to foster reflection, co-creation and application of ethical practice.

Judgment bias tasks (JBTs) are considered as a family of promising tools in the assessment of emotional states of animals. JBTs provide a cognitive measure of optimism and/or pessimism by recording behavioral responses to ambiguous stimuli. For instance, a negative emotional state is expected to produce a negative or pessimistic judgment of an ambiguous stimulus, whereas a positive emotional state produces a positive or optimistic judgment of the same ambiguous stimulus. Measuring an animal’s emotional state or mood is relevant in both animal welfare research and biomedical research. This is reflected in the increasing use of JBTs in both research areas. We discuss the different implementations of JBTs with animals, with a focus on their potential as an accurate measure of emotional state. JBTs have been successfully applied to a very broad range of species, using many different types of testing equipment and experimental protocols. However, further validation of this test is deemed necessary. For example, the often extensive training period required for successful judgment bias testing remains a possible factor confounding results. Also, the issue of ambiguous stimuli losing their ambiguity with repeated testing requires additional attention. Possible improvements are suggested to further develop the JBTs in both animal welfare and biomedical research.

Animal-based research comprises almost half of the portfolio of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It is vital to the biomedical community but is encountering unprecedented challenges to its continued success. These challenges are related to technological advances in science and to specific aspects of the regulatory climate and costs of animal research. These are not abstract issues for the individual scientist. The costs for animal research may determine in which institution a scientist pursues his/her research and with whom he/she can, or cannot, collaborate. The National Allergy and Infectious Disease Advisory Council outlined many of these challenges in a resolution forwarded to NIH Director Varmus in February 1996. As scientists who deal with this issue daily, we highlight the origins and the potential solutions.