"But It's Just a Fish": Understanding the Challenges of Applying the 3Rs in Laboratory Aquariums in the UK.

Message Message,Greenhough Greenhough

doi:10.3390/ani9121075

Abstract

Simple SummaryFish are widely used in research and some species have become important model organisms in the biosciences. Despite their importance, their welfare has usually been less of a focus of public interest or regulatory attention than the welfare of more familiar terrestrial and mammalian laboratory animals; indeed, the use of fish in experiments has often been viewed as ethically preferable or even neutral. Adopting a social science perspective and qualitative methodology to address stakeholder understandings of the problem of laboratory fish welfare, this paper examines the underlying social factors and drivers that influence thinking, priorities and implementation of fish welfare initiatives and the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) for fish. Illustrating the case with original stakeholder interviews and experience of participant observation in zebrafish facilities, this paper explores some key social factors influencing the take up of the 3Rs in this context. Our findings suggest the relevance of factors including ambient cultural perceptions of fish, disagreements about the evidence on fish pain and suffering, the language of regulators, and the experiences of scientists and technologists who develop and put the 3Rs into practice. The discussion is focused on the UK context, although the main themes will be pertinent around the world. Adopting a social science perspective and qualitative methodology on the problem of laboratory fish welfare, this paper examines some underlying social factors and drivers that influence thinking, priorities and implementation of fish welfare initiatives and the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) for fish. Drawing on original qualitative interviews with stakeholders, animal technologists and scientists who work with fish—especially zebrafish—to illustrate the case, this paper explores some key social factors influencing the take up of the 3Rs in this context. Our findings suggest the relevance of factors including ambient cultural perceptions of fish, disagreements about the evidence on fish pain and suffering, the discourse of regulators, and the experiences of scientists and animal technologists who develop and put the 3Rs into practice. The discussion is focused on the UK context, although the main themes will be pertinent around the world.

Highlights

IntroductionThe relevance of human-animal interactions, relationships and bonds to laboratory animal welfare, robust animal-dependent science and ethics is widely acknowledged by practitioners, e.g., [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8].How these are embedded in and reflective of wider social processes, relations and structures is increasingly a matter of interest to social scientists, historians and ethicists, many of whom are concerned to better understand how such broader societal issues shape the implementation and development of public policy and associated ethical frameworks, e.g., [9,10,11], including the 3Rs [12,13].There is thriving literature on the role of public opinion concerning the use of laboratory animals, Animals 2019, 9, 1075; doi:10.3390/ani9121075 www.mdpi.com/journal/animalsAnimals 2019, 9, 1075 much of which illustrates an interest in how species differences can mediate social attitudes and potentially structure policy priorities, e.g., [14,15,16,17]
Key themes included in the discussions which follow include: enrichment, fish, regulatory attitudes with respect to fish and the public; views about fish, embryos and larvae from within the aquarium and the size and composition of the zebrafish community
Given that Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) makes no distinction between fish and other forms of vertebrate life in its definition of a protected animal, and that scientific opinion about the capacity of fish to suffer seriously is mounting, there is an ethical, regulatory and scientific remit for focusing on barriers to implementing and developing the 3Rs for fish

Summary

Introduction

The relevance of human-animal interactions, relationships and bonds to laboratory animal welfare, robust animal-dependent science and ethics is widely acknowledged by practitioners, e.g., [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8].How these are embedded in and reflective of wider social processes, relations and structures is increasingly a matter of interest to social scientists, historians and ethicists, many of whom are concerned to better understand how such broader societal issues shape the implementation and development of public policy and associated ethical frameworks, e.g., [9,10,11], including the 3Rs [12,13].There is thriving literature on the role of public opinion concerning the use of laboratory animals, Animals 2019, 9, 1075; doi:10.3390/ani9121075 www.mdpi.com/journal/animalsAnimals 2019, 9, 1075 much of which illustrates an interest in how species differences can mediate social attitudes and potentially structure policy priorities, e.g., [14,15,16,17]. Via the European Union in particular, regulators have made attempts at entrenching the legal recognition of fish as sentient beings in practice, and have been active in areas including humane slaughter regulations and the harmonizing of husbandry standards for farmed fish, e.g., [40,41,42] These and other developments (notably welfare-motivated restrictions on recreational angling in Switzerland and Germany) have recently led some fisheries biologists to wonder what the developing welfare agenda means for the future of aquaculture, angling, commercial fishing and research? These and other developments (notably welfare-motivated restrictions on recreational angling in Switzerland and Germany) have recently led some fisheries biologists to wonder what the developing welfare agenda means for the future of aquaculture, angling, commercial fishing and research? [43]

Methods

Results

Conclusion