ATW April 2022 : simplebooklet.com

1August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareEditorial Jas Barley, Chair of the Editorial BoardMaintaining a Culture of Care during a research animal facility closure Sally Robinson and Catherine Wilkinson General responsibility before the law in the ﬁ eld of Animal Technology Kevin Dolan PAPER SUMMARY TRANSLATIONSFrench, German, Italian, Spanish TECH-2-TECH Introducing non-aversive mouse handling with ‘squnnels’ in a mouse breeding facilityPenny S. ReynoldsGet Active: solutions to waste anaesthetic gas exposure Ryan Sullivan A day in my life as an Animal Technologist Zoe WindsorReducing stress to rodents by use of a screen Emma MustafaPOSTERSUsing home cage monitoring to determine the impact of repeated timed mating on male mouse welfare Joanna Moore, Giula Del Panta, Eloise Brooks and Hilary Lancaster Taking blood from a Göttingen minipig while placed in a slingAdrian Zeltner and Carina Christofferson Vol 21 No 1 April 2022EditorialJas Barley, Chair of the Editorial BoardReport of the 2019 RSPCA/UFAW RodentWelfare Group meetingChloe Stevens, Emily Finnegan, Jasmine Clarkson,Charlotte Burns, Sonia Bains, Colin Gilbert,Caroline Chadwick, Samantha Izzard, Charlotte Inman,Penny Hawkins (Secretary) and Huw GolledgeReduction of the negative effects ofmethionine on bone parameters in broilers’embryos by intra-egg injection of Vitamin B12Mohammad Naser Nazem, Shima Tasharofi,Negin Amiri and Sepideh SabzekarThe care of the Childr en’s Python(Antaresia children)Alexander Hosking and Gary MartinicFeline-assisted therapy: a promising part of animal assisted therapy (AAT)Eliska Mičková and Krityna MachovaThe care of Central and Pygmy Bearded DragonsAlexander Hosking and Gary MartinicPAPER SUMMARY TRANSLATIONSFrench, German, Italian, SpanishLOOKING BACKPhysical hazards in the laboratory animal houseR.T. CharlesThe incidence of a pathogenic strain of pseudomonas in a rabbit colonyG.R. Alpen and K. MaerzTECH-2-TECHDevelopment of a sifting cage change method for rats to improve welfareSeonagh HendersonVol 1 9 No 2 A ugust 2020CONTENTSiAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 4/8/20 10:48 Page i3817475852501174255

Page 4

2Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020POSTER PRESENTATIONSAssessing pain in models of Rheumatoid ArthritisSamuel Singleton, Meriam Nefla, Ngaire Dennison, Simon Arthur and Tim HalesRefinements to health monitoringHannah Jones and Rebecca KingBiosecurity risks and the pre-implantation embryo; lessons from the mouseJean Cozzi, Mendy Verrier and Jimmy MancipEnvironmental enrichment for a small colony of ratsNick Blackburn, Gemma Cronshaw and Mike MitchellOestr us checking – increasing productivity and embracing the 3RsSamantha Hoskins and Jack BrownUsing habituation to reduce str ess for rats being transported short distancesSarah TaylorShining a light on rearing pigmentless ZebrafishJacqueline Glover, Thom Berriman, Dimitra Mantzorou, William Havelange,Sam Berry and Bruno Correia da SilvaThe jacket with pulling power – a novel approach to early stage evaluationof magnetic nanoparticlesAlison Ritchie, James Dixon, Phil Clarke and Anna GrabowskaiiCONTENTSIndex to AdvertisersABPI ..................................................................x,xi LBS ..................................................................iiAS-ET ...............................................................OBC Somni Scientific ................................................ivDatesand Ltd......................................................IFC Special Diets Services .....................................viiiInstitute of Animal Technology ...............................vii Tecniplast UK Ltd .............................................xiiIPS Product Supplies Ltd.....................................IBCAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page ii626669The use of home cage monitoring to determine whether individual male mouse activity pattern correlates with nest complexity Joanna Moore and Hilary Lancaster A method to improve the housing of breeding rats used to produce pups for tissueKally Booth, Joanne King, James Stephen and Ngaire DennisonBOOK REVIEWATW publishes peer-reviewed articles allied to animal science and technology, management and educationATW facilitates the Marjorie (Sandiford) Whittingham Memorial Prize awarded annually to the author of the best original peer-reviewed paperATW publishes translations of summaries of peer-reviewed articles in 4 different languages: French, German, Italian, SpanishATW publishes technical notes describing new products, new or reﬁned techniques and new developmentsATW publishes papers and posters presented at international meetingsATW publishes opinion articles and book reviews of relevant textsATW promotes the 3Rs, environmental enrichment, care and welfareATW promotes the dissemination of ‘good practice’ATW promotes the recognition of Animal Technologists everywhereATW has a worldwide circulation of 2,500 copies in more than 30 countriesATW is a totally free, open access publication for everyone to read and download – the implementation complies with Plan S, the multi-funder effort to ensure immediate open access to scientiﬁc publications therefore increasing further awareness of advertisers’ sales messages and promotionsATW is included on the EBSCO Host intuitiveonline research platformBe part of Animal Technology and Welfare, the publication for Animal Technologists by Animal TechnologistsANIMAL TECHNOLOGY AND WELFAREJournal of the Institute of Animal TechnologyOfﬁcial Journal of the European Federation of Animal Technologists ATWAnimal Technology and Welfare

Page 5

Page 6

4Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020vOFFICERSPresidentDr Robin Lovell-Badge CBE FRSImmediate Past PresidentProfessor Sir Richard Gardner MA PhD FRSBFIAT (Hon) FRSVice-PresidentsSenga Allan MIAT RAnTech, David Anderson MRCVS,Stephen Barnett BA MSc FIAT (Hon) CBiol FRSBRAnTech, Miles Carroll PhD, Paul Flecknell MA Vet MBPhD DLAS DipLECVA MRCVS FIAT (Hon), PennyHawkins PhD BSc, Wendy Jarrett MA, Judy MacArthur-Clark CBE BVMS DLAS FRSB DVMS (h.c.) DipECLAMFRAgS DipACLAM MRCVS, Fiona McEwen BSc BVM&SMSc MRCVS, Tim Morris BVetMed PhD DipACLAMDipECLAM CBiol FRSB CertLAS MRCVS, Clive PageOBE PhD BSc, Jan-Bas Prins PhD MSc, Vicky RobinsonCBE BSc PhD, Paul Sanders MIAT RAnTech, DavidSpillane FIAT, Gail Thompson RLATG, RobertWeichbrod PhD RLATGLife MembersKen Applebee OBE FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech,Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech, Roger Francis MScFIAT RAnTech, Pete Gerson MSc FIAT RAnTech,Cathy Godfrey FIAT RAnTech, John Gregor y BSc (Hons)FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech, Patrick Hayes FIAT DipBARAnTech, Robert Kemp FIAT (Hon) RAnTech,Phil Ruddock MIAT RAnTech, Ted Wills FIAT (Hon)RAnTechHonorary MembersMark Gardiner MIAT RAnTech, Sarah Lane MSc FIAT,Sue McHugh BSc FIAT, Norman Mortell BA (Hons)MIAT RAnTech, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons)FIATMembers of CouncilMatthew Bilton, Kally Booth, Steven Cubitt,Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher,Nicky Gent, Alan Graham, Linda Horan, Sam Jameson,Elaine Kirkum, Adele Kitching, Theresa Langford,Sylvie Mehigan, Steve Owen, Alan Palmer, AllanThornhill, John Waters, Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson,Adrian WoodhouseCouncil OfficersChair: Linda Horan BSc (Hons) MIAT RAnTechVice Chair: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechHonorary Secretary:Simon Cumming BSc FIAT RAnTechHonorary Treasurer: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechChair of Board of Educational Policy:Steven Cubitt MSc FIAT RAnTechChair Registration & Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechATW Editor: Jas Barley MSc FIAT RAnTechBulletin Editor: Carole Wilson BSc MIATATW/Bulletin Editorial Board:IAT REPRESENTATIVESAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 4/2/21 13:19 Page vvOFFICERSPresidentDr Robin Lovell-Badge CBE FRSImmediate Past PresidentProfessor Sir Richard Gardner MA PhD FRSBFIAT (Hon) FRSVice-PresidentsSenga Allan MIAT RAnTech, David Anderson MRCVS,Stephen Barnett BA MSc FIAT (Hon) CBiol FRSBRAnTech, Miles Carroll PhD, Paul Flecknell MA Vet MBPhD DLAS DipLECVA MRCVS FIAT (Hon), PennyHawkins PhD BSc, Wendy Jarrett MA, Judy MacArthur-Clark CBE BVMS DLAS FRSB DVMS (h.c.) DipECLAMFRAgS DipACLAM MRCVS, Fiona McEwen BSc BVM&SMSc MRCVS, Tim Morris BVetMed PhD DipACLAMDipECLAM CBiol FRSB CertLAS MRCVS, Clive PageOBE PhD BSc, Jan-Bas Prins PhD MSc, Vicky RobinsonCBE BSc PhD, Paul Sanders MIAT RAnTech, DavidSpillane FIAT, Gail Thompson RLATG, RobertWeichbrod PhD RLATGLife MembersKen Applebee OBE FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech,Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech, Roger Francis MScFIAT RAnTech, Pete Gerson MSc FIAT RAnTech,Cathy Godfrey FIAT RAnTech, John Gregor y BSc (Hons)FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech, Patrick Hayes FIAT DipBARAnTech, Robert Kemp FIAT (Hon) RAnTech,Phil Ruddock MIAT RAnTech, Ted Wills FIAT (Hon)RAnTechHonorary MembersMark Gardiner MIAT RAnTech, Sarah Lane MSc FIAT,Sue McHugh BSc FIAT, Norman Mortell BA (Hons)MIAT RAnTech, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIATMembers of CouncilMatthew Bilton, Kally Booth, Steven Cubitt,Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher,Nicky Gent, Alan Graham, Linda Horan, Sam Jameson,Elaine Kirkum, Adele Kitching, Theresa Langford,Sylvie Mehigan, Steve Owen, Alan Palmer, AllanThornhill, John Waters, Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson,Adrian WoodhouseCouncil OfficersChair: Linda Horan BSc (Hons) MIAT RAnTechVice Chair: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechHonorary Secretary:Simon Cumming BSc FIAT RAnTechHonorary Treasurer: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechChair of Board of Educational Policy:Steven Cubitt MSc FIAT RAnTechChair Registration & Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechATW Editor: Jas Barley MSc FIAT RAnTechBulletin Editor: Carole Wilson BSc MIATATW/Bulletin Editorial Board:IAT REPRESENTATIVESAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 4/2/21 13:19 Page vvOFFICERSPresidentDr Robin Lovell-Badge CBE FRSImmediate Past PresidentProfessor Sir Richard Gardner MA PhD FRSBFIAT (Hon) FRSVice-PresidentsSenga Allan MIAT RAnTech, David Anderson MRCVS,Stephen Barnett BA MSc FIAT (Hon) CBiol FRSBRAnTech, Miles Carroll PhD, Paul Flecknell MA Vet MBPhD DLAS DipLECVA MRCVS FIAT (Hon), PennyHawkins PhD BSc, Wendy Jarrett MA, Judy MacArthur-Clark CBE BVMS DLAS FRSB DVMS (h.c.) DipECLAMFRAgS DipACLAM MRCVS, Fiona McEwen BSc BVM&SMSc MRCVS, Tim Morris BVetMed PhD DipACLAMDipECLAM CBiol FRSB CertLAS MRCVS, Clive PageOBE PhD BSc, Jan-Bas Prins PhD MSc, Vicky RobinsonCBE BSc PhD, Paul Sanders MIAT RAnTech, DavidSpillane FIAT, Gail Thompson RLATG, RobertWeichbrod PhD RLATGLife MembersKen Applebee OBE FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech,Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech, Roger Francis MScFIAT RAnTech, Pete Gerson MSc FIAT RAnTech,Cathy Godfrey FIAT RAnTech, John Gregor y BSc (Hons)FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech, Patrick Hayes FIAT DipBARAnTech, Robert Kemp FIAT (Hon) RAnTech,Phil Ruddock MIAT RAnTech, Ted Wills FIAT (Hon)RAnTechHonorary MembersMark Gardiner MIAT RAnTech, Sarah Lane MSc FIAT,Sue McHugh BSc FIAT, Norman Mortell BA (Hons)MIAT RAnTech, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIATMembers of CouncilMatthew Bilton, Kally Booth, Steven Cubitt,Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher,Nicky Gent, Alan Graham, Linda Horan, Sam Jameson,Elaine Kirkum, Adele Kitching, Theresa Langford,Sylvie Mehigan, Steve Owen, Alan Palmer, AllanThornhill, John Waters, Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson,Adrian WoodhouseCouncil OfficersChair: Linda Horan BSc (Hons) MIAT RAnTechVice Chair: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechHonorary Secretary:Simon Cumming BSc FIAT RAnTechHonorary Treasurer: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechChair of Board of Educational Policy:Steven Cubitt MSc FIAT RAnTechChair Registration & Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechATW Editor: Jas Barley MSc FIAT RAnTechBulletin Editor: Carole Wilson BSc MIATATW/Bulletin Editorial Board:IAT REPRESENTATIVESAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 4/2/21 13:19 Page vMembers of CouncilCarmen Abela, Kally Booth, Steven Cubitt,Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher,Nicky Gent, Alan Graham, Diane Hazlehurst, Linda Horan, Sam Jameson, Elaine Kirkum, Adele Kitching, Robin Labesse, Theresa Langford, Sylvie Mehigan, Steve Owen, Alan Palmer, Allan Thornhill, John Waters, Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson, Adrian WoodhouseJas Barley (Chair), Nicky Gent, Patrick Hayes,Diane Hazlehurst, Elaine Kirkum, Carole Wilson,Lynda WestallBranch and BING Liaison Ofﬁcer:Kally Booth MIAT RAnTechEFAT Representatives:Glyn Fisher, Robin Labesse MIAT RAnTech, Alan PalmerWebsite Coordinator:Allan Thornhill FIAT RAnTechAnimal Welfare Group:John Waters (Chair), Carmen Abela, Kally Booth, Nicky Gent, Sam Jameson, Sylvie Mehigan, Steve OwenBoard of Educational Policy:Steven Cubitt (Chair), Adele Kitching (Secretary), Diane Hazlehurst, Robin Labesse, Tina O’Mahoney Communications Group:Adrian Woodhouse (Chair), Carmen Abela, Kally Booth, Sam Jameson, Elaine Kirkum, Teresa Langford, Tara Mclaughlin, Sylvie Mehigan, Allan Thornhill, Lynda WestallBRANCH SECRETARIES 2022Cambridge: Tony Davidge cambridgebranch@iat.org.ukEdinburgh: Kery-Anne Lavin-Thomson edinburghbranch@iat.org.ukHuntingdon, Suffolk & Norfolk: Jo Martin hssbranch@iat.org.ukIreland: Lisa Watson irelandbranch@iat.org.ukLondon: Rebecca Towns londonbranch@iat.org.ukMidlands: Ian Fielding midlandsbranch@iat.org.ukNorth East England: Zoe Smith and John Bland northeastbranch@iat.org.ukNorth West: Nicky Windows cheshirebranch@iat.org.ukOxford: Adam Truby oxfordbranch@iat.org.ukSurrey, Hampshire & Sussex: Francesca Whitmore shsbranch@iat.org.ukWest Middlesex: Josefine Woodley westmiddxbranch@iat.org.ukWales & West: Rhys Perry waleswestbranch@iat.org.ukWest of Scotland: Joanne King westscotlandbranch@iat.org.ukIAT OFFICERS M AY BECONTACTED VIA:IAT Administrator:admin@iat.org.ukOR VIA THE IAT WEBSITE AT :www.iat.org.ukOR THE REGISTERED OFFICE:5 South Parade, Summertown,Oxford OX2 7JLAdvertisement Managers:PRC Associates LtdEmail: mail@prcassoc.co.ukAlthough every effort is made to ensure that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement appear in thejournal, the Institute of Animal Technology wish to expound that the data and opinions appearing in the articles,poster presentations and advertisements in ATW are the responsibility of the contributor and advertiser concerned.Accordingly the IAT, Editor and their agents, accept no liability whatsoever for the consequences of any suchinaccurate or misleading data, opinion, statement or advertisement being published. Furthermore the opinionsexpressed in the journal do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor or the Institute of Animal Technology.© 2022 Institute of Animal TechnologyAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission from the publisher.CPD Officer: Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechRegistration and Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher (Chair), John Gregor y,Cathy Godfrey, Kathy Ryder (Home Office),Stuart StevensonObserver: Ngaire Dennison (LAVA)Congress Committee:Alan Graham (Chair), Haley Daniels, Adele Kitching,Allan Thornhill, John WatersDiversity Officer:Haley Daniels MBA MSc MIAT RAnTech CIPDUK Biosciences ASG Representative/Home Office:Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechviAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page vi

Page 7

5August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareBRANCH SECRETARIES 2022Cambridge: Tony Davidge cambridgebranch@iat.org.ukEdinburgh: Kery-Anne Lavin-Thomson edinburghbranch@iat.org.ukHuntingdon, Suffolk & Norfolk: Jo Martin hssbranch@iat.org.ukIreland: Lisa Watson irelandbranch@iat.org.ukLondon: Rebecca Towns londonbranch@iat.org.ukMidlands: Ian Fielding midlandsbranch@iat.org.ukNorth East England: Zoe Smith and John Bland northeastbranch@iat.org.ukNorth West: Nicky Windows cheshirebranch@iat.org.ukOxford: Adam Truby oxfordbranch@iat.org.ukSurrey, Hampshire & Sussex: Francesca Whitmore shsbranch@iat.org.ukWest Middlesex: Josefine Woodley westmiddxbranch@iat.org.ukWales & West: Rhys Perry waleswestbranch@iat.org.ukWest of Scotland: Joanne King westscotlandbranch@iat.org.ukIAT OFFICERS M AY BECONTACTED VIA:IAT Administrator:admin@iat.org.ukOR VIA THE IAT WEBSITE AT :www.iat.org.ukOR THE REGISTERED OFFICE:5 South Parade, Summertown,Oxford OX2 7JLAdvertisement Managers:PRC Associates LtdEmail: mail@prcassoc.co.ukAlthough every effort is made to ensure that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement appear in thejournal, the Institute of Animal Technology wish to expound that the data and opinions appearing in the articles,poster presentations and advertisements in ATW are the responsibility of the contributor and advertiser concerned.Accordingly the IAT, Editor and their agents, accept no liability whatsoever for the consequences of any suchinaccurate or misleading data, opinion, statement or advertisement being published. Furthermore the opinionsexpressed in the journal do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor or the Institute of Animal Technology.© 2022 Institute of Animal TechnologyAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission from the publisher.CPD Officer: Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechRegistration and Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher (Chair), John Gregor y,Cathy Godfrey, Kathy Ryder (Home Office),Stuart StevensonObserver: Ngaire Dennison (LAVA)Congress Committee:Alan Graham (Chair), Haley Daniels, Adele Kitching,Allan Thornhill, John WatersDiversity Officer:Haley Daniels MBA MSc MIAT RAnTech CIPDUK Biosciences ASG Representative/Home Office:Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechviAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page viCPD Ofﬁcer: Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechRegistration and Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher (Chair), Ken Applebee, Charlie Chambers, John Gregory, Cathy Godfrey, Kathy Ryder, Wendy Steel, Stuart StevensonObserver: Ngaire Dennison (LAVA)Congress Committee:Alan Graham (Chair), Haley Daniels, Adele Kitching,Allan Thornhill, John WatersEquality, Diversity and Inclusion Ofﬁcer:Haley Daniels MBA MSc MIAT RAnTech CIPDUK Biosciences ASG Representative/Home Ofﬁce:Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechIndex to AdvertisersBRANCH SECRETARIES 2022Cambridge: Tony Davidge cambridgebranch@iat.org.ukEdinburgh: Kery-Anne Lavin-Thomson edinburghbranch@iat.org.ukHuntingdon, Suffolk & Norfolk: Jo Martin hssbranch@iat.org.ukIreland: Lisa Watson irelandbranch@iat.org.ukLondon: Rebecca Towns londonbranch@iat.org.ukMidlands: Ian Fielding midlandsbranch@iat.org.ukNorth East England: Zoe Smith and John Bland northeastbranch@iat.org.ukNorth West: Nicky Windows cheshirebranch@iat.org.ukOxford: Adam Truby oxfordbranch@iat.org.ukSurrey, Hampshire & Sussex: Francesca Whitmore shsbranch@iat.org.ukWest Middlesex: Josefine Woodley westmiddxbranch@iat.org.ukWales & West: Rhys Perry waleswestbranch@iat.org.ukWest of Scotland: Joanne King westscotlandbranch@iat.org.ukIAT OFFICERS M AY BECONTACTED VIA:IAT Administrator:admin@iat.org.ukOR VIA THE IAT WEBSITE AT :www.iat.org.ukOR THE REGISTERED OFFICE:5 South Parade, Summertown,Oxford OX2 7JLAdvertisement Managers:PRC Associates LtdEmail: mail@prcassoc.co.ukAlthough every effort is made to ensure that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement appear in thejournal, the Institute of Animal Technology wish to expound that the data and opinions appearing in the articles,poster presentations and advertisements in ATW are the responsibility of the contributor and advertiser concerned.Accordingly the IAT, Editor and their agents, accept no liability whatsoever for the consequences of any suchinaccurate or misleading data, opinion, statement or advertisement being published. Furthermore the opinionsexpressed in the journal do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor or the Institute of Animal Technology.© 2022 Institute of Animal TechnologyAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission from the publisher.CPD Officer: Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechRegistration and Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher (Chair), John Gregor y,Cathy Godfrey, Kathy Ryder (Home Office),Stuart StevensonObserver: Ngaire Dennison (LAVA)Congress Committee:Alan Graham (Chair), Haley Daniels, Adele Kitching,Allan Thornhill, John WatersDiversity Officer:Haley Daniels MBA MSc MIAT RAnTech CIPDUK Biosciences ASG Representative/Home Office:Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechviAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page viAAALAC Inter national .......................................72Allentown .......................................................46AS-ET .............................................................54Avid plc ............................................................3Datesand Ltd .................................................IFC Institute of Animal Technology ...2, 8, 37, 70-71, OBCIPS Product Supplies Ltd ................................IBCLBS Serving Biotechnology Ltd ...........................9Somni Scientiﬁc ..........................................6, 54Tecniplast UK Ltd ............................................10

Page 8

Page 9

7August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareEditorialJas BarleyChair of the Editorial BoardLooking back over issues of the Journal through its various identities, one thing is apparent and that is the contribution thatoverseas authors have made to the content. Topics have varied from dealing with exotic species, lack of sophisticated equipment,different attitudes to everyday problems, staff training and education and disease outbreaks. However, the resolute that has beenconstant throughout, despite the differences across the world, is the love and concern for the animals being cared for.Many include interesting photographs but I unfortunately am unable to use them as the quality of images is so poor whenrepr oduced, to the extent in some cases, they become worthless.Obviously, things have changed over seven decades and the technology described in contributions from overseas is less differentfrom what we use in the UK. This issue welcomes contributions from Australia, the Czech Republic and Iran as well, of coursefrom the UK. Since ATW became an Open Access publication and is being published electronically, it is enjoying a wider audienceand is attracting more contributions than usual. Not all are relevant to our profession, but knowledge is transferable so whatseems ‘off beat’ today may become useful in the future. However, as Editor I will always strive to maintain the quality of ourpublications and the usefulness to our readers.In this issue we include the RSPCA 2019 Rodent and Rabbit Welfare group meeting repor t. The 26th meeting that the RSPCA haveorganised focussed on ‘sentience, positive welfare and psychological well being’. The report contains contributions from 11presenters as well as notes on the interactive discussion session on sentience that closed the meeting.A paper from Iran, a first as far as I can see for the Journal, on r educing the negative effects of methionine on bone parametersin broilers’ embryos may seem of little relevance but it offers a better understanding of how methionine affects bone structurewhich is important to most species. Similarly, Feline Assisted Therapy as described by the team at the University of Life SciencesPrague does not appear to fall into the realms of Animal Technology but it gives us a better understanding of how animals can havea positive effect on some people, which in thecurrent situation may be of significant benefit to a wider population. Our final paperfrom the team at Western Sydney University, details the care of the Children’ Python and two species of Bearded Dragons. Notperhaps the run of the mill laboratory animals but just as important to many Animal Technologists globally as mice and rats. If youkeep reptiles at home or know of someone who is contemplating one as a pet these papers make useful reference documents. Wealso offer twopapers from previous issues of the Journal which were very different in appearance and content than today’s Journalof Animal Technology and Welfare and not only because of the change of title. Issues were printed in black and white and in the veryearly days were produced by hand. The paper from France on Physical Hazards in the laboratory animal house will bring back manymemories for some of the older technicians, myself included, but not necessarily good ones. The use of ether as an anaestheticwhich I know is still used in some countries where resources are limited, for human sur gery, presented a very real danger to bothanimals and staff. Disease in laboratory animal units was often a recurring problem, bacterial infections such as Pseudomonas asdescribed in the reprint of the article were still presenting Animal Technologists with problems as late as the end of the 1980s. Whenimporting animals and tissues from overseas it is important to realise that they may be carrying disease not seen in the UK forseveral decades. In recent times, Ectromelia was introduced into a unit in the USA via antibodies produced overseas. Precautionsmust be taken until such time as you are sure that the animals and tissues are clear of any underlying infections.We are also able to offer in this issue an interesting Tech-2-Tech ar ticle by Seonagh Henderson of the University of Glasgow, ona novel technique of cage cleaning which hasa positive effect on the welfar e of laboratory rats. Finally, we included several postersprepared for AST2020 but sadly at the moment remain unpresented.Thanks again to all of our authors, past and present, both internationally and here in the UK. There would not have been 70 yearsof the Journal without you. Here is to the next seven decades and beyond.THE INSTITUTE OF ANIMAL TECHNOLOGYETHICAL STATEMENT“In the conduct of their Professional duties, Animal Technologists have a moral and legalobligation, at all times, to promote and safeguard the welfare of animals in their care,recognising that good laboratory animal welfare is an essential component of goodlaboratory animal technology and science.The Institute recognises and supports the application of the principles of the 3Rs(Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) in all areas of animal research.”ixAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page ixWelcome to Volume 21 of Animal Technology and Welfare (ATW), Not exactly what most of us would regard as the New Year but I ﬁ nd the start of a new Volume an exciting opportunity for presenting the work that the Animal Technology community is producing. Before I continue, I must apologise to Emma Mustafa for an omission of a reference in her Tech-2-Tech article Reducing stress to Rodents by use of a Screen that we published in the December 2021 issue of ATW. I am still not sure how it happened, it was there in the proofs but not in the published version, obviously miscommunication between the typesetter and myself. Rather than confuse and complicate things we decided it was easier to republish the article so that a comprehensive reference further appears and that readers can follow up the development of the screen. At this stage of the year we are only a few weeks away from Congress 22, our ﬁ rst face to face Congress for three years. Everyone is excited at the prospect of seeing friends and meeting newer members of our profession and of course taking advantage of the exchange of knowledge. As the Journal Editor, the editorial team and myself are looking forward to being inundated with papers, articles and posters on the work you are doing and of course having the opportunity of sharing this information with the world of Animal Technology at large. It can only beneﬁ t the animals in our charge. If you are presenting at Congress either as a platform or workshop presenter, or have submitted a poster, please let us have a paper, article or your poster so that we can give your work a wider audience. Your Journal needs you. This issue includes a paper from Sally Robinson and Catherine Wilkinson on the procedure of closing a large animal facility as part of a corporate restructuring programme. The paper covers the emotional and practical effects of such closures and recognises what a life changing event closures can present to everyone involved. Also included is an extract from the late Kevin Dolan’s IAT Fellowship thesis. Anyone who was lucky enough to be taught by Kevin will be aware of the enthusiasm with which he approached all aspects of his teaching and life in general. Although concentrating on around the Cruelty to Animal Act 1876 which was replaced by the Animals (Scientiﬁ c Procedures) Act 1986, much of the legislation it discusses is still on the Statute Book and still affects Animal Technologists of all grades. As well as the reprinted Tech-2-Tech from Emma Mustafa, this section offers articles on a new take on tunnel handling of mice and introduces the ‘Squnnel’ to us. EditorialJas BarleyChair of the Editorial BoardApril 2022 Animal Technology and WelfareSOMNI RODENTNRB SYSTEMSyringe tube ≠ nose conesNo more tapeSEALEDCOMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING UK/EU:ProductsAccessoriesFittingsSOMNI Scientific is centered on the animal welfare and research community with a focus on clinical accuracy, clinician/technician safety, economic performance and intuitive functionality.SOMNI PROVIDES UNPARALLELED CUSTOMER SERVICE, CLINICAL AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT.

Page 10

8Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020We also have articles dealing with waste anaesthetic gases and a Day in the Life of an Animal Technologist who was awarded one of the BRET/AS-ET scholarships in 2021. Poster contributions cover the usual array of subjects ranging from home cage monitoring, blood sampling of Göttingen minipigs and a method for the reﬁ nement of rat breeding. Finally there is a review of the latest in books on Laboratory Animals, this one dealing with behavioural biology, I enjoyed reading this and I hope you ﬁ nd the review helpful. EditorialATW PROFILEATW aims to be the medium for Animal Technologists and all those concerned with the care and welfare of animals used for research purposes to communicate ‘good practice’.ATW especially aims to promote and develop the 3Rs particularly in respect of Reﬁnement. More importantly, ATW promotes the generally accepted 4th R, Responsibility. The responsibility that all Animal Technologists have in ensuring dissemination of ‘good practice’ to every institution using animals in research.ATW enjoys a unique position as the scientiﬁc publication for the leading organisation for the welfare of animals used in research.ATW seeks to publish peer-reviewed articles, technical notes and reviews allied to animal science and technology, management and education. Particular encouragement is given to authors submitting papers leading to improvements in environmental enrichment and the care and welfare of genetically altered animals.A commemorative plaque, a cheque for £250 and free registration at the IAT Congress awaits the winner of the Marjorie (Sandiford) Whittingham Memorial Prize awarded annually to the best original article.Editorial– Peer-reviewed papers– Translations of paper summaries into 4 European languages– Tech-2-Tech informal short articles on l new or reﬁned techniques l discussion forum reports l commercial submissions welcome (speciﬁc equipment advertorials will not be accepted)– Posters from international meetings– Book reviews– Letters to the editorMember StatesEFAT comprises of Member States of the European Union and Council of Europe https://www.efat.org/AFSTAL Association Francaise des Sciences et Techniques de L’Animal de Laboratoire DALAS Dutch Association for Laboratory Animal Science SECAL Sociedad Española para las Ciencias del Animal de LaboratorioATWAnimal Technology and Welfare

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

11August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAbstractAs animal facility closure is usually a protracted process because of the complexity of ﬁ nishing or transitioning ongoing research in animals. As with any closure staff may be made redundant at the end of the process and this can be an emotional roller coaster and distraction. Maintaining positive morale contributes to successful outcomes. We explored ways of maintaining a Culture of Care through the closure of our animal facility. Keywords: animal facility closure; psychological contract;culture of care; compassion; managementIntroductionThe term ‘psychological contract’ is used to describe an individuals’ expectations, beliefs, ambitions andobligations in relation to their employment.1,2 Employees perceptions of their employers’ obligations are often set from observation of actions rather than solely through written policy. For example, being aware that there are managers that allow staff to ﬁ nish early or who grant ﬂ exible working requests may lead to the individual expecting the same from their own manager. Expectations can also be set in performance and development reviews, or through company values. The quality of the psychological contract and relationship between the employee and the employer which is usually enacted through local line managers inﬂ uences day to day behaviour and commitment of staff. At AstraZeneca one of our company values is ‘do the right thing’ and this can support and underpin the approach to redundancy.Job security is an area that is often covered by a psychological contract and therefore redundancy can be seen as a breach of the psychological contract which can lead to morale issues and decreased staff commitment and engagement. When a decision is made by an organisation to close an animal research facility this is rarely completed quickly because of the complexities of either ﬁ nishing or transferring important and costly animal research. Such facility closures are often seen as high risk with concerns around increased welfare or compliance issues if staff morale is low. Therefore maintaining staff commitment and engagement through a lengthy closure process is particularly important when it involves an animal facility. We share our experiences of closing an animal facility over the period of a year. Negative consequences can be avoided through fairness and maintaining a Culture of Care through the exit process.Exit timelineOur exit timeline is illustrated in Figure 1. Our staff were split across the Animal Sciences and Technologies and Oncology research teams. Staff were fully aware the year before the exit process started that the facility would be closing. In the year of exit the animal studies scaled down from 100% to zero from January to September. During this period notice was served for most staff and the majority ﬁ nished work at the end of September. The ﬁ nal decommissioning and safe handover team consisted of 6 people and that stage of the work was completed during October to December.Listening to staffAt the beginning of our exit, we asked the teams how they felt about the exit process, what support they were interested in and how they would like to be remembered. Table 1 captures the key themes.Maintaining a Culture of Care during a research animal facility closureSALLY ROBINSON1,2and CATHERINE WILKINSON11 Animal Sciences and Technologies, Clinical Pharmacology and Safety Sciences, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Alderley Park UK2 Sally Robinson, CRUK, University of Manchester (current) Correspondence: sally.robinson@cruk.manchester.ac.ukApril 2022 Animal Technology and Welfare

Page 14

12Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Communication Team meetings were held regularly to update staff on the transition timelines. Corporate messages were always reviewed and considered from a local perspective so that staff sensitivities around losing their jobs were taken into account. Having regular and clear communication on the progress of the transition timelines meant we could talk with every individual member of staff to understand their aspirations so we could do our upmost to support their individual preferences (e.g. found a new job want to leave early, want to retire or happy to stay to the end) whilst maintaining delivery of studies through the transition.We discussed the potential impact on morale at our AWERB and how we could provide additional communication routes for issues during the transition. We set up a speciﬁc Culture of Care team with a point of contact outside of the exit teams in order to provide an additional anonymous feedback route to managers, named roles and the AWERB. SupportIn a redundancy situation it is important to support staff and equip them for future roles. We spoke to every member of staff and ensured each one of them was supported in a personal development activity. This included releasing time to work in another team one day a week and allowing time for staff to attend courses Figure 1. High level illustration of exit timeline.4 Exit Timeline Our exit timeline is illustrated in Figure 1. Our staff were split across the Animal Sciences and Technologies and Oncology research teams. Staff were fully aware the year before the exit process started that the facility would be closing. In the year of exit the animal studies scaled down from 100% to zero from January to September. During this period notice was served for most staff and the majority finished work at the end of September. The final decommissioning and safe handover team consisted of 6 people and that stage of the work was completed during October to December. Figure 1. High level illustration of exit timeline. Table 1. Staff feedback on what they wanted during the exit process.Communication Clear and up to date communication on transition timelines.Support General careers support (CV, interview skills), ﬁnance workshop, continued development opportunities.Leaving a legacy Leave a Legacy: Sharing resources/ways of working/information across sites e.g. surgical resource, training policy, DOPS, Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body ways of working, learning and observations log processes, videos, 3Rs initiatives. Recognition Recognition of the role of animals in successful development of medicines from our site.Some form of presentation or booklet on the project achievements of the teams.Celebration Celebration meal or party.Maintaining a Culture of Care during a research animal facility closure

Page 15

13August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare(see section on training, reassessment and development opportunities).With the input of our HR department, we arranged for general support to be provided through workshops on writing CVs, interview skills and managing ﬁnances. Managers provided additional support by reviewing CVs and conducting practice interviews with staff.We also recognised the typical change stages such as denial. Space was given and a place to talk through, collectively or individually to ensure everyone was looked after on their own individual progression through the exit.Leaving a legacySigniﬁcant effort was made to support leaving a legacy for other sites within AstraZeneca. For example the learning from observations and events log and process initiated at our site3 was developed and launched globally across the animal facilities in AstraZeneca.Presentations were given by the Named Animal Care and Welfare Ofﬁcer (NACWO) and a cross-site NACWO group was established to share learnings from our site. The NACWO also set up shared folders where photos and videos of welfare observations were carefully catalogued and curated for use at other sites. Members of the AWERB contributed to developing stories for a manuscript.RecognitionWhilst staff are in an exit process, care should be shown by continuing to recognise staff for their achievements and contributions. For many staff the continued recognition in all of its formats created a sense of purpose and engagement despite being in the process of transitioning the animal research and closing the facility. We continued to recognise staff for example, through AWERB awards for small cage-side improvements. We promoted the work of our AWERB for example through writing a blog for the NC3Rs website4 and this work also won the Culture of Care award in the internal Global 3Rs, Openness and Culture of Care awards.5 When we started our last study members of the AstraZeneca Senior Executive Team sent thank you emails that were shared with the teams.We conducted our ﬁnal AWERB annual retrospective review which was attended by all of our technical and research staff and we deliberately used this review as the opportunity for recognition across the establishment. We chose to look back over the last ﬁve years at: project, 3Rs, Culture of Care and Openness successes. Much of this was done in a fun and entertaining way and the event allowed the staff to reﬂect on their many achievements. It was an emotional event but positively these emotions were largely of pride and a sense of signiﬁcant contribution. We thanked our AWERB members by producing a memory book each with an individual inscription (Figure 2).Figure 2. Front Cover of AWERB memory book.CelebrationWe worked with senior managers to organise a celebratory leaving meal and presentation. We were fortunate that COVID-19 restrictions had eased at this point. None the less a formal risk assessment was conducted and the whole evening was developed with staff safety in mind (pre-event testing, social distancing etc). This event included in person reﬂections and thank-you’s from the senior leaders of the functions that also included photographs the teams had taken over the years. We also arranged for videos to be presented by members of the AstraZeneca Senior Executive Team, who could not attend in person, thanking staff for their contributions to the oncology pipeline, 3Rs and Culture of Care. The evening included a meal and fun quiz. Staff were presented with a memento which was a glass mouse (Figure 3) and a specially designed thank you postcard (Figure 4).In listening to our staff we were able to honour the psychological contract of communication, support, legacy, recognition and celebration during the exit (Figure 5).Additional activities supporting a Culture of CarePrioritising training, reassessment and development opportunities Training and development allows for the acquisition of new skills and knowledge helps boost conﬁdence when looking for new roles. To support staff in ﬁnding new 9 We conducted our final AWERB annual retrospective review which was attended by all of our technical and research staff and we deliberately used this review as the opportunity for recognition across the establishment. We chose to look back over the last five years at project, 3Rs, Culture of Care and Openness successes. Much of this was done in a fun and entertaining way and the event allowed the staff to reflect on their many achievements. It was an emotional event but positively these emotions were largely of pride and a sense of significant contribution. We thanked our AWERB members by producing a memory book each with an individual inscription (Figure 2). Maintaining a Culture of Care during a research animal facility closure

Page 16

Page 17

15August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareIn addition, the Named Training and Competency Ofﬁ cer (NTCO) and assessors conducted as many individual assessments of skills as possible during the transition period ensuring that all skills were maintained until the last mouse left the building and that all staff moving on to animal research roles elsewhere had up to date assessments. 4 years ago we introduced a central andeasy to use electronic system for personal licence holders(PIL) to add their Standard Condition 20 records and as staff started to leave the NTCO produced individual training ﬁ les for them which included evidence of modular training, up to date assessments and their Standard Condition 20 records. These individual ﬁ les were compiled so that company speciﬁ c information was removed making them easily transferable to other establishments. Providing this support to staff meant that they did not need to worry about sorting out their Training and Standard Condition 20 records allowing them time to focus on ﬁ nding other roles. Feedback was that these ﬁ les helped speed up induction at the new facilities.TeamIn addition to actively listening and supporting staff in the areas they highlighted, we also brought the teams together by arranging events throughout the year-long exit process, for example a team fund raising walking and running event through February to raise money for charity, team lunches, quizzes, and an escape room challenge.DecommissioningThe ﬁ nal safe handover of the building and decommissioning phase was carried out by just six members of staff across the Animal Science and Technologies and the Oncology research teams. We jointly completed a safe exit risk assessment. Decommissioning or handing over an animal facility is a complex logistical task, for example, the following areas: safe equipment and consumable moves, disposal of chemicals, disposing of controlled drugs and their records, managing switch off of IT infrastructure and security access, archiving appropriate records for the purposes of complying with the Animals (Scientiﬁ c Procedures) Act 1986 as well as ensuring study and project information is all stored appropriately. The team took a great sense of pride in ensuring that all stock could be repurposed for example if not across other AstraZeneca sites then with other companies or collaborators on site, or with local schools (e.g. spare stationery stocks). Providing the environment for care and self-careIt is widely understood that a positive Culture of Care that supports staff can also lead to good animal welfare and care.6 This is equally (if not more) important during a signiﬁ cant time of change such as the closure of the facility and redundancy when animal work is still being conducted through the wind-down. As managers Figure 5. Exit contract.13Figure 5. Exit contract.Additional activities supporting a Culture of CarePrioritising training, reassessment and development opportunities Training and development allows for the acquisition of new skills and knowledge helps boost confidence when looking for new roles. To support staff in finding new jobs we used two approaches one focussed on up-to-date training and assessment records and the second focussed on new development opportunities.Maintaining a Culture of Care during a research animal facility closure

Page 18

16Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020we prepared for this early on and actively and regularly gave permission and time for all of our staff to focus on themselves as well as supporting their colleagues. It was important that staff were able to talk, reﬂect on and feel their emotions. We encouraged self-care and access to company resources for both mental and physical health. LearningAlthough we had processes in place for equipment and consumables, what we lacked was a robust system for ensuring that unused equipment or consumables no longer required were disposed of or re-purposed when they could be of use to others. We dealt with this at the time of exit however a deﬁned process and up to date inventory would have helped.We would recommend that any establishment has an annual deep clean of cupboards in ofﬁces to ensure all paperwork or belongings have been archived or disposed of correctly. For example, we found belongings in the back of cupboards from people who had left a number of years earlier. DiscussionExiting a long-standing animal research facility is usually a protracted process and has the potential to be a highly emotional and negative experience without providing the environment that allows staff to thrive and feel cared for during the exit process. For these reasons this situation is also often considered at higher risk of compliance issues. Listening to your staff in order to build new psychological contracts for the exit process allows managers to provide clarity, tailored support and the care that is needed to ensure that staff can continue to feel engaged and recognised, to be reassured they will be supported to ﬁnd new roles and to leave the organisation in a way that is positive with a sense of achievement. We have shared our approach to managing the exit of our facility and the focus on Culture of Care was the primary driver during our exit. Managers and leaders (e.g. Named Roles) in this situation may feel weighed down caring for others and therefore it is equally important that the aspects discussed are applied to these individuals too. As a manager knowing that the environment has been focussed on support and care and that staff have had the best opportunities to ﬁnd new roles can lead to a tremendous amount of satisfaction that can provide energy and sustain you through. AcknowledgementsThe authors acknowledge staff past and present in Animal Sciences and Technologies and the Oncology Research Group at AstraZeneca Alderley Park.Declaration of Conﬂicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conﬂicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this report.FundingThe author(s) received no ﬁnancial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this report.Research Data Availability StatementThe authors declare there is no primary data associated with this publication.References1 The psychological contract. CIPD (2022). ﬁle:///C:/Users/Q123046/Downloads/psychological-factsheet_20220219T205722.pdf2 Psychological contract: what are they and why are they so critical. https://oxford-review.com/oxford-review-encyclopaedia-terms/psychological-contract/3 Robinson, S., White, W., Wilkes, J., Wilkinson, C. (2021) Improving culture of care through maximising learning from observations and events: Addressing what is at fault. Laboratory Animals. doi:10.1177/00236772211037177.4 Single use of needles: How AWERBs can support reﬁnements in practice. https://nc3rs.org.uk/news/single-use-needles-how-awerbs-can-support-reﬁnements-practice Accessed 20 February 20225 Animals in Research. https://www.astrazeneca.com/sustainability/ethics-and-transparency/animals-in-research.html. Accessed 20 February 2022.6 Robinson S, Sparrow S, Williams B, et al. (2020). The European Federation of the Pharmaceutical Industry and Associations’ Research and Animal Welfare Group: Assessing and benchmarking ‘Culture of Care’ in the context of using animals for scientiﬁc purpose. Laboratory Animals. 2020; 54(5):421-432. doi:10.1177/0023677219887998.Maintaining a Culture of Care during a research animal facility closure

Page 19

17August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAbstractIntroduction by the ATW editorThe following is an extract from the Critical Review of the Law and the Animal Technician submitted as a thesis by the late Kevin Dolan for the award of Fellowship of the Institute of Animal Technology. Kevin was in a unique position to comment on the laws relating to Animal Technology holding both a degree in law, amongst others, in addition to IAT qualiﬁcations and working as an Animal Technologist. The thesis has not been previously published although Kevin did go on to write and publish Laboratory Animal Law.1 Written over 30 years ago some of the law that Kevin reviewed has been superseded e.g. the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 has been replaced by the Animals (Scientiﬁc Procedures) Act 1986. However even the legislation that is now defunct gives a useful background to the responsibilities of the Animal Technologist. Much of the legislation that Kevin discussed is still in place, albeit in some cases amended, but the responsibility of today’s Animal Technologists to observe the relevant laws is unchanged. Deﬁnitions of less common Latin and some legal terms have been supplied by me and mistakes are therefore mine rather than Kevin’s. References have also been changed by me to reﬂect the standard practice of this Journal. Dangerous animalsDangerous animals are mainly the concern of zookeepers, circus proprietors and dog handlers. Animals which may be regarded as dangerous are however not unknown in the laboratory. Venomous snakes and certain primates may be classiﬁed at least legally in this way.The deﬁnition of a dangerous animal has a long legal history and numerous cases have turned on the connotation of this term. Liability for damages caused by a beast often pivoted upon whether the animal causing the damage was ‘dangerous’ or not. The nature of the offending creature would affect the assessment of its conduct. Originally legal opinion was based on the supposition that the knowledge of what kind of animals are tame and what are savage is common knowledge.After centuries of controversy the Animals Act (1971) supplied a legal deﬁnition, not of ‘dangerous animal’ but of ‘dangerous species’.2 This blanket approach obviates the need to prove that an individual animal is dangerous.The test for the determination of the dangerous species is provided by Section 6 (2) of the Animals Act 1971,2 as follows:‘A dangerous species is a species –(a) which is not commonly domesticated in the British Islands; and(b) whose fully grown animals normally have such characteristics that they are likely, unless restrained, to cause severe damage or that any damage they may cause is likely to be severe.’3The question whether a species of animals is dangerous or not is, as with the distinction between animals ‘ferae naturae’ (wild nature or disposition) and ‘mansuetae naturae’ (animals which are generally domestic, presumed gentle and readily tamed), a question of law and a matter of judicial notice. Subject to the operation of the doctrine of precedent, a classiﬁcation once made on the basis of an interpretation and application of Section 6(2) is binding,2 for ‘it is not competent to the courts to reconsider the classiﬁcation of former times and to include domestic animals of blameless antecedents in the class of dangerous animals even when General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal TechnologyKEVIN DOLANc/o Institute of Animal Technology, 5 South Parade, Summertowm, Oxford OX2 7JL UKCorrespondence: atweditor@iat.org.ukApril 2022 Animal Technology and Welfare

Page 20

18Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020wandering on the roadsides.’… “Thus, it has been held, at common law, that all elephants are all ferae naturae ‘very naturally at suckling’ and indeed they are likely to be classed as a dangerous species under Section.6 (2),2 even though the particular elephant in question is tame and causes damage from fright rather than viciousness. (cf. statement of Devlin J. Jim Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd)”,3Editor’s note: cf means compare with‘The second general issue relates to the meaning of ‘species’. The only assistance in determining what constitutes a species is provided by section 11 of the Animals Act (1971) which states that ‘species includes sub-species and variety.’3Wherever the word ‘species’ appears, the phrase ‘subspecies’ may be substituted. According to this interpretation one must examine the dangerousness of animals according to the subspecies to which they belong. Thus, if one subspecies of primate is dangerous and another is not, the categorisation of the particular primate in question would depend on the subspecies to which it belonged. The other interpretation is quite the opposite: all subspecies and varieties of an animal have the same characterisation as dangerous or non-dangerous as is given to the “species as a whole.” This confusion should eventually be clariﬁed by court decisions.3The question whether an animal belongs to such a species should depend as at present on a test prescribed by law; in determining the question a court should regard as the decisive consideration the risk to persons or property in the circumstances of this country. A species of animals which is generally domesticated in the British Isles should not be regarded in law as dangerous but with regard to other species there domesticated or non-domesticated character abroad should be taken into account only to the extent that this factor may be relevant to the degree of risk such species present in the circumstances of this country.3 A Bill demanding the licensing of dangerous animals in the possession of private persons and even those in Safari Parks is being piloted through Parliament (Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976).4 This might produce a clear deﬁnition of dangerous animal. An aspect of marauding animals which may be relevant to the Animal Technologist is the recurring problem of dogs which worry livestock. The technician may be involved either because some of his dogs escape or because his farm animals are exposed to this threat.The legislation on this matter has a long history for example the Dogs Act (1871).5A more modern and speciﬁc Act deals with the problem of worrying livestock appeared in the form of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act (1953).6(2) For the purpose of this act worrying livestock means –(a) attacking livestock, or(b) chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock or, in the case of females, abortion or loss of or diminution in their produce.(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason of anything done by a dog, if at the material time the livestock are trespassing on the land in question and the dog is owned by or in charge of, the occupier of that land or a person authorised by him, except in the case where the said person causes the dog to attack the livestock.(4) The owner of a dog shall not be convicted of an offence under this Act in respect of the worrying of livestock by the dog if he proves that at the time when the dog worried the livestock it was in charge of some other person, whom he reasonably believed to be a ﬁt and proper person to be in charge of the dog.7N.B. ‘The fact that a dog was neither muzzled nor led is sufﬁcient to prove that it was not under proper control.8The ‘Diseases of Animals Act (1950)’ endowed the Minister with extensive powers to deal with the control of dogs.9‘Power of Minister to make orders as to dogs. The Minister may make such orders as he thinks ﬁt for all or any of the following purposes. (a) for the prescribing and regulating the muzzling of dogs and the keeping of dogs under control;(b) for prescribing and regulating the wearing by dogs, while in a highway or a place of public resort, of a collar with the name and address of the owner inscribed on the collar or on a plate or badge attached thereto;(c) with a view to the prevention of worrying of animals for the preventing for preventing dogs or any class of dogs, from straying during all or any of the hours between sunset and sunrise;’ 10The Animals Act (1971) covers liability for injury done by dogs and provides a defence for a person killing or causing injury to a dog if it is about to worry livestock and there is no other means of stopping it.2The Guidance Notes on the Law relating to Experiments on Animals in Great Britain (GNLEA) (page 32),12 has a note for those in charge of animal units concerning a group akin to ‘dangerous animals’ – ‘destructive animals’.General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 21

19August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare‘Certain animals which can be used for experimental purposes are classed by the Ministry of Agriculture as being destructive and the Minister has laid down by means of Statutory Instruments pertaining to the ‘Destructive Imported Animals Act (1932)’ certain regulations with regards both to importation and to keeping them.13 Species thus regulated include Coypu, Mink, Grey Squirrel, Muskrats, and non-indigenous rabbits. Whilst such animals may be obtained for experimental purposes, it is necessary to have regard to the instructions and restrictions on accommodation and for the experimenter who has the authority of the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act to obtain a licence from the Ministry of Agriculture of the set or the Secretary of State for Scotland also.’Non-dangerous animals This negative term embraces animals not included in the legal term ‘dangerous animals’. These supposed innocent animals however may cause damage for which, those in charge of them may be held responsible. The Animals Act (1971) covers this eventuality.2The ‘knowledge’ of the waywardness of a non-dangerous animal or the ‘precarious knowledge’ through an employer employee can be assessed in the spirit of the ‘scientiﬁc action’. The suspicion of the viciousness of an animal can be supposed if:(a) The animal caused severe damage before.(b The animal has already attempted to do the harm in question.(c) There is a good basis for supposing viciousness.SecuritySecurity is an important element in the avoidance of injuries and damage in connection with animals. The law underlines this need for security in the care of animals; e.g.. ’Animal Boarding Establishments Act (1963)’.14‘(3) In determining whether to grant a licence for the keeping of a boarding establishment for animals by any person at any premises, a local authority shall in particular (but without prejudice to their discretion to withhold a licence on other grounds) have regard to the need for securing.That appropriate steps will be taken for the protection of the animals in the case of ﬁre or other emergency.’There is a similar clause in the ‘Pet Animals Act (1951).15The Codes of recommendations are speciﬁc in their demands in respect to security in connection with animals. (6) Internal surfaces and ﬁttings of the buildings and pens accessible to pigs shall not have any sharp edges or projections likely to cause injury.(7) Pen ﬂoors should be effectively drained. All ﬂoors particularly slatted or metal mesh ones, should be designed, constructed and maintained so as to avoid injury or distress to the pigs. Advice should be sought if injury or distress occurs.(8) Paints and wood preservatives which may be toxic to pigs should not be used on surfaces accessible to them. Particular care is necessary to guard against the risk of poisoning from old paintwork in any part of the building or when second-hand building materials are used.(9) When planning new buildings, consideration should be given to the provision of an escape route for stock in an emergency; and materials used in construction should have sufﬁcient ﬁre resistance to enable any emergency procedure to be followed.The Codes of recommendation are also concerned with protecting animals from one another. For example:(6) Aggressiveness in dry sows presents a severe problem of husbandry. Where the sows or gilts are kept in groups, much depends on the temperament of individual animals but the stockman should ensure that persistent bullying leading to severe injury does not take place.(56) Precautions should be taken to protect birds against foxes, other predators, dogs and cats.Directions on security in respect animals comes from an unexpected ofﬁcial source, The Highway Code.16The Highway Code gives suggestions on the proper handling of animals if accidents are to be avoided, whether the animal is dangerous, likes snakes being transported in the back of a car or merely clumsy cattle in a country lane.‘If you have an animal in your car, keep it under control. Make sure it cannot disturb you while you are driving. Do not let a dog out of the car onto the road unless it is on a lead.’If you are riding a horse, keep to the left.If you are on foot, and leading an animal on a road that has no footpath, walk on the right-hand side of the road.‘If you are herding animals along or across the road and there is someone with you, send him/her along the road to warn drivers….’The GNLEAs set standards for such of security for the animal house:General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 22

20Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020‘Security: aim at a closed community in a self-contained unit with private lift or entrance(s) for staff, animal foodstuffs et cetera; not overlooked or, if so ﬁtted with opaque window is not (not blinds); quiet and sheltered from cold wind.”12The GNLEA (P.50.),17 quotes from the Animal Boarding Act (1963) concerning security with the implication that the same precautions would be act in an animal unit.18‘18. All heating appliances must be of such construction as to constitute no risk of ﬁre.19. Animals and equipment shall not be placed or kept in such a position as to render ingress or egress difﬁcult in the case of ﬁre or other emergency.20. The licensee shall ensure that a responsible person shall at all times be in, or within, reasonable distance from the premises for the purpose of giving warning and taking other necessary steps in the event of ﬁre or other emergency. In the case of premises which are locked-up, outside business hours, the Licensee shall appoint a responsible person residing within a reasonable distance of the premises to have custody of the key. The name and address of such person shall be displayed in legible characters on the front door, or windows of the premises and be notiﬁed to the local ﬁre brigade. An adequate and accessible supply of water and sand and/or an efﬁcient ﬁre extinguisher must always be available…’Escape Security does not only imply the protection of the animal but also its restraint for the prevention of escape. Escape may be the result of slipshod security. The obligation to avoid damage to persons or property by preventing the escape of mischievous animals is clear in law.“Blackburn J., Pronounced the doctrine which is now known as the Rule in Rylands versus Fletcher; he said ‘the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie is answerable for all the damage which is which is the natural consequence of its six but escape” (Littlewood Report.IE i EX. 265, 279 – 80.)19 Editor’s note: Prima facie – ﬁrst sight/impressionEscape without actual damage may sometimes constitute an offence.The Highways Act (1959)20‘135. Penalties in connection with straying animals;- (1) if any horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine are at any time found straying or lying on or at the side of a highway their keepers shall be guilty of an offence:’ provided that this subsection shall not apply in relation to parts of the highway passing over any common, waste or unenclosed ground.”The Agriculture Act (1947) Section 99,21 stipulates that the Minister may serve notice in writing on the occupier of land requiring him to take steps to prevent the escape of animals from land on which they are kept in captivity.The Modern Law of Animals Page 44) has apt remarks on this subject.22‘It should be noted… That the that it is not unlawful to keep either an animal of a dangerous species or any other animal known to be dangerous;’ (it can be noted in passing that a bill is being steered through Parliament to demand a licence for the possession of a ‘dangerous animal’ by a private individual or even by Safari Park proprietors – March 1976) ‘for the wrong is in allowing it to escape from the keepers control with the result that it does damage. It has been pointed out that to admit of a rule that it is unlawful to keep dangerous animals would mean that “the proprietors of the Zoological Gardens would live in a perpetual state of lawbreaking.23 ‘Liability and under section 2 (1) of The Animals Act (1971) is strict.2 He who keeps an animal of a dangerous species does so at his peril. It is no defence to an action for keeping such an animal which has injured the plaintiff that the defendant did not know of its ferocity. For it is still the law “that it cannot be doubted that a person who keeps an animal (of a dangerous species) must prevent it from doing injury, and it is immaterial whether he knows it to be dangerous or not.’FencingBecause of the economic value of farm animals and because of the long legal history of cases concerning damage caused by straying cattle, the question of fencing has been extensively dealt with by the courts. In this area there is an abundant amount of case law.Fencing is legally described as “the construction of any obstacle designed to prevent animals from straying”: (Animals Act (1971) section 11).2This will mean that fencing will include not only fences but also, for example, ditches though only where the purpose of the ditch is to contain livestock and not where its sole purpose is to carry away water.’24‘The duty to fence is only to keep reasonable fences to prevent the escape of ordinary cattle in ordinary circumstances.’25General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 23

21August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare‘There is no negligence when cattle are contained by an electric fence in good order and charged with current at all material times and yet a cow gets into the highway in some inexplicable way. Similarly, the use of a 4-foot fence to contain heifers in heat was reasonable, even though heifers in such a condition may be become unruly and jump fences. As the judge said: ‘it would surely not be reasonable to ask farmers whose properties are adjacent to a public highway to erect 8-foot fences or such fences that no animal at any time would ever be able to break out of. Cows are persistent and in spite of their apparent stupidity, are very resourceful when they wish to go from point A to point B.’ 26 … It has been accepted that the heavier the trafﬁc the higher the duty of care:” 126NegligenceNegligence – a source of injury and escape may bring liability or prosecution in its wake. Since the Animal Technologist may be the man on the spot in an animal enclosure, he may easily be involved in consequential litigation. Serious disputes of this nature are settled by court decisions and when a crisis occurs naturally legal counsel will be sought.‘Negligence signiﬁes the breach by a defendant of a legal duty to take care not to damage the person or the property of the plaintiff.’Fortunately the technician has no need to be versed in the complicated reﬁnements of negligence but it would be useful to be aware of the hazards arising from negligence.‘There has never been any doubt since the 17th century that an action will lie for the negligent keeping of animals which cause harm to the plaintiff. There is, therefore, a common law duty to take reasonable care to prevent your animals from causing injury, whether or not they escape from your land or control. This liability was quite independent of the common law heads of liability peculiar to animals and is quite independent of any statutory liability imposed in their place by the Animals Act 1971.2 As Lord Atkins has said: “it is also true that, quite apart from the liability imposed upon the owner of animals or the person having control of them by reason of knowledge of their propensities, there is the ordinary duty of a person to take care either that his animal or his chattel is not put to such a use as is likely to injure his neighbour…”27 Editor’s note: heads in this case refers to the elements in a claim of liability and subsequent compensation claim.It is important to know that ultimately what constitutes ‘reasonable care’ is a question of fact, in each case.As in all torrts, so in the case of negligence, foresight is a factor to be considered. If a result of an action or an omission could in no way be foreseen, then negligence is out of the question. The lack of foresight must however be taken in a very broad sense.Editor’s note. What is a tort? The law of tort is wide-ranging body of rights, obligations and remedies applied by the courts in civil proceedings. It provides remedies, relief for those who have suffered loss or harm following the wrongful or negligent acts of others. A tort is a civil wrong by the ‘tortfeasor’ that unfairly results in loss or harm to another.With regard to liability for accidents brought about by an animal running onto the highway and causing, let us say, a car to swerve and crash, the question now is quite simply one of negligence. Did the owner or keeper take all reasonable steps to prevent the animal running onto a busy road, out of control and bewildered where it could easily cause chaos? If now seems clear that negligent failure to exercise the necessary measure of control can result in an action being booked brought successfully against the owner.28It is not presumed that technicians spend their time herding large numbers of rodents along public thoroughfares but some technicians may be concerned with errant ruminants. Special attention should be paid to possible injury, either from animals or other sources in the animal unit, to visitors.‘Visitors in this context include people who come upon the property either in the occupiers interests (e.g.plumbers) or in their own (e.g.guests) or in the exercise of some right conferred by law and also people who enter as a result of a contract between the occupier and some third party.’29It is the duty of the occupier to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be there.1. An occupier may expect that the person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against any special risk ordinarily incident to it.2. A warning does not absolve the occupier of liability unless it is sufﬁcient to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.3. No duty is owed in respect of risks willingly accepted by the visitor.4. In certain areas and occupier may vary or exclude his duty of care notably given by notices to that effect to the to a licensee, or by varying or excluding the duty of care as a term of a contract between the occupier and the visitor.’30General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 24

22Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020NuisancePublic nuisance‘A public nuisance is such an inconvenient or troublesome offence annoys the community in general, and not a few individuals only and is indictable as and misdemeanour. A nuisance which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of persons within its sphere, may be a public nuisance. An offensive trade, either from the noise or smell, carried on to the annoyance or discomfort of all persons in the neighbourhood, is a nuisance; keeping ferocious animals without proper control is a public nuisance;’31,32 ‘The question whether the activity is reasonable depends on all the circumstances of the case… A collection of noisy animals might be a nuisance in a residential area, though not in the open country. Smells and noise are perhaps the most common form of nuisance which may be caused by laboratory animals but is escaping infections might also constitute nuisance, though these will be more properly be dealt with in an action for negligence.’33As in the case of negligence, foresight is also a factor in cases of nuisance, whether based upon a lack of care or not, and whether public or private.34A Private Nuisance is a wrong which incommode a person in the use and enjoyment of his land. ‘… It may be an actionable nuisance to contaminate your neighbour’s water supply with droppings from animals on your land.’35The various sources of nuisance associated with an animal unit are well summarised in Modern Law of animals.35 ‘Just as such escapes may constitute a nuisance, so also may the conduct of animals remaining on the defendants’s land. If pigs are kept on the defendents land so that the smell from them unreasonably interfere with the plaintiffs enjoyment of his land, this is a nuisance and the same may be said for other smells, such as those from horses.’ (cf. Benjamin v Storr(1874)36 Liability in nuisance extends also to unreasonable noise made by animals on the defendant’s lands, as with the crowing of cockerels, the barking of dogs or the noises of horses in a stable. It is probable also that it is actionable nuisance to keep diseased animals on one’s own land in circumstances such that their disease “infects one neighbour’s animals and therefore interferes with his use of his land.’35The proper disposal of radioactive weight is relevance to the avoidance of public nuisance.‘…the disposal of radioactive waste is controlled by the Department of the Environment (DoE) which issues to each registered user of radioactive materials a certiﬁcate of authorisation. This states the maximum amounts of radioactive waste which may be disposed of per month by speciﬁed routes. The actual amounts of activity authorised for disposal by various routes are prescribed by the DoE in the light of the needs of the establishment and local conditions. The commonly used methods of disposal are discharge into the sewers, incineration and disposal via the domestic refuge service.The radioactive waste which arises from the use of radioactive materials in animal experiments occurs in three main forms; radioactive bedding and excreta, radioactive carcasses and liquid waste including unwanted radioactive solutions, urine and other body ﬂuids, and water from cage or animal penned washings. In addition a small amount of solid wastes in the form of swabs, disposable syringes and paper may arise.In most establishments it will probably be possible to dispose of all liquid waste by discharge into the sewers via the ordinary drainage system. However, if more than small amounts e.g.10 µ Ci/0.1m3, of very high toxicity nucleotides, or millicurie or larger amounts of medium toxicity nuclides are used, special disposal arrangements may be required for all or part of the liquid waste. The disposal of contaminated bedding and other combustible solid waste by incineration is frequently permitted or, if the material contains only small quantities of moderate to low toxicity radio nucleotides, less than 10 µ Ci/ 0.1m30 per m3, disposal via the domestic refuge disposal service operated by the Local Authority may be allowed.The disposal of radioactive carcasses may sometimes present problems. For small animal carcasses containing no more than moderate amounts of medium or low toxicity nucleotides, disposal by incineration or by maceration and ﬂushing into the drains may be permitted.’37In the ﬁeld of disposal of any type of waste the local authority have has wide powers of legislation which should be consulted and must be observed.‘The reader is more likely to be concerned with bylaws made under Sections.81 and 82 of the Public Health Act (1936);38 section 81 provides: –A local authority may make bylaws for preventing: –(a) the occurrence of nuisances from snow, ﬁlth, dust, ashes and rubbish; (b) the keeping of animals so as to be prejudicial to health.General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 25

23August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareUnder section 82 of the 1936 Act a local authority may make bye-laws governing the disposal of any faecal or or offensive or noxious matter or liquid.’The disposal of waste is also regulated by the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937 which controls the nature and quantity of efﬂuent which may be discharged into public sewers.39 Under Section 63 of the Public Health Act (1961) premises for scientiﬁc research or experiments,40 are made subject to the 1937 Act.39,41 The GNLEA, pages 33 to 35 give instruction on the procedures of correct disposal of waste material.42 ‘The three common methods of disposal of the killed animal are: a) incineration, b) maceration and c) collection. a) Incinerators; Incinerators vary… In efﬁciency… for animal house usage where there may be a high percentage of wet material for disposal. Difﬁculty may also arise from malodorous gaseous efﬂuent and special problems are associated with infectious and radioactive materials. Consult a specialist engineer who can advise you on your particular requirements. (Kevin’s notes: I admit the above paragraph is far from law but it was seen ﬁt to include it in the GNLEA.)b) Maceration by means of a commercial size waste disposal unit is an excellent means of disposing of the majority of laboratory animal species and will usually be acceptable to the Public Health Authority and the Department of the Environment, the latter of whom must be consulted with regards to all details concerning radioactive waste disposal. An important detail with regards to installation is that the outﬂow drained should not be less than 4 inches in diameter. It is not recommended for disposals disposal of feathered carcasses.c) Collection means disposal within a waterproof bag container by the council refuse collection and requires prior consultation and agreement with the local sanitation authorities. It is obviously not suitable for the disposal of infective material.With regard to the carcass meat of livestock which has been used for experiment and which may have considerable market value, there will be no objection to the sail, provided the necessary permission is obtained from the meat inspection authority and that all relevant regulations are complied with. You are reminded however that the live experimental animal may not be moved from premises registered by the Home Ofﬁce to other than another registered place.Animals exposed to ionising radiationWhen the levels of radiotoxicity are liable to be higher than dosage associated with tracer isotopes, the special requirement is that the accommodation and the arrangements for disposal of contaminated material and efﬂuent, must comply with the Radioactive Substances Act (1960),43 and that the animal house must be registered with the DoE in addition to the Home Ofﬁce and authorisation for the accumulation of disposal of radioactive waste be obtained.42The technician’s concern with the avoidance of causing a nuisance and his responsibility in the matter will vary with the amount of authority he/she has within the establishment.Liability‘The law affecting the animal house involves both civil and criminal liability. Where injury, loss or damage is caused by animals or by the keeping of animals, the injured party may recover damages in the civil courts by bringing an action in the county court, if the claim is small, or the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, if the claim is more substantial. The right to bring such action is principally contained in common law, that is in the law as established by decided cases. To a lesser extent it is created directly by Act of Parliament, such as Occupiers Liability Act (1957) and the Animals Act (1971).44 The Chief Technician, particularly, may easily be involved with the causes of liability e.g. lack of security, escape, negligence, nuisance, contravention of Safety Regulations, etc. The actual decisions on liability, the apportioning of blame and the allotting of compensation will be settled far from the animal house in a court of law, perhaps, on the part of the Company or Institute by lawyers. It would be presumptuous and superﬂuous to expound on the matter of liability but some notes on the matter are relevant. One major Act concerned with liability is simply entitled the Animals Act 1971.2‘An Act to make provisions with respect to civil liability for damage done by animals and with respect to the protection of livestock from dogs; and for purposes connected with these matters.’ (12th of May 1971 preamble to the Act).The Animals Act 9 (1971) – Table of ContentsStrict liability for damage done by animals1. New provisions as to strict liability for damage done by animals.2. Liability for damage done by dangerous animals.General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 26

24Animal Technology and Welfare August 20203. Liability for injury done by dogs to livestock.4. Liability for damage and expenses due to trespassing livestock.4A. Liability for damage and expenses due to horses on land in England without lawful authority.5. Exceptions from liability under sections 2 to 4A.6. Interpretation of certain expressions used in sections 2 to 5.Detention and sale of trespassing livestock7. Detention and sale of trespassing livestock.7A. Power of local authorities in England to detain horses7B. Powers of freeholders and occupiers in England to detain horses7C. Detention of horses under sections 7A and 7BAnimals straying on to highway8. Duty to take care to prevent damage from animals straying on to the highway.Protection of livestock against dogs9. Killing of or injury to dogs worrying livestock.Supplemental10. Application of certain enactments to liability under sections 2 to 4A.11. General interpretation.12. Application to Crown.13. Short title, repeal, commencement and extent.‘There is no deﬁnition of animal provided by the Animals Act (1971, but it is suggested that the term would include birds reptiles and insects, but not bacteria.’45‘One of the features of the Animals Act (1971) which has provoked comment is that it is written in English which ordinary educated people may understand. Indeed, the Parliamentary draughtsman were complimented for having got the Act into such an unfamiliar shape. Nevertheless, there are a number of difﬁculties of interpretation with this Act, primarily because it is overlaid under upon a basis of common law liability. Even though the speciﬁc heads of common law liability were abolished, much of the learning from them will be a positive apposite in applying the new statutory heads of liability.’46 The notes on general interpretation in the Act are aids to understanding the act and its application.‘common land’ and the term ‘town or village green ‘have the same meaning as in the Commons Registrations Act (1965).47 ‘damage’ includes the death of, or injury to, any person (including any disease and any impairment of physical or mental conditions):‘fault has the same meaning as in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.48‘fencing’ includes the construction of any obstacle designed to prevent animals from straying;‘livestock’ means cattle, horses, asses, mules, hinnies, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry and also deer not in the wild state and, in sections 3 and 9, also while in captivity pheasants, partridges and grouse;‘poultry’ means the domestic varieties of the following that is to say fowls, turkeys, geese, ducks, guinea-fowls, pigeons, peacocks and quails;‘species’ include subspecies and variety.The 1971 Act binds the Crown. The Act repeals repeals parts of the Dogs Act (1906) and amends the Dogs (Amendment) Act (1928).49In the context of the 1971 Act – a keeper is a person who owns the animal or has it in his possession. He remains the keeper until the animal comes into the ownership or possession of another person. Thus if the animal has escaped and is run running wild, the person who was the keeper before it escapes remains in law the keeper until it is recaptured and taken into ownership or possession by another person. Old principles of application, such as ‘scienter action’ still have lingering inﬂuence in the Act. Editors note: The scienter action is a category within tort law in some common law jurisdictions that deals with the damage done by an animal directly to a human. It had a long history in English law until it was abolished by the Animals Act 1971.‘The replacement for the scienter action is to be found in section 2 as follows:(1) Where any damage is caused by an animal which belongs to a dangerous species, any person who is the keeper of the animal is liable for the damage, except as otherwise provided by this Act.(2) Where damage is caused by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species, a keeper of the animal is liable for the damage, except as otherwise provided by this Act, if –(a) the damages of the kind the animal, unless restrained, was likely to cause or which, if caused by the animal, was likely to be severe; and(b) the likelihood of the damage or if it being severe was due to characteristics of the animal which are not normally found in animals of the same species are not normally so found except at particular times or in particular circumstances; and General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 27

25August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare(c) those characteristics were known to that keeper or were any time known to a person who at the time had charge of the animal as the keeper’s servant.’It would seem that as an animal technician would rarely possess the animal, in this context he would not be the keeper, but would certainly be the one who had charge of an animal. There are accepted forms of defence in law in cases of liability for damage caused by animals.1) A person is not liable under section 2 of the 1971 Act for any damage suffered by a person who has voluntarily accepted the risk thereof.2) A person is not liable under section 2 of this Act for any damage caused by an animal kept on any premises or structure to any persons trespassing there if it is proved either –a) that the animal was not kept there for the protection of persons or property; orb) (if the animal was kept there for the protection of persons or property) that keeping it there was for that purpose was not unreasonable.3) A person is not liable under Sections 2-4, of this Act for any damage which is due wholly to the fault of the person suffering it.4) Contributory negligence can be used as defence for reducing liability. In cases, however, where there is warning or notice of the dangerous characteristics of the animal, this does not automatically indicate contributory negligence on the part of a plaintiff who has gone near the animal.50 Liability towards trespassersThe devious and dangerous pursuits of some extreme pressure groups render concern about trespassers topical.Although the trespasser is an unwelcome intruder, some care is due to him and even protection from dangerous animals must be provided (cf. Guard Dog’s Act 1975).51‘… though the occupier is not enjoined to take special care as to the state of his premises in respect of the uninvited, he must nevertheless refrain from setting traps for them; and yet he may use reasonable means – such as placing glass or spikes on a wall – to prevent their entry. However, where the presence of the trespasser is known to or reasonably to be expected by the occupier the latter must, according to what is probably the best view expressed in the House of Lords in Robert Andy & Sons (Colliers) Ltd versus Dunn Breck (1929) A.C 358 refrain from acts deliberately aimed at doing harm to the trespasser or done with reckless disregard for his presence.’51and‘Generally the occupier is not liable to a trespasser unless he injures him either intentionally or recklessly.”‘The position of children may also cause considerable difﬁculty. If the occupier has an attraction on his premises which draws children onto the premises, those children may be treated as licensees and therefore lawful visitors and not as trespassers, unless the occupier takes reasonable steps to keep the children out. Again the occupier may be liable if he has on his premises something which attracts children and if the children so attracted are then injured by a concealed hazard. Animals used of laboratory work might well constitute an attraction to children and the occupier of the laboratory might well be held liable for injuries suffered by children, unless he had taken every reasonable precaution to keep the children out. This duty is quite onerous. In decided cases where there has been an attraction on land the occupier has helped children who managed the land through insubstantial fencing’.33The following quotation illustrates the complexity and unpredictable nature of liability due to the behaviour of animals.One general problem is that it is not always easy to determine in what circumstances the plaintiff is to be considered to have brought his injury upon himself. A small boy who put his arm around a dog and kissed it to induce it to play was considered to be the cause of his own injury when the dog bit him (Lee versus Walker (1939).) but another small boy who lay besides a dog and put his arms round its neck was able to recover. (Charlwood versus Craig (1851)). Both were cases involving the ‘scientor action’ but both were seen relevant to liability under Section 2 (two) of the Animals Act (1971).2 Again, when a child, a lawful visitor chose to relieve herself near a lion’s cage, the defendants, the proprietors of the circus, were held liable when the child was mauled by the lion. The child was not considered to be the cause of her own injury. (Pearson versus Coleman Bros. (1948).53The practical conclusion for the Animal Technician who has care of dangerous or vicious animals, is to keep his unit closed to the public and to be extremely selective as regards visitors, especially in respect to children.N.B. Reference to the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974), 54 is apt here. A failure on the part of any person to comply with an approved code does not of itself give rise to either civil or criminal liability but if there are any criminal proceedings the provision of any relevant code of practice shall be advisable.The notions of negligence and liability are associated closely and frequently confused.General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 28

26Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020‘A further signiﬁcance of determining whether the action for injury done by an animal is one in negligence or one of strict liability under the Animals Act 1971 is for the latter no fault on the part of the defendant needs to be proved. Liability is strict with the one qualiﬁcation of proof of knowledge under section 2 (2), though this may often be equivalent to proof of fault.2 A corollary of this general distinction between liability in negligence and under The Animals Act 1971 is that the rules of remoteness of damage appear to be different. It has been suggested already that just as with the scienter action and cattle trespass at common law, the statutory liability under Section 2 and Section 4 of The Animals Act 1971 attracts a test of remoteness based upon direct consequence. However the test of remoteness in negligence is now that of reasonable foresight of consequence. Thus the statutory actions based on strict liability could give rise to a greater extent of liabilirty than in negligence.’55 Protection of the technicianThere are numerous legal requirements to ensure that a technician is duly protected from harm in his place of work. In general these obligations fall upon the employer but it is useful for the technician to be aware of the professional hazards and legal implications.‘The increasing stringent requirements of modern experimental work have made corresponding demands upon the husbandry of laboratory animals and have greatly increased the complexities of construction, environmental control and waste disposal in the animal house. This in turn has considerably enlarged the range of electrical, mechanical, chemical and other hazards to which workers are exposed. The dangers associated with the use of carcinogenic agents, radioactive isotopes, pathogenic microorganisms and other experimental materials are common to both laboratory and animal house and research workers using such agents should be fully conversant with the hazards involved and the precautions that need to be taken. In the laboratory, safe containment and use of potentially dangerous materials and equipment is rarely a difﬁcult matter but their use in animal experiments poses problems of human exposure which are frequently difﬁcult to assess and control. Thus, in the animal house there is a wide range of hazards which includes those associated with experimental procedures as well as those associated with the care of animals and ancillary equipment.After installation by the suppliers of much equipment is maintained by Animal Technicians. A thorough knowledge of the proper use and care of machinery, pressure vessels, control systems, compressed gases and other equipment is essential not only for the safety of the workers but also for the health and well-being of the animals.’ 56Animals themselves can give rise to two types of hazards as far as the technician is concerned – disease or injury. The ﬁrst hazard comes under the heading Zoonoses and the second under the heading Attacks.Zoonoses have been deﬁned by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as, ‘those diseases and infections which are naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and man.’ List of over 150 to 200 zoonoses have been compiled and new ones are added daily.’57 There seems to be little direct legislation in this matter.‘Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972.’58 1, Control of Zoonoses. – (1) this section shall have effect with a view to reducing the risk to human health from any diseases of, or organisms carried in, animals; and the Ministers may by order designate any such disease or organisms which in their opinion continues such a risk as aforesaid.’This is a general directive providing the Minister with contingent powers to deal with special cases.A co-relation between the hazards of zoonoses and other hazards from dangerous animals is made in Modern Law of Animals page 47.59‘If, therefore, an animal of a dangerous species is carrying the disease and the plaintiff is infected thereby, and action will lie under Section 2 (1) The Animals Act 1971.2 If the injury to the plaintiff takes the form of nervous shock or physical injury directly attributable to shock, such damage is actionable under section 2 (1).’59 It is pointed out in The Laboratory Animal – Principles and Practice page 197,60 that ‘those who work with poliovirus are always protected by vaccination. The same precaution is normally taken with all staff where work may bring them into contact with human pathogens….A relevant note occurs in the IAT Manual 1st edition.61‘Prior to approval, animal handlers will be required to produce evidence of physical ﬁtness and good health, including freedom from active tuberculosis. All animal handlers should receive six monthly chest x-ray examination and tuberculin negative personnel should be retested for tuberculin conversion at six monthly intervals. In the absence of anti-tuberculosis vaccination, tuberculin convertees will be laid off duty until further evidence of freedom from active tuberculosis has been produced. It is advisable that protection against tetanus and the enteric group of fevers should be offered to all animal handlers as a routine. (These recommendations are primarily concerned with the handlers of monkeys in transit.)General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 29

27August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAttacks: The law appears ambiguous in its attitude towards injuries excess sustained by an employee from an animal in his charge.The Animals Act 197 12Section 6 (5) where a person employed as a servant by a keeper of an animal incures risk incidental to his employment he shall not be treated as accepting it voluntarily’ (he could, therefore claim damages in the case of an injury in the pursuits of his task.)Previously it was presumed that an employee knew of and accepted risks inherent to his job e.g. the custodian of a dangerous bull or a horse-breaker. In the laboratory setting vicious primates or venomous snakes might call for similar consideration.Since the 1971 Act only when there is actual rather than presumed assumption of risk can it an employer escape liability.RadioactivityLike safety in general this topic extends over a much wider spectrum than the scope of this work. While many details of legislation on this subject can be ignored in this review some points are relevant.D.M.Taylor in Safety in the Animal House (page 76 – 79) summarises the legal stipulations.37‘In addition to the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act, the Department of State responsible for making safety regulations in several spheres of activity have drawn up Codes of Practice for the use of ionising radiation is….. for most users of radioactive materials in animal experiments the appropriate codes will be ‘the Code of Practice for the Protection of Persons exposed to Ionising Radiations in Research and Teaching’. Issued by the Department of Employment and the ‘Code of Practice for the Protection of Persons against Ionising Radiations arising from Medical and Dental use’ which is issued by the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security.The Codes of Practice require that every establishment shall make preparations for dealing with an accidental spillage of a large quantity of radioactive material or accidental contamination of personnel. The preparations for dealing with such an emergency and the action to be taken during and after the event must be included in local rules.It is recommended that the equipment needed for dealing with an emergency should be kept available at all times.While in most animal houses the likelihood of a large spillage of radioactive material is remote, it is essential that all staff should be conversant with the procedures to be adopted should an emergency occur.62‘The ultimate responsibility for radiation safety lies with the employer but the primary responsibility for protecting himself and his colleagues from the harmful effects of radiation lies with the individual worker. It is essential that before starting radiation work, every worker is given instructions in the nature of the risks and the reasons underlying the safety procedures he or she is required to practice.’ Other relevant points of radiation hazardsRegulations made under the ‘Radioactive Substances Act (1948 and 1960)’ are applicable not only to corporate bodies but also to individuals.63‘Section 6 (3) Regulations made under this section may provide for imposing requirements and prohibitions and restrictions on employers, employed persons and other persons.(4) Any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any regulation made under this section or any requirement, prohibition or restriction imposed under such regulation shall be guilty of an offence’.Points from Codes of Practice‘5.3.1. Each designated person must, except as mentioned in the following sentence, wear suitable photographic ﬁlm in an appropriate holder to measure the cumulative doses of external radiation he receives. In cases of exposure to fast neutrons or to low energy beta radiation, e.g. from tritium, carbon-14 and sulphur 35, special measuring techniques are necessary. Advice can be obtained from the Advisory and Information unit of the Ministry of Labour or from Radiological Protection Service.Editor’s note: Now Department of Work and Pensions6.2.2.1 Every designated person should be re-examined annually to check continued ﬁtness for such work, unless it is clear from personal monitoring that he is consistently receiving no more than the maximum permissible dose for non-designated persons.9.9.2 mops, cloths, scrubbing brushes and any other article used for cleaning controlled areas should be clearly marked and must not be used for any other purpose.’The GENLEA (pages 28 to 34) supplies instructions concerning the protection of technicians.64‘Under this heading three aspects require consideration:-a. AccessGeneral responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 30

28Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020b. Fire precautionsc. Human health hazardsin order that the importance of these matters be fully recognised, it is recommended that a ‘Safety Ofﬁcer’ be appointed.’Zoonoses‘Infection arising from zoonoses or the improper handling of infectious materials … education in the diseases of animals transferable to man and the handling of infectious material must be part of the normal training of all staff. If disease occurs the patient’s medical practitioner must be made aware of the particular hazards to which he may have been exposed.’Human health hazardsThese are mainly: – injury arising from trauma, exposure to toxic materials, e.g. formalin vapour or ionising radiation, electrical or gas supply faults, allergies, bedding mites, etc.’‘First-aid equipment must be available, together with instructions for dealing with electrocution and exposure to particular toxicity hazards that may exist.’Radioactivity‘Protection of personnel is paramount and guidance in this respect can be obtained from ‘Radiological Protection in Universities 1966’ published by the Vice Chancellor’s Committee of the Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Ministry of Labour have also published ‘Codes of Practice relating to radiation hazards’.65Fire precautionsin addition to the necessary ﬁre points and appliances, it will be necessary to evolve means of access in case of ﬁre when attendants are not normally present.’66The technicians responsibility before the lawIn legal parlance the technician is a “servant” – a source of legal privilege in many respects.‘According to the standard deﬁnition a servant is any person who works for another upon the terms that he is to be subject to the control of that other person as to the manner in which he shall do his work… Although no new deﬁnition of a servant has yet gained currency, the modern servant begins to look different from his prototype – the manual or domestic worker.’67‘Masters (employers) are held ‘vicariously’ liable for torts committed by their servants (employee) in the course of their employment, i.e.they are held liable for the wrong of a servant even though the tort is one which they have not ordered or authorised. This is a common- sense rule, for employees are usually people of slender means and it is fair that an injured plaintiff should be entitled to seek common compensation from those who control and proﬁt by the organisation by which he is employed though it should be noted that in legal theory (though practice usually parts company with theory, since no one sues a “man of straw”) there is nothing to prevent the master from making good his own loss by claiming against the servant tortfeasor.’67Editor’s note: Tortfeasor – and individual who has been found to have committed a civil offense that injuries another party. “For instance, hospital authorities have been held vicariously responsible for the negligence of nurses, radiographers and even of whole-time assistant medical ofﬁcers; and companies are regularly made liable for the torts of their executive.’67 ‘Clearly a master cannot be made liable for every wrongful act which his servant commits but only for wrongs committed ‘about the Masters business. Whether any particular act does thus fall within the ‘scope of an employment’ must always be largely a question of fact.’It should be noted that the master may be held liable even if he has prohibited the servant from doing the act in question. Though prohibition may be relevant in determining whether the act was committed in the ‘course of employment’, it cannot, of itself, exculpate the master: if the law were otherwise masters would always escape liability by the simple expedient of prohibiting their servants from committing any torts during their service.67 The amount of responsibility expected from a technician will be parallel with the degree of care demanded by his duties.‘… such care will be required as a reasonable man could consider necessary according to the danger potential of the article: failure to act in the appropriate way will constitute negligence. Moreover, where the danger to be anticipated if insufﬁcient care be taken is such as ought to be put a man especially upon his guard”, (e.g., dealing with the highly infected and difﬁcult to contain animals,) ‘the law may demand of him a degree of foresight, higher than foresight of the probable. (cf. Overseas tankship (U.K.), Ltd V Miller steamship company. Pty Ltd (1967) AC.617)68‘… necessity may sometimes excuse what might otherwise be lack of care. If a lawyer undertakes to amputate your leg and gangrene sets in through lack of skill, he will be answerable. (imperitia culpea adnumeratur – [translation lack of skill amounts to a General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 31

29August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfarefault], amounts to fault in English law just as it did in Roman); but it would be otherwise if he were to operate in the case of necessity to save your life when far from proper help.’68Dangerous Animals. In the ﬁrst instance it is the keeper or one in control of an animal that is responsible for damage caused by its behaviour. The technician will often be performing this role. Fortunately it is possession rather than control of the offending animal which takes priority in the matter of liability.‘The requirement that the proper defendant should be the possessor of the livestock will exclude from liability those who have an interest less than possession. If livestock are in the possession of a farmer than his cowman, as an employee, will merely have custody of the livestock in his charge and the cowman will not be held liable under section 4 of The Animals Act if the livestock stray.’69 It is however, the knowledge of the animal possessed, by the one caring for it, which is important in law.‘The keeper will be deemed to have knowledge of the animal’s abnormal characteristics if they ‘were at any time known to a person who at that time had charge of the animal as it is that keeper’s servant.… Again, knowledge by the defendant servant that cattle, entrusted to their control to be driven along the highway, were dangerous, has been held to be the knowledge of the master.’70 Cruelty to animalsIn the matter of cruelty to animals, within the terms of the 1911 Act, the avoidance of causing suffering is a personal obligation. The extent to which suffering can be caused or prevented will be scaled in keeping with the position of the technician in the animal unit. It is applicable however, whether his duty is merely packing animals for transport or is the overall supervision of a complete animal house. The employee cannot always escape under the umbrella of a corporation or ﬁrm. Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (1968) 58Part 1. Welfare of Livestock.Prevention of unnecessary pain and distress for livestock.Interpretation. (4) where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar ofﬁcer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.’Home Ofﬁce licence. A technician holding a Home Ofﬁce licence to carry out experiments upon animals is personally responsible for the observance of the conditions etc., laid down in the licence.In many cases a licence is issued to a technician under the supervision of a senior scientiﬁc member of staff. In these cases the responsibility of the technician is diminished.The new Safety ActThe Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) imposes new responsibility on the technician as it stipulates that in some cases it is the duty of an employee to be concerned with safety.71 ‘Section 7 it shall be the duty of every employee while at work:-(a) to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; is) (e.g.leaving the cage of a dangerous animal opened) and(b) as regards any duty or requirement imposed on him his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to cooperate with him so as so far as it is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or compliant with; andS: 6 (3) it shall be the duty of any person who erects or installs any article for use at work in any premises where that article is to be used by persons at work to ensure, so far as is reasonably practical, that nothing about the way in which it is erected e.g. cage racking) or installed makes it unsafe or a risk to health when properly used.An employee is not protected from the error of his ways merely by the fact of being only an employee.S. 36 (1) where the commission by any person of an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions is due to the act or default of some person, that other person shall be guilty of the offence, and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this subsection whether or not proceedings are taken against the ﬁrst mentioned person.’ Ionising Radiations Some points in the codes of practice concerning responsibility as far as individual technician is concerned.‘Section 2.4 Responsibility of Individuals2.4.1 It must be impressed on every individual working with ionising radiations or radioactive substances that he has a duty to protect both himself and others from General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 32

30Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020any hazard arising from his work and that he must not expose himself or others to ionising radiation to a greater extent than is reasonably necessary for the purpose of his work.’‘4.3.3.4 Working methods which tend to cause dust or which involved the risk of spillage should where possible be avoided.’‘9.10.1 Personal Hygiene. In order to prevent ingestion, inhalation or other absorption of radioactive substances special attention must be paid to personal hygiene.’‘9.10.2 Eating and drinking, smoking, taking snuff and the application of cosmetics must not take place in active areas.’ The following important reminder occurs in Safety in the Animal House (page 77).62‘The ultimate responsibility for radiation protection lies with the employing organisation but the primary responsibility for protecting his or herself and other people from radiation hazards rests with the individual worker. Consequently nobody should be permitted to begin to use radiation sources in any form until he or she has become fully acquainted with the nature of the potential hazard and the general and local laws for radiation work.’Responsibility before the law is not completely one-sided there are circumstances in which reciprocity on the part of an employer is demanded.For instance, a servant is under moral duty to protect his master’s goods; if:, therefore, he sees that they are in danger from, say ﬁre, he should rescue them… On the other hand it has been held that a man who is injured in attempting to stop a runaway horse in the country, when no one is in danger, will have no claim against the owner. The law encourages the hero but dislikes the busybody.72The technician as an administratorThe responsibility of the Animal Technician, as an administrator, before the law will be commensurate with his authority within the organisation for which he works. It is presumed that he is not the proprietor and so we can readily ignore such laws as the Occupiers Liability Act (1957). It is likewise supposed that he is not the employer, so that The Factory Act (1961) and similar legislation along with laws on insurance and trade unions are excluded from discussion.Most of the law with which the Animal Technician as an administrator may be concerned, has already been touched upon. It remains merely at this juncture to highlight the salient points of his legal obligations.Cruelty A Chief Technician is in a position to control the activities of his subordinates in the treatment of animals and must be prompt in preventing any of them from mistreating their charges. Although the law, when legislating against ‘permitting of cruelty’ speciﬁcally mentions the ‘owner’, it indirectly indicates the responsibility of the administrator.Is the implication of permitting cruelty is expect expressed in the 1911 Act.73‘(2) for the purpose of this section, an owner shall be deemed to have permitted cruelty within the meaning of this Act if he shall have failed to exercise reasonable care and supervision in respect of the protection of the animal therefrom:’73Co-operation in cruelty by tacit permission or concealment may place a chief technician in an unlawful position. There are well established legal principles governing cooperation in criminal acts.‘… Suppose while doing nothing active to help and knowing nothing of the deed, be listens to a story of his exploits after it is done and then takes no steps to expose a to the appropriate authorities…’ Even without actual participation, connivance, assistance in the preparation or subsequent assistance but only with’“Concealment of knowledge of the crime – B has a one-way… Being a party to the crime.’74 Drugs A Chief Technician as an administrator may ﬁnd himself responsible for dangerous drugs, the control of which is covered by a complex of law. Peripheral although these obligations may be to the technician’s main duties, they are important. H Boyd in Safety in the Animal House summarises the legal position as regards drugs most succinctly.The sale and supply of poisons is regulated by Part II and P III of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act (1933). The Act provides the subordinate legislation regulating inter alia the sale and supply of poisons, storage, transport and labelling of poisons and the compounding and dispensing poisons. Rules made under the Act will be found in Halesbury’s Statutory Instruments under the title Medicine. The 1933 Act is subsequently amended by the Medicines Act 1968.75 Except as provided by rules made under the Act, the 1933 Act does not extend to or interfere with the sale of poisons to a person or institution concerned with scientiﬁc education or research if the poisons are required for education or research. However laboratories which use animals are further affected by the 1968 Act as follow: Section 32 restricts the sale, supply, manufacturer or assembly of any medicinal product for the purpose of a medicinal test on animals. The provisions of Section General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 33

31August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare32 are exempted in the case of certain tests speciﬁed in section 33. Subsequent sections provide for the administration of the restrictions. Sections 40 to 42 restrict the supply of medicated animal feeding stuffs and incorporation of substances and articles in the animal feeding stuffs. Sections 51 to 68 restrict the sale and supply of medicinal products, including any product to be administered to animals for a medicinal purpose. ‘Medicinal product’ and ‘medicinal purpose’ are given a widespread involved deﬁnition under section 130 of the Act, to which those concerned should refer.75‘Reference should also be made to The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and regulations with regard to the supply, use, safe custody and disposal of drugs.33 Diseases. The Chief Technician involved with farm animals should need needs to be alert and respecting respect to the Diseases of Animal Act (1950).76It (the 1950 Act) grants authority to make orders for putting into effect the general purpose of the Act. Thus the detail of restrictions imposed by the Act is to a great extent contained not in the Act itself but incident alternate legislation made under it… The volume of the subordinate legislation is so great and so varied, that it is not practical to refer to it here in detail. Those concerned with laboratory animals would be well advised to ascertain which particular orders cover their particular ﬁeld and copies of those orders should be kept in the laboratory library.77 Most Orders associated with the 1950 Act stress the illegality not only of contravening the order but also of causing or permitting others to do so; e.g. Swine Fever Order 1963 Section 11.78Records The numerous records required by law are usually the burden of the administrating technician. This duty is set is dealt with in a separate article. Ionising radiations Some points of the codes of practice associated with the Radioactive Substances Act could be the direct concern of the technician as administrator of a large animal large research animal unit.Section 4.3.3.3 In order to achieve proper containment all work with radioactive substances should be segregated from other work, preferably in rooms reserved solely for it. If such segregation is not practicable special care must be taken to achieve equivalent standards of safety….Section 4.3.3.5 Laboratory surfaces and equipment should be easy to clean and to decontaminate both during normal work and during maintenance operations…4.3.3.6 Protective equipment must be provided where necessary to prevent as far as possible contamination of the skin, hair and ordinary clothing. This it must be worn by all persons must be worn by all persons working with unsealed radioactive substances and, if there is a risk of contamination, by persons carrying out maintenance or repair work.4.3.3.7 The protective equipment must include a sufﬁcient supply of suitable breathing apparatus where there is liable to be a hazard from gaseous or airborne radioactive substances.4.3.2.7 To reduce the time of exposure to the minimum, work should be to the minimum, work should be carefully planned in advance. It may well be desirable to have trial runs using a dummy source or without exposing the source or energising machine.5.1.1 The effectiveness of protective measures must be assessed by regular monitoring both of the working environment and of the persons concerned. In each case it is necessary to assess the levels of external radiation and the amount of any contamination that may be present. 5.3.6 The ﬁlm badge must be examined periodically under arrangements made by the controlling authority.6.2.1.1 No person may be engaged on work which will require him to become a designated person unless, within the previous four months, he has been medically examined and declared ﬁt for work for such work.7.2.7 Arrangements should be made to ensure that persons within an enclosure can shut off quickly all sources of ionising radiation from within the enclosure, can leave the enclosure without delay and can, if necessary, obtain immediate help from outside the enclosure.7.2.8 When the apparatus is about to be energised adequate warning should be given to all persons in the vicinity. This should be done by warning light, or audible signals or both. One or other warning signal or both, should continue to operate while the apparatus is energised. Where practicable these warnings should operate automatically and be so designed as to ‘fail to safety’.8.2.2 If the source is leaking the Responsible Person must be notiﬁed immediately. The source must be placed in a leakproof container and the area in which it is it has been used and any person who has used it must be checked for contamination. The possibility that some radioactive substances may have become airborne must be taken into consideration and if necessary, emergency procedures must be put into operation. In no circumstances must the source be used again until any necessary repairs have been affected. 9.2.4 Warning notices must be displayed at or near the boundaries of total enclosure and active and radiation General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 34

32Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020areas. Where it becomes necessary to classify an area as of an active or radiation area because of tracer work calm, the notices must be displayed while the work is in process and so long afterwards as the contamination exceeds the levels speciﬁed in appendix 2.12.1 When not in use, sealed sources and unsealed radioactive substances should be securely stored. Stores should be in the charge of a Responsible Person and radioactive substances should only be moved into and out of the place of storage with his/her authority.12.5 A suitable warning notice must be displayed where it can be easily read outside the place of storage except where the levels of radioactivity do not warrant it.(iv) The bins must be stored as a properly appointed place away from sunlight and heat and identiﬁed by a label showing the nature and approximate quantity of the radioactive material contained;(v) Storage should last until the level of radioactivity is sufﬁciently low to permit the ﬂuid to be poured down the drain and the carcass to be incinerated in the normal way; and(vi) Owing to selective accumulation of certain isotopes by certain organs it is not always necessary to preserve the complete carcass; the organs concerned should be removed from storage as above but it may be safe to incinerate the remainder of the carcasses immediately.The Control of Pollution Act (1974) has increased penalties in connection with the Radioactive Substances Act (1960).SafetyAlthough it is an employer’s responsibility to keep working conditions as safe as possible for his employees, the Superintendent or Chief Animal Technician in charge of the animal units should be responsible for the safety of the personnel of his in his charge.79The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 has brought up-to-date, organised and collated all relevant material in respect to risks involved in places of employment. Obviously such a universal Act is far outside the scope of this selective review but it cannot be denied that it concerns the animal technicians at work. Short notes on the relevant points would not be out of place.Only part one of the Act is of import to the technician. Part three, for example, is concerned with building operations. In these matters an expert would be called in and any technicians fully involved in these operations would have long passed from the realms of technology to the dizzy heights of administration.Animals are mentioned as subject matter of health and safety regulations in Schedule three, 17 – ‘imposing requirements with respect to the management of animals’.There is no doubt that the 1974 Act involves the technician, particularly as a qualiﬁed person.In the following quotation from the 1974 Act,the page number refers to the pages of the copies of the Act issued by her Majesty’s Stationery ofﬁce.71p 96.6.-(1) requiring, in speciﬁed circumstances, the appointment of persons to perform speciﬁed functions and, imposing duties or conferring powers on persons appointed to perform speciﬁed functions.(2) Restricting the performance of speciﬁed functions to persons possessing speciﬁed qualiﬁcations or experience.7. Regulating or prohibiting the employment in speciﬁed circumstances of all persons or any class of persons.8. (1) requiring the making of arrangements for securing the health of persons at work or other persons, including arrangements for medical examinations and health surveys.(2) Requiring the making of arrangements for monitoring the atmospheric or other conditions in which persons work.9. Imposing requirements with respect to any matter affecting the conditions in which persons work, including in particular such matters as the structural condition and stability of premises, the means of access to and egress from premises, cleanliness, temperature, lighting, ventilation, overcrowding, noise, vibrations, ionising and other radiations dust and fumes. 10. Securing the provision of speciﬁed welfare facilities for persons at work, including in particular such things as an adequate water supply, sanitary conveniences, washing and bathing facilities, ambulance and ﬁrst aid arrangements, cloakroom accommodation, sitting facilities and refreshment facilities.In some aspects of the 1974 Act throws the burden of proof of innocence upon the accused.Page 37.40. In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions consisting of a failure to comply with the duty requirement to do something so far as it is practicable or so far as it is reasonably practicable, or to use the best practicable means to do something, it shall be for the accused to prove that it is not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, although that was no better General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 35

33August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfarepracticable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement.Another peculiarity of this act is that in some cases it can be applied to the Crown. (cf section.48 – (1)).The Act stresses the importance of communication and cooperation in matters of safety.P 3 (3) Except in such cases as may be prescribed, it shall be the duty of every employer to prepare and as often as may be appropriate, revise a written statement of his general policy with respect to the health and safety at work of his employees and the organisation and arrangements for the time being in force for carrying out that policy, and to bring the statement and any revision of it to the notice of all his employees.Deﬁnitions are given in the 1974 Act which may prove useful in understanding its application in practice.Page 48.52. – (1) (a) ‘work’ means work as an employee or self-employed person.P 48 (2) – Regulations made under this subsection may – (a) extend the meaning of work and at work for the purposes of this Part;P 50 – ‘employee’ means an individual who works under a contract of employment, and related expressions shall be construed accordingly;P 48 – 49 (b) an employee is at work throughout the time when he is in the course of his employment, but not otherwise; and‘Article for use at work’ means – (a) any plant designed for use or operations by person at work, and (b) any article designed for use as a component in any such plant;P 51 – ‘personal injury’ includes any disease and any impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition; ‘Disease’ in this context would include Zoonosis. Apropos to this danger, the Anthrax Prevention Act (1919) is listed among the existing enactments which are relevant statutory provisions. 80 P 49 – 53 – (1) in this part, unless the context otherwise requires – ‘agriculture’, subject to subsection (3) below, includes horticulture… dairy farming, livestock breeding and keeping (including the management of livestock up to the point of slaughter or export from Great Britain),…’Agriculture affairs have been given special exemptions in the Act.P 13 section 15 – (1) Subject to the provisions of section 50 the Secretary of State shall have power to make regulations under this section for any of the general purposes of this part except as required regards matters relating exclusively to agricultural operations.Matters relating to agriculture occur in section 29 and section 33 and in schedule 4.The beneﬁts or at least effects of the 1974 Act will be eventually felt on the shop ﬂoor, at the laboratory bench or in the animal room through regulations and codes.P 49 ‘ code of practice’ includes a standard, speciﬁcation and any other documentary or practical guidance; Sections 15 and 16 provide for the making of new Health and Safety Regulations which will identify in detail the particular obligation to be performed in particular industries, and of codes of practice which will give practical guidance as to how the new speciﬁc statutory obligations under sections 2 to 7 are to be fulﬁlled. Existing legislation such as the factories act and the ofﬁces, shops and railway premises act; will be replaced by the new regulations pass under this new enabling statute and will be accompanied by a code of practice applicable to a particular industry approved and issued by the Commission. It may be noted that the commission will also approve such codes of practice which issued or proposed to be issued otherwise than by the commission as in its opinion are suitable for the purpose of providing practical guidance with regard to the requirements of the provisions under sections 2 to 7. Provision is made for the periodical review and updating of codes of practice.It is important to note the degree of legal force which these codes of practice carry.P 16 – 17 – (1) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of an approved code of practice shall not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings; but where in any criminal proceedings a party is alleged to have committed an offence by reasons of a contravention of any requirement or prohibition imposed by or under way under any such provision as is mentioned in section 16 (1) being a provision which there was an approved code of practice at the time of the alleged contravention, the following subsection shall have effect with respect to that code in relation to those proceedings.(2) any provision of the code of practice which appears to the court to be relevant to the requirement or prohibition alleged to have been contravened shall be admissible in evidence in the proceedings; and if it is proved that there was any material time at any material time failure to observe any provision of the code which General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 36

34Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020appears to the court to be relevant to any matter which is it is necessary for the prosecution to prove in order to establish a contravention of that requirement or prohibition, that matter shall be taken as proof as proof unless the court is satisﬁed that the requirement or prohibition was in respect of that matter complied with otherwise than by way of observance of that provision of of the code. So the accused must justify his alternative method.Further embellishments of this 1974 act can appear in the form of local bylaws.P 98 schedules 3.(22) conferring on any local or public authority power to make bylaws with respect to any speciﬁed matter, specifying the authority or person by whom any bylaws made in the exercise of that power need to be conﬁrmed for, and generally providing for the produce for the use for the procedure to be followed in in connection with the making of any such bylaws.The importance of these additional regulations and possible bylaws to the 1974 Act calls for careful and constant monitoring on the part of Animal Technicians involved in the higher echelons of administration.The following points from the 1974 act are of direct concern to the technician as an administrator:-P 96.11 imposing requirements with respect to the provision and use in speciﬁed circumstances of protective clothing or equipment, including clothing affording protection against the weather.P 97.14 imposing requirements with respect to the instruction, training and supervision of persons at work.15 – (1) requiring, in speciﬁed circumstances, speciﬁed matters to be notiﬁed to speciﬁed persons.P 37.37 – (one) where an offence may be the relevant statutory provisions committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or had to have been attributable to ball to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar ofﬁcer of the body corporate or other person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”General nuisanceThe Control of Pollution Act (1974) deals with the administrators responsibility in this ﬁeld.81 In the main the Act is concerned with local authorities and large institutions, such as public bodies. In sections 57 and 58, local authorities are given power to deal with nuisance caused by noise.The GNLEA (pages 28, 38 and 39) make relevant comment on the duties of the administrator of an animal unit.82The senior technician or animal house superintendent will be responsible to the director or head of Department for the day-to-day running of the animal house, but he/she may have someone to whom he can refer on matters of policy or circumstances which are unusual.‘Provision must be made the necessary services and appropriate staff: the regular feeding and watering of the animals, thorough periodical cleaning of both cages and premises, and upkeep in fuel and services of any heating or air conditioning appliance ensure installed.82References1 Dolan, K. (2007). Laboratory Animal Law: Legal Control of the Use of Animals in Research, Second Edition https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/ 978047075332 Animals Act 1971 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/223 The Modern Law of Animals (1972). Edited. North P.M. Butterworth, London.4 Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/385 Dogs Act 1871 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/34-35/566 Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/287 Stones Justice Manual (1974). C.T Latham and J. Richman. London p.11758 Stones Justice Manual (1974). C.T Latham and J. Richman. London p.1177.9 Diseases of Animals Act 1950 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/Geo6/ 14/3 10 Stones Justice Manual (1974). C.T Latham and J. Richman. London p.62711 Guidance notes on the Law relating to Experiments on Animals in Great Britain (1975). Research Defence Society (Great Britain) Page 32 https://wellcomecollection.org/works/vhkbzgqh12 Guidance notes on the Law relating to Experiments on Animals in Great Britain (1975). Research Defence Society (Great Britain) page 37 https://wellcomecollection.org/works/vhkbzgqh13 Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 –Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/12/contents14 Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1963/4315 Pet Animals Act 1951 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/14-15/ 35General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 37

35August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare16 Rules about animals (47 to 58) - The Highway Code https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-about animals-47-to-5817 Guidance notes on the Law relating to Experiments on Animals in Great Britain (1975) Research Defence Society (Great Britain) page 50 https://wellcomecollection.org/works/vhkbzgqh18 Animal Boarding Establishments Act (1963) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1963/419 Introduction to English Law. (1972) Philip S James, Butterworths London page 320.20 The Highways Act (1959) Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/ 25/enacted21 The Agriculture Act (1947) Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/48/contents22 The Modern Law of Animals (1972) Edited. North P.M. Butterworth, London23 Dangerous Wild Animals Act (1976) www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/38/section/124 The Modern Law of Animals (1972) Edited. North P.M. Butterworth, London Page 135 25 The Modern Law of Animals (1972) Edited. North P.M. Butterworth, London Page 128 26 The Modern Law of Animals (1972) Edited. North P.M. Butterworth, London Page 155 27 The Modern Law of Animals (1972) Edited. North P.M. Butterworth, London Page 17628 Pet Animals in Society: a B.S.A.V.A. Symposium held at the Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London, 30th and 31st January 1974 / edited by R.S. Anderson. London : Baillière Tindall, 1975.29 Introduction to English Law. (1972) Philip S James, Butterworths London Page 130.30 Introduction to English Law. (1972) Philip S James, Butterworths London page 310.31 Burn’s Justice of the Peace and Parish Ofﬁcer (30th ed ... link.bu.edu/portal/Burns-Justice-of-the-Peace-and-Parish-Ofﬁcer/LRfvTLAaUo8. Page 1032.32 Stones Justice is manual, C. T Latham and J Richman, London (1974). Page 2472.33 Safety in the Animal House, editor John Seemer, London, Laboratory animals Ltd (1972) pages 95 to 96.34 Introduction to English Law. (1972) Philip S James, Butterworths London page 336.35 The Modern Law of Animals, P.M.North, London Butterworth’s (1972). Page 174.36 Littlewood Report. Section 9. (cf. Benjamin v Storr (1874) page 400. 37 Safety in the Animal House, editor John Seemer, London, Laboratory Animals Ltd (1972) page 78.38 Public Health Act 1936 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5and1Edw8/ 26/49/contents 39 Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937. section 81 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ Edw8and1Geo6/1/40/contents40 Public Health Act 1961 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/9-10/64/contents41 Safety in the Animal House, editor John Seemer, London, Laboratory Animals Ltd (1972) page 99.42 Guidance notes on the Law relating to Experiments on Animals in Great Britain (1975) Research Defence Society (Great Britain) https://wellcomecollection.org/works/vhkbzgqh pages 33 to 35.43 Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (repealed 27.8.1993) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/34/contents44 Safety in the Animal House, editor John Seemer, London, Laboratory Animals Ltd (1972) page 44.45 The Modern Law of Animals, P.M.North, London Butterworth’s (1972). Page 22.46 The Modern Law of Animals, P.M.North, London Butterworth’s (1972). Page 20. 47 Commons Registration Act 1965 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/6448 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/8-9/28/contents49 Dogs (Amendment) Act 1928 – Legislation https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/18-19/21/contents50 The Modern Law of Animals, P.M. North, London Butterworth’s (1972). Page 82.51 Guard Dogs Act 1975. Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/50/contents52 Introduction to English Law. (1972) Philip S James, Butterworths London page 311.53 The Modern Law of Animals, P.M.North, London Butterworth’s (1972). Page 84. 54 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 – legislation … https://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm Page 74.55 The Modern Law of Animals, P.M. North, London Butterworth’s (1972). Page 177.56 Safety in the Animal House, editor John Seemer, London, Laboratory Animals Ltd (1972) page 11.57 Pet Animals in Society: a B.S.A.V.A. Symposium held at the Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London, 30th and 31st January 1974 / edited by R.S. Anderson. London: Baillière Tindall, 1975. Page 140.58 Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/62/contents59 The Modern Law of Animals, P.M. North, London Butterworth’s (1972). Page 47.60 The Laboratory Animal-Principles and Practice (1971) Lane-Petter, W and Pearson A.E.G. London Academic Press. 61 I.A.T. Manual of Laboratory Animal Practice and Techniques, (1969) Short, D.G. and Woodnott D.P, London Crosby Lockwood. 62 Safety in the Animal House, editor John Seamer, London, Laborator y Animals Ltd (1972) pages 76-79.General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 38

36Animal Technology and Welfare August 202063 Radioactive Substances Act 1948 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/37/contents Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (repealed 27.8.1993) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/34/contents64 Guidance notes on the Law relating to Experiments on Animals in Great Britain (1975) Research Defence Society (Great Britain) https://wellcomecollection.org/works/vhkbzgqh pages 28-34.65 Radiological protection in universities (1966 edition ... https://openlibrary.org/books/OL20851750M66 Guidance notes on the Law relating to Experiments on Animals in Great Britain (1975) Research Defence Society (Great Britain) https://wellcomecollection.org/works/vhkbzgqh pages 29.67 Introduction to English Law. (1972) Philip S James, Butterworths London page 297-297.68 Introduction to English Law. (1972) Philip S James, Butterworths London page 306-307.69 The Modern Law of Animals, P.M. North, London Butterworth’s (1972). Page 97.70 The Modern Law of Animals, P.M. North, London Butterworth’s (1972). Page 61-62.71 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 – legislation … https://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm 72 Introduction to English Law. (1972) Philip S James, Butterworths London page 294.73 Protection of Animals Act 1911 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/2774 Introduction to English Law. (1972) Philip S James, Butterworths London page 170.75 Medicines Act 1968 - Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/67/contents76 Diseases of Animals Act 1950 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/Geo6/14/3677 Safety in the Animal House, editor John Seemer, London, Laboratory Animals Ltd (1972) pages 98.78 The Swine Fever Order 1963. Statutory Instruments … https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c824cbae-6f0b79 Charles, R.T. (1972). Physical hazards in the laboratory animal house. Journal of the Institute of Animal Technicians Vol.23.4 pages 155-160. 80 Anthrax Prevention Act 1919 – Legislation https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/9-10/23/contents81 Control of Pollution Act 1974 – Legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/40/contents82 Guidance notes on the Law relating to Experiments on Animals in Great Britain (1975) Research Defence Society (Great Britain) https://wellcomecollection.org/ works/vhkbzgqh pages 29. General responsibility before the law in the ﬁeld of Animal Technology

Page 39

Page 40

38Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020PAPER SUMMARY TRANSLATIONSCONTENU DE LA REVUEMaintenir une culture de soins pendant la fermeture d’une installation d’animaux de rechercheSALLY ROBINSON et CATHERINE WILKINSONSciences et technologies animales, pharmacologie clinique et sciences de la sécurité, recherche et développement de produits biopharmaceutiques, AstraZeneca, Alderley Park Royaume-UniCorrespondance: sally.robinson@astrazeneca.comRésumé La fermeture d’une installation pour animaux est habituellement un processus prolongé en raison de la complexité qu’implique la ﬁn ou la transition des recherches en cours sur les animaux. Comme pour toute fermeture, le personnel peut être licencié à la ﬁn du processus, ce qui peut entraîner un stress émotionnel et des distractions. Le maintien d’un moral positif contribue à l’obtention de bons résultats. Nous avons exploré les moyens qui permettent de maintenir une culture de soins pendant la fermeture de notre installation pour animaux. Mots-clés: Fermeture d’une installation animale, contrat psychologique, culture de soins, compassion, gestion★ ★ ★Responsabilité générale devant la loi dans le domaine de la technologie animaleKEVIN DOLANc/o Institute of Animal Technology, 5 South Parade. Summertowm, Oxford OX2 7JL UKCorrespondance: atweditor@iat.org.uk Résumé Extrait d’un examen historique de la législation relative à la technologie animalière au Royaume-Uni, en particulier en ce qui concerne les responsabilités du technicien animalier dans ce domaine. La législation examinée couvre les domaines suivants: Sécurité des animaux dangereux, évasion, négligence, nuisance, responsabilité, protection du technicien, responsabilités du technicien et le technicien en tant qu’administrateur. Mots-clés: législation, technologie animalière, technicien animalier, responsabilitésAnimal Technology and Welfare April 2022

Page 41

39August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareINHALTVERZEICHNISWahrung einer Kultur der Fürsorge während der Schließung einer Tierversuchseinrichtung SALLY ROBINSON und CATHERINE WILKINSON Animal Sciences and Technologies, Clinical Pharmacology and Safety Sciences, Bio-Pharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Alderley Park UKKorrespondenz: cburn@rvc.ac.uk Abstract Die Schließung einer Tierversuchseinrichtung ist aufgrund der komplexen Aufgaben bei der Beendigung oder Übergabe der laufenden Tierforschung in der Regel ein langwieriger Prozess. Wie bei jeder Schließung droht dem Personal am Ende möglicherweise eine Entlassung, was eine erhebliche emotionale Belastung und geistige Ablenkung darstellen kann. Hier trägt die Wahrung einer positiven Arbeitsmoral zu einem erfolgreichen Ausgang bei. Wir haben Möglichkeiten untersucht, wie wir während der Schließung unserer Tierversuchseinrichtung eine Kultur der Fürsorge aufrechterhalten können. Schlagwörter: Schließung einer Tierversuchseinrichtung, psychologischer Vertrag, Kultur der Fürsorge, Anteilnahme, Bewältigung★ ★ ★Allgemeine gesetzliche Verantwortung im Bereich der Tiertechnik KEVIN DOLAN c/o Institute of Animal Technology, 5 South Parade, Summertown, Oxford OX2 7JL UKKorrespondenz: atweditor@iat.org.uk Abstract Ein Auszug aus einer historischen Überprüfung der Rechtsvorschriften zur britischen Tiertechnik, insbesondere zu den Verantwortlichkeiten des Tiertechnikers im Bereich der Tiertechnik. Die untersuchten Rechtsvorschriften betreffen folgende Bereiche: Sicherheit gefährlicher Tiere, Ausbruch, Fahrlässigkeit, Gefährdung, Haftung, Schutz des Technikers, Verantwortlichkeiten des Technikers und der Techniker als Verwalter. Schlagwörter: Rechtsvorschriften, Tiertechnik, Tiertechniker, VerantwortlichkeitenPaper Summary Translations

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

42Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020AbstractBased on queries received during our 2021 LASA 3Rs’ presentation, we describe operational highlights and concerns that came up during the rollout of non-aversive handling as standard of care at our mouse breeding facility. We describe the development of the square handling tunnel (or ‘squnnel’), some of the pros and cons of its introduction and use, general concerns about increased work burden associated with non-aversive handling and, key items to be included during planning and implementation when non-aversive handling is to be introduced as a new standard of care.Keywords: mouse, non-aversive handling, 3Rs, square tunnelIntroductionIn 2010, Hurst and West published their landmark paper on non-aversive handling of mice.1 They demonstrated that methods of lifting or transferring mice with cupped hands or a transfer tunnel were far less stressful to the animals than picking them up by the tail. Since then, numerous papers have come out on the welfare beneﬁ ts to mice of non-aversive handling and as of 2019, more than half of UK institutions have switched from tail-handling to non-aversive methods.2 Unfortunately the USA has lagged far behind in adopting these practices and in large breeding facilities it is still common to ﬁ nd mice being picked up by the tail with padded forceps (Figure 1). It has been argued that forceps handling should be used in large facility operations because it 49Haven’t the time to write a paper but want to have something published? Then read on!This section offers readers the opportunity to submit informal contributions about anyaspects of Animal Technology. Comments, observations, descriptions of new or refinedtechniques, new products or equipment, old products or equipment adapted to new use,any subject that may be useful to technicians in other institutions. Submissions can bepresented as technical notes and do not need to be structured and can be as short or aslong as is necessary. Accompanying illustrations and/or photos should be high resolution.NB. Descriptions of new products or equipment submitted by manufacturers are welcomebut should be a factual account of the product. However, the Editorial Board gives nowarranty as to the accuracy or fitness for purpose of the product.What 3Rs idea have you developed?EMMA FILBYMira Building, University of Cambridge, University Biomedical Services,Charles Babbage Road, Cambridge CB3 0FSCorrespondence: emma.filby@admin.cam.ac.ukBased on an article written for the National Centre for the 3RsApril 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareTECH-2-TECHBackgroundEmma was invited to write an article as a 3Rschampion in NC3Rs ‘Tech 3Rs’ Issue 5, November2019.Here is her response describing how she has used anautomated system to reduce how frequently mousecage bedding is changed without compromisingcleanliness.IntroductionOur unit opened in 2017, during the procurement ofnew equipment we had the opportunity to purchase adigital ventilated rack system from Tecniplast UK. Thecages are referred to as the Digitally Ventilated Cage orDVC. This system uses the data collected by sensorsbelow the cage to flag when to clean out based on thechange in an electromagnetic signal. To have thisfunctionality we first needed to create an algorithmduring a learning phase.The learning phase: devising analgorithmWe held a meeting to agree what warranted a cage basechangebased on pictures to avoid being subjective. Wereferred to the Home Office Codes of Practice for thehousing and care of animals bred, supplied or used forscientific purposes (HOCoP) for advice on husbandrypractices to set our criteria, balancing hygiene and theimportance of olfactory cues to rodents and their needfor control over their environment.1We started the trial, noting when the cage reached thepoint it required a base change. We assessed airquality, what proportion of the cage base was wet andwhether the animals still had choice over theirenvironment and their ability to show spatial separationof different behaviours such as nesting and excretion,for example their nest was free of faeces. During the‘learning phase’ we asked our Named VeterinarySurgeon (NVS) and Home Office inspector (HOI) tocheck that they agreed with our assessment.APRIL_1-628207435_4-628196990.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 06:51 Page 49Introducing non-aversive mouse handling with ‘squnnels’ in a mouse breeding facilityPENNY S. REYNOLDSDepartment of Anaesthesiology, College of Medicine, and Department of Small Animal Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, USACorrespondence: PReynolds@anest.uﬂ .edu>Based on the winning entry of the AS-ET sponsored LASA 3Rs prize 2021 Non-aversive handling and mouse colony breeding productivity: welfare improves, costs decline TECH-2-TECHAnimal Technology and Welfare April 2022

Page 45

43August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare49Haven’t the time to write a paper but want to have something published? Then read on!This section offers readers the opportunity to submit informal contributions about anyaspects of Animal Technology. Comments, observations, descriptions of new or refinedtechniques, new products or equipment, old products or equipment adapted to new use,any subject that may be useful to technicians in other institutions. Submissions can bepresented as technical notes and do not need to be structured and can be as short or aslong as is necessary. Accompanying illustrations and/or photos should be high resolution.NB. Descriptions of new products or equipment submitted by manufacturers are welcomebut should be a factual account of the product. However, the Editorial Board gives nowarranty as to the accuracy or fitness for purpose of the product.What 3Rs idea have you developed?EMMA FILBYMira Building, University of Cambridge, University Biomedical Services,Charles Babbage Road, Cambridge CB3 0FSCorrespondence: emma.filby@admin.cam.ac.ukBased on an article written for the National Centre for the 3RsApril 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareTECH-2-TECHBackgroundEmma was invited to write an article as a 3Rschampion in NC3Rs ‘Tech 3Rs’ Issue 5, November2019.Here is her response describing how she has used anautomated system to reduce how frequently mousecage bedding ischanged without compromisingcleanliness.IntroductionOur unit opened in 2017, during the procurement ofnew equipment we had the opportunity to purchase adigital ventilated rack system from Tecniplast UK. Thecages are referred to as the Digitally Ventilated Cage orDVC. This system uses the data collected by sensorsbelow the cage to flag when to clean out based on thechange in an electromagnetic signal. To have thisfunctionality we first needed to create an algorithmduring a learning phase.The learning phase: devising analgorithmWe held a meeting to agree what warranted a cage basechange based on pictures to avoid being subjective. Wereferred to the Home Office Codes of Practice for thehousing and care of animals bred, supplied or used forscientific purposes (HOCoP) for advice on husbandrypractices to set our criteria, balancing hygiene and theimportance of olfactory cues to rodents and their needfor control over their environment.1We started the trial, noting when the cage reached thepoint it required a basechange. We assessed airquality, what proportion of the cage base was wet andwhether the animals still had choice over theirenvironment and their ability to show spatial separationof different behaviours such as nesting and excretion,for example their nest was free of faeces. During the‘learning phase’ we asked our Named VeterinarySurgeon (NVS) and Home Office inspector (HOI) tocheck that they agreed with our assessment.APRIL_1-628207435_4-628196990.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 06:51 Page 49reduces the risk of cross-contamination during cage cleaning and operator injury from bites. However, there is little evidence to support either of these assumptions and recent evidence shows that operator injuries are actually increased with forceps use because of repetitive hand and shoulder injury. 3,4My colleagues (Dr Maggie Hull DVM and Dr Liz Nunamaker PhD DVM) and I were thrilled and honoured to have received this year’s LASA 3Rs’ prize. In our presentation, we described the multi-phase strategy by which we were able to establish non-aversive handling practices for mice at our university breeding facility, some of the problems encountered along the way and the types of evidence we needed to convince various stakeholders to change long-standing practice. The three of us were extremely interested in establishing non-aversive mouse handling as the new standard of care because of the well-documented beneﬁ ts to animals. However we realised early on that you cannot just rock up and start changing things no matter how obvious the welfare beneﬁ ts seem to be – you have to present convincing evidence that changing long-established work habits and human behaviour will be worthwhile for the people involved. Throughout the process we were extremely reliant on the active participation, cooperation and feedback from all animal care staff to test-drive methods, determine what worked and what did not and what needed to be done to improve operating procedures.Figure 1.Showing padded forceps as used in the USA.Birth of the ‘squnnel’One of the most important innovations made early on was the development of the square handling tunnel, or ‘squnnel’ (Figure.2). [Tremendous thanks to Alan White of GSK for coining this term!]. Many people are familiar with the standard plastic or cardboard ‘round’ tubes used for non-aversive mouse handling and these are readily available from commercial suppliers. However, both the cage-change and cage wash staff identiﬁ ed numerous problems with these tubes. Cardboard tubes did not last long because the mice chewed them – not a bad thing in itself, as chewing and shredding behaviours are important forms of enrichment. However it became expensive to maintain sufﬁ cient inventory of the cardboard tubes to allow frequent replacement and replacing shredded tubes with new intact tubes risked disturbing breeding mice more often than was advisable. Commercially available plastic handling tubes were too large for the breeding cages, so mice were at risk of being caught between the tunnel and cage top and injured or crushed. At our facility, breeder cages are usually provided with Safe Harbor Mouse Retreats™ so that dams have a place to move their pups if the cage is accidently ﬂ ooded. Addition of handling tubes made cages extremely crowded. After several brainstorming sessions, someone suggested that we should just makethe handling tube square-shaped so it could function as both a retreat and a transfer tunnel …. and the ‘squnnel’ was born. Where can we get ‘squnnels’? Because square tunnels are not commercially available (yet!), they had to be custom-designed and ordered. Medical-grade clear polycarbonate tubes were cut to our desired speciﬁ cations (approximately 9 x 5 x 5 cm). By ordering in bulk, costs work out to approximately US$1.50 Figure 2.Square handling tube or ‘Squnnel’.Introducing non-aversive mouse handling with ‘squnnels’ in a mouse breeding facility

Page 46

44Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020(GBP £1 or €1.3) per tunnel. Clear or translucent red are the best colours as they allow the operator to see the mouse when it is inside the tunnel. The plastic tubes last approximately 1 year. [Box 1]. How much extra work is involved with non-aversive handling? Animal care staff frequently expressed the worry that introduction of non-aversive handing methods and equipment would increase their workload. Consequently, the rollout was gradual, ﬁ rst one cage rack, then one room at a time whilst technical care staff were trained in the correct methods of deploying the tunnels to pick up and transfer mice and learn new routines. The National Centre for Replacement, Reﬁ nement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) proved to be a tremendous training resource: the Resource Hub ‘How to pick up a mouse’ [https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/how-to-pick-up-a-mouse] has plenty of useful tips, a webinar, video tutorials and posters. Cage change personnel were especially encouraged by some pilot data collected on mouse handling times with the new tunnels (Figure 3). With very little practice (usually as little as one or two sessions), cage change times were equivalent or even faster with tunnels compared to forceps. Preliminary data from a few willing volunteers showed that tunnel handling times were 10-25 minutes faster per 100 cages. Even a difference of as little as 10 mins can result in substantial time savings in a large facility where there are hundreds of cages to be changed per day. Care staff also noted that extra time was needed to remove squnnels from dirty cages and add them to clean cages, although the amount of time involved became much less of a problem with familiarisation and practice. The modiﬁ ed ‘squnnels’ were far less annoying to use than conventional round tubes, being easier to stack and store and much less likely to roll merrily all over the ﬂ oor when dropped. However, washing and disinfection phases introduced some new challenges. A major unforeseen problem was faeces build-up on the ‘squnnels’. Mice prefer to defecate in places separate from the nesting area but conventional laboratory caging offers little in the way of spatial segregation.5The introduction of the ‘squnnels’ meant that breeding mice chose to use the ﬂ at top as a latrine. During the several weeks that breeders were left undisturbed, the tops and interiors of the ‘squnnels’ became fairly thickly encrusted with faeces that set like cement and was almost impossible to remove during standard cage wash procedures. Fortunately, our brilliant cage wash manager, Shaina Wallach came up with a workable solution – soaking the ‘squnnels’ for up to two days in a solution of washing-up liquid prior to running them through the cage-washer.Figure 3. The ‘squnnel’ in use.Introducing non-aversive mouse handling with ‘squnnels’ in a mouse breeding facility

Page 47

45August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareIntroducing non-aversive mouse handling with ‘squnnels’ in a mouse breeding facilityConcluding thoughtsEven though beneﬁ ts of non-aversive handling to both animals and people may be obvious, changing human behaviour is hard. Therefore, it is essential that a well thought out implementation plan is put in place before any major changes are made. Elements of a good plan include having a responsible lead or ‘champion’ to coordinate planning, a multifaceted plan for introduction, assessment and follow-up of the new methods and a few simple practical benchmark measurements to chart progress. Regular planned communication and education sessions are essential, as are compliance spot-checks. Well-trained and motivated technical care staff are central to the whole process – they are the eyes and ears that can identify logistic problems as they occur and their knowledge and experience enables them to develop innovative and easily-implemented remedies. Finally, high-level support from institutional veterinarians and AWERB members is crucial to success. Happier animals and technical staff will be well worth all the hard work needed to switch handling methods.Box 1. Tunnel suppliers Conventional round plastic or cardboard tunnels can be ordered from several scientiﬁ c laboratory animal suppliers: Datesand Ltd. Braintree Scientiﬁ c Inc.; LBS; IPS; Serlab, Plexx EU, Otto Environmental ‘Squnnels’ were custom ordered from Petro Extrusion Technologies, 205 Hallock Ave Suite B, Middlesex, NJ 08846, USA www.petroextrusions.com Clear medical-grade polycarbonate tubes (part #J-1002) were cut to our desired length speciﬁ cations (approximately 9 x 6 x 5 cm). References1Hurst, J.L., West, R.S. (2010). Taming anxiety in laboratory mice. Nature Methods. 2010;7(10):825-6.2See https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/mouse-handling-research-papers3Doerning, C.M., Thurston, S.E., Villano, J.S., et al.(2019). Assessment of mouse handling techniques during cage changing. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (JAALAS). 2019;58(6):767-73.4Kerst, J. (2003). An ergonomics process for the care and use of research animals. ILAR J. 2003;44:3-12.5Makowska, I.J., Franks, B., El-Hinn, C., Jorgensen, T., Weary, D.M. (2019). Standard laboratory housing for mice restricts their ability to segregate space into clean and dirty areas. Scientiﬁ c Reports. 2019;9:6179. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-2512-3.

Page 48

Page 49

47August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2022 Animal Technology and WelfareI SEE no problem When it comes to the equipment checks, visual cues are often taken and when seeing no problem, there can be the misconception that everything is working correctly. Halogenated anaesthetic agents such as Isoﬂ urane are commonly used in the laboratory environment for animal research. Inhalant anaesthesia is quick, cost-effective and can be maintained for long periods. However, waste gas scavenging has not been performed effectively to protect those in the laboratory until recently. It is becoming a signiﬁ cant issue as Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) departments are taking notice of exposure levels to users. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK dictates that the Workplace Exposure Limit (WELs) should not exceed 50ppm (parts per million) / 383 mg.m3 over an 8-hour time-weighted average for the technician. If technicians can smell Isoﬂ urane, they are exceeding those limits, often many hundred times greater than recommended. Headaches, dizziness and nausea are all common symptoms of repeat exposure to Isoﬂ urane. Additionally, in recent years, communities are understanding more the importance of capturing waste anaesthetic gas as they are a contributing factor to greenhouse gas emissions and play a role in animal laboratories’ carbon footprints.What is the difference: Active vs. PassiveIn the past, the standard procedure for collecting waste gases has been through a passive method. This method depends on the delivery gas to push the waste gas into an activated charcoal canister, e.g. a Waste Anaesthetic Gas cannister (WAG) or create a seal around the subject’snose, which would not allow the waste gas to enter the workplace. The problem with this method is that the gases are very volatile and will follow the path of least resistance. Once the gases have entered the workplace air they are difﬁ cult to capture because of their properties.Get Active: solutions to waste anaesthetic gas exposure RYAN SULLIVANSOMNI, 1900 Sleepy Hollow Road, South Park, PA 15129 USA Correspondence: info@somniscientiﬁ c.comInstead of depending on ﬂ owrates to push the gases to waste gas collection ﬁ lters, it is much more efﬁ cient to actively draw these gases to a device and then exhaust them either to a ﬁ lter or a non-recirculating fume hood (Figure 1). A point to be aware of is removing too much gas, subsequently affecting the subject’s depth of anaesthesia. Therefore a vacuum or suction must be attenuated with speciﬁ c vacuum-designed devices (nose cones, induction chambers, etc.). These accessories are attenuating the vacuum and are the keys to making an active scavenge system work properly while delivering the appropriate amount of anaesthetic gas to the animal(s). The SolutionWaste gas exposure can be prevented by using a vacuum pump scavenging systems. These can be in-house vacuum systems or individual portable units. One effective portable unit found in the market is the Exposure Prevention System (EPS-3), a self-contained three-station ﬂ owmeter controlled active waste gas scavenging system designed to solve the problems mentioned previously (Figure 2). Figure 1.EPS Active Anaesthesia System Setup.

Page 50

48Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020The EPS-3 is powered by an internal linear vacuum pump that can pull 45 litres per minute (lpm). Equipped with three independent ﬂ owmeters for attenuation of vacuum allows for a combination of devices to be used simultaneously. Each of the three scavenging ports includes a stopcock to allow independent scavenging ﬂ ow and can be turned off when not in use without the need to change the ﬂ owmeter setting. A rear discharge port pushes the collected waste gas into a large charcoal ﬁ lter (such as the WAG Canister) or a non-recirculating fume hood which can be utilised to dispose of the waste gases if the laboratory is equipped. The EPS-3 is compact (width 30 cm x depth 20 cm x height 18 cm), lightweight (6.5 kg), and is equipped with a safety auto-off timer switch that shuts the unit down after a selectable period. The EPS-3 is also available as a non-pump option that can be used with an in-house active vacuum system. The non-pump option is a perfect ﬁ t for facilities that can use their in-house vacuum systems but want a way to attenuate or control multiple stations. EPS-3 Standard Operating ProceduresPlace the EPS-3 on a ﬂ at, stable surface and ensure the Main Power/ Timer Switch and ﬂ owmeter controls, are in the ‘OFF’ position.Set up for use with an extended capacity passive scavenging ﬁ lter or non-recirculating fume hood:1. Connect the 19 mm or ¼" ID tubing with 15 mm end to the WAG. canister inlet located at the top of the canister (Figure 2 – point a).Figure 2.EPS Scavenging System with Induction Chamber and Nose Cones showing point a.2. Connect the other end to the EPS-3 waste gas outlet located on the back. Keep ﬁ lter upright at all times (Figure 3 – point a).3. If discharging the waste gas from the EPS-3 into a non-recirculating vent, downdraft or other installed active method of waste gas removal, place tubing connected to waste gas evacuation port at least 6 inches into waste gas vent.4. Plug EPS-3 into appropriately grounded electrical outlet (Figure 3 – point b).5. Turn Main Power/Timer Switch to desired time setting, this will turn ON the negative ﬂ ow generating pump inside the EPS-3 and automatically turn OFF after theselected timeframe has passed (Figure 4 – point a).6. Set each of the ﬂ owmeters to the appropriate vacuum levels (Figure 4 – point b).7. Connect each of the anaesthetic supply accessories’ scavenging line to the ports on the right-hand side, labelled “A”, “B” or “C” (Figure 4 – point c).8 Figure 3. Back of EPS-3 system showing points a and b 3. If discharging the waste gas from the EPS-3 into a non-recirculating vent, downdraft or other installed active method of waste gas removal, place tubing connected to waste gas evacuation port at least 6 inches into waste gas vent. 4. Plug EPS-3 into appropriately grounded electrical outlet (Figure 3 - point B). Figure 3. Back of EPS-3 system showing points a and b.Get Active: solutions to waste anaesthetic gas exposure

Page 51

49August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare8. Open the stopcock at each of the scavenging lines desired. Verify vacuum is occurring at each of the scavenging lines.Setup for use with an in-house vacuum system, EPS-3 non-pump version (WG-15002):– Connect vacuum line from in-house vacuum system to the waste gas evacuation port in the back of the EPS-3. Verify In-house vacuum system is in ‘ON’ position (Figure 3 – point a).– Set each of the ﬂ owmeters to the appropriate vacuum levels (Figure 4 – point b).– Connect hose/tubing from anaesthetic supply accessories (induction chamber, nosecone) to the evacuation ports labelled “A”, “B”, and/or “C”. Open stopcock on each scavenging line intended for use (Figure 4 – point c).– Verify the stopcock for each scavenging line is open when in use. Suggested Negative Flowrates for Accessories:• uniﬂ ow 7-10 lpm• miniﬂ ow 7-10 lpm• induction Chambers < 15 lpm• ***DO NOT OPERATE EPS-3 WITH FLOWMETERS IN THE OFF POSITIONSOMNI Scientiﬁ c has developed a selection of accessories that work with an active vacuum system such as the EPS-3. SOMNI’s accessories included various nose cones and manifolds that are magnetically positioned and multiple induction chambers that have been independently tested to meet HSE and NIOSH WELs/REL standards. (Figure 5)9 5. Turn Main Power/Timer Switch to desired time setting, this will turn ON the negative flow generating pump inside the EPS-3 and automatically turn OFF after the selected timeframe has passed (Figure 4 A). Figure 4. EPS-3 system showing points a, b and c.SOMNI’s manifold systems can accompany three, ﬁ ve, up to 10 mice at one time. Contact information SOMNI Scientiﬁ c 1900 Sleepy Hollow RdSouth Park, PA 15129+1-877-637-3625https://somniscientiﬁ c.co.uk/info@somnscientiﬁ c.comAllentown, LLC+44(0) 845 045 0243infoUK@allentowninc.comhttps://www.allentowninc.com/Figure 5. Equaﬂ ow 5 Manifold System. Get Active: solutions to waste anaesthetic gas exposure

Page 52

50Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Animal Technology and Welfare April 2022IntroductionMy role at the Institute of Neurology (IoN) at UCL has changed quite signiﬁcantly over the last year. I previously spent several years as a Research Support Technician, a role which focussed mainly on providing technical and procedural support to the research groups here at IoN. Minor procedures such as injections and dosing were regular occurrences throughout my working day, as well as training others - both technicians and researchers in these techniques. I regularly participated in studies, most recently in several COVID-19 experiments taking place at the School of Pharmacy. I also trained in and performed cranial surgeries including craniotomy, head plate installation and intra-cranial injection. Wherever necessary I assisted in husbandry as required and provided support to our team of technicians. All of this made my role extremely varied and interesting. Some days I would spend the whole day on research studies whilst at other times my day would be divided between face-to-face training with researchers, husbandry and NACWO/welfare related duties.Working outside the box A lot of my ‘spare’ time was spent to investigating animal welfare concerns and reﬁnements of my own. Previously, I have conducted nesting and enrichment trials speciﬁcally for mice ﬁtted with cranial devices, an area that I feel still needs us to improve our approach to their husbandry. My ﬁrst nesting trial highlighted safer alternatives to the commonly used long ﬁbre nesting materials. I presented this work at Congress 2018 and was fortunate enough to be awarded the ﬁrst-time presenters award. I subsequently delivered talks on this topic at several symposia and in 2019, this work was published in a peer reviewed journal which was a proud moment for me.1 Since completing this study, I have continued to investigate reﬁnements for mice with cranial devices and am working on publishing my ﬁndings. I submitted my most recent work to the IAT/ABPI Andrew Blake Tribute Award.2 The award is given to the Animal Technologist judged to have made a signiﬁcant contribution to improving laboratory animal welfare. Winning the award, led me to present virtually at IAT Virtual Congress 2021.Onwards and upwards At the end of the summer 2021, I changed role and became a Senior Research Support Technician. I hope to continue to progress into management and this seemed like a natural step for me. My daily life as a senior Animal Technologist is very different to what it has been for the last few years. My role is now more desk based, taking care of administrative tasks such as ordering and raising Purchase Orders (PO), reviewing experimental proposals, ordering animals and consumables and coordinating rotas and work routines between our multiple sites. I spend quite a lot of time in meetings and interfacing with researchers. I’m enjoying my new role a great deal and am also pleased to still be able to spend time around the animals and retain my role as a trainer. It is still possible for me to spend time with our team of technicians teaching minor procedures and tissue sampling, as well as other skills such as colony management. I also monitor the progress and training of agency staff and new starters in our facility, of which we usually have quite a few! I am still involved with study work and perform procedures for research groups. This allows me to keep my skillset current and even continue to learn new technical skills which I thoroughly enjoy and is one of my favourite parts of my role. As a Named Animal Care and Welfare Ofﬁcer (NACWO), I am also involved with monitoring all the health issues in the facility and helping to implement reﬁnements wherever possible. A day in my life as an Animal TechnologistZOE WINDSOR University College London, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG UK Correspondence: Z.windsor@ucl.ac.ukRecipient of a BRET-AS-ET scholarship Watercolour painting from your chosen photograph.Provided fPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.Provided fPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.Provided framedAll profits going toFor more details contactwendy.steel1@outlook.comPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.ramed. Dimensions approx.ll profits going toFor more details contactwendy.steel1@outlook.comPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.imensions approx.£120ll profits going toFor more details contactwendy.steel1@outlook.comPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.imensions approx.ll profits going toAS-For more details contactwendy.steel1@outlook.comPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.imensions approx.35cm x-ETFor more details contactwendy.steel1@outlook.comPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.cm x25cmWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.cm

Page 53

51August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareI continue to incorporate welfare trials into my role and am working on future publications, although I recently stepped down from Chairing the Collective Laboratory Animal Welfare Society (CLAWS), a technician-led welfare group at UCL. I held this role for 3 years and felt that moving into my senior role presented a natural point in which I could pass the Chair on to another enthusiastic Animal Technologist.My passion for Animal Welfare and reﬁnement trials is one of the reasons that led me to apply for funding from AS-ET with a view to studying Statistical Design and Analysis, taught by College of Laboratory Animal Science and Technology (CLAST). I feel it is so important to approach Animal Welfare trials in a way which will produce valid and reliable data which can then be conﬁdently shared amongst our peers. Ultimately, any reﬁnements we discover could be to the beneﬁt of thousands of laboratory animals, so it is worth making sure our work is valid! The statistical analysis course was exactly what I had hoped for and covered many aspects of conducting a study, from experimental design to choosing the correct statistical test. I feel a lot more conﬁdent to continue carrying out Animal Welfare trials knowing I have the tools to for great experimental design.The second course I was able to attend thanks to funding from AS-ET was Physiology of Pain and Stress. I was very keen to improve my understanding of pain and analgesia given that a lot of my role incorporates procedural and surgical work. I wanted to learn more about designing appropriate analgesic protocols and minimising pain and discomfort the animals may experience resulting from the experiments carried out. The course was extremely informative and enjoyable and, I learned a lot about both behavioural and physiological responses to pain and stress, as well has how best to ameliorate this.The support I have had from AS-ET has really enabled me to develop my knowledge and understanding in these two key ﬁelds. This in turn has made me more well-rounded as a technician and has translated into my being able to provide better care and welfare for the animals in our charge. Professional development such as this has been so crucial to my career progression and ultimately to my performance as a technician. I hope to continue my education and learning going forward as I continue to grow and develop in my new role and look forward to seeing what new challenges will present themselves in times to come.Editor’s note: The Biomedical Research Education Trust (BRET) aims to educate the public about research in Biological Sciences which depends upon experiments involving the use of living animals. References1 Windsor, Z., Bate, S.T., (2019). Assessing the safety and suitability of nesting material for singly housed mice with surgically ﬁtted head plates. Heliyon Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2019, e02097 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S24058440193575732 Windsor, Z. (2021). Reﬁnements in head plate mouse nesting: using composite nests to enhance welfare. Animal Technology & Welfare, Vol. 20.2 pp 135-141.A day in my life as an Animal Technologist

Page 54

52Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020IntroductionIt is widely acknowledged that most procedures should not be carried out in the presence of other animals, due to stress caused by sight, sound and smell. As Animal Technologists, we are constantly asking ourselves the question, what more can we do to reﬁ ne the way we work? We began investigating ways we could improve the Culture of Care in the facility, reviewing possibilities of reﬁ ning performance of procedures and promoting the 3Rs.Development of the screen Research shows that rodents are known to recognise and have emotional reactions (to show empathy) when exposed to cage-mates in pain (Langford, 2006) and which, in turn, could potentially contaminate data.1 By recycling an old CO2 chamber we were able to produce the Procedural Screen prototype. Reducing stress to rodents by use of a screenEMMA MUSTAFA Axovia Therapeutics Inc., London Bioscience Innovation Centre, 2 Royal College Street, London NW1 0NH UK Correspondence: e.mustafa@gmail.comAs mice and rats are less sensitive to red light2,3 the unused CO2 box was a perfect opportunity to build the prototype, as the red tinted plastic hinders those in the home cage from observing the procedure when in situ. Further research showed that scientists in Canada were already utilising similar screens between animal cages undergoing experiments to mitigate this risk.4The prototype gave an opportunity for feedback from a small pool of Animal Technologists in the ﬁ rst instance, the main points being;– Could it be made foldable?– Could it also be made from an opaque material?– Can it be easily cleaned, washed, sterilised?With these notes to work on, I began a collaboration with North Kent Plastics-Isotec (NKP-Isotec) to improve the screen and to make this widely available to all. Together we were able to add durable hinges to allow use where space was limited i.e., Containment Level 2 cabinets, cage change station and laminar ﬂ ow workstations. This addition also streamlined storage capabilities. We were also able to make the screen available in a range of materials to include red tinted and opaque in a variety of colours as well as in two different sizes. The real challenge came with ensuring the product was sterilisable to be compatible with the various health status barriers, areas and rooms in each institute. While autoclaving is not possible with this product due to the shape and size of the plastic, we have been able to conﬁ rm that cage washing and use of a cold sterilant such as F10, VHP and formaldehyde can be utilised. With these modiﬁ cations, the Procedural Screen can now be used in a variety of ways during procedures and bench separation in unlimited locations such as IVC downﬂ ow hoods, bench tops and isolators. For example, as shown below between the home cage and a procedural area:Figure 1. The procedural screen.3 Figure 1. The procedural screen. The prototype gave an opportunity for feedback from a small pool of Animal Technologists in the first instance, the main points being; - Could it be made foldable? - Could it also be made from an opaque material? - Can it be cage-washed / autoclaved? With these notes to work on, I began a collaboration with North Kent Plastics-Isotec (NKP-Isotec) to improve the screen and to make this widely available to all. Together we were able to add durable hinges Animal Technology and Welfare April 2022

Page 55

53August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareBeneﬁ ts of use include;– Blockade of visual stimuli to home cage animals.– Ease of disinfecting/sterilising.– Ease of use for operators.– Ease of storage due to hinges implemented into design.– Translucent plastic allows the technologist to have uninterrupted viewing of animals at any given time, though opaque is available should this be a preference.Figure 2.Diagram showing positioning of screen when in use.4 to allow use where space was limited i.e., Containment Level 2 cabinets. This addition also streamlined storage capabilities. We were also able to make the screen available in a range of materials to include red tinted and opaque in a variety of colours as well as in two different sizes. The real challenge came with ensuring the product was sterilisable to be compatible with the various health status barriers, areas and rooms in each institute. While autoclaving is not possible with this product due to the shape and size of the plastic, we have been able to confirm that cage washing and use of a cold sterilant such as F10, VHP and formaldehyde can be utilised. With these modifications, the Procedural Screen can now be used in a variety of ways during procedures and bench separation in unlimited locations such as IVC downflow hoods, bench tops and isolators. For example, as shown below between the home cage and a procedural area: Figure 3. Screen positioned for use. 5 Figure 2. Diagram showing positioning of screen when in useBenefits of use include;- Blockade of visual stimuli to home cage animals. - Ease of disinfecting/sterilising- Ease of use for operators- Ease of storage due to hinges implemented into design- Translucent plastic allows technologist to have uninterrupted viewing of animals at any given time, though opaque is available should this be a preferenceFigure 3. Screen positioned for use. Additional improvements will include combating autoclaving difﬁ culties to make the screen compatible to the all-barrier restrictions. Finally, we aim to undertake a study to quantify the effects of the screens further. References1Langford, D.J. (2006). Social Modulation of Pain asEvidence for Empathy in Mice. Science, [online] 312(5782), pp.1967–1970 Available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1967.full[Accessed 24 Oct. 2019].2. 2Key, D. and Hewett, A. (2002). The Development of a Novel Form of Mouse Cage Enrichment. In: Animal Technology and Welfare. Volume 1.3Peirson, S.N., Brown, L.A., Pothecary, C.A., Benson, L.A. and Fisk, A.S. (2018). Light and the laboratory mouse. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, [online] 300, pp.26–36. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909038/4The Scientist Magazine®. (n.d.). Mice show evidence of empathy. [online] Available at: https://www.the[1]scientist.com/daily-news/mice-show-evidence-of-[1] empathy-47440 [Accessed online February 2017]BibliographyRatbehavior.org. What Do Rats See? [online] Available at: http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatVision.htm. [AccessedFebruary 2017] www.f10products.co.uk. (n.d.). Table of Contents – F10Cold Sterilant. [online] Available at: http://www.f10products.co.uk/ebooks/F10coldsterilant/files/assets/basic-html/index.html#page1 [Accessed 7 Sep. 2021].Future GoalsThis screen is fully protective of visual stimulation; however, it is important to consider how sound and smell can cause stress and this will be a consideration in future work. Reducing stress to rodents by use of a screen

Page 56

54Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Watercolour painting from your chosen photograph.Provided fPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.Provided fPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.Provided framedAll profits going toFor more details contactwendy.steel1@outlook.comPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.ramed. Dimensions approx.ll profits going toFor more details contactwendy.steel1@outlook.comPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.imensions approx.£120ll profits going toFor more details contactwendy.steel1@outlook.comPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.imensions approx.ll profits going toAS-For more details contactwendy.steel1@outlook.comPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.imensions approx.35cm x-ETFor more details contactwendy.steel1@outlook.comPET PORTRAITSWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.cm x25cmWatercolour painting from your chosen photograph.cmBulletin16 •July 2020AS-ET NewsThe Trustees of AS-ET would like to send our best wishes to all those of you whoare having to work in difficult circumstances, ensuring your animals are cared forand essential science carries on. It is an amazing achievement to have continuedto get to work while public transport has been lacking and while avoiding beinginfected yourselves. Congratulations to all of you for demonstrating your cultureof care in a really practical way in these dangerous times. Please make sure tostill stay safe now that the restrictions have been lifted slightly – the incidence ofinfections has slowed down but the virus is still around.As you can imagine this has been a quiet time for AS-ET but we are ready forwhen circumstances allow people to get back to enrolling on courses. Our plansfor events to mark our tenth anniversary will remain on hold until the countrybecomes more settled, however remember the Congress Bursary Competition isstill running so start writing. Congress Bursary CompetitionIf you are studying for the IAT level 2 qualification or you passed it in 2018, 2019or 2020 and you are employed as a laboratory animal technician in the UK or theRepublic of Ireland you can enter the competition. This year’s topic is —‘What challenges and rewards have you experienced as an animal technician?’ Your 1,000 word essay should be submitted by 20th October 2020. Full details areon our website (www.as-et.org.uk).Patron: Professor Lord Naren Patel KTChair of Trustees: Professor Sir Richard Gardner FIAT (Hon) FRSSecretary to the Trust: Ken Applebee OBE FIAT FRSBTrustees: Stephen Barnett MSc (Hon) FRSB, Jasmine Barley MSc FIAT,Karen J Gardner, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIATRegistered Charity Number 113319Registered Office: 5 South Parade, Summertown, Oxford OX2 7JLJul20:IATB NEW 10/7/20 10:02 Page 16Patron: Professor Lord Naren Patel KT Chair of Trustees: Professor Sir Richard Gardner FIAT (Hon) FRS Secretary to the Trust: Ken Applebee OBE FIAT FRSB Trustees: Jasmine Barley MSc FIAT, Charlie Chambers MIAT, Karen J Gardner, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIATRegistered Charity Number 1133119Registered Office: 5 South Parade, Summertown, Oxford OX2 7JLwww.animalsinscienceeducationtrust.org.uk

Page 57

55August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareUsing home cage monitoring to determine the impact of repeated timed mating on male mouse welfareJOANNA MOORE1, GIULA DEL PANTA3, ELOISE BROOKS3 and HILARY LANCASTER21 GSK, Laboratory Animal Medicine, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertforshire SG1 2NY UK2 GSK, in Vivo Science and Delivery, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertforshire SG1 2NY UK3 GSK, Research Statistics, GSK, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertforshire SG1 2NY UKCorrespondence: joanna.l.moore@gskIntroductionSome of our Genetically Altered mouse breeding programmes include the use of a strain of sterile Prm1 male mice. These males are used to induce pseudopregnancy in female mice and are often kept up to nine months under singly housed conditions. A previous reﬁnement was to house these males with a companion female. During the timed mating period the companion is swapped for a naive female. We wanted to determine whether there was a signiﬁcant impact on their welfare when their stable pair was disrupted. We hypothesised that the impact in cage activity would signiﬁcantly increase when a companion female is replaced with a new female, rather than when the companion female is left with the male. We used an established home-cage monitoring system to determine how much disruption was created to the activity pattern in cages when a companion female is swapped, compared to when she is just removed and replaced in the pair’s home-cage. MethodAn allocation of 20 pairs of established and proven sterile *Prm1 males with their companion females and 20 naïve females that were weight matched to the companion they would be exchanged with. Upon arrival to the animal room, the mice were checked carefully and acclimatised for ﬁve days prior to the start of the study. Mice were kept on a 14:10 hour light: dark cycle.*Prm1 Genetically Sterile Protamine-1 (Prm1) EGFP Transgenic mouse obtained under licence from Dr Pawel Pelczar, University of Zurich, Switzerland (Haueter et al, 2010)Activity samplingWe focussed on the activity during four x two-hour intervals per comparison day: 8.00 - 10.00, 10.00 -12.00, 12.00 -14.00 and 20.00–22.00 hours. For each time interval we calculated the change from pre female replacement for each cage to determine POSTER PRESENTATIONSOriginally presented at:IAT Virtual Congress 2021151IntroductionA hallmark symptom of rheumatoid arthritis in humansis painful swollen joints. Pain can manifest before anyinflammation is noticeable1,2as well as persist longafter inflammation has resolved.3In rodent mode ls of arthritis, ankle or foo tpad width isa commonly used surrogate marker of pain (seeFigure 1).Measur ing footpad width assumes t hat increasedswelling is proportional to enhanced pain. A mildarthritis phenotype in which there is minimal swellingmay therefore inaccurately reflect the extent of painand discomfort.POSTER PRESENTATIONSOriginally presented at:IAT Congress 2019Assessing pain in models ofRheumatoid ArthritisSAMUEL SINGLETON,1MERIAM NEFLA,1NGAIRE DENNISON,1SIMON ARTHUR2and TIM HALES1School of Life Sciences, Division of Cell Signalling and Immunology, University of Dundee,Dundee, DD1 5EH, UK2MRSU and Institute of Academic Anaesthesia, Division of Systems Medicine, NinewellsHospital, University of Dundee, DD1 9SY, UKCorrespondence: s.z.singleton@dundee.ac.ukAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareFigure 1. Footpad width as a surrogate measure of pain in ar thritis models. Commonly used methods to assess painare footpad width (A), ankle width (B) or footpad ankle length (C).BCAAim: We aimed to determine how well pain correlated to footpad widths using the collagen antibody arthritismodel.August20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page 151April 2022 Animal Technology and WelfarePatron: Professor Lord Naren Patel KT Chair of Trustees: Professor Sir Richard Gardner FIAT (Hon) FRS Secretary to the Trust: Ken Applebee OBE FIAT FRSB Trustees: Jasmine Barley MSc FIAT, Charlie Chambers MIAT, Karen J Gardner, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIATRegistered Charity Number 1133119Registered Office: 5 South Parade, Summertown, Oxford OX2 7JLwww.animalsinscienceeducationtrust.org.uk

Page 58

Page 59

57August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePoster Presentations22.00 time frames. There was a signiﬁ cant increase in activity between the groups during the 10.00 – 12.00 time frame (P=0.0036), (see Figure 4) and 12.00 – 14.00 hours (P=0.023), (See Figure 5).Figure 3. Average activity from 10.00 – 12.00 hours per day per cage.Figure 4. Change from the baseline between 10.00 – 12.00 hours.Figure 5. Change from the baseline between 12.00pm –14.00 hours.DiscussionWhen time mating animals (females are placed with a male overnight and then removed to accurately assess stage of pregnancy), the male is often individually housed up to nine months. Using the sterile male mice, we are already able to house them with a companion. During our initial study the activity caused by the replacement female was still visible when completed at the same time as cage changing (unpublished data) in the two hours directly after the activity which is in agreement with the results of this study. We found more variability in the activity data sampled between 8.00 – 10.00 likely due to staff presence in the room. Between 20.00 – 22.00 the decrease in activity from group one compared to group two (after female replacement) is likely to be that the mice being more active during the light phase and possibly fatigued during the dark phase.Regardless of the impact of timed mating itself on male mouse welfare (it could be seen as a positive), the disruptions caused by the intense activity seen in group where female were replaced, during their usually inactive hours followed by periods fatigue during active hours, is likely to have an effect on their cycadean rhythm. This effect likely leads to poor welfare in the replacement group versus the group where the companion was left with the male. It would be interesting to see if the increase in activity was mirrored when the companion female is replaced or if timed mating was carried out at the end of the working day, nearer to the active time of the mice. Home cage activity monitoring gives us the unique ability to increase our understanding of how the work we do can impact the welfare of animals, thus giving us an opportunity to reﬁ ne our processes to further meet their needs. AcknowledgementsGuido Gottardo, Fabio Iannello, Tecniplast SpA. Kay Dowse, IVSD, GSK, Steve Barrett, Research Statistics, GSK, Steve Wilson, IVSD, GSK.References1 Haueter, S., Kawasumi, I., Brykcznska, U., Cinelli, P., Moisyadi, K., et al, (2010). Overexpression of Prm1-EGFP fusion protein in elongating spermatids causes dominant male sterility in mice. Genesis, 48 (3) 151-160. doi.org/10.1002/dvg.20598.

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

61August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePoster PresentationsResults, conclusion and discussionWe developed two methods that work ﬂ awlessly in most cases if the minipigs are properly acclimatised. The minipigs are calm, do not appear to be stressed and no vocalisation was observed. Less manpower than usual was required and we were able to take a sample every two minutes with time to spare.Figure 12.Venepuncture in progress. The systems were tested on males and females ranging from 5 to 35 kg. It proved to be particularly successful in the range >10 kg, however after a certain size it is advised that two people lift and place the minipig in the sling. Minipigs in the lower weight range are generally a bit more nervous or unsettled and might be restrained by a sitting technician (ﬁ gure 13) or in a traditional method on the V bench.Göttingen minipigs adapt very well to the sling and require minimal training for that procedure. However, it is imperative to take your time when placing the minipig in the sling. You need to give this procedure the utmost attention when you do it the ﬁ rst time with the minipig because the outcome of this ﬁ rst attempt will deﬁ ne the character of the subsequent sling placements.The technique of the actual sampling needs to be adapted to the new position. Practice has shown that technicians adapt quickly to the new angle of view and even less experienced technicians have no problems obtaining a blood sample with this type of restraint. The feedback from the technicians is positive throughout, they experience less stressed animals and need less man-hours. Overall it is a true contribution to animal welfare and is a reﬁ nement in the sense of the 3Rs.To download this poster please scan here:Figure 13.Sitting technician holding small Gottingen minipig for blood sampling.

Page 64

62Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020All animal studies were ethically reviewed and carried out in accordance with Animals (Scientiﬁ c Procedures) Act 1986 and the GSK Policy on the Care, Welfare and Treatment of Animals.IntroductionIt is well established that nesting materials are an important inclusion for mouse cages. We wanted to determine whether there was a signiﬁ cant difference in mice activity when offered three different material choices and whether there was any correlation between activity in the cage and nest complexity. We used the established home-cage monitoring system to determine whether there were differences in the activity pattern of mice depending on the nesting, and whether these related to the complexity of the nest. The aim of this study was to show that a combination of materials enabled mice to create a more complex nest, which is considered to be an indication of better welfare.MethodsWe individually housed six black Sik2, one albino and two agouti Prm1 adult ex-breeding male mice;1 in GM500 Digital Ventilated Cages (DVC®), (Tecniplast SpA). Each mouse had the facilities’ standard enrichment of a mouse Igloo (LBS), cardboard fun tunnel and aspen chew block and were housed on Lignocel wood bedding (IPS). The nest placement is outlined in Table 1. Nesting was placed in the back left of the cage and the igloo on the back right. The mice were given one of three nesting options for a six-day period: 9gms of The use of home cage monitoring to determine whether individual male mouse activity patterns correlate with nest complexity JOANNA MOORE1and HILARY LANCASTER21 GSK, Laboratory Animal Medicine, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertforshire SG1 2NY UK2 GSK, in Vivo Science and Delivery, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertforshire SG1 2NY UKCorrespondence: joanna.l.moore@gskshredded paper, autoclaved Lignocel (IPS) Large Wood Wool or a combination of Lignocel and shredded paper (Combined) as well as a red igloo and cardboard fun tunnel, and chew block (Datesand) (see Figure 1). At the end of each seven day period the nest was scored (see Table 2).Table 1.Dates for nest and cage changing and nest scoring for all study animals.Figure 1.Nesting options (and starting position) offered tomice, from left to right: Shred Paper, Wood Wool, Combined.Activity Option 1(Shred Paper)Option 2(Lignocel Large)Option 3(Combined Shred Paper and Ligocel Large)Cages and nesting changeMonday 23rd Dec 2020Monday 30th Dec 2020Monday 06th Jan 2020Nest scoring datesMonday 30th Dec 2020Monday 06th Jan 2020Monday 13th Jan 2020Animal Technology and Welfare April 2022

Page 65

63August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePoster PresentationsStudy design Rational We only had the DVC for a relatively short assessment and with the added pressure over the Christmas and New Year break we did not use the more complicated study design that also accounted for time. Given that the animals were kept singly housed in a controlled environment with a very rigid husbandry routine we felt that a simpliﬁ ed design, ignoring time effects, would enable us to get indications of how nesting can inﬂ uence mouse activity. For any future studies of this type we will use a cross-over design which is the method we recommend is generally used for this type of study.Activity samplingWe analysed the activity pattern within each nesting type for the two-hours after bedding change timeframe and the 20.00 – 22.00hrs timeframe. We calculated the change from baseline in the following way:Table 2.After seven days the nest was given a score in terms of complexity using the method published by Jirkof et al (2013).2 Score scale between 0-5.2 3 4 5At least quarter of the product move from original position ﬂ attened with slight dip in centre, no sides to nest.Most of product used, nearly half used for the nest, some sides showing and a clear dip in the centre of the nest. Almost all product used, with clear walls to the nest and a deep dip in the middle. Usually all nesting is in one part of the cage.Full use of all material, all nesting in one part of the cage, a round enclosed nest is visible.This measurement shows whether activity for each cage has increased or decreased two days after bedding change compared to the day of bedding change. We then compare the change from baseline for each cage between each nesting option.ResultsExploratory analyses comparing the activity of the two strains showed that Prm1 mice tended to be more active compared to Sik2 males. There was no particular trend in activity during the night period across any nesting options (see Figure 2).There was an increase in activity across all three nesting options immediately after bedding change when compared to the same time frame for the subsequent days (see Figure 3). Figure 2.Average dark phase activity per strain.Figure 3.Average activity two hours post nesting changes.A repeated measures ANOVA showed there was a signiﬁ cant effect for type of nesting material and mouse breed on the change from baseline measurements. A post-hoc test was used to identify which nesting material has an effect on change from baseline (see Table 3).Table 3.Results of post-hoc test.Contrast Estimate P-valueShred Paper – Wood Wool2.02 0.004Shred Paper – Combined1.07 0.046Wood Wool – Combined-0.95 0.079

Page 66

64Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020There was no identiﬁ able effect of nest material on mouseactivity at the 20.00 – 22.00hrs analysis. Prm1 mice were signiﬁ cantly more active than Sik2 (P=0.001). We found that mice tended to spend more time at the back of the cage.To evaluate the nest scoring we averaged by nesting type across all mice and found that Wood Wool is consistently better than Combined, despite the average being the same, the median was higher. (See Figure 4). Figure 4.Results from nest scoring.DiscussionThe use of home cage monitoring indicated that the activity pattern of male mice (1) was affected by poor nesting material such as Shred Paper (2) that nest building starts as soon as the nesting material is offered (3) low activity in week one is also reﬂ ected by the poor nest score achieved. The Wood Wool alone was the material where we observed the most activity and gave the highest nest score, which may have been due to it being a long stranded natural product which may have enabled better nest building. However, the results in the second week may have been confounded by the staff returning from the Christmas break. Studies in large animals show that their behaviour can be impacted by the change in routines over the long festive break, which makes it difﬁ cult to be certain that there was a true difference in the reaction to the mice for the nesting in week two. Examples of our scores are in Figure 5.In similar studies all potential nesting materials are removed, whereas we left our standard enrichment in the cages, indeed we found some mice used their cardboard tunnel as part of the nest and thus included this in their nest whereas others only used the material provided. It would be interesting to see if there is similar reaction with pairs of female mice, and to carry out a similar study which avoids the Christmas period. Figure 5.Examples of scored nests.11Score = 2 Score = 3 Score= 4 Score= 5Figure 5. Examples of scored nests. In similar studies all potential nesting materials are removed, whereas we left our standard enrichment in the cages, indeed we found some mice used their cardboard tunnel as part of the nest and thus included this in their nest whereas others only used the material provided. It would be interesting to see if there is similar reaction with pairs of female mice, and to carry out a similar study which avoids the festive break. Overall, with the testing we completed, we found that it was likely the bulk of nest building is completed within the first two hours of it being offered to mice and activity of male mice 11Score = 2 Score = 3 Score= 4 Score= 5Figure 5. Examples of scored nests. In similar studies all potential nesting materials are removed, whereas we left our standard enrichment in the cages, indeed we found some mice used their cardboard tunnel as part of the nest and thus included this in their nest whereas others only used the material provided. It would be interesting to see if there is similar reaction with pairs of female mice, and to carry out a similar study which avoids the festive break. Overall, with the testing we completed, we found that it was likely the bulk of nest building is completed within the first two hours of it being offered to mice and activity of male mice 11Score = 2 Score = 3 Score= 4 Score= 5Figure 5. Examples of scored nests. In similar studies all potential nesting materials are removed, whereas we left our standard enrichment in the cages, indeed we found some mice used their cardboard tunnel as part of the nest and thus included this in their nest whereas others only used the material provided. It would be interesting to see if there is similar reaction with pairs of female mice, and to carry out a similar study which avoids the festive break. Overall, with the testing we completed, we found that it was likely the bulk of nest building is completed within the first two hours of it being offered to mice and activity of male mice 11Score = 2 Score = 3 Score= 4 Score= 5Figure 5. Examples of scored nests. In similar studies all potential nesting materials are removed, whereas we left our standard enrichment in the cages, indeed we found some mice used their cardboard tunnel as part of the nest and thus included this in their nest whereas others only used the material provided. It would be interesting to see if there is similar reaction with pairs of female mice, and to carry out a similar study which avoids the festive break. Overall, with the testing we completed, we found that it was likely the bulk of nest building is completed within the first two hours of it being offered to mice and activity of male mice Score = 2 Score = 3Score = 4 Score = 5Poster Presentations

Page 67

Page 68

66Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020IntroductionOur facility houses a small colony of Sprague Dawley rats whose purpose is to supply pups at speciﬁ ed time points after they are born for neurophysiology and related research. Historically, a male and female were put into a grid ﬂ oor cage for seven days or until the female plugged. The male and female were then separated and housed individually in solid ﬂ oor cages with a wood shaving substrate, The male remained on his own until used for further matings and the female remained alone until she littered down. Once her pups were weaned the dam was single housed until she was put back in the grid ﬂ oored cage to mate.The system had been set up originally to allow plug date identiﬁ cation, but when we talked to the scientists it was clear that they did not need this information. They simply needed an idea of when litters might be born and therefore when the pups would be available for ex vivo work.What did we want to do and why?Rats are considered highly social animals (Research Animals Department, RSPCA).1 In the wild, they live in groups and develop complex social structures. Re-grouping rats is considered stressful (Suckrow, 2015).2 We therefore wanted to keep animals in monogamous pairs so that they could develop a social bond that was not being repeatedly disrupted and where they could be housed on solid ﬂ oors all the time, as we felt that this would provide better welfare for the animals (Manser, 1995).3We had to be able to produce pups efﬁ ciently. We had to identify whether or not the females were pregnant and their likely date for littering. In order to help with planning, and so as to provide tissue regularly, the scientists wanted two litters born a week, ideally with several days between them.What did we do?We bought in six-week-old male and female Sprague Dawley rats from Charles River Laboratories (Margate). They arrived in boxes of ten. Animals were housed in the groups that they had arrived in, until they had recovered from transport, were acclimatised and had reached a size and weight considered big enough to breed (as judged by an experienced technician).We kept some animals on the previous system, to ensure that a continuing supply of pups was available for the scientists, whilst we set up an initial group of three stable pairs. These animals were housed in RC2R cages (NKP Isotec). Over time, additional animals were set up as pairs as the trial progressed and currently there are eight monogamous pairs in use.We tried two methods of assessing pregnancy: manualpalpation and visual inspection. The latter was sufﬁ cientlyaccurate for the needs of the scientists and was considered a lot less stressful for the animals. Health and welfare of the animals, pregnancy rates and number and sizes of litters born were monitored.In order to increase the area available to a pair of rats, two cages were linked together by means of a polycarbonate red rat tube (Datesand Ltd). To do this, the end of the tube was placed against one side of a cage base 3cm from the back of the cage and was drawn around with a marker pen. The same was done on the next cage base but on the opposite side. A 5mm drill bit was used to drill a hole big enough to insert a jigsaw blade and then the marked circles were cut out, ensuring that they were cut accurately to be opposite A method to improve the housing of breeding rats used to produce pups for tissueKALLY BOOTH, JOANNE KING, JAMES STEPHEN and NGAIRE DENNISONBiological Services, University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HN UKCorrespondence: K.booth@dundee.ac.ukAnimal Technology and Welfare April 2022

Page 69

67August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePoster Presentationseach other so the tube could be inserted from inside one cage and across to the other. The holes were ﬁ led to ensure they were smooth and that the tube ﬁ tted snugly. The tubes are not ﬁ xed in place and can be easily slid into place and then pulled back out when cages need to be separated for cleaning. Figure 1.Cages on rack are joined using red tubes inserted through holes cut out of the side of the cage bases, towards the back.It was noted that females in pairs began to synchronise their oestrus cycles and consequently, when they gave birth. To avoid separating and reintroducing the pairs, with associated risk of aggression between the pair or the male and the pups, we used a plastic ‘grid’ in the tunnel joining the cages to allow contact but not mating (Figure 3).Results Females in the monogamous pairs housed in standard cages suffered from hair loss around their nipples and underbelly and some of the males had hair loss on their cheeks. The Named Veterinary Surgeon (NVS) considered the most likely diagnosis was excessive grooming by the pups. The cages also became damp rapidly with the numbers of animals present. Increasing cage change frequency for pairs with large litters from once to twice a week was unsuccessful in reducing the over-grooming.We increased the space available to pairs with pups by linking two cages together (Figures 1 and 2) to see whether this beneﬁ ted their welfare, as judged by external signs. All animals regrew lost hair and no further hair loss was seen. Technicians caring for the rats noted that the adults were much easier to handle, calmer and interacted more with the handlers.Data generated under the previous and new systems were compared.Figure 2.Female with pups in double cage, with male sleeping in adjoining cage.Figure 3.Plastic grid in the tube to join two cages. 8 welfare, as judged by external signs. All animals regrew lost hair and no more hair loss was seen. Technicians caring for the rats noted that the adults were much easier to handle, calmer and interacted more with the handlers. Data generated under the previous and new systems were compared. For the time-mated animals, median litter size was 9 (inter-quartile range 6-11; 40 observations) and in the monogamous pairs, the 0 5 10 15 20Upper quartileLower quartileMedian number ofpups per litterComparison of pups generated in litters from timed matings(old system) and monogamous pairs (new system)New SystemFor the time-mated animals, median litter size was 9 (inter-quartile range 6-11; 40 observations) and in the monogamous pairs, the median litter size was 13 (inter-quartile range 9-15; 52 observations). Thus the median litter size was about 50% higher in the monogamous

Page 70

68Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020pairs. It was difﬁcult to compare the data directly beyond these basic ﬁgures as mothers were at different stages in their reproductive life.Dividing grids have been used in 7 pairs for 11 matings to date. On one occasion, one female did not become pregnant, was divided from the male for a second time, was reintroduced to him and became pregnant. The median litter size for these matings is 15 (inter-quartile range 11-15; 10 observations). On average pups are born 35 days after reintroduction of the male (range 24-43 days).ConclusionThe change to monogamous pairs was very successful, resulting in marked increase in median litter size. This allowed us to reduce the number of adult rats with related decreased costs and husbandry-related time. By joining two cages together, thus providing a greater ﬂoor area, there were improvements in outward signs of welfare and docility of the animals. It appears that we can control the tendency for females to synchronise their oestrus cycles, which otherwise could result in an uneven supply of pups, by allowing the male and female in each pair to remain separated but in communication with each other using a grid and then reintroducing the pair around 6 to 7 weeks before pups are needed.Acknowledgements We would like to thank the relevant scientists and other members of Mr Macleod’s team of animal carers for their enthusiastic support and Dr Newman for help with analysing the numerical data.References1 Research Animals Department, RSPCA (2011). Supplementary resources for members of local ethical review processes Rats: Good practice for housing and care ﬁle://homes/ndennison/Downloads/ Rats%20(2011).pdf2 Suckow, Mark A., Weisbroth, Steven H., Franklin Craig, L. (ed) (2005): The Laboratory Rat, 2ndEdition, American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine Series.3 Manser, C.E., Morris, T.H., and Broom, D.M. (1995). An investigation into the effects of solid or grid cage ﬂooring on the welfare of laboratory rats, Laboratory Animals 29, 353-363 http://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/pdf/10.1258/002367795780740023 Poster Presentations

Page 71

69August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareThe overall goal of this book is given as providing the reader, as someone working in the maintenance and care of laboratory animals involved in research programmes with information about the way the animals live in the wild and the way that they should live in captive research settings. It is intended that the book will achieve an improved understanding of laboratory animals and allow the reader to reﬁne the care and treatment of the animals in their facilities and to improve the wellbeing, welfare and wellness of the animals in their care. Of the 48 authors and contributors there is a good balance between North America and Europe/UK with one contributor from Australia, unfortunately but perhaps understandably there are no contributors from the developing world.The 537 pages are divided into 30 individual chapters, plus in Part 3, ethograms. for 14 of the species listed in Part 2. For those unfamiliar with the term ethogram the authors explain that they are a list of behaviours that can be observed and scored while watching animals. Ethograms facilitate a process whereby different observers can observe animal behaviour and record their observations in the same way which is obviously important for serious scientiﬁc research.As well as providing an Introduction to Animal Behaviour, Part 1 also discusses ‘abnormal’ behaviour in a research setting, including a deﬁnition of what is classed as abnormal behaviour. It also provides an insight of the prevalence of abnormal behaviour, particularly in Non-Human Primates, as well as the other species covered in the book. Causes of abnormal behaviour are also discussed. Obviously these topics could have a whole book devoted to them so in a book such as this the discussion is relatively superﬁcial but useful nevertheless. In my opinion the Chapter on utilising behaviour for the assessment of animal welfare is particularly useful. Part 2 provides information on the behavioural biology of 25 species regularly found in research setting around the globe. Some of them may be less common within the UK for example, deer and white footed mice, prairie and meadow voles. However, as Animal Technologists are only too aware we never know what tomorrow will bring and this book will provide a useful reference manual for the facility bookshelf. As well as the more common rodent and lagomorph species it also discusses behaviour of farm animals, poultry and other birds, reptiles and amphibians and 7 primate species are also included. Part 3 is devoted to selected ethograms with 14 species covered in Part 2 (the introduction to this section says 16 species but I only counted 14) links for online ethograms of mice and macques are also provided. The authors stress that if behaviour is to be used to assess welfare then a functional ethogram is essential. All of the chapters are extremely well referenced and will provide the reader with opportunities for further research. In my opinion the book achieves its objective and I would whole-heartedly recommend that every establishment should have a copy available in the library at the very least but preferably in every animal facility. BOOK REVIEWBehavioural biology of laboratory animals Edited by Kristine Coleman and Stephen J. SchapiroReviewed by Jas Barley April 2022 Animal Technology and Welfare

Page 72

70Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020This time, the EDI Group is focussing its “Let’s Talk” article on another protected characteristic, NeurodiversityLet’s talk about … Neurodiversity in the workplace“You probably can’t tell by looking at me, but my brain works very differently to yours. If you were to meet me, you’d probably notice that I’m tall and I have blonde hair. You might notice that I don’t often make eye contact. But you won’t see that I’m also extremely sensitive to bright lights and loud noises. I am hopeless at reading body language and I miss conversational cues. I love coding and enjoy solving problems. I struggle with changing environments, having to hot desk has a huge impact on me’ I am not a neurotypical person, I am what is known as ‘neurodivergent’”What is Neurodiversity?Neurodiversity refers to the different ways the brain can work and interpret information. It highlights that people naturally think about things differently. We have different interests and motivations, and are naturally better at some things and poorer at others.Most people are neurotypical, meaning that the brain functions and processes information in the way society expects.However, it is estimated that around 1 in 7 people (more than 15% of people in the UK) are neurodivergent, meaning that the brain functions, learns and processes information differently. Neurodivergence includes Attention Deﬁcit Disorders, Autism, Dyslexia and Dyspraxia. These bring strengths as well as difﬁculties.What does Neurodiversity mean?When we describe people as ‘neurodivergent’, then, we are talking about people who in one or several respects have a thinking style at the edges of one or more of these continuums, with – in the words of autistic author, speaker and educator Nick Walker – a brain ‘that functions in ways that diverge signiﬁcantly from the dominant societal standards of “normal’. We need to understand that there is no standard brain.Neurodiversity is, ultimately, a biological fact of the inﬁnite variety of human neurocognition. Now, the same term ‘neurodiversity’ is also being used to represent a fast-growing sub-category of organisational diversity and inclusion that seeks to embrace and maximise the talents of people who think differently. (CIPD 2018)Let’s talk about ... NeurodiversityMental Health Awarenesswww.iat.org.ukHow can we embrace Neurodiversity in the workplace?Neurodivergence is fairly common, so most workplaces are already neurodiverse. Yet, there is still a lack of understanding around most forms of neurodivergence, and misperceptions persist. It therefore makes sense for organisations to take steps that make their neurodivergent staff feel valued, part of the team and supported to contribute fully towards achieving the goals of the organisation.Creating a more inclusive workplace can:l highlight the employer’s commitment to diversity and inclusionl reduce the stigma around neurodivergencel make staff feel safe and empowered to disclose a neurodivergencel make it more likely that neurodivergent staff will be treated fairly by their managers and colleaguesl open the organisation up to a pool of talent that may otherwise have been overlookedl help retain skilled staff and reduce recruitment costs.Further Support and Training can be found at:l ADHD Foundation - Adults sectionl British Dyslexic Association - Employer sectionl Dyspraxia Foundation - Adults sectionl National Autistic Society - Support for employersl Tourettes Action - Employers sectionl NHS website and search for the speciﬁc form of neurodivergenceReferences:CIPD Guide Neurodiversity at work , Feb 2018https://www.gov.uk/government/news/neurodiversity-in-the-workplaceInstitute of Animal TechnologyCOUNCILEquality and Diversity Group

Page 73

71August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareThis time, the EDI Group is focussing its “Let’s Talk” article on another protected characteristic, NeurodiversityLet’s talk about … Neurodiversity in the workplace“You probably can’t tell by looking at me, but my brain works very differently to yours. If you were to meet me, you’d probably notice that I’m tall and I have blonde hair. You might notice that I don’t often make eye contact. But you won’t see that I’m also extremely sensitive to bright lights and loud noises. I am hopeless at reading body language and I miss conversational cues. I love coding and enjoy solving problems. I struggle with changing environments, having to hot desk has a huge impact on me’ I am not a neurotypical person, I am what is known as ‘neurodivergent’”What is Neurodiversity?Neurodiversity refers to the different ways the brain can work and interpret information. It highlights that people naturally think about things differently. We have different interests and motivations, and are naturally better at some things and poorer at others.Most people are neurotypical, meaning that the brain functions and processes information in the way society expects.However, it is estimated that around 1 in 7 people (more than 15% of people in the UK) are neurodivergent, meaning that the brain functions, learns and processes information differently. Neurodivergence includes Attention Deﬁcit Disorders, Autism, Dyslexia and Dyspraxia. These bring strengths as well as difﬁculties.What does Neurodiversity mean?When we describe people as ‘neurodivergent’, then, we are talking about people who in one or several respects have a thinking style at the edges of one or more of these continuums, with – in the words of autistic author, speaker and educator Nick Walker – a brain ‘that functions in ways that diverge signiﬁcantly from the dominant societal standards of “normal’. We need to understand that there is no standard brain.Neurodiversity is, ultimately, a biological fact of the inﬁnite variety of human neurocognition. Now, the same term ‘neurodiversity’ is also being used to represent a fast-growing sub-category of organisational diversity and inclusion that seeks to embrace and maximise the talents of people who think differently. (CIPD 2018)Let’s talk about ... NeurodiversityMental Health Awarenesswww.iat.org.ukHow can we embrace Neurodiversity in the workplace?Neurodivergence is fairly common, so most workplaces are already neurodiverse. Yet, there is still a lack of understanding around most forms of neurodivergence, and misperceptions persist. It therefore makes sense for organisations to take steps that make their neurodivergent staff feel valued, part of the team and supported to contribute fully towards achieving the goals of the organisation.Creating a more inclusive workplace can:l highlight the employer’s commitment to diversity and inclusionl reduce the stigma around neurodivergencel make staff feel safe and empowered to disclose a neurodivergencel make it more likely that neurodivergent staff will be treated fairly by their managers and colleaguesl open the organisation up to a pool of talent that may otherwise have been overlookedl help retain skilled staff and reduce recruitment costs.Further Support and Training can be found at:l ADHD Foundation - Adults sectionl British Dyslexic Association - Employer sectionl Dyspraxia Foundation - Adults sectionl National Autistic Society - Support for employersl Tourettes Action - Employers sectionl NHS website and search for the speciﬁc form of neurodivergenceReferences:CIPD Guide Neurodiversity at work , Feb 2018https://www.gov.uk/government/news/neurodiversity-in-the-workplaceInstitute of Animal TechnologyCOUNCILEquality and Diversity Group

Page 74

72Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Call for nominations now open for the 2022 AAALAC International Fellowship AwardThe AAALAC International Fellowship recognises two outstanding individuals—one IAT RAnTech and one AALAS Registered—who have made (or have the potential to make) signiﬁcant contributions to the ﬁeld of laboratory animal care and use.This fellowship is valued at more than £3000. The IAT RAnTech winner will receive a week-long guest visit to prestigious biomedical research facilities in the U.S. this autumn, plus complimentary attendance at the National AALAS Meeting, the U.S.’s largest laboratory animal science and technology meeting. All registration, travel, lodging, meals, and out-of-pocket expenses are covered (receipts are required). Apply online! The online application will ask for information on your professional background, training and meeting participation, along with other supporting information. In addition you will be asked to attach/upload the following:1. A brief letter nominating yourself (or have someone write this letter on your behalf)2. A copy of your CV3. At least one (no more than three) letter(s) of supportAwardees are expected to share their experiences brieﬂy by preparing a written report for AAALAC International. Awardees are also expected to communicate their experiences to peers by presenting at a local or national conference.ONLINE APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 1 JUNE 2022:https://www.aaalac.org/awards/fellowship-award/For complete details and a list of selection criteria, visit www.aaalac.org/about/fellowship.cfm. Receipt of application will be conﬁrmed by email to candidates. If you have not received conﬁrmation or have any questions about this award, please call +1 301.696.9626 or email fellow@aaalac.org. The AAALAC International Fellowship Award is presented by AAALAC International through a grant by Priority One Services, Inc. and Datesand Group Ltd, in cooperation with AALAS, IAT, the Medical Research Council, and the National Institutes of Health. Individuals interested in applying for the Fellowship Award are expected to consider both real (i.e., ﬁnancial or other personal or professional considerations, such as employment at AAALAC International, Priority One Services, Inc. or Datesand Group Ltd) and perceived (i.e., an appearance of being at an advantage) conﬂicts of interest before submitting their applications. Questions regarding a potential conﬂict of interest may be directed to the AAALAC international Chief Executive Ofﬁcer, Dr. Kathryn Bayne (kbayne@aaalac.org).©2022 AAALAC International | www.aaalac.org | fellow@aaalac.org If you are IAT RAnTechapply by 1 June 2022

ATW April 2022

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3