Laboratory Animal Welfare Research Articles

Studies in Social Cognition: From Primates to Pigs

AbstractThe stressful effects that environments have on farm and laboratory animal welfare are likely to depend on how much animals understand of the behaviour and intentions of their conspecifics as well as on their understanding of their physical environment. However, studies on animal social cognition have primarily focused on primates. Here, we report on our work on social cognition in domestic pigs. It focuses on the ability of domestic pigs to assess and use to their advantage the behaviour of conspecifics, and uses approaches pioneered in studies on primates. Our work has shown that dominant pigs use the privileged knowledge of a subordinate to their own advantage in a competitive foraging situation. While such exploitative behaviour is likely to be based on rapid learning about the subordinate ‘s behaviour, it is also possible that ‘higher’ cognitive abilities such as visual perspective taking could be involved. Ongoing work uses an adaptation of the Guesser-Knower paradigm to test whether pigs are indeed capable of visual perspective taking.

Ethical investment--what is it, and what are the implications for industry funding of research into alternatives?

This paper is intended to be a critical appraisal of ethical investment with respect to animal experimentation. It is aimed at a wide readership, ranging from scientists in the field and laypersons interested in laboratory animal welfare, potential investors, to senior management in industries directly or indirectly involved in animal testing.

Fewer guinea-pigs

A new skin sensitization test for experimental animals, the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA), has won the SmithKline Beecham Laboratory Animal Welfare Prize (2000) for its originators Ian Kimber (Syngenta), Frank Gerberick (Procter & Gamble) and David Basketter (Unilever). The LLNA test obviates the need for the injection of test materials and circumvents the elicitation of allergic reactions, which accompany standard guinea-pig testing. The Research Defence Society, a UK-based organization that awards the prize annually, believes that the introduction of LLNA testing will reduce the number of animals being used for skin allergy testing in the future. AS

OLAW and APHIS: Common Areas of Noncompliance.

The Director of the Compliance Oversight Division, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, NIH, and the Deputy Administrator of USDA/APHIS Animal Care discuss areas of noncompliance with PHS Policy and the AWA.

Recognizing pain and distress in laboratory animals.

We have long recognized the impact that pain, stress, and distress can have on the welfare of laboratory animals, or for that matter, any animal. Pain and stress can cause distress, and the biologic effects can compromise experimental results (Moberg 1999). For these reasons, we are continually striving to control and ameliorate the effects of pain and stress on laboratory animals. Neither pain nor stress—a part of an animal's life, as they are ours— can ever be totally eliminated. Pain normally serves as a protective function to warn of impending danger and is therefore adaptive. Animals have evolved appropriate biologic strategies to assist them in coping with stress. Thus, pain and stress are not inherently bad for an animal, unless these biologic strategies fail to protect the animal from stress or the biologic cost of coping takes too great a toll on the animal. Then the animal experiences distress and its welfare is threatened. The question is, when does an animal cross over from nonthreatening stress to distress?

Animal use in experimental neuropathology: Provisions for animal welfare and ethics

In the Netherlands each year 50-60.000 vertebrate animals are used for studying aspects of neuropathological disorders. Worldwide probably more than 10 million animals are used per year in this field of research. In most countries legislation has been adopted as to regulate the use of animals for these and other experimental purposes. The legislative regulations include provisions on the care and welfare of laboratory animals, on the use of alternatives or on alleviation of pain and distress. A major provision is that persons who are involved in animal experimentation must be competent. In some countries the establishment of an animal ethics committee has been made mandatory by law. In the Netherlands the first of these committees have been established more than a decade ago. Their work in evaluating the ethical and biotechnical aspects of the experimental design is generally valued by the scientific community. A most critical aspect of the experimental design is the choice of a proper animal model. In the field of experimental neuropathology much research on validation is still needed. The standards of animal-based research can be further improved through a well-considered and strictly implemented animal welfare policy of editorial boards. The need for animal models as a substitute for man will probably decrease in the future, mainly as a consequence of the revolutionizing developments in molecular biotechnology.

Animal Welfare Special Issue on Genetics and Animal Welfare

The November 1999 issue of Animal Welfare will be published as a Special Issue, devoted to the topical subject of Genetics and Animal Welfare. The journal has established itself as the objective, international forum for quarterly publication of peer-reviewed papers on all aspects of farm, laboratory, zoo, wild and companion animal welfare science - from practical husbandry to ethical debates. In 1998, it ranked in the top 25 per cent of all veterinary/zoological journals covered by the Science Citation Index® - attesting to the quality and impact of its contents.

Current uses of laboratory animals in Japan and alternative methods in research, testing and education

Animals are used in biomedical research, toxicity testing and education. At least 8 million animals are used every year in Japan. More attention to and support of alternative methods characterized by the three `Rs' of reduction, refinement and replacement should be taken to reduce the number of animals used and to prevent unintended duplication in laboratory procedures. There are several alternative approaches, such as tissue, cell and organ culture, survey of human studies, replacement with less sentient organisms, use of discarded human placentas for microsurgery, chromatography and mass spectrometry, computer simulation, audio visual aids, centralization of existing data with easy access and so on. Government's bureaucratic inertia, inconsistencies among international guidelines, and lack of funding should be reconsidered to encourage the development of alternatives. Researchers and laypersons should take alternatives more seriously to achieve the goal of laboratory animal welfare.

Laboratory animal science, welfare and ethics in pharmacology and toxicology.

The biological sciences pharmacology and toxicology, are based on laboratory research which also includes experi- ments on animals. International guiding principles for bio- medical research involving animals include scientific justifi- cation and ethical acceptability. All proposed use of lab- oratory animals which may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm should be subject to review, to determine whether such use appears to be justifiable in those respects and in respect of present knowledge in laboratory animal science and welfare. In a letter from the Editor of this journal (Schou 1995), it was stated “that many regions and nations have guidelines for the acceptable use of experimen- tal animals and even legislation requiring the acceptance of procedures and protocols prior to animal studies. These ethical standards must be adhered to when using experi- mental animals and any experimenter must be aware of the consequences of his work on the animals”. Experiments on live animals give rise to an ethical di- lemma. On one hand most of the animals used are sentient beings who may be harmed by the experiments. The experi- ments, on the other hand, may be vital for the protection of human and animal health and safety. There is no consen- sus on how to tackle this dilemma. One extreme is the view taken by adherents of the so-called animal rights view (Re- gan 1984), claiming that we are never justified in harming animals for human purposes. The other extreme is the view according to which animals can be used at our discretion (Narveson 1983; Carruthers 1992). However, the majority of the population seems to hold an attitude which covers the middle ground accepting that animals may be used for research but only under certain

Raising the Profile of Welfare: Scientists and their use of Animals

This paper looks at the attitudes that scientists hold toward their use of animals, and at some implications for the welfare of laboratory animals. The framework for this analysis is recent changes in the law regulating the use of animals in British science. We note how ambivalent many scientists are about the way they perceive the animals they use, and the moral dilemmas such use poses. We argue, however, that the legislation itself cannot mediate improvements in animal welfare, as it is inevitably policed by the scientific community itself and thus dependent upon values and social relationships within science. We also argue that debates about the promotion of lab animals' welfare tend to use the distancing stance of science; they focus on scientific studies of welfare and behavior, but ignore the context. An important part of that context is the relationships between humans and animals in the lab, which should be taken into account more fully if animals are to benefit.

Handbook of Laboratory Animal Management and Welfare Sarah Wolfensohn and Maggie Lloyd (1994). Oxford University Press: Oxford. 304 pp. Hardback and paperback. Obtainable from the publishers, Walton Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK (ISBN 019 8548338 hardback, 019 854832 X paperback). Price £35 hardback, £18.50 paperback.

Handbook of Laboratory Animal Management and Welfare Sarah Wolfensohn and Maggie Lloyd (1994). Oxford University Press: Oxford. 304 pp. Hardback and paperback. Obtainable from the publishers, Walton Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK (ISBN 019 8548338 hardback, 019 854832 X paperback). Price £35 hardback, £18.50 paperback. - Volume 4 Issue 2

The Public Debate about Animal Experimentation

The nature of campaigning against animal experimentation and its effects on public opinion and laboratory animal welfare are examined. A three-part model is proposed in which the activities of campaigning groups form the motivation phase which, in some circumstances, can produce the second phase: change of public attitudes. This leads to the third phase: making the change, in which the animal researchers, technicians and veterinarians change their practice. The role of organisations promoting the Three Rs is incorporated by viewing their role as catalysing the progression through the three phases. Some of the consequences of this model for the development of in vitro alternatives are examined.

Editorial

In this issue of Animal Welfare for the first time we have included an Invited Essay. These essays are to be occasional features on contemporary welfare problems; written at the invitation of the editor and refereed. The first is by Trevor Poole, a mammal behaviour zoologist with an active interest in laboratory animal science and welfare, considering the new and controversial subject of transgenic animals. In this fast moving field relatively little thought has been given to the possible suffering which transgenic animals may be enduring for human benefit.

Book Review: Handbook of Laboratory Animal Management and Welfare

Book Review: Handbook of Laboratory Animal Management and Welfare

The role of attending veterinarians in laboratory animal welfare

The role of attending veterinarians in laboratory animal welfare

Laboratory animal welfare and science

The proceedings volume containing the edited texts of the papers etc presented at the 5th symposium of the FELASA meeting held in Brighton (UK) in June 1993 has been published A further 69 printed papers based on the posters displayed during the meeting are printed in this substantial book. The material is grouped under several headings - a number of which have obvious animal welfare interest, eg: Expression and relief of pain (5 papers) Planning better experiments (3 papers)

Refinement of animal use--assessment and alleviation of pain and distress.

The refinement of experimental techniques represents an important opportunity to improve the welfare of laboratory animals. Objective methods for the assessment of pain and distress in animals are needed before procedures that are claimed to be refinements can be evaluated. The methods currently used for assessment of pain and distress are unsatisfactory, and are often based on uncritical anthropomorphic assumptions. Future developments may enable the establishment of well validated clinical scoring systems, or identification of biochemical or physiological indices of pain or distress. If reliable methods of pain assessment can be developed, then a critical evaluation of the methods available for the alleviation of pain and distress can be undertaken. This article reviews methods of clinical pain assessment in animals, with reference to the techniques used in man. Techniques for pain alleviation are briefly reviewed.

Definitions and Boundaries of Research Misconduct

Introduction The definitions and boundaries of in and are important public policy issues. They are particularly important to scientists who may become the subject of allegations, to their colleagues or to the officials of their employing institutions who may have to deal with such allegations, and to the federal agencies that have established regulations requiring the investigation and reporting to the government of such matters as they may relate to applications and awards for fellowships, grants, and contracts for from federal The purpose of this article is to review and to contrast between two major federal agencies the development of the definition of misconduct. Background of Federal Definitions of Misconduct Early PHS/NIH Policy The United States Congress passed the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (12), enacting Section 493 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, which required institutions to review reports of scientific fraud and required the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to establish an administrative process to respond to such information and to recommend sanctions where appropriate (20). The PHS agencies had previously handled cases and imposed administrative actions (sanctions) based on the inherent authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to administer and protect effectively the integrity of PHS grant programs. This authority was publicly announced in 1982 when the HHS published a Privacy Act notice (3) that stated: Individuals who are recipients of, or candidates for, awards may be subjects of investigations or determinations of misconduct. Such might consist of falsification of data, misuse of public funds, or fraud. It might involve other violations or infractions of laws, regulations, or ethical standards, indicating that the individual does not fulfill the responsibilities and qualifications expected in the conduct of biomedical or the expenditure of public funds. As a first step toward formal regulations, interim PHS policies and procedures were published in 1986 in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts (23), with an initial definition of misconduct in science as (1) serious deviation, such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, from accepted practices in carrying out or in reporting the results of research; or (2) material to comply with Federal requirements affecting specific aspects of the conduct of research, for example, the protection of human subjects and the welfare of laboratory animals. NSF's First Regulations During this same period, the National Science Foundation (NSF), a separate federal agency, developed and published in 1987 (13) a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which was followed by the establishment (14) of formal NSF regulations at 45 CFR Part 689. The NSF adopted a definition of misconduct in and engineering research that was similar to that in the 1986 NIH Guide, but NSF included an additional section: failure to meet other material legal requirements governing Under this definition, the NSF's Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommended in 1990, and the NSF deputy director proceeded with, a debarment for a case of involving sexual malfeasance/harassment by an investigator; this behavior was judged to be an integral part of his performance as the mentor of students involved in field on an NSF grant (15). A number of scientists and their professional associations publicly criticized this application of the definition of misconduct in science to include sexual harassment-related activities (26). The NSF OIG staff has recently defended this position (1). PHS Regulations Following the NSF's process, the PHS (4) also published an Advance NPRM (a preliminary public announcement) and then a Proposed Rule (an NPRM) in 1988, seeking public comment on a PHS definition of in including: (1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deception or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research; or (2) material to comply with other requirements that are uniquely related to the conduct of research. …

Federal regulation of experimental animal use in the United States of America.

The author outlines the regulation of animal experimentation in the United States of America (USA). Regulation in this field is at the developmental stage; issues are still being defined as public interest in animal welfare focuses on various aspects of animal science. Society continues to initiate regulations for animal experimentation in response to technological advances which were unknown when the first USA Federal legislation in this field (the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act) was signed in 1966. Under the sponsorship of animal welfare activists and, more recently, animal rights advocates, amendments to the 1966 law have increased the scope of Federal authority by extending both the number of species covered and the areas of care which are regulated. A greater awareness has evolved of the issues raised by animal experimentation, both among the general public and within the scientific communities. The importance of the Institutional Animal and Care Use Committees in research facilities is described, together with other factors which affect Federal legislation. Government regulatory philosophy is also changing towards a participatory relationship between regulators and public interest groups. Various affiliations to global and regional organisations have heightened national awareness with regard to the perceived exploitation of animal species. The author demonstrates clearly that the prevailing trend in the USA is towards expanded agreements which are jointly derived and implemented, and which will be instrumental in the search for resolutions. The author concludes that these resolutions will continue to revolve around the ethical need to respect the nature of animal species and the need for knowledge concerning both humans and animals which can help to extend and enhance the quality of life.

Care of laboratory animals in transit

This publication, which is reprinted from the journal Laboratory Animals 1993, 27: 93-107, was drawn up by the Laboratory Animal Breeders Association and the Laboratory Animal Science Association in alliance with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry; the British Laboratory Animal Veterinary Association; the Institute of Animal Technology; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare; the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate of the Home Office, and with comments from the Research Animals Department of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. These various organizations had one common aim in mind: the improvement of the condition and thus the welfare of laboratory animals during transit. The guidelines start with an introductory section on the general requirements of animals in transit and this is followed by detailed information on the needs of the various species. The material is clearly presented and there are a number of drawings of transport containers reprinted from the International Air Transport Association's Live Animals Regulations. This is a very useful, concise and informative document. The adoption of the recommendations contained within it should help to ensure the welfare of laboratory animals in transit.