simplebooklet thumbnail

ATW August 2019

IAT Journal
Animal Technology
and Welfare
Official Journal of the Institute of Animal Technology
and European Federation of Animal Techno logist s
Vol 18 No 2 August 2019
ISSN 1742-0385
G RSPCA Rodent & Rabbit Welfare 2018 Report
G Law and Ethical issues
G New feature – Opinion article
G Congress 2019 Posters – Part 1
Editorial ix
Jas Barley, Chair of the Editorial Board
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting 81
Chloe Stevens, Penny Hawkins (Secretary), Robin Lovell-Badge, Robert Hubrecht, Huw Golledge, Anna Slaviero,
Clare Ellis, Demi Minhinnett, Rebecca Terry, Katharina Hohlnaum, Dominic Wells, Thomas Snoeks and John Marshall
A comparison of enrichment items for the promotion of natural gnawing behaviour in laboratory mice 93
Irene Lopez Juaristi
Legal and ethical aspects of using animals in research: A NACWO’s guide 99
Matthew Bilton
PAPER SUMMARY TRANSLATIONS 103
OPINION ARTICLE
The 3Rs and optimisation in a decentralised research world: new perspectives on an established 117
paradigm
Darrell Hoskins
TECH-2-TECH
Pro’s and pro’s of selective cleaning 121
Mark White
Team awesome: Why we can be proud 127
Joanna King
NACWO my first year dream job or nightmare? 133
Rhys Perry
POSTER PRESENTATIONS
Refinement: promoting Gallus Gallus welfare in an experimental poultry unit 137
Katie Harris, Rachel New, Paul Smith, Billy Matthews and Jess Want
Animal handling in containment 140
Christine Zverev, Shaun Baker and Dhruti Patel
In-vivo imaging at NIBSC and how we use it to promote the 3Rs 143
Luke Gurney
An investigation of how a photocatalytic oxidation system can be used to reduce airborne allergens 145
Joseph Pennock and Hayley Buckle
Failure to provide food and water: implications and prevention 147
Murad Miah
The effect of relative humidity on water intake in C57BL/6J mice 150
Rebecca Towns and Karen Ekkelund Peterson
Bottle or bowl? Feeding and dosing in juvenile Göttingen minipigs 153
Alice McNamara and Lucy Allen
Refining oestrus selection in the animal unit to optimise transgenic production 155
Christopher Wilson, Mike Walls, Davie Black and Julie Thomson
Instructions to Authors 157
CONTENTS
Vol 18 No 2 August 2019
i
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:18 Page i
ii
IAT REPRESENTATIVES
OFFICERS
President
Dr Robin Lovell-Badge CBE FRS
Immediate Past President
Professor Sir Richard Gardner MA PhD FRSB FIAT (Hon) FRS
Vice-Presidents
Senga Allan MIAT RAnTech, David Anderson MRCVS,
Stephen Barnett BA MSc FIAT (Hon) CBiol FRSB RAnTech,
Miles Carroll PhD, Brian Cass CBE, Paul Flecknell MA Vet MB PhD
DLAS DipLECVA MRCVS, FIAT (Hon), Penny Hawkins PhD BSc,
Wendy Jarrett MA, Judy MacArthur-Clark CBE BVMS DLAS FRSB
DVMS (h.c.), DipECLAM FRAgS DipACLAM MRCVS,
Fiona McEwen BSc BVM&S MSc MRCVS, Tim Morris BVetMed PhD
DipACLAM DipECLAM CBiol FRSB CertLAS MRCVS,
José Orellana BVSc MSc, Clive Page OBE PhD BSc,
Jan-Bas Prins PhD MSc, Vicky Robinson CBE BSc PhD,
Paul Sanders MIAT RAnTech, David Spillane FIAT,
Gail Thompson RLATG, Robert Weichbrod PhD RLATG
Life Members
Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech, Roger Francis MSC FIAT RAnTech,
Pete Gerson MSc FIAT RAnTech, Cathy Godfrey FIAT RAnTech,
John Gregory BSc (Hons) FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech, Patrick Hayes
FIAT DipBA RAnTech, Rober t Kemp FIAT (Hon) RAnTech,
Phil Ruddock MIAT RAnTech, Ted Wills HonFIAT RAnTech,
Honorary Members
Mark Gardiner MIAT RAnTech, Andy Jackson MIAT, Sarah Lane MSc
FIAT, Brian Lowe MSc FIAT RAnTech, Sue McHugh BSc FIAT,
Norman Mortell BA (Hons) MIAT RAnTech, Terr y Priest MBE FIAT
RAnTech, Trevor Richards BEM MIAT, David Spillane FIAT,
Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIAT, Pete Willan DMS FInstLM MIAT
Members of Council
Ken Applebee, Matthew Bilton, Kally Booth, Charlie Chambers,
Steven Cubitt, Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher,
Nicky Gent, Alan Graham, Nathan Hill, Linda Horan, Sam Jameson,
Elaine Kirkum, Adele Kitching, Theresa Langford, Sylvie Mehigan,
Steve Owen, Alan Palmer, Allan Thornhill, John Waters,
Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson, Adrian Woodhouse
Council Officers
Chair: Linda Horan BSc (Hons) MIAT RAnTech
Vice Chair: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTech
Honorary Secretary: Simon Cumming BSc FIAT RAnTech
Treasurer: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTech
Assistant Treasurer: Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech
Chair of Board of Educational Policy: Steven Cubitt MSc FIAT
RAnTech
Chair of Board of Moderators: Haley Daniels MBA MSc MIAT
RAnTech CIPD
Chair Registration & Accreditation Board: Ken Applebee OBE FIAT
CBiol FRSB RAnTech
ATW Editor: Jas Barley MSc FIAT RAnTech
Bulletin Editor: Carole Wilson BSc MIAT
Branch Liaison Officer: Lynda Westall BSc (Hons) FIAT DMS RAnTech
EFAT Representative: Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech
Website Coordinator: Allan Thornhill FIAT RAnTech
Animal Welfare Officers and LABA Representatives:
Matthew Bilton, Kally Booth, Lois Byrom, Simon Cumming,
Nicky Gent, Sylvie Mehigan, John Waters
ATW/Bulletin Editorial Board: Jas Barley (Chair), Matthew Bilton,
Nicky Gent, Patrick Hayes, Elaine Kirkum, Carole Wilson,
Lynda Westall
Board of Educational Policy: Steven Cubitt (Chair), Steven Cubitt
(Secretary), Adele Kitching
Board of Moderators: Haley Daniels (Chair), Simon Cumming,
Cathy Godfrey
Moderators: Anthony Iglesias, Theresa Langford, Jenny Parks,
Sarah Reed
Communications Group: Adrian Woodhouse (Chair), Nathan Hill,
Elaine Kirkum, Teresa Langford, Sylvie Mehigan, Allan Thornhill,
Lynda Westall
CPD Officer: Charlie Chambers
Registration and Accreditation Board: Ken Applebee (Chair),
Glyn Fisher (Secretary), Charlie Chambers, John Gregory,
Cathy Godfrey, Kathy Ryder (Home Office), Stuart Stevenson
Observer: Ngaire Dennison (LAVA)
Congress Committee: Alan Graham (Chair), Haley Daniels,
Linda Horan, Adele Kitching, Allan Thornhill, John Waters
Diversity Officer: Haley Daniels MBA MSc MIAT RAnTech CIPD
UK Biosciences ASG Representative/Home Office: Steve Owen,
Charlie Chambers, Alan Palmer
IAT OFFICERS MAY BE CONTACTED VIA:
IAT Administrator: admin@iat.org.uk OR VIA THE IAT WEBSITE AT:
www.iat.org.uk
OR THE REGISTERED OFFICE:
5 South Parade, Summertown, Oxford OX2 7JL
Advertisement Managers: PRC Associates Ltd
Email: mail@prcassoc.co.uk
Although every effort is made to ensure that no inaccurate or misleading data,
opinion or statement appear in the journal, 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 such
inaccurate or misleading data, opinion, statement or advertisement being
published. Furthermore the opinions expressed in the journal do not
necessarily reflect those of the Editor or the Institute of Animal Technology.
© 2019 Institute of Animal Technology
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
without permission from the publisher.
BRANCH SECRETARIES 2019
Cambridge: Sarah Shorne cambridgebranch@iat.org.uk
Edinburgh: Janice Young edinburghbranch@iat.org.uk
Hertfordshire & Essex: Joanna Cruden hertsessexbranch@iat.org.uk
Huntingdon, Suffolk & Nor folk: Jo Martin hssbranch@iat.org.uk
Ireland: Lisa Watson irelandbranch@iat.org.uk
London: Rebecca Towns londonbranch@iat.org.uk
Midlands: Ian Fielding midlandsbranch@iat.org.uk
North East England: Rachel Sandy and Joanne Bland northeastbranch@iat.org.uk
North West: Nicky Windows cheshirebranch@iat.org.uk
Oxford: April Shipton oxfordbranch@iat.org.uk
Surrey, Hampshire & Sussex: Francesca Whitmore shsbranch@iat.org.uk
West Middlesex: Josefine Woodley westmiddxbranch@iat.org.uk
Wales & West: Rhys Perry waleswestbranch@iat.org.uk
West of Scotland: Linda Horan westscotlandbranch@iat.org.uk
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:18 Page ii
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:18 Page iii
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:18 Page iv
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:18 Page v
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:18 Page vi
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:18 Page vii
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:18 Page viii
August 2019 Animal Technology and Welfare
Editorial
Jas Barley
Chair of the Editorial Board
Food and water is a fundamental necessity for most living things. However, huge numbers of people, especially children and the elderly,
die every year from lack of food and not just in developing countries. Of course, poor quality drinking water of the standard that I would
hesitate to water the garden with, due to the levels of contamination, does not improve human or animal chance of survival.
On the other side of the coin in other areas of the world people are killing themselves by eating too much food in general or too much
of the wrong type of food. It would be an unusual person that is totally unaware of the concern about obesity especially in children
even if they are doing nothing about it. When I was commuting I often used to see children on the way to school accompanied by an
adult, eating bags of crisps and being washed down by lurid coloured fizzy drinks healthy diet, I do not think so.
Conditions which affect people’s perception of body image such as anorexia nervosa or bulimia, thus leading to starvation diets or
gross overeating, are also a feature of modern life and perhaps reflect the emphasis society puts of food.
The way we view and our knowledge about food is also reflected in the amount food wasted in this country and, I suspect, in most
developed countries. It is something we should be ashamed of especially when many people are struggling to provide food for their
families. At some point in the last 50 years we seemed to have arrived at the idea that food needs to be sanitised and perfect, with
everything washed and wrapped in ‘nice’ plastic bags and we reject food that falls below this ideal. The fact that shops need to market
‘wonky’ vegetables as a separate item amazes me they should see the crops that I produce in my garden, all shapes and sizes and
all delicious.
Similarly, animals, although that is usually down to indulgent owners, seem to suffer from a feast or famine situation when it comes
to food. Where I live there are a lot of dog walkers or to be more accurate dog carriers, one even gets to ride in its own trolley because
it is too fat to walk more than a few feet. Others are not so fortunate, many of the animals start their stay at the local RSPCA rehoming
centre due to being undernourished, if not starved.
This issue of the Journal also concerns itself with food and water, or perhaps I should say the lack of both. The Report of the 2018
RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting contains an update from the Home Office Inspectorate on the failure to
provide food and water to animals. It represents a significant cause of non-compliance, accounting for approximately 20% of non-
compliance cases annually. Everyone recognises that Animal Technologists care passionately about the animals in the care and that
no one leaves an animal without food or water intentionally. The IAT Animal Welfare Group, have produced guidance on providing food
and water and perhaps more importantly, ways to prevent animals being left without either or both. The guidance the group has
produced is available from the IAT website at www.iat.org.uk
look under media and documents. The topic is also discussed in the
poster from Murad Miah which suggests some interesting ideas as both cause and possible ideas for prevention.
Food and water are also the concern of two further posters, Rebecca Towns and Karen Ekkelund Petersen look at the effect of relative
humidity on water intake in C57BL/6J mice and Alice McNamara and Lucy Allen discuss the feeding of young Göttingen minipigs.
As well as the RSPCA report our formal papers offer a comparison of enrichment items for the promotion of natural gnawing behaviour
in laboratory mice by Irene Lopez Juaristi and Matthew Bilton’s NACWO guide to legal and ethical aspects of animal research.
Finally, we offer a new approach for the Journal in that we publish the first of hopefully a regular Opinion Article. This first article is
from Darrell Hoskins and looks at a new way of considering the 3Rs, particularly replacement.
THE INSTITUTE OF ANIMAL TECHNOLOGY
ETHICAL STATEMENT
“In the conduct of their Professional duties, Animal Technologists have a moral and
legal obligation, 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 good laboratory 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.”
ix
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:18 Page ix
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page x
August 2019 Animal Technology and Welfare
81
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent
and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting
CHLOE STEVENS,
1
PENNY HAWKINS (SECRETARY),
1
ROBIN LOVELL-BADGE,
2
ROBERT HUBRECHT,
3
HUW GOLLEDGE,
3
ANNA SLAVIERO,
4
CLARE ELLIS,
5
DEMI MINHINNETT,
6
REBECCA TERRY,
7
KATHARINA HOHLNAUM,
8,9
DOMINIC WELLS,
10
THOMAS SNOEKS
2
and JOHN MARSHALL
11
1
Research Animals Department, Science Group, RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater,
West Sussex RH13 9RS
2
The Francis Crick Institute, 1 Midland Road, London NW1 1AT
3
UFAW, The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire AL4 8AN
4
University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7AL
5
University of Northampton, University Drive, Northampton, Northamptonshire NN1 5PH
6
Durham University, Stockton Rd, Durham, Northumberland DH1 3LE
7
University College London, Cruciform Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
8
Institute of Animal Welfare, Animal Behaviour and Laboratory Animal Science, Department of
Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
9
Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie
Universität Berlin, Germany
10
Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College
Street, London NW1 0TU
11
Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit, 14th Floor, Lunar House, 40 Wellesley
Road, Croydon CR9 2BY
Introduction
The RSPCA/UFAW Rodent (and now Rabbit) Working
Group has held a one-day meeting every autumn for the
last 25 years, so that its members can discuss current
welfare research, exchange views on welfare issues
and share experiences of the implementation of the
3Rs of replacement, reduction and refinement with
respect to rodent and rabbit use. A key aim of the
Group is to encourage people to think about the whole
lifetime experience of laboratory rodents and rabbits
ensuring that every potential negative impact on their
wellbeing is reviewed and minimised.
This year’s meeting was held at The Francis Crick
Institute in London on 30th October 2018 and was
attended by over 80 delegates from the UK and
overseas. To mark 25 years of Rodent and Rabbit
meetings, the day opened with a retrospective look at
how animal technology has developed over the past 25
years, and how these developments have impacted
laboratory rodent and rabbit welfare. This was followed
by a look to the future, with a talk that discussed how
animal welfare science and practices might change
over the next 25 years. Other presentations covered
ways to encourage laboratory rats to nest-build by
giving them appropriate building materials, tips on
designing new rabbit facilities to best promote rabbit
welfare and a discussion of how imaging techniques
can be used to refine experimental procedures and
reduce the number of animals used in studies. The day
ended with a presentation from the Home Office
Animals in Science Regulation Unit and an interactive
discussion session, both on the topic of ensuring that
laboratory rodents and rabbits never go without food or
water. This report summarises the meeting and ends
with a list of action points for readers to consider
raising at their own establishments.
Advances in animal welfare and
technology over the last 25 years
Robin Lovell-Badge, The Francis Crick
Institute
A lot has happened since 1993. There have been
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 81
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting
82
significant, sometimes dramatic, advances in
technology covering aspects such as animal
husbandr y, surgical practice, methods of
cryopreservation, imaging and, of course, methods of
genetic alteration. Many of these have led to better
welfare, to more precise ways to test hypotheses and
to reduced animal usage; others have led to
substantial increases in the numbers of animals used
for certain types of experiment, or to altered practices
that may not always be beneficial to the animals or to
scientific understanding.
One of the most notable developments of the last 25
years is the advance in methods of genome editing.
Genome editing allows us to alter DNA sequences very
precisely and probably gives us the ability to modify any
living organism which, along with other techniques such
as directed differentiation of stem cells and
development of organoids, may continue to help
replace animals and yield better ‘models’ of human
disease.
Another significant area of development has been in
the generation and archiving of mouse lines which has
greatly improved. This means that fewer animals need
to be maintained in the laboratory. For example, there
are now better methods of cryopreser vation for
embryos, sperm, oocytes and ovaries. New methods
have arisen in reproductive biology, such as somatic
cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the method which was
used to produce Dolly the sheep in 1997.
1,2
A further area of development is in the use of
fluorescent protein markers,
3
or other types of reporter
such as luciferase. These allow us to follow cells in vitro
or in vivo and give us the ability to do live imaging
studies. Imaging modalities such as MRI and ultrasound
have also developed, allowing us to reduce laboratory
animal numbers by carrying out longitudinal studies.
The drivers of these advances in technology are
widespread. They include curiosity about how genes are
expressed during development, a greater
understanding of the roles of specific genes, increasing
knowledge of stem cell biology and cancer biology and
better ways to follow cell fate decisions during
development. Additionally, there has been interest in
practical applications of this technology in animals for
example, how to make them more productive, grow
faster, have disease resistance or how to use them as
‘bioreactors’ to produce valuable human proteins.
However, these possible applications come with their
own suite of ethical and animal welfare issues to
address.
The advances in Animal Technology over the last 25
years have also impacted on animal welfare, husbandry
and the 3Rs, though not always with positive results.
Cages have largely switched from open-topped cages to
individually ventilated cages (IVCs) with in-built watering
systems, which may help maintain the health status of
the animals but may not be good for the animals’
natural behaviour or normal physiology as they cannot
smell neighbours or interact with each other if singly
housed. The increase in Specific-Pathogen-Free (SPF)
facilities is good for the animals’ health but also leads
to animals having an underdeveloped immune system
and simpler gut microbiota which does not accurately
reflect animals in the wild or humans. There has also
been an increase in the general understanding of
environmental enrichment needs and animal handling
techniques which cause less stress and promote better
welfare.
Alongside the technological advances of the last 25
years, we have seen better training programmes and
career structures becoming available for Animal
Technologists. This means that higher skilled
individuals are looking after the animals and are able to
carry out procedures but may also mean that scientists
are less likely to visit animal facilities and as a result
may have unrealistic expectations or develop less
empathy for their animals. Similarly, improved
databases and animal management systems may
appear to be beneficial as they offer more streamlining
and centralised control but may further contribute to
keeping scientists out of the animal facility.
Two encouraging trends underlie all the developments
discussed above. The first trend is one of much greater
transparency and openness in science which can be
seen in initiatives such as the Concordat on Openness
and the rise of open access publishing. The second is
an increase in genuine concern about animal welfare by
all those involved in research and, reflecting this, there
has been widespread adoption of the 3Rs, greatly
supported and assisted by Animal Technologists.
Rodent and rabbit welfare what
might the next 25 years hold?
Robert Hubrecht and Huw Golledge, UFAW
Laboratory animal science has come a long way in the
past 25 years. The genetic revolution has transformed
the way mice are used in research, bringing both
challenges and opportunities. We have also made
great strides in the way we care for rodents in the
laboratory, both by better understanding their needs
and by spreading that knowledge through training and
education. What might the next 25 years bring?
There are a variety of opportunities for replacing animal
models with non-animal alternatives, such as
organoids, ‘organ-on-a-chip’ technology, tissue culture,
imaging in humans, the use of data acquired from
animals undergoing routine clinical veterinar y
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 82
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting
83
treatment, risk or hazard assessment and modelling.
Some of these techniques are already established,
although it is not easy to predict how they may develop.
There are also oppor tunities which may lead to
reductions in animal numbers, although it is difficult to
estimate how many animals might be used in 25 years
(see Table 1 for the number of procedures conducted
on rodents and rabbits in 2017). For example,
initiatives like ShARM (Shared Ageing Research
Models) allow researchers to share resources such as
surplus tissues, reducing the total number of animals
needed to generate samples.
4
Sharing of data is also
likely to provide a major opportunity, through creation
of repositories of animal studies, or the use of ‘big’
epidemiological data from companion animals to study
drug efficacy in naturally occurring disease models.
Data sharing might also allow ‘read-across’ approaches
where similar chemical substances are grouped into
‘families’ for chemical safety assessments, so that
information on the toxicology of a well-understood
substance can be used to make inferences about
similar substances for which less information is
available without having to repeat animal studies.
A further way to reduce the numbers of research
animals is through better experimental design.
Evidence suggests that a large proportion of studies
that use animals fail to adhere to several principles of
good experimental design, such as randomisation or
blinding.
6
Addressing this problem would also help
improve the quality of science.
There will also be oppor tunities to further apply
refinements in animal research. Progress has already
been made, from the improved training of technologists
to better housing conditions (e.g. double-decker cages
for rats). However, progress can be slow for example,
although providing nesting material for mice is now
standard in the UK, this is not necessarily the case
elsewhere. To make further progress in refinement, an
overall better understanding of long-term welfare
impacts is needed, including insights into ‘cumulative
suffering’. By better understanding the welfare impacts
of both scientific procedures and life in the laboratory
on animals, we can gain a better understanding of
where refinement or replacement is most important.
The rise of automation in animal facilities offers
opportunities to improve welfare, as monitoring or
phenotyping of animals can be less invasive and yield
better data. Automation can also help avoid human
error for example, by avoiding the misidentification of
animals. However, there is also the possibility that
losing human input could lead to problems being
missed thus, a mixture of automation and human
attendance is necessary.
The techniques used for euthanasia in laboratory
animals offer yet another opportunity for refinement.
Carbon dioxide is now widely understood to be aversive
7
but, subject to proper evaluation, new technologies
could offer the possibility of humane and practical
alternatives, such as Low Atmospheric Pressure
Stunning (LAPS) or focussed microwave irradiation.
As with the other areas of the 3Rs, there are threats to
the future of refinement. For example, new animal
models developed in the future may be found to have
significant or unpredictable welfare implications.
Threats to refinement also exist where there is still a
lack of knowledge about animals’ needs for example,
relatively little is known about the social needs of
rabbits, or how best to keep male mice.
There may in future, also be occasions where reduction
and refinement conflict, for instance where fewer
animals can be used in longitudinal studies which
require repeated imaging under anaesthesia as an
alternative to using more animals which must be killed
to obtain samples. In such cases the cumulative
impact on individual animals may be greater (since
anaesthesia has an impact on welfare) but far fewer
animals will need to be used. In such circumstances
many prioritise the harm caused to individual animals
but the harm-benefit analysis will need to carefully
weigh Reduction against Refinement.
To conclude, it is possible that we will no longer be
using mammalian models in 25 years although if we
are, we can expect them to be more valid. However, the
best prediction we can make is that we will see
significant fur ther advances in the 3Rs, although we
must not forget that threats and challenges are also
likely to arise. Animal Technologists will continue to be
essential advocates for animals in the future.
Table 1. Numbers of rodents and rabbits used for
experimental procedures in the UK in 2017 according
to UK Home Office annual statistics.
5
Species Experimental
procedures
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Mouse (Mus musculus) 1,094,867
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Rat (Rattus norvegicus) 233,676
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Guinea-pig (Cavia porcellus) 22,560
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Hamster (Syrian) (Mesocricetus auratus) 1,126
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Hamster (Chinese) (Cricetulus griseus)0
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Mongolian Gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus) 311
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Other rodent 2,105
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) 10,362
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 83
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting
84
Building refinements for rabbits
into a new facility
Anna Slaviero, University of Surrey
Recent years have seen many new refinements of
various aspects of housing and husbandr y of rabbits.
This has also been reflected in the new ‘Code of
Practice for the housing and care of animals bred,
supplied or used for scientific purposes’ which sets out
the standard of care and accommodation for animals
under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
(ASPA).
8
At the University of Surrey we have aimed to improve
every aspect of our research work with rabbits over the
past three years. This has been beneficial for both
animals and research, as it is widely recognised that a
high standard of animal welfare makes sense from
ethical, legal, economic and scientific points of view.
The opening of our new animal facility was the chance
to apply and implement refinements on housing from
the early stage of facility design. This consequently
increased our opportunities to apply refinements in
other areas, such as husbandry and enrichment, to
improve animal welfare. It also allowed us to have a
state-of-the-art facility to further develop our work to
challenge and improve standard practices in different
animal procedures carried out at the University of
Surrey. This section tells the stor y of the
implementation of our rabbit housing refinements, and
how this affects refinements in husbandr y and
enrichment.
Prior to our redesign, our rabbit housing was typical of
many facilities. Rabbits were housed in cages singly or
in pairs, with the light, humidity and temperature of the
room controlled centrally. Although initial attempts to
improve rabbit welfare through socialisation, breeding
and habituation programmes were successful, the
opportunity to develop a new facility allowed us to take
these improvements a step fur ther.
In designing the new facility, planning discussions
involved as many stakeholders as possible: the
Establishment Licence Holder, the Home Office
inspector, architects and builders, NACWOs,
Veterinarians, Researchers and Animal Technologists.
We also had to consider several factors: did we want to
refurbish our old unit, or build a brand new unit? Where
should it be located? What was our budget? And how
could we meet both animal welfare and research
needs? The final design for the facility divided the unit
into three blocks. The first, the ‘noisy’ block, contains
the changing room, cage washers, autoclave, necropsy
suite and so on, in order to contain all areas that would
involve noise and minimise disturbance throughout the
rest of the facility. Animal housing and procedure
rooms are contained in the second ‘quiet’ block. The
third ‘super-quiet’ block, contains the surger y suite and
sleep suite. Building materials were chosen to
minimise noise transfer from one block to the next.
In contrast to the central control in the previous unit,
temperature and humidity are controlled separately for
each room. This allows us to have dif ferent
temperature and humidity for mouse or rabbit rooms
but also for the other rooms like the surgery suite and
cage wash. Two lighting systems are in place red
lights and LED lights to allow visual access to animals
out-of-hours without causing disturbance. The health
status of the animals is maintained through the
existence of negative pressure and air filters,
Individually Ventilated Cages (IVCs), decontamination
procedures using autoclaving or Vaporised Hydrogen
Peroxide (VHP).
Building on the refinements to rabbit housing and
husbandry we introduced in our old facility, the rabbit
rooms have various features to promote rabbit welfare.
Rooms have anti-slip flooring so that rabbits can move
easily when let out for play and exercise. A bespoke
modular pen system allows the pens to be adapted to
the needs of different rabbits. For example, new rabbits
can be settled into the facility in phases, starting in a
smaller, quiet space, with new areas opened as the
rabbits become more settled. Enrichment to encourage
play behaviour is available to the rabbits and the
equipment provided can be restructured to maintain
novelty. Enrichment, social experience and exercise are
all available to rabbits in our class II room as well as
the main rabbit room.
Furthermore refining the design of the facility, we also
introduced refinements relating to staff behaviour.
Technologists spend 10-15 minutes with the rabbits
each day in order to allow the rabbits to habituate to
their presence and to being held and checked.
Researchers are now required to visit the facility at
least three times over at least one week prior to
starting experiments to let rabbits habituate to them as
well. One outcome of this rule was that researchers
showed more concern for rabbit welfare when they
spent more time with the animals. We also introduced
positive reinforcement training procedures, such as
presenting rabbits with a basil leaf when they hop on a
scale, or training rabbits to associate certain odour
cues or music with positive experiences to promote
better welfare when rabbits are moved to the class II
room.
Although our refinements have helped improve rabbit
welfare, new refinements are being planned all the
time. For example, we hope to introduce burrowing pits
to encourage more natural behaviours. Continually
checking data, reviewing the results and putting
lessons learned into practice will continue to promote
and improve the welfare of our rabbits.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 84
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting
85
Exploring rabbit personalities
Clare Frances Ellis
1
, Wanda McCormick
2
,
Ambrose Tinarwo
3
and Helen Clegg
4
1
University of Northampton,
2
Anglia Ruskin University,
3
Hadlow College and
4
University of Buckinghamshire
Personality in animals has been an area of growing
interest over the past 10-15 years.
9-11
However,
attention from a variety of disciplines has led to a wide
range of different methods being employed to test for
and assess personality. While there have been an
increasing number of attempts to explore and describe
dog and cat personality in recent years, only limited
studies have explored personality and individual
behavioural profiles for rabbits. Validated tools to
assess personalities in rabbits may have applications
across a wide range of contexts, including at rehoming
centres, to select suitable animals for use in animal-
assisted therapy or specific research paradigms and to
understand the behaviour of rabbits in a laboratory
setting. Such tools may help in the selection of traits
that indicate which rabbits might cope better in captivity
or support the matching of individuals to particular
settings. In order to develop tools to explore possible
rabbit personalities and identify suitable assessment
methods for this species, we aimed to answer several
questions. Firstly, do rabbits show between-individual
variation and within-individual consistency in behaviour?
If so, what traits are important to a captive setting? And
finally, which tools are suitable to measure these?
The first tool we developed to explore rabbit personality
was based on a suite of behavioural tests. A sample of
52 mixed-sex adult rabbits from four land-based college
training units were assessed in two trials, spaced three
months apart. Trials consisted of an open field test,
time taken to exit a carrier, a novel substrate test and
a novel object test. Our results suggested that rabbits
showed evidence of individual differences in boldness,
activity and exploratory behaviour. Ten of the twenty
variables studied were consistent over time, indicating
that individual rabbits do show consistent differences
in these personality traits.
The second tool, the Rabbit Behaviour Rating Tool
(RaBRT), was derived from a literature search of rabbit
behaviour articles. We identified 47 behavioural
descriptors and each was rated on a 5-point scale by
pet owners and people that work with rabbits, with
1172 full responses received. Only 17 items
demonstrated fair to excellent inter-rater reliability.
Statistical analysis identified three key behavioural
indicators, which related to social interactions with
humans, activity levels and antisocial interactions with
humans.
In conclusion, we found that rabbits did show between
individual variation in behaviour which could be
detected using both tools, although the specific traits
that could be measured depended on the tool being
used. Behavioural tests also indicated a low-moderate
level of individual consistency over time. Further
validation studies are underway, including validation of
these potential behaviour assessment tools and
comparisons to home cage behaviour observations.
A natural approach how to
increase rat nest building
behaviour in a laboratory
environment
Demi Minhinnett, Durham University
Rats account for a large proportion of scientific
procedures on animals every year in the UK; in 2017
rat use accounted for 6.3% of all procedures.
5
This is
one reason why it is vital to focus on the welfare of
laboratory rats, including allowing them to exhibit
natural behaviours, such as nest building. However, it
is not always easy to facilitate natural behaviours and
nest building behaviour in rats (in the laborator y) is not
as commonly observed as it is in mice. Whilst mice
have been observed to spontaneously nest build when
provided with nesting materials in laboratory settings,
rats may not do so, suggesting that nest building in rats
is a learned, rather than innate, behaviour.
12
We
proposed to give rats the opportunity to learn to build
nests, trialling different nesting materials and noting
the effects on nest building behaviour.
The nesting materials included in the trial were
selected by considering the kinds of materials rats
would naturally encounter in the wild, such as grasses.
Rats were therefore provided with one of three different
kinds of material for this study: hay, paper wool, or a
mix of hay and paper wool. The rats used were all
breeding females from either Wistar or Lister Hooded
strains, and none had exhibited nest-building behaviour
before being included in the trial. The quality of the
nests produced was also assessed based on a system
used to score mouse nests.
13
Several rats in the trial exhibited nest building
behaviour but only when provided with hay, or a mix of
hay and paper wool. This was thought to be due to the
architectural properties of hay: providing hay allowed
nests to be built upwards and outwards to create ball-
shaped nests, which score highly when assessing nest
quality. The presence of hay was also beneficial for
litter production: when rats were provided with paper
wool and no hay, pups tended to be found scattered
throughout the nest (Figure 1) and mother rats showed
more signs of disturbance when the cage was opened
scurrying around the cage and attempting to move
pups under the hopper. Two litters were also
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 85
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting
86
abandoned and two dead pups were found. In contrast,
when hay was provided, pups tended to be found in a
cluster in a nest (Figure 1), mother rats showed less
disturbed behaviour and there were no litter
abandonments or pup deaths.
This trial highlights the importance of looking at an
animal’s natural history to find ways to promote natural
behaviours, which may have notable impacts on the
animal’s welfare. By attending to the natural history
and natural behaviour of laborator y animals, we can
learn more about how to best support them in a
laboratory setting.
Modifying laboratory rat housing
for improved welfare
Rebecca Terry, University College London
The importance of allowing rats space to stand on their
hind legs is largely recognised (e.g. by the NC3Rs and
RSPCA)
14–16
but most current caging does not provide
the height to allow for this. Not being able to stand up
limits rats’ ability to express natural behaviours and is
thought to lead to muscle wastage in their hind legs.
Conventional cages may also not provide enough room
for rats to express play behaviour, and can expose
albino rats to too much light, causing retinal
degradation.
17
We therefore aimed to improve the
welfare of the rats kept at UCL Cruciform by modifying
the cages to allow this additional height.
Various factors had to be considered in order to
produce a feasible cage design. The room needed to be
able to house a similar number of rats as could be
housed in the conventional cages, but research
equipment stored in the room could not be moved,
space was limited, racks could not be made larger, and
cages which would require additional equipment, such
as air handling units for IVCs, were not feasible. The
new cage designs had to meet several requirements
within these limits: cages needed to provide adequate
height for rats to stand at full height, provide a higher
level of enrichment and have space to provide hides to
minimise potential retinal damage. Cages also had to
be a financially feasible option for other facilities and
the change to new cages had to be hassle-free in order
to encourage others to adopt the new design.
In order to provide more space within these limits, the
total number of cages in the room was reduced from 80
to 64. This did not affect rat research as the room was
rarely operating at full capacity. This revision created
more vertical space in each rack, allowing a total of 14
cm extra height to be added to each cage. To add this
space, a modified raised hopper based on the
Tecniplast -123 series was added to the conventional
cage bases already in place. Shelving was added to the
room to replace the cage racks this shelving is cost
effective, adjustable and can be dismantled when not
in use to maximise space in the room.
The new design of the cages resulted in a total height
of 35cm, which should allow an adult rat to stand
comfortably. These taller cages also allow space for
deeper litter to encourage digging and a shelter to
protect from light. Enrichment designed to encourage
play behaviour can be suspended from the bars to
increase floor space and can allow individual rats to
spend time away from one another. These changes,
promoting natural rat behaviours, are likely to result in
data obtained from the rat, being of improved quality.
Furthermore, from a practical perspective, adjusting
the cage height rather than designing a larger cage
base means that cages are not significantly heavier
than before, making it easier for staff to move and
clean them.
The changes made to the current caging are likely to be
highly beneficial for rats, as well as practical and cost-
Figure 1. Images of rat pups scattered throughout the
nest made from paper wool (left) and pups clustered
together in nest made of hay (right).
Credit: Demi Minhinnett.
Figure 2. Conventional rat cage (left) and rat cage with
modified hopper (right). The modified hopper allows
space for more enrichment and for rats to rear to full
height.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 86
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting
87
effective for staff. Tecniplast have therefore produced
a prototype based on the changes made and further
adjustments will be made to the design before they are
developed. This demonstrates that relatively simple
changes can be made which are likely to greatly
improve the quality of life of laboratory animals.
Severity classification of repeated
anaesthesia
Katharina Hohlbaum
1,2
, Bettina Bert
2,3
Silke Dietze
2
, Heidrun Fink
2
, Christa Thöne-
Reineke
1
1
Institute of Animal Welfare, Animal Behavior and
Laboratory Animal Science, Department of Veterinary
Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
2
Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department
of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin,
Germany
3
German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR),
German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory
Animals (Bf3R), Germany
Within the concept of the 3Rs of Russell and Burch
18
one strategy to reduce the number of laboratory
animals is the repeated use of a cohort of animals
over the course of an experiment. For example, in
imaging studies, animals are anaesthetised each time
imaging is carried out to avoid ar tefacts caused by
unpredictable movements. However, little is known
about the effects of repeated anaesthesia, which may
have a greater impact on the wellbeing of the animals
than a single anaesthetic episode.
19
The 3Rs
advantages of repeated animal usage are therefore
only relevant if the animals involved do not experience
more suffering, pain or distress than animals used for
single procedures. Reflecting the lack of knowledge in
this area, Directive 2010/63/EU states that the
severity of general anaesthesia is mild but does not
differentiate between single and repeated
anaesthesia. We therefore aimed to investigate the
welfare impacts of single and repeated anaesthesia
on mice.
In order to examine the effects of repeated
anaesthesia, we explored the effects of two common
anaesthetic methods on adult C57BL/6JRj mice of
both sexes: inhalation of isoflurane (induction: 4.0%;
maintenance: 1.75–2.50%) in 100% O
2
for 45 minutes
and injection with a combination of ketamine (80
mg/kg) and xylazine (16 mg/kg) (KX). For each method,
mice were randomly allocated to either control, single
anaesthesia, or repeated anaesthesia groups
(anaesthesia every 3-4 days, a total of six times).
Welfare was assessed after the last anaesthetic
episode according to our protocol systemic
assessment of wellbeing in mice for procedures using
general anaesthesia, https://paperpile.com/c/
EbWJuJ/racD
20
which includes the Mouse Grimace
Scale (MGS), burrowing and nest building, the free-
exploratory test for anxiety-related behaviour, home
cage activity, food intake, and bodyweight, as well as
the analysis of faecal corticosterone metabolites (FCM)
for acute stress (24 h post-anaesthesia). In addition,
hair corticosterone concentrations were measured.
We found that neither single nor repeated use of
isoflurane influenced nest building, home cage activity,
bodyweight, FCM or hair cor ticosterone
concentrations.
21
Isoflurane increased MGS scores in
female mice 30 minutes after anaesthesia compared
with controls but scores did not differ between single
and repeated anaesthesia. Repeated anaesthesia
reduced burrowing behaviour in both males and
females and increased time before displaying
exploratory behaviour in female mice, indicating greater
levels of anxiety than those exposed to single
anaesthesia or controls.
21
Anaesthesia with KX did not affect nest building, home
cage activity, or hair corticosterone concentrations.
22
Both single and repeated KX anaesthesia increased
MGS scores 150 minutes after anaesthesia compared
with controls. Repeated KX anaesthesia increased the
time before displaying exploratory behaviour in female
mice one day after anaesthesia, although single
anaesthesia did not. However, after eight days, female
mice exposed to single or repeated anaesthesia
showed greater time before exploring than controls.
Changes in food intake and FCM excretion indicated an
increased stress response in male mice after single KX
anaesthesia, although there was no effect of repeated
anaesthesia.
22
Besides the degree of pain, suffering, distress or
lasting harm, an understanding of the duration of the
negative effects is essential for severity classification
of any procedure. Although we saw behaviours
suggesting increased anxiety following repeated
isoflurane anaesthesia, these would be associated
with mild, rather than moderate, levels of severity and
the wellbeing of the mice was affected for only a short
term mainly in the immediate post-anaesthetic
period.
21
In our view, therefore, the severity of repeated
isoflurane anaesthesia in C57BL/6JRj mice can be
classified as mild. This also applies for other protocols
using a comparable anaesthesia regime. However,
severity may deviate if a different anaesthesia regime,
mice of a different age, other mouse strains, or other
mouse disease models are used. Within the mild
severity category, repeated isoflurane anaesthesia
would clearly be of higher severity than a single
isoflurane anaesthesia.
20
For the final severity
classification of repeated KX anaesthesia, further
investigations are needed in order to specifically
determine the effects on anxiety and the duration of
the mild distress indicated by changes in food intake
and FCM excretion.
22
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 87
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting
88
Welfare implications of different
identification methods for mice
Dominic Wells, Royal Veterinary College
A variety of methods for marking mice, both permanent
and temporary, are used in UK laboratories, but little is
known about the animal welfare impacts of these
methods. A survey of animal units showed that ear
punching and notching are the most common mouse
identification methods, followed by marking with ink on
the tail.
23
We therefore chose these methods for further
investigation into their welfare impacts on marked mice.
We initially explored the effects of ear punching and
notching on male and female C57BL/6 and Balb/c
mice. Mice were either i) ear punched, ii) ear notched,
iii) restrained or iv) not handled, and behavioural
measures of welfare and faecal samples for
corticosterone measurement were collected. Mice
showed an immediate head star tle response to
punching and notching compared with restrained mice
as well as more grooming and freezing behaviour in
their home cages. However, no significant differences
in faecal corticosterone levels were found. Ear notched
mice also ate less novel food the following day,
indicating higher levels of anxiety, than unrestrained
control mice.
Next, we examined whether marking mice with a marker
pen or using local anaesthetic alongside ear punching
would improve welfare indicators in marked mice. Male
Balb/c mice were housed in pairs, with one mouse
from each pair undergoing either ear punching, ear
punching with the application of EMLA cream
(lidocaine/prilocaine), marking with a permanent
marker pen or no marking. The second mouse in each
pair was unmarked. As marking mice with a pen would
need to be repeated regularly, marker pen was applied
weekly for the duration of the experiment, whereas ear
punching was only done in week 1. The welfare of the
animals during marking was assessed by counting the
number of animals which defecated during the marking
process. In the first week, similar numbers of mice
defecated during marking, regardless of the method
used. However, defaecation during marking with a
marker pen significantly decreased by week 3,
suggesting that mice had habituated to the method.
Furthermore, mice that were ear-punched, whether or
not EMLA cream was applied, were more likely to
receive grooming from the unmarked mouse they were
housed with, whilst those that received an ear punch
and EMLA cream application were more likely to groom
their ears and less likely to eat novel food.
In conclusion, we found that ear punching and notching
appear to cause short-term pain and anxiety to mice
but that application of a local anaesthetic cream did
not help to alleviate these responses and caused
greater behavioural disturbance. Our results suggest
that regular use of a permanent marker pen is a
reasonable option which mice appear to habituate to.
This may therefore be a good refinement option for
those needing to mark individual mice.
How modern imaging techniques
contribute to the 3Rs
Thomas Snoeks, The Francis Crick Institute
Over the last decade, imaging has made its way into
most academic animal facilities. At The Francis Crick
Institute, for example, we use bioluminescence and
fluorescence, ultrasound, microCT, 9.4T MRI, PET/MRI,
SPECT/CT and intra-vital microscopy. The use of
imaging and the wide range of techniques on offer, can
make a valuable contribution to the 3Rs in a number of
ways, by helping to reduce the number of animals used,
refining techniques and helping in the earlier
anticipation of disease.
One of the major benefits of using imaging techniques
is that they allow longitudinal measurements. This
means a single cohort of animals can be used over
time, reducing the total number of animals used.
Longitudinal measurements can also improve
experimental design, as they yield paired data,
meaning that studies have higher statistical power than
designs which yield unpaired data. Imaging also allows
more flexible time points to be used in experiments.
However, there are potential welfare impacts to
consider, as repeated imaging sessions will involve
repeated anaesthesia (see above), which requires a
careful harm-benefit assessment.
Although reducing animal use is a decided benefit of
using imaging techniques, the impact of imaging on
animal research stretches beyond this straightforward
reduction in numbers. Imaging can also offer
refinement opportunities for instance, by reducing
intra-obser ver variation. Various image-guided
approaches can also be used, such as image-guided
injection or image-guided irradiation. For example,
ultrasound imaging can be used to guide injections into
the pancreas, hepatic portal vein, or other organs or
tissues without the need for additional surgery. Image-
guided injection has been used at the FCI to produce
mice with lentiviral-mediated transgenic skin, leaving
the rest of the mouse unmodified and therefore
avoiding certain pathologies that may be associated
with that transgenic model. Image-guided irradiation
can also make it easier to shield tissues that are not
of interest and better target tissues that are of interest.
Other areas in which imaging techniques can offer
refinement opportunities include the anticipation of
disease. Early disease detection allows for refined
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 88
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting
89
experimental protocols where animals are enrolled into
experiments before the onset of over t clinical
symptoms, which can reduce the degree of suffering
the animal experiences. Researchers are also able to
better identify the animals they want to include in their
experiments for example, imaging can be used to
detect tumours and assess whether they are the right
size to be included in a study. Imaging can also be used
in the phenotyping of new models – for example,
imaging allows the contraction of the heart or blood
flow through the aorta to be compared in different
subjects.
In summary, the use of the wide variety of imaging
techniques available offers opportunities for both
reduction in the number of animals used, generating
paired data and lower intra-observer reliability, and
refinement in procedures, through early disease
detection, image-guided methods and phenotyping.
Whilst the welfare impacts of repeated anaesthesia
must be contrasted with the alternative of using a
greater number of animals, researchers can make
changes to their experiments to effectively contribute
to the 3Rs by exploring and applying the imaging
techniques available at their own institutions.
Home Office update: food and
water
John Marshall, Animals in Science Regulation
Unit, Home Office
The freedom from hunger and thirst is the first of the
Five Freedoms to which all animals are entitled (Box 1).
Therefore, the provision of food and water to
experimental animals is a fundamental part of ensuring
animal welfare. Establishment licence (PEL) standard
condition 4(3) states that protected animals must be
provided with food and water unless authorised by the
Secretary of State (i.e. as an experimental procedure),
and PIL holders are entrusted with the primary
responsibility for animals on whom they have
performed regulated procedures. Failure to provide
food and water causes unnecessary suffering and
potentially death of animals, while experimental data
and therefore the benefits of animal use are lost.
However, failure to provide food and water does occur
and is a major concern for ASRU.
Failure to provide food and water as part of the normal
care and husbandry of animals represents a significant
cause of non-compliance, accounting for approximately
20% of non-compliance cases annually.
25
For many of
these cases, the causes fit into certain themes, such
as changes in housing, lack of communication,
occurrences over weekends and failure to identify the
problem over multiple checks.
Changes in housing, whether these are following
transportation or delivery of animals, due to the use of
weaning or splitting cages, or after procedures, are a
common cause of failure to provide food and water.
This is particularly found to be the case where both are
missing. A lack of communication between facility staff
and researchers and a lack of understanding of
responsibility are linked to this for example, after a
procedure where food or water has been withheld there
may be confusion as to which team member is
responsible for returning food or water to the cage.
Another common feature of cases of non-compliance
due to lack of food and water is that issues tend to
occur over the weekend, perhaps due to changes in
staffing or the checking schedule. Lack of food and
water is often identified on a Monday, meaning that the
initial incident leading to food and water not being
provided has usually occurred the previous week. In
these cases, where food and water have been absent
for several days, the most severe consequences for
animal welfare tend to occur. These cases are also
particularly concerning, as this usually means that
several different people have checked the animals and
failed to note the lack of food and water.
There are a number of relatively easy interventions that
can be done to reduce the risk of non-compliance. For
example, within the animal unit, the set-up of animal
housing should make it easy to observe animals, and
overcrowding should be avoided. It can also be helpful
to identify units that may be ‘at-risk’ for example,
isolators, cabinets, recovery areas or any rooms
outside the main facility – so that these can be
appropriately addressed. Staff should also consider
what the most effective system of checks would be for
their unit. Technology inter ventions that have
automated checking of food and water may also help
here but should be an addition to, not an alternative to,
human checks. During the meeting, we asked
participants to share their own good practice tips to
help ensure animals do not go without food or water.
These are listed below:
1. Have multiple checks throughout the day usually
one in the morning and one in the afternoon.
Box 1. The Five Freedoms.
24
G Freedom from hunger and thirst
G Freedom from discomfort
G Freedom from pain, injury or disease
G Freedom to express normal behaviour
G Freedom from fear and distress
They were originally set out for farmed animals by
the Farm Animal Welfare Council but are often
applied in other contexts.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 89
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting
90
Ideally, each check should be done by a different
person.
2. When checking for water, make sure that water
bottles are touched and not just observed.
3. Make sure labelling is informative, especially if
animals have special requirements. For example,
weaning mice are clearly labelled at an
establishment where these are uncommon.
4. Ensure the NACWO is made aware of any absence
of food or water, even if this is short term.
5. Carry out random audits of rooms to check general
performance across a unit, as well as to flag any
specific racks or rooms that might be higher risk.
6. Ensure that the roles and responsibilities of Animal
Technologists are clearly defined for example, by
assigning individual rooms or areas to different
people, or by ensuring clear instructions are
present as to who should return food and water
(and when) if these have been restricted as part of
a procedure.
7. Consider using a timer when animals are on diet or
water restriction, so that when the timer goes off it
serves as a reminder to return the food or water
bottle.
8. Although automation may help avoid situations
where there is a lack of food or water, or other
undesirable situations, be aware that it is not a
per fect solution, and automation should be
combined with checking from staff as well.
Editors Note. The IAT Animal Welfare Group has
published an advice notice on the Feeding and Watering
of Laboratory Animals. and is available to download
from the IAT website www.iat.org.uk/news
. This
document aims to provide advice with a focus on the
role of Animal Technologists, on the steps to be taken
to ensure compliance with the terms of ASPA standard
condition 4.
Meeting action points
The following is a list of action points, based on all the
presentations and discussions, which may be of use to
you in your facility:
If your facility is being refurbished, or a new facility
is being built, ask the NACWO and/or NVS to ensure
that all Named Persons and Animal Technologists
have appropriate input into the design, so that new
thinking about refinement can be fully incorporated.
Encourage researchers to visit the facility regularly
(if they do not already), to encourage greater
awareness of the animals’ welfare needs.
Be aware that (like many other species) rabbits can
have different personalities, which may have
implications for welfare assessment, evaluating
refinement, and day-to-day care.
Ask for a review of the amount and type of nesting
material provided for rodents at your establishment,
especially rats. If nests have not been of good
quality to date, consider trying different materials or
offering a combination of materials.
If rats are housed in cages that do not allow them
to stand up at your facility, ask for this to be
discussed at the AWERB (using the paper by
Makowska & Weary, reference [16] below). Could a
plan be drawn up to change to taller caging?
If you are caring for animals undergoing repeated
general anaesthesia using gaseous agents, discuss
the potential for increased anxiety with the
researcher and include indicators of anxiety, such
as reduced exploratory behaviours, in welfare
assessment protocols.
Ask for a discussion and review of the methods
used to mark mice at your facility, using the section
on Welfare implications of different identification
methods for mice’, above.
If imaging is used within scientific protocols at your
establishment, ask the researcher(s) to give a
presentation to animal unit staff, so that you can
learn more about different imaging techniques and
have a discussion on further opportunities to
implement the 3Rs.
Initiate a review of protocols in place to ensure
animals do not go without food or water at your
establishment – and watch out for forthcoming
guidance from the Institute of Animal Technology on
this topic.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all the speakers and delegates for their
talks and discussions.
References
1
Campbell, K.H., McWhir, J., Ritchie, W.A. and Wilmut, I.
(1996). Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured
cell line. Nature, 380 (6569), 64-66.
2
Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A.E., McWhir, J., Kind, A.J. and
Campbell, K.H. (1997). Viable offspring derived from fetal
and adult mammalian cells. Nature, 385 (6619), 810-
813.
3
Chalfie, M., Tu, Y., Euskirchen, G., Ward, W.W. and
Prasher, D.C. (1994). Green fluorescent protein as a
marker for gene expression. Science, 263 (5148), 802-
805.
4
Morrissey, B., Blyth, K., Carter, P., Chelala, C., Jones, L.,
Holen, I. and Speirs, V. (2017). The Sharing Experimental
Animal Resources, Coordinating Holdings (SEARCH)
Framework: Encouraging Reduction, Replacement, and
Refinement in Animal Research. PLoS Biology, 15(1),
e2000719.
5
UK Home Office. (2018). Statistics of scientific
procedures on living animals, Great Britain 2017.
Download from: https://www.gov.uk/government/
statistics/statistics-of-scientific-procedures-on-living-
animals-great-britain-2017
6
Cressey, D. (2015). Poorly designed animal experiments
in the spotlight. Nature News.
7
Leach, M.C., Bowell, V.A., Allan, T.F. and Morton, D.B.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 90
Report of the 2018 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group meeting
91
(2002). Aversion to gaseous euthanasia agents in rats
and mice. Comparative Medicine, 52(3), 249-257.
8
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. (1986). Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/14/contents
Accessed November 22, 2018
9
Briffa, M. and Weiss, A. (2010). Animal personality.
Current Biology, 20 (21), R912-4.
10
Highfill, L., Hanbury, D., Kristiansen, R., Kuczaj, S. and
Watson, S. (2010). Rating vs. coding in animal
personality research. Zoo Biology, 29(4), 509-516.
11
Gosling, S.D. (2001). From mice to men: what can we
learn about personality from animal research?
Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 45-86.
12
Van Loo, P.L.P. and Baumans, V. (2004). The importance
of learning young: the use of nesting material in
laboratory rats. Laboratory Animals, 38(1), 17-24.
13
Deacon, R.M.J. (2006). Assessing nest building in mice.
Nature Protocols, 1(3), 1117-1119.
14
RSPCA. (2011). Rats: Good practice for housing and
care. Download from: https://science.rspca.org.uk/
sciencegroup/researchanimals/repor tsandresources/
housingandcare.
15
NC3Rs. (2013). Housing and husbandry of rodents.
NC3Rs. Available at: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/3rs-
resources/housing-and-husbandr y/rodents. Accessed
November 20, 2018.
16
Makowska, I.J. and Weary, D.M. (2016). The impor tance
of burrowing, climbing and standing upright for laborator y
rats. Royal Society Open Science, 3(6), 160136.
17
Burn, C.C. (2008). What is it like to be a rat? Rat sensor y
perception and its implications for experimental design
and rat welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,
112(1), 1-32.
18
Russell, W.M.S and Burch, R.L. The principles of humane
experimental technique. Pub. Universities Federation for
Animal Welfare, 1992. Special edition ISBN 0900767782
9780900767784.
19
Hawkins, P., Prescott, M.J., Carbone, L., Dennison, N.,
Johnson, C., Makowska, I.J., Marquardt, N., Readman,
G., Weary, D.M. and Golledge, H.D.R. (2016). A Good
Death? Report of the Second Newcastle Meeting on
Laboratory Animal Euthanasia. Animals, 6(9).
20
Hohlbaum, K., Bert, B., Dietze, S., Palme, R., Fink, H.
and Thöne-Reineke, C. (2018). Systematic assessment
of well-being in mice for procedures using general
anesthesia. Journal of Visualized Experiments, (133).
21
Hohlbaum, K., Bert, B., Dietze, S., Palme, R., Fink, H.
and Thöne-Reineke, C. (2017). Severity classification of
repeated isoflurane anesthesia in C57BL/6JRj mice
Assessing the degree of distress. PLOS One, 12(6),
e0179588.
22
Hohlbaum, K., Bert, B., Dietze, S., Palme, R., Fink, H.
and Thöne-Reineke, C. (2018). Impact of repeated
anesthesia with ketamine and xylazine on the well-being
of C57BL/6JRj mice. PLOS One, 13(9), e0203559.
23
Mazlan, N.H., Salesansky, N.L., Burn, C.C. and Wells,
D.J. (2014). Mouse identification methods and potential
welfare issues: A survey of current practice in the UK.
Animal Technology and Welfare, 13(1).
24
Home Office. (2018, March 12). Animals in Science
Regulation Unit Annual Report 2016. GOV.UK. GOV.UK.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/animals-in-science-regulation-unit-annual-
report-2016. Accessed November 22, 2018.
25
Farm Animal Welfare Council. (2009). Farm animal
welfare in Great Britain: past, present and future.
Download from: https://assets.publishing.ser vice.gov.
uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d
ata/file/319292/Farm_Animal_Welfare_in_Great_Britain
_-_Past__Present_and_Future.pdf.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 91
92
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 92
93
A comparison of enrichment items for the
promotion of natural gnawing behaviour in
laboratory mice
IRENE LOPEZ JUARISTI
University College London, Biological Services, Cruciform Building, Gower Street, London
WC1E 6BT
Correspondence: irene.lopez@ucl.ac.uk
Based on a report to the UCL Collective Laboratory Animal Welfare Society (CLAWS)
Abstract
Appropriate housing and husbandr y, including
environmental enrichment, must take the natural
habitat, biology and behaviour of each species into
consideration.
1
The Guide for the Care and Use of
Laboratory Animals (1996)
2
states that the goal should
always be to maximise species-specific behaviours and
minimise stress-induced behaviours.
This report is a Collective Laboratory Animal Welfare
Society (CLAWS) initiative to test different types of
chew blocks to promote gnawing behaviour and see
which one is the most enriching for mice. University
College London (UCL) is constantly considering new
initiatives that challenge current standards of good
animal welfare. This trial was completed by two
collaborating UCL Biological Ser vices facilities:
Institute of Ophthalmology (IoO) and the Cruciform.
Key words: Mice, natural behaviour, species-specific
behaviour, environmental enrichment, chew blocks.
Introduction and aims of the report
Housing and husbandry have a major impact on
laboratory animal health and welfare. Determining the
amount or form of environmental enrichment needed to
produce a positive impact without causing harm is a
complex task.
3
It is also important to recognise and
promote positive/good welfare; for example, when
evaluating the effects of refinement techniques such
as environmental enrichment.
4
Malocclusion is a common problem seen in laboratory
mice. It occurs when the incisors overgrow because the
jaws are misaligned
5
, and the mandibular and maxillary
teeth do not properly occlude (Figure 1). Basic
requirements for good rodent housing and husbandry
are to provide material to gnaw (e.g. wooden blocks).
August 2019 Animal Technology and Welfare
Figure 1. Mice have one upper pair and one lower pair
of incisors at the front of their mouths which they use
to grip and bite their food or other objects.
Malocclusion occurs when the incisors overgrow
because the mandibular and maxillary teeth are not
normally aligned.
5
This prevents the teeth from overgrowing, encourages
exploration behaviour, reduces abnormal behaviour
(such as aggression and apathy) and maintains general
wellbeing.
6
The purpose of this trial was to carr y out a comparison
of enrichment items for the promotion of natural
gnawing behaviour in laboratory mice. The aim of the
study was to analyse different chew items available for
laboratory mice to decide which one was most suitable
for fulfilling the needs of this behaviour.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 93
A comparison of enrichment items for the promotion of natural gnawing behaviour in laboratory mice
94
Material and methods
The IoO and the Cruciform Biological Ser vices facilities,
tested 5 wooden chew blocks over 28 days (Figure 2):
Aspen balls (1)
Aspen chew sticks (2)
Flat chew stick (3)
Aspen bricks (4)
Lolly sticks (5)
The following table contains the specifications of each
product used in the study:
Each trial group consisted of four cages of the same
strain of mouse (twenty cages in total) with a similar
number of mice housed. The gender used was based
on availability of existing stock. Each cage was
provided with an item in the morning, which was
weighed, replaced if completely gnawed and this
information was recorded on the data sheet.
The trial was constructed in two parts.
Every day, for a period of 14 days, the item was
weighed and recorded on the data sheet (if an item had
been completely gnawed, it was replaced).
Original cages were kept, and groups randomised. Old
wooden chews from the first part of the trial were
removed and the new item was weighed and recorded
for 14 days.
Results
A simple way to quantify gnawing is by weighing the
chewing item. We hypothesised that, the higher the
weight reduction of the product, the more it was gnawed
on (graph A). Using weight loss as a reference, the order
of preference was from favourite to least favourite:
1st Aspen chew stick
2nd Flat chew stick
3rd Aspen brick
4th Lolly stick
5th Aspen balls (*)
* In this study the Aspen ball group had to be removed
from the analysis due to lack of evidence of usage as
a chew item.
These results do not contain information for the Aspen
ball, leaving four items to compare: Aspen chew sticks,
Aspen bricks, flat chew stick and lolly sticks.
In the Aspen bricks and lolly sticks groups, one item
lasted for the whole 14 days of the trial whereas, the
Aspen chew sticks needed to be replaced in 70% of the
cages (sometimes more than once) and the flat chew
in just one cage (graph B).
Table 1. Products used during trial.
Item Dimensions Material Supplier
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1 Aspen 30mm (diameter) aspen Datesand
Ball x 100mm (perimeter) wood
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
2 Aspen 112mm (length) x 10mm aspen Labodia
Chew (width) x2mm (height) wood
Stick
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
3 Flat 150mm (length) birch Aston
Chew x18mm (width) wood Pharma
Stick x 1.6mm (height)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
4 Aspen 50mm (length) x10mm aspen Datesand
Brick (width) x10mm (height) wood
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
5 Lolly 112mm (length) x10mm unknown Amazon
Stick (width) x2mm (height) wood
Figure 2. Types of wooden chew items used.
Graph A. Four wooden chew blocks: aspen chew sticks,
aspen bricks, flat chew stick, and lolly sticks. 14 days
weight loss measurements per item.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 94
A comparison of enrichment items for the promotion of natural gnawing behaviour in laboratory mice
95
Each chew block had different properties such as size or
material made of, making it difficult to make a direct
comparison of use. As our purpose was to compare the
usage, an average between the four cages was measured
and recorded each day (one test group), and calculated.
Graph B. Amount of times aspen chew sticks and flat
chew sticks were added due to the complete use of the
previous item.
Graphs 1-3. Graph 1: Four wooden chew blocks: aspen
chew sticks, aspen bricks, flat chew stick, and lolly
sticks, weight loss measurements per item for 14 days.
Graph 2: Weight loss of items during the first week.
Graph 3: Weight loss of items during the second week.
Graph 1 shows chew block item usage/weight loss over
14 days. Graphs 2 and 3 demonstrate and compare
the difference in usage during the first and second
week of the trial.
Graph 3 suggests that during the second week the
usage rate (or weight loss) in all items slowed down.
A single-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that
there is a statistically significant difference between
the four groups tested (p-value (=0.004108) < 0.05).
However, the ANOVA does not tell you where the
difference lies. A Tukey HSD (“honestly significant
difference” or “honest significant difference”) test was
then conducted to ascertain where the difference lies.
When comparing each pair of chew blocks, the Tukey
HSD showed that there were honest significant
differences between:
Aspen chew stick vs aspen brick (graph 4a).
Aspen chew stick vs lolly stick (graphs 4b).
Figure 3. Visual difference in wooden chew items
before and after a week trial.
Graphs 4a and 4b.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 95
A comparison of enrichment items for the promotion of natural gnawing behaviour in laboratory mice
96
On the other hand, no honest significant differences
were found between:
Aspen chew stick vs flat chew stick (graph 5a)
Flat chew stick vs aspen brick (graph 5b)
Flat chew stick vs lolly stick (graph 5c)
Aspen brick vs lolly stick (graph 5d)
Discussion
The Guide for the Care and Use of Laborator y
Animals (1996)
2
states that the goal should always be
to maximise species-specific behaviours and minimise
stress-induced behaviours. According to NC3Rs,
4
if a
sick animal needs to be euthanatised, the research
project will need to use more animals to obtain the
same research information. Therefore, it will fail on two
of the basic 3Rs’ principles for animal welfare,
refinement and reduction.
The trial results posed a few questions:
1. Should we rotate chew items during weekly cleaning
process to keep the animal’s interest in gnawing?
2. What about the costs for the unit?
3. What about the practicality in terms of how often the
technologist needs to replace chew items?
The statistical analysis indicates that there were
significant differences between the four groups and the
Tukey test confirmed that the Aspen chew stick was
the most chewed. However, as the usage of Aspen
chew sticks was very high, 70% of the cages had a new
block added (sometimes more than once) as it had
been completely gnawed. This could lead to the
conclusion that Aspen chew sticks are the best option.
On the other hand, in terms of cost, the animal facility
will need to hold more of this product in stock,
considering the amount needed in just one cage during
two weeks of observations. In means of practicality, the
technologist must monitor the amount of stick left in
the cage and replace it when it is completely gnawed,
therefore disturbing the animals more frequently.
The cost factor and practicality are the same for the
three groups left to consider. Statistically speaking, the
second-best option was the flat chew stick, there is
constant usage along the two weeks (graphs 5b and
5c). Finally, both the Aspen brick and the Lolly stick
were highly used until day 6 of observations. However,
from day 7 there was a reduced use potentially due to
a loss of interest (graph 5d).
It is important to consider another factor: the supplier.
The health of the animal must always be considered.
Although during the trial no animals showed signs of
illness, the lolly sticks (supplier: Amazon) had not been
tested on animals and the type of wood is unknown.
Therefore, considering both the Aspen bricks and the
Lolly sticks usage was similar, and there were no
significant differences between groups, it is safer to
discard the Lolly sticks as a possible chew item.
Conclusions and recommendations
The aim of the study was to compare different chew
items available for laboratory mice to decide which one
is the most suitable as part of cage enrichment for
fulfilling animals’ natural needs such as gnawing
(promoting teeth wearing).
Graphs 5a-d.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 96
A comparison of enrichment items for the promotion of natural gnawing behaviour in laboratory mice
97
According to the results we should rotate chew items
during weekly cleaning process to keep animal’s
interest on gnawing to prevent habituation to
enrichment and any health impact. Novelty is an
important factor to consider in this matter. When a new
item is provided as part of the enrichment, we
encourage the animal’s natural behaviour of exploring
the new territory. This behaviour promotes gnawing
activity as part of the discovery of their territory.
Once the novelty factor disappears, habituation to the
enrichment occurs with all items.
Rotating between two different items may help to keep
an active interest. The difference in shape and
materials are decisive factors. The flat chew stick and
aspen brick are different in both shape and wood. The
first one is bigger and flat birchwood, while the brick is
thicker, smaller and made of Aspen wood.
Constant gnawing activity has a high positive health
impact on laboratory animals. Signs of poor health
would interfere with the studies they are involved in.
Considering the cost and disturbance factor the
recommended strategy for best animal welfare will be:
1. Rotate the chew blocks between the flat chew stick
and the aspen brick.
2. Change the enrichment when cleaning cage to avoid
unnecessar y disturbance, unless the item is
completely gnawed before cleaning.
Acknowledgements
I am particularly grateful for the assistance given by
Zoe Windsor for her constructive recommendations and
her willingness to give her time so generously. Special
thanks to Kirsty Butler for her professional guidance
and enthusiastic encouragement during the planning of
this study. I would also like to express my deep
gratitude to Danny Contillo from The Institute of
Ophthalmology (IoO) and Lizzie Steptoe from The
Cruciform Building for their help in collecting the data.
I wish to acknowledge the help provided by Cortex Lab
for kindly providing the mice for the study. Finally, I wish
to extend my thanks to all the staff at Cruciform BSU
for their help and efforts in running this trial.
References
1
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(RSPCA). Housing, husbandry and care. https://science.
rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/researchanimals/ethicalreview
/functionstasks/housingandcare
2
Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (1996).
8th edition. Chapter: 2 Animal Environment, Housing, and
Management. National Academies Press. ISBN 13: 978-0-
309-15400-0 (Book) ISBN -10: 0-309-15400-6 (Book)
ISBN 13: 978-0-309-15401-7 (PDF) ISBN 10: 0-309-
15401-4 (PDF)
3
Toth, L.A., Kregel, K., Leon, L. and Musch, T.I. (2011).
Environmental Enrichment of Laboratory Rodents: The
Answer Depends on the Question. Comparative Medicine
61(4): 314-321
4
National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and
Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs).
https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/the-3rs
5
Garcia-Arocena, D. (2016). How to spot and manage
malocclusion in research mice. The Jackson Laboratories.
6
Baumans, V. and Van Loo, P.L. (2013). How to improve
housing conditions of laborator y animals: the possibilities
of environmental refinement. The Veterinary Journal 195:
24-32.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 97
98
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 98
99
Legal and ethical aspects of using animals
in research: A NACWO’s guide
MATTHEW BILTON
CBS Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road W12 0NN
Correspondence: m.bilton@imperial.ac.uk
Based on an IAT Higher Education Level 5, Law and Animal Welfare module assessment submission
Abstract
Under the provisions of the Animal (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA)
5
at least one Named
Animal Care and Welfare Officer (NACWO) must be
included in the membership of each establishment’s
Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB). In
order to fulfil their responsibilities NACWOs have a good
understanding of both the law protecting animals used
in scientific procedures and the ethics of such use.
The author discusses the history of the use of animals
in science, the implementation of ASPA and guides
NACWOs through the stages of ethical assessment of
research proposals.
Key words: Law, Ethics, Morals, Animals, Scientific
Procedures
Introduction and history of animals
used in research
Animal experimentation, commonly known as
vivisection, has a long history and dates back to the
ancient Greeks.
1
The philosophers and physicians of
those times wanted to increase their knowledge about
the way in which organisms such as humans and
animals functioned.
2
Over the next 2000 years the use
of animals in research increased. As the use of
animals increased, so did opposition to vivisection.
3
During the nineteenth centur y there was a gradual
build-up of demands for legislation to protect animals
used in research. The Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (later the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals RSPCA) was founded
in 1824 by the 1880s the anti-vivisection society had
been established. Due to their pressure and a petition
signed by Thomas Huxley, Edward Jenner and Owen,
the presidents of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and
Surgeons and scientists including Dar win, called for
the control of animal experimentation.
4
Laboratory animal law
In the United Kingdom the main piece of legislation
related to animal research is the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA).
5
ASPA has come a long
way from the older legislation regarding animals such
as the Mar tin Act 1822, the Cruelty to Animals Act
1876 and the Protection of Animal Act 1911.
4
ASPA is an enabling act which means it is an Act of
Parliament that gives specified powers to individuals or
organisations. ASPA is an enabling Act because it gives
powers to the Secretary of State to make amendments
to it with having to pass a new Act through Parliament.
4
ASPA permits, through the issuing of licences, people
meeting the relevant criteria, to carry out research that
would normally be punishable by other animal
protection acts.
Kolar (2006) says that animal experimentation is
unique as, in animal experiments, pain, suffering and
distress are deliberately inflicted on animals, whereas
in other fields this would be regarded an illegal
mistreatment.
6
ASPA has a three-tier licencing system in place, the
establishment (a section 2c licence or Establishment
licence), the person (a personal individual licence) and
the project (a project individual licence). ASPA section
2C (5) specifies ‘a person to be responsible for
overseeing the welfare and care of the animals kept at
the place specified in the licence’. Up until 1997 this
person was known as the person responsible for the
day to day care of the animals since 1997 as the
Named Animal Care and Welfare Officer (NACWO).
Under ASPA the NACWO has several responsibilities. In
carrying out these responsibilities the NACWO must
decide what is morally and ethically the right course of
action regarding the impact that decision will have on
animal welfare.
Morals and ethics
Dolan (1999) describes ethics as ‘The philosophical
August 2019 Animal Technology and Welfare
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 99
Legal and ethical aspects of using animals in research: A NACWO’s guide
100
study of the moral value of human conduct and the
rules and principles that ought to govern it’.
7
Dolan
(1999)
7
goes on to say that ethics is an exploration of
theories about right and wrong, while morality tends to
be prescriptive about what is right and wrong.
Wolfensohn and Lloyd (2013) state that the word
‘ethics’ can be used in many contexts and that it is an
examination of the acceptability of the motives that
drive the behaviour of people.
3
Garrett (2012)
describes an ethical issue as one that challenges
people to apply to concepts of right, wrong, good and
bad to a situation.
8
All these statements are relevant to
the NACWO when carrying out their roles. The NACWO
could at times have to justify whether a decision is right
or wrong not only in legal terms but ethically. The
distinction between what is legal and what is ethical is
crucial as described by Dolan (2007) writing in the IAT
Manual of Animal Technology, the distinction between
ethics and law is that ethics is ‘exhortation without
enforcement’ while law is ‘an order, command or
directive by authority backed by a sanction, penalty or
punishment’.
9
Kolar (2006) states that legislation on
animal experimentation mostly stipulates that an
ethical decision is made whether an animal experiment
is to be authorised and lays down the basic parameters
for that decision.
6
The NACWO is not alone in making
decisions regarding ethics and law. In the UK the holder
of a section 2C licence is required to establish and
maintain an Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body
(AWERB). The AWERB must consist of at least one
NACWO.
Animal Welfare and Ethical Review
Body
The AWERB must carr y out the tasks mentioned in
Article 27.1 of Directive 2010/63/EU.
10
This includes
reviewing project licences and whether that the
requested research is both ethical and legal. Every
project approved will impact on the day-to-day duties of
the NACWO as the NACWO would need to be aware of
the humane endpoints, adverse effects and control
measures specified and assess animal welfare.
Project licence review
A project licence will propose a programme of work to
be applied to animals for the following purposes;
Basic research.
Translational or applied research.
The development, manufacture or testing of the
quality, effectiveness and safety of drugs,
foodstuffs and other substances.
Protection of the natural environmental in the
interests of the health and welfare of human beings
or animals.
Research aimed at preservation of the species.
Higher education, or training for the acquisition,
maintenance or improvement of vocational skills.
Forensic inquiries.
(Article 5 Directive 2010/63/EU)
10
Proposal
An example could be using 50 Guinea pigs to establish
whether antiviral compounds can influence the
outcome of herpes virus (HSV) infection the nature and
level of immune responses of the animals to a variety
of viral vaccine preparations.
The Guinea pigs will be challenged with a live virus
intravaginally. Blood samples will be collected at
intervals and vaginal / swabbing carried out to check
antibody responses. It would be anticipated that most
Guinea pigs will fully recover from HSV challenge
infection. The Severity is considered to be Moderate;
this would reflect the vaginal lesions and urinary
retention which can occur after challenge with the virus.
In most Guinea pigs some urinary retention will occur
during the first two weeks or until successful treatment.
This will be relieved by emptying the bladder with
abdominal massage once or twice daily as necessary.
Some Guinea pigs may develop localised immune
responses which will be difficult to treat.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005)
2
states that it
is important to consider the ethical issues raised by
animal research and take into account:
The impact on the lives and welfare of animals that
different uses have.
The broader consequences if there were a ban on
using animals in specific circumstances.
A comparison of the benefits arising from the
different uses of animals: and
The numbers of animals involved.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005)
2
also states
that there are five features which may be considered
applicable to all animals these are;
Sentience
Higher cognitive capacities
The capacity to flourish
Sociability and
The possession of a life
All of these will need to be considered when reviewing
licences and the impact the research will have on the
welfare of the animals. The NACWO will need to
consider, question and offer advice regarding:
Species
Home Office Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures
on Living Animals Great Britain 2017 state that a total
of 22,5602 Guinea pigs were used in scientific
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 100
Legal and ethical aspects of using animals in research: A NACWO’s guide
101
procedures.
11
When compared with the number of mice
used which was 1,094,867, Guinea pigs make up a
small percentage of animals used. The choice of
species is an interesting consideration for a NACWO as
there is thought that some species of animals can be
used because they are less sentient than others.
7
Public opinion polls and legislation reflect the fact that
we are more concerned about the use and welfare of
some species than others.
1
Since 1999, the polling
company Ipsos MORI has been asking the public in the
UK about their views on animal research. The findings
suggest that more than 80% of respondents accepted
the need for animal research provided certain
conditions were met such as there is no unnecessary
suffering, the research is for serious medical or life-
saving purposes and that there is no alternative
(Wolfensohn and Lloyd 2013).
3
Sentience is associated
with Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Bentham
understood sentience as the capacity to feel pleasure
and pain.
12
The ascription of such states is not always
straightforward, it is uncontested that to cause pain is
morally problematic and needs to be taken into account
in moral reasoning.
2
Peter Singer’s view is that all
animals are equal
7
as does Tom Regan (1983)
13
writing
in the case for Animal rights.
The 3Rs
It is an obligation to constantly seek more acceptable
expressions of the 3Rs in practice it is not only ethical
but is also grounded in ASPA. The concept of the 3Rs
Replacement, Reduction and Refinement was
developed by Russell and Birch and the terms
represent widely accepted principles of humane
experimental technique.
14
Regarding reduction, would
the use of 50 Guinea pigs provide sufficient scientific
data compared to using a larger number of mice?
Research questions should always be clearly defined. It
would also be important to consider whether changes
of the various elements of a project might prevent
wastage of animals.
1
This view is backed up by the
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005)
2
who state that
animals will suffer needlessly if they are used in
research where scientific methodology is poor. The
Council go on to state that the application of the 3Rs
should begin with a careful assessment of the initial
experimental design and a number of questions be
addressed such as, is the animal model relevant to the
scientific question being asked or health problem under
study? Is there a genuine scientific basis for using a
particular animal model? Could the scientific objective
of the work be modified to avoid the use of an animal
model?
Pain & Welfare assessments
Dolan (1999) states that pain is one of the most vivid
forms of awareness.
7
He goes on to say that pain is at
the heart of any ethical discussion of the use of
animals is research.
7
Under ASPA pain is described in
that carr ying out regulated procedures has the
potential to cause ‘pain, suffering, distress or lasting
harm’. Rollin (1989)
15
states that it is claimed that
worr ying about animal pain is misplaced
anthropomorphism and that in circumstances in which
humans would be screaming and writhing, many
animals show very few signs of extreme pain. However,
work carried out by Langford et al. (2010)
16
have
demonstrated that pain could be shown in mice via the
mouse grimace scale but this is not going to be helpful
in assessing pain regarding the Guinea pig in the
proposal. It is clear from the proposal that these
Guinea pigs will experience pain and that the NACWO
will need to consider/question how this pain will be
controlled. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005)
2
do state that humans will have to apply concepts such
as pain, suffering and distress, which are used
successfully in human-human interactions, when
dealing with assessments of animals. The idea that the
Guinea pigs will need abdominal massage to empty the
bladder would be a cause for concern as this would be
a painful experience if it was done to a human. The
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005)
2
do consider the
concept of critical anthropomorphism as a useful
starting point as the experience of humans to alleviate
animal suffering by combining the perception of the
animal’s situation.
Transport
Will these Guinea pigs require transport? If so, what
will be the requirements? When an animal is
transpor ted there is a complete dependence of
animals on their handlers.
7
Wolfensohn and Lloyd
(2013)
3
state that stress caused by transport may last
up to 5 days and affects physiological processes such
as immunity and reproduction. While Hubrecht (2014)
1
states that transport stressors may include disruption
of social groups, unfamiliar housing and stimuli,
changes in husbandr y and handlers, changes in
temperature and humidity, exposure to noise, vibration
and movement, all of which may cause physiological
changes and adverse mental states such as fear and
frustration. White et al. (2010) states that transient
periods of stress will occur during transportation.
17
All
of which the NACWO will need to consider.
In asking questions regarding the sections above the
NACWO will be safeguarding the welfare of those
animals to be used in research. As Garrett (2012)
8
states that there is a challenge with people who carry
out animal research as they must provide a compelling
case for the unique benefits offered by animal research
and they must provide a rationale for why these
benefits justify treating animal subjects in ways that
would be unacceptable for human subjects. The AWERB
is one of the ways in which this is done. Using animals
in research is not considered lightly. The NACWO is only
one of a number of members of the AWERB, before a
case is presented at AWERB a cost-benefit analysis is
carried out usually by the Home Office and is a
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 101
Legal and ethical aspects of using animals in research: A NACWO’s guide
102
balancing act as described by Dolan (1999).
7
This is a
difficult thing to do as predicting beneficial outcomes of
experiments before they have been conducted is
difficult as results may be unexpected.
3
Wolfensohn
and Lloyd (2013) also go on to state that measuring
harms is a judgement of the quality of life of
experimental animals. That would be considered the
main question regarding the whole process of the
AWERB, it is the quality of life the animal will have
during the proposed research. Nuffield Council on
Bioethics (2015) consider that animals in research do
have a possession of a life.
2
Experience and quality of
life in a research setting does bring about its issues,
Frey (2002) that defending animal experimentation is
by means of the augment form benefit. Are the total
benefits of the experiment to humans greater than the
total costs to the animals?
18
The debate on whether
animal experimentation is right or wrong will rage on in
such books as Tom Regan’s ‘The case for Animal
Rights’ (1983),
13
Animal Rights and Human obligations
edited by Tom Regan and Peter Singer (1989)
19
which
give both for and against, however the case for or
against the use of animals in research is not one for
NACWOs or the AWERB to consider. That is for
Governments to decide but for as long as animals are
used in research it is impor tant that people who care
for animals are involved in the ethical review process to
optimise the welfare of the animals in a research
setting. That is why NACWOs and AWERBs are a vital
resource in a scientific establishment.
References
1
Hubrecht, R.C. (2014). The Welfare of Animals used in
research: Practice and ethics. West Sussex. UFAW.
2
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005). London. Nuffield
Council on Bioethics.
1
Wolfensohn, S. and Lioyd, M. (2013). Handbook of
Laborator y Animal Management and Welfare Fourth
Edition. West Sussex. Wiley-Blackwell.
3
Dolan, K. (2000). Laborator y Animal Law. Oxford
Blackwell Science Ltd.
4
Home Office. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
Amendment Regulations 2012.
5
Kolar, R. (2006). Animal Experimentation. Science
Engineering Ethics. 12, 111-122.
6
Dolan, K. (1999). Ethics, Animals and Science. Oxford.
Blackwell Science Ltd.
7
Garrett, J.R. (2012). The Ethics of Animal Research
Exploring the controversy. Massachusetts USA.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
8
Dolan, K. (2007). The Ethical Implications of the use of
Animals in Scientific Procedures in: Barnett S W ed
Manual of Animal Technology. Oxford. Blackwell
publishing.
9
Directive 2010/63/EU of The European Parliament and
of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of
animals used for scientific purposes.
10
Home Office. Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures
on Living Animals Great Britain 2014.
11
Bentham, Jeremy (1879). [This edition first published
1823]. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation (A New Edition, corrected by the Author).
Clarendon Press.
12
Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. California.
University of California Press.
13
Russell, W.M.R. and Burch, R.L. (1959). The Principles of
Humane Experimental Technique. Wheathampstead:
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
14
Rollin, B. (1989). Animal Pain in: Regan, T., Singer, P. ed:
Animal Rights and Human Obligations Second Edition.
New Jersey. Prentice-Hall.
15
Langford, D.J. (2010). Using the Mouse Grimace Scale to
revaluate the efficacy of postoperative analgesics in
laboratory mice. Nature Methods. 7, 447-449.
16
White, W.J. et al. (2010). Transportation of laboratory
animals in: Hubrecht, R., Kirkwood, J. ed: The UFAW
Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory
and Other Research Animals. West Sussex. Wiley-
Blackwell.
17
Frey, R.G. (2002). Justifying Animal Experimentation.
Society. (6) 39 pp37-47.
18
Animal Rights and Human Obligations (2nd edition)
Editors Tom Regan and Peter Singer. Publishers. Prentice-
Hall. ISBN-13: 978-0130368645 ISBN-10: 013068644
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 102
103
PAPER SUMMARY
TRANSLATIONS
INHALTVERZEICHNIS
INHALTVERZEICHNIS
Bericht zur Tagung der RSPCA/UFAW-
Tierschutzgruppe für Nagetiere und Kaninchen 2018
CHLOE STEVENS,
1
PENNY HAWKINS (Schriftführerin),
1
ROBIN LOVELL-BADGE,
2
ROBERT HUBRECHT,
3
HUW GOLLEDGE,
3
ANNA SLAVIERO,
4
CLARE ELLIS,
5
DEMI MINHINNETT,
6
REBECCA TERRY,
7
KATHARINA HOHLNAUM,
8,9
DOMINIC WELLS,
10
THOMAS SNOEKS,
2
JOHN MARSHALL
11
1
Research Animals Department, Science Group, RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater,
West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
2
The Francis Crick Institute, 1 Midland Road, London NW1 1AT, UK
3
UFAW, The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire AL4 8AN, UK
4
University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7AL, UK
5
University of Northampton, University Drive, Northampton, Northamptonshire NN1 5PH, UK
6
Durham University, Stockton Rd, Durham, Northumberland DH1 3LE, UK
7
University College London, Cruciform Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
8
Institut für Tierschutz, Tierverhalten und Versuchstierkunde am Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin,
Freie Universität Berlin, Deutschland
9
Institut für Pharmakologie und Toxikologie am Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin, Freie Universität
Berlin, Deutschland
10
Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College
Street, London, NW1 0TU, UK
11
Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit, 14th Floor, Lunar House, 40 Wellesley
Road, Croydon CR9 2BY, UK
Korrespondenz: penny.hawkins@rspca.org.uk
Abstract
Die RSPCA/UFAW-Tierschutzgruppe für Nagetiere (und inzwischen auch Kaninchen) veranstaltet seit 25 Jahren jeden
Herbst ein eintägiges Treffen, bei dem die Mitglieder über Themen der aktuellen Tierschutzforschung diskutieren und
Erfahrungen und Meinungen über nagerrelevante Tierschutzfragen sowie über die Umsetzung der 3R-Prinzipien
Vermeidung, Verringerung und Verbesserung des Einsatzes von Nagern und Kaninchen austauschen können. Ein
Hauptziel der Gruppe ist es, zum Nachdenken über die Gesamtheit der Lebenserfahrungen von Nagern und
Kaninchen als Laborversuchstiere anzuregen und sicherzustellen, dass jede potenzielle Beeinträchtigung ihres
Wohlergehens geprüft und auf ein Minimum gesenkt wird.
Im Rahmen der diesjährigen Präsentationen erfolgte ein Rückblick auf die Entwicklung der Tiertechnologie in den
letzten 25 Jahren und auf die Auswirkungen dieser Entwicklungen auf den Tierschutz von Labornagetieren und
kaninchen. In einem weiteren Vortrag wurden mögliche wissenschaftliche und praktische Entwicklungen des
August 2019 Animal Technology and Welfare
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 103
Paper Summary Translations
104
Tierschutzes in den nächsten 25 Jahren diskutiert. Andere Beiträge thematisierten Möglichkeiten, Laborratten durch
Bereitstellung geeigneter Materialien zum Nestbau anzuregen, und Tipps zur Gestaltung neuer Unterbringungsarten
für Kaninchen, um ein optimales Wohlbefinden der Tiere zu gewährleisten. Zudem fand eine Diskussion darüber statt,
wie bildgebende Verfahren dazu dienen können, Versuche zu verfeinern und die Zahl der in Studien ver wendeten Tiere
zu reduzieren.
Der Tag endete mit einem Vortrag der Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit (Regulierungsstelle für in der
Wissenschaft verwendete Versuchstiere beim britischen Innenministerium) und einer interaktiven Diskussionsrunde.
Bei beiden lag der Schwerpunkt auf der Notwendigkeit sicherzustellen, dass Labornagetiere und -kaninchen stets mit
Futter und Wasser versorgt sein müssen. Dieser Bericht fasst die Tagung zusammen und endet mit einer Liste von
Aktionspunkten, die Leser für ihre eigenen Einrichtungen in Betracht ziehen können.
Schlagwörter: Unterbringung, Kaninchenpersönlichkeiten, Nestbau, Belastung, Identifikation
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 104
Paper Summary Translations
105
Ein Vergleich von Anreicherungselementen zur
Förderung des natürlichen Nageverhaltens von
Labormäusen
IRENE LOPEZ JUARISTI
University College, London, Biological Services, Cruciform North Wing, Cruciform Building,
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
Korrespondenz: irene.lopez@ucl.ac.uk
Basierend auf einem Bericht an die UCL Collective Laboratory Animal Welfare Society (CLAWS)
Abstract
Eine angemessene Unterbringung und Haltung, einschließlich Umweltanreicherung, muss den natürlichen
Lebensraum, die Biologie und das Verhalten der einzelnen Arten berücksichtigen.
1
Laut Guide for the Care and Use
of Laboratory Animals (1996)
2
muss das Ziel immer darin bestehen, artenspezifische Verhaltensweisen maximal zu
fördern und stressbedingte Verhaltensweisen auf ein Minimum zu senken.
Dieser Bericht beschäftigt sich mit einer Initiative der Collective Laboratory Animal Welfare Society (CLAWS) zum
Testen verschiedener Arten von Kaublöcken, um das Nageverhalten von Mäusen zu fördern und zu ermitteln, welcher
für sie am bereicherndsten ist. Das University College of London (UCL) entwickelt ständig neue Ansätze und
Empfehlungen, die die aktuellen Standards optimalen Tierschutzes hinter fragen. Diese Studie wurde in
Zusammenarbeit zwischen zwei UCL-Abteilungen durchgeführt: dem Institute of Ophthalmology (IOO) und den
Cruciform Units.
Schlagwörter: Mäuse, natürliches Verhalten, artenspezifisches Verhalten, Umweltanreicherung, Kaublöcke
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 105
Paper Summary Translations
106
Rechtliche und ethische Aspekte der Verwendung
von Tieren zu wissenschaftlichen Zwecken: ein
Leitfaden für NACWOs
MATTHEW BILTON
CBS Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK
Korrespondenz: m.bilton@imperial.ac.uk
Basierend auf einer Bewer tung des Moduls Recht und Tierschutz der IAT-Hochschulstufe 5
Abstract
Gemäß den Bestimmungen des Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA-Gesetz)5 muss mindestens ein
benannter Tierschutzbeauftragter (NACWO) als Mitglied in den Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB) jeder
Einrichtung aufgenommen werden. NACWOs verfügen zur Er füllung ihrer Aufgaben über gute Kenntnisse der Gesetze
zum Schutz von für wissenschaftliche Versuche verwendeten Tieren sowie der ethischen Aspekte einer solchen
Ver wendung.
Der Autor diskutiert die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Verwendung von Tieren in der Forschung sowie die Umsetzung
des ASPA-Gesetzes und leitet NACWOs durch die Phasen der ethischen Bewertung von Forschungsvorhaben.
Schlagwörter: Recht/Gesetz, Ethik, Moral, Tiere, wissenschaftliche Verfahren/Versuche
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 106
August 2019 Animal Technology and Welfare
107
CONTENU DE LA REVUE
CONTENU DE LA REVUE
Rapport issu de la réunion du RSPCA/UFAW Rodent
and Rabbit Welfare Group en date de 2018
CHLOE STEVENS,
1
PENNY HAWKINS (Secretary),
1
ROBIN LOVELL-BADGE,
2
ROBERT HUBRECHT,
3
HUW GOLLEDGE,
3
ANNA SLAVIERO,
4
CLARE ELLIS,
5
DEMI MINHINNETT,
6
REBECCA TERRY,
7
KATHARINA HOHLNAUM,
8,9
DOMINIC WELLS,
10
THOMAS SNOEKS,
2
JOHN MARSHALL
11
1
Research Animals Department, Science Group, RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater,
West Sussex RH13 9RS
2
The Francis Crick Institute, 1 Midland Road, London NW1 1AT
3
UFAW, The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire AL4 8AN
4
University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7AL
5
University of Northampton, University Drive, Northampton, Northamptonshire NN1 5PH
6
Durham University, Stockton Rd, Durham, Northumberland DH1 3LE
7
University College London, Cruciform Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
8
Institute of Animal Welfare, Animal Behavior and Laboratory Animal Science, Service de
médecine vétérinaire, Freie Universität Berlin, Allemagne
9
Institut de Pharmacologie et de toxicologie, service de médecine vétérinaire, Freie Universität
Berlin, Allemagne
10
Service des sciences biomédicales comparatives, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College
Street, London, NW1 0TU
11
Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit, 14th Floor, Lunar House, 40 Wellesley
Road, Croydon CR9 2BY
Adresse e-mail: penny.hawkins@rspca.org.uk
Le groupe de bien-être du RSPCA/UFAW en charge des rongeurs (et désormais des lapins) se réunit durant une
journée à chaque automne depuis 25 ans afin de permettre à ses membres de débattre de l’état de la recherche en
matière de animal, d’échanger leurs points de vue sur ce sujet et de par tager leur expérience personnelle concernant
les « 3 R » que sont le « replacement, reduction and refinement » remplacement, réduction et amélioration ») pour
l’utilisation des rongeurs et des lapins. L’un des principaux objectifs du groupe est de favoriser la réflexion sur
l’ensemble de l’expérience de vie des rongeurs et des lapins en laboratoire afin de garantir que tout aspect négatif
pour leur bien-être soit détecté et réduit.
Les présentations comprenaient un regard rétrospectif sur la façon dont la technologie animale s’est développée au
cours des 25 dernières années et sur les conséquences produites par ces développements sur le bien-être des
rongeurs et des lapins de laboratoire. Parmi les contributions se trouvait également un exposé sur la façon dont la
science et les pratiques en matière de bien-être animal pourraient évoluer au cours des 25 prochaines années. Une
présentation por tait sur les manières de favoriser la construction de leur nid par les rats de laboratoire via la
fourniture de matériaux de construction appropriés, une autre fournissait des conseils sur la conception de nouvelles
installations pour le bien-être des lapins et une dernière consistait en un débat sur la façon dont les techniques
d’imagerie peuvent être utilisées pour améliorer les procédures expérimentales et réduire le nombre d’animaux
utilisés dans les études. La journée s’est achevée sur une présentation du Home Office Animals in Science
Regulation Unit et une séance de débat interactif portant sur le thème « s’assurer que les rongeurs et les lapins de
laboratoire ne soient jamais privés de nourriture ou d’eau ». Ce rapport résume la réunion et se conclut sur une liste
de mesures que les lecteurs peuvent envisager d’appliquer dans leurs établissements.
Mots clés: Logement, Personnalités de lapins, Construction du nid, Gravité, Identification
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 107
Paper Summary Translations
108
Comparaison des éléments d’enrichissement
favorisant un rongement de type naturel chez les
souris de laboratoires
IRENE LOPEZ JUARISTI
University College, London, Biological Services, Cruciform North Wing, Cruciform Building,
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
Adresse e-mail: irene.lopez@ucl.ac.uk
Sur la base d’un rapport soumis à l’UCL Collective Laboratory Animal Welfare Society (CLAWS)
Résumé
Afin que le logement et l’élevage soient adaptés notamment en matière d’enrichissement de l’environnement
ceux-ci doivent prendre en compte le milieu naturel, la biologie et le comportement de chacune des espèces.
1
Le
Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Guide pour la prise en charge et l’utilisation des animaux de
laboratoire, 1996)
2
stipule que l’objectif doit toujours consister à favoriser les comportements naturels et à réduire
autant que possible les comportements induits par le stress.
Ce rapport est le fruit d’une initiative du Collective Laboratory Animal Welfare Society (CLAWS) visant à tester les
différents types de blocs à mâcher favorisant le rongement et à déterminer lequel d’entre eux est le plus enrichissant
pour la souris. L’University College of London (UCL) fournit régulièrement de nouvelles approches et de nouvelles
recommandations qui remettent en cause les normes établies concernant le bien-être animal. Ces essais ont été
menés en collaboration par deux équipes de l’UCL : L’Institute of Ophthalmology (IOO) et les unités Cruciform.
Mots clés: Souris, comportement naturel, comportement naturel des espèces, enrichissement environnemental,
blocs à mâcher.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 108
Paper Summary Translations
109
Aspects éthiques et juridiques de l’utilisation des
animaux dans le cadre de la recherche: un guide
NACWO
MATTHEW BILTON
CBS Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK
Adresse e-mail: m.bilton@imperial.ac.uk
Sur la base de la soumission d’une évaluation du module Droit et bien-être animal de niveau 5 de l’enseignement
supérieur de l’IAT
Résumé
En vertu des dispositions de l’Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA)
5
, au minimum un membre du Named
Animal Care and Welfare (NACWO) doit être intégré dans chaque établissement de l’Animal Welfare and Ethical
Review Body (AWERB). En vue d’assurer cette responsabilité, les représentants de NACWO doivent posséder à la fois
une connaissance approfondie des lois en matière de protection des animaux utilisés dans le cadre de recherches
scientifiques et de l’éthique qui se rattache à cet usage.
L’auteur examine l’histoire de l’utilisation des animaux en science, la mise en œuvre de l’ASPA et offre un guide aux
membres de NACWO concernant les étapes de l’évaluation éthique des propositions de recherche.
Mots clés: Législation, éthique, morale, animaux, protocoles scientifiques
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 109
110
INDICE DE LA REVISTA
INDICE DE LA REVISTA
Informe sobre la reunión del Grupo para el
bienestar de roedores y conejos RSPCA/UFAW 2018
CHLOE STEVENS,
1
PENNY HAWKINS (Secretaria),
1
ROBIN LOVELL-BADGE,
2
ROBERT HUBRECHT,
3
HUW GOLLEDGE,
3
ANNA SLAVIERO,
4
CLARE ELLIS,
5
DEMI MINHINNETT,
6
REBECCA TERRY,
7
KATHARINA HOHLNAUM,
8,9
DOMINIC WELLS,
10
THOMAS SNOEKS,
2
JOHN MARSHALL
11
1
Departamento de Investigación Animal, Science Group, RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater,
West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
2
The Francis Crick Institute, 1 Midland Road, Londres NW1 1AT, UK
3
UFAW, The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire AL4 8AN, UK
4
University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7AL, UK
5
University of Northampton, University Drive, Northampton, Northamptonshire NN1 5PH
6
Durham University, Stockton Rd, Durham, Northumberland DH1 3LE, UK
7
University College London, Cruciform Building, Gower Street, Londres WC1E 6BT, UK
8
Instituto de Bienestar Animal, Comportamiento Animal y Ciencia de Animales de Laboratorio,
Departamento de Medicina Veterinaria, Freie Universität Berlín, Alemania
9
Instituto de Farmacología y Toxicología, Departamento de Medicina Veterinaria, Freie
Universität Berlin, Alemania
10
Departamento de Ciencias Biomédicas Comparativas, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College
Street, Londres NW1 0TU, UK
11
Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit, 14th Floor, Lunar House, 40 Wellesley
Road, Croydon CR9 2BY, UK
Correspondencia: penny.hawkins@rspca.org.uk
Resumen
El Grupo de trabajo para el bienestar de roedores (y ahora también conejos) RSPCA/UFAW ha celebrado una reunión
de un día cada otoño durante los últimos 25 años para que sus miembros puedan mantener un debate acerca de
la investigación actual sobre el bienestar, intercambiar opiniones sobre temas relacionados con el bienestar de
roedores y compartir su experiencia respecto a la implementación de las 3 R (reemplazo, reducción y refinamiento)
en relación con el uso de roedores y conejos. Uno de los objetivos primordiales del Grupo es fomentar que las
personas piensen sobre la experiencia vital de los roedores y conejos de laboratorio de forma que se garantice que
cualquier repercusión negativa en su bienestar sea revisada y reducida.
Las presentaciones incluían una visión retrospectiva sobre cómo la tecnología con animales ha ido evolucionando
en los últimos 25 años y cómo estos desarrollos han influido en el bienestar de los conejos y roedores de
laboratorio. Las contribuciones también incluían un debate sobre cómo la ciencia del bienestar animal y las prácticas
pueden cambiar en los próximos 25 años. Otras presentaciones trataron sobre formas de fomentar la creación de
nidos entre las ratas de laboratorio dándoles el material adecuado, consejos sobre el diseño de nuevas instalaciones
para conejos a fin de promover su bienestar y un debate sobre cómo las técnicas de toma de imágenes pueden
utilizarse para refinar procedimientos experimentales y reducir el número de animales utilizados en los distintos
estudios. El día terminó con una presentación de la Unidad de regulación del uso de animales en la ciencia (Animals
in Science Regulation Unit) del Ministerio del Interior del Reino Unido y un debate interactivo, ambos sobre medidas
para garantizar que los conejos y roedores nunca se queden sin agua ni comida. Este informe resume la reunión y
finaliza con una lista de puntos de acción que los lectores pueden presentar en sus propios centros.
Palabras clave: alojamiento, personalidades de conejos, creación de nidos, gravedad, identificación
Animal Technology and Welfare August 2019
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 110
Paper Summary Translations
111
Comparación de medidas de enriquecimiento para la
promoción del comportamiento natural durante la
acción de roer de los ratones de laboratorio
IRENE LOPEZ JUARISTI
University College London, Biological Services, Cruciform North Wing, Cruciform Building,
Gower Street, Londres WC1E 6BT, UK
Correspondencia: irene.lopez@ucl.ac.uk
Basado en un informe para la Asociación colectiva del bienestar de los animales de laboratorio (Collective
Laboratory Animal Welfare Society o CLAWS) de la UCL
Resumen
Para la cría y el enjaulamiento adecuados, incluido el enriquecimiento ambiental, se deben tener en cuenta el hábitat
natural, la biología y el comportamiento de cada especie.
1
En la Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
(1996)
2
se indica que el objetivo siempre debe ser maximizar los comportamientos específicos de cada especie y
minimizar los comportamientos inducidos por el estrés.
Este informe proviene de una iniciativa de la Collective Laboratory Animal Welfare Society (CLAWS) con la que se
pretende testar distintos tipos de bloques para roer con el fin de fomentar el comportamiento durante la acción de
roer y ver cuál es el más enriquecedor para los ratones. La University College London (UCL) contribuye
constantemente con nuevos métodos y recomendaciones que cuestionan las normas actuales para que el bienestar
animal sea el mejor posible. Este ensayo se hizo en colaboración con dos unidades de la UCL: El Institute of
Ophthalmology (IOO) y las unidades Cruciform.
Palabras clave: ratones, comportamiento natural, comportamiento específico de cada especie, enriquecimiento
ambiental, bloques para roer.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 111
Paper Summary Translations
112
Aspectos legales y éticos sobre la utilización de
animales para la investigación: guía sobre los
NACWO
MATTHEW BILTON
CBS Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK
Correspondencia: m.bilton@imperial.ac.uk
Con base en la presentación de una evaluación de un módulo de IAT Higher Education Nivel 5, Ley y bienestar
animal
Resumen
Con arreglo a las disposiciones de la Ley británica sobre Animales (procedimientos científicos) 1986 (ASPA)
5
al
menos un responsable del cuidado y el bienestar de animales (Named Animal Care and Welfare Officer o NACWO)
deberá formar parte de la afiliación del Organismo del bienestar de los animales y la revisión ética (Animal Welfare
and Ethical Review Body o AWERB) de cada establecimiento. Para poder cumplir con sus responsabilidades, los
NACWO deben asimilar en profundidad la ley de protección animal aplicable a procedimientos científicos y la ética
que esta comprende.
El autor hablar sobre la historia del uso de animales en la ciencia, la implementación de ASPA y las guías de NACWO
a través de las fases de evaluación ética de propuestas de investigación.
Palabras clave: ley, ética, moral, animales, procedimientos científicos.
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 112
113
April 2019 Animal Technology and Welfare
INDICE DELLA REVISTA
INDICE DELLA REVISTA
Resoconto dell’incontro del RSPCA/UFAW Rodent
and Rabbit Welfare Group del 2018
CHLOE STEVENS,
1
PENNY HAWKINS (Segretaria),
1
ROBIN LOVELL-BADGE,
2
ROBERT
HUBRECHT,
3
HUW GOLLEDGE,
3
ANNA SLAVIERO,
4
CLARE ELLIS,
5
DEMI MINHINNETT,
6
REBECCA TERRY,
7
KATHARINA HOHLNAUM,
8,9
DOMINIC WELLS,
10
THOMAS SNOEKS,
2
JOHN MARSHALL
11
1
Research Animals Department, Science Group, RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater,
West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
2
The Francis Crick Institute, 1 Midland Road, Londra NW1 1AT, UK
3
UFAW, The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire, AL4 8AN, UK
4
University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7AL, Regno Unito
5
University of Northampton, University Drive, Northampton, Northamptonshire NN1 5PH, UK
6
Durham University, Stockton Rd, Durham, Northumberland DH1 3LE, Regno Unito
7
University College London, Cruciform Building, Gower Street, Londra WC1E 6BT, UK
8
Istituto di Benessere Animale, Comportamento Animale e Scienze per gli Animali da
Laboratorio, Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria, Università libera di Berlino, Germania
9
Istituto di Farmacologia e Tossicologia, Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria, Università libera di
Berlino, Germania
10
Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College
Street, Londra, NW1 0TU, UK
11
Animals in Science Regulation Unit del Ministero degli Interni, 14th Floor, Lunar House,
40 Wellesley Road, Croydon CR9 2BY, UK
Corrispondenza: penny.hawkins@rspca.org.uk
Ogni autunno, da ormai 25 anni, il RSPCA/UFAW Rodent and Rabbit Welfare Group (Gruppo sul benessere dei roditori
(e ora anche) dei conigli) organizza un incontro di un giorno per consentire ai suoi membri di discutere degli studi
attuali di ricerca sul benessere, di scambiarsi opinioni sulle questioni legate al benessere e di condividere esperienze
di applicazione del principio delle 3 R, ovvero sostituzione (replacement), riduzione (reduction) e perfezionamento
(refinement), in relazione all’uso di roditori e conigli. Uno degli obiettivi primari del Gruppo è quello di invitare a
prendere in considerazione l’intero percorso di vita dei roditori e dei conigli da laboratorio, accertandosi che venga
valutato e minimizzato ogni possibile impatto negativo sul loro benessere.
Le presentazioni hanno incluso una valutazione retrospettiva dell’evoluzione della stabulazione negli ultimi 25 anni,
esaminando l’impatto di questi sviluppi sul benessere di roditori e conigli da laboratorio. Si è tenuta, inoltre, una
discussione sul possibile cambiamento delle scienze e delle prassi di benessere animale nell’arco del prossimo quarto
di secolo. Altre presentazioni si sono incentrate sui metodi da utilizzare per incoraggiare i ratti da laboratorio a costruire
il proprio nido mettendo a loro disposizione i materiali adatti e su nuove idee per la progettazione di strutture per conigli
al fine di promuovere al meglio il loro benessere, oltre a esplorare l’uso delle tecniche di imaging per perfezionare le
procedure sperimentali e ridurre il numero di animali usati negli studi. La giornata si è conclusa con una presentazione
della Animals in Science Regulation Unit del Ministero degli Interni e con una sessione interattiva, entrambe mirate a
far che i roditori e i conigli da laboratorio non siano mai privi di cibo o acqua. Il presente resoconto riassume l’incontro
e termina con un elenco di punti di intervento che i lettori possono portare all’attenzione delle loro strutture.
Parole chiave: alloggio, personalità dei conigli, costruzione dei nidi, gravità, identificazione
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 113
Confronto tra oggetti di arricchimento per la
promozione dell’abitudine naturale di rosicchiare
nei topi da laboratorio
IRENE LOPEZ JUARISTI
University College, London, Biological Services, Cruciform North Wing, Cruciform Building,
Gower Street, Londra WC1E 6BT, UK
Corrispondenza: irene.lopez@ucl.ac.uk
Basato su un resoconto della Collective Laboratory Animal Welfare Society (CLAWS) dell’UCL
Abstract
Una stabulazione e un allevamento appropriati, tra cui l’arricchimento ambientale, devono prendere in considerazione
l’habitat naturale, la biologia e il comportamento di ciascuna specie.
1
La Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals (1996)
2
afferma che si dovrebbe mirare sempre a massimizzare i comportamenti specie-specifici, riducendo
invece al minimo quelli indotti dallo stress.
Il presente resoconto si basa su un’iniziativa della Collective Laboratory Animal Welfare Society (CLAWS), il cui
obiettivo era provare vari tipi di blocchetti da masticare per promuovere l’abitudine di rosicchiare e scoprire quello
che comportava maggiore arricchimento per i topi. La University College of London (UCL) introduce costantemente
nuovi approcci e raccomandazioni che sfidano gli standard attuali di garanzia del miglior benessere animale. Questo
studio è il risultato della collaborazione tra due unità dell’UCL: l’Institute of Ophthalmology (IOO) e l’unità Cruciform.
Parole chiave: topi, abitudine naturale, comportamenti specie-specifici, arricchimento ambientale, blocchetti da
masticare.
Paper Summary Translations
114
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 114
115
Aspetti etici e legali dell’uso di animali per scopi di
ricerca: guida per NACWO
MATTHEW BILTON
CBS Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road W12 ONN, UK
Corrispondenza: m.bilton@imperial.ac.uk
Basata sulla presentazione di una valutazione relativa al modulo ‘La legge e il benessere animale’ del Livello 5 di
formazione superiore IAT
Abstract
Ai sensi delle disposizioni della legge inglese Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act del 1986 (ASPA)
5
, ciascuna struttura
deve includere almeno un Named Animal Care and Welfare Officer (NACWO Responsabile della tutela del benessere
animale) durante la formazione di un Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB). Per adempiere alle loro
funzioni, i NACWO devono avere una buona conoscenza delle leggi a tutela degli animali usati in procedure
scientifiche e dei principi etici alla base di tale uso.
L’autore discute la storia dell’uso di animali nella scienza, l’attuazione delle legge ASPA e guida i NACWO lungo le
fasi di valutazione etica delle proposte di ricerca.
Parole chiave: legge, etica, principi morali, animali, procedure scientifiche
Paper Summary Translations
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 115
116
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 116
117
The world of biomedical research changed forever in
1959. It was in that year that Drs. Russell and Burch
published their much acclaimed book The Principles of
Humane Experimental Technique.
1
While their publication was a highly regarded treatise
on a variety of topics relevant to what they described as
the distinguishing factors between ‘humanity’ and
‘direct’ and ‘indirect inhumanity’ within the context of
conducting animal research, their work in that
publication is most remembered for introducing the
concept of the ‘3Rs’. While the precise definitions of
the 3Rs have morphed considerably since their
inception, today, somewhat loosely interpreted,
perhaps the most widely accepted definitions are as
follows:
2
Replacement: methods which eliminate the need to
use animals at all for the scientific purpose(s) at
hand.
Reduction: methods requiring fewer animals to
obtain the objectives of the study or that allow more
information to be gleaned from the same number of
animals.
Refinement: methods which reduce, minimise or
alleviate animal suffering or distress.
Those three principles have proven so sound, robust
and universally palatable to scientists and non-
scientists alike that they have become a foundational
lodestar for nearly ever y major animal welfare
legislation adopted worldwide. A plethora of books,
checklists, guidelines for establishing Standard
Operating Procedures and instructions for writing
animal care and use protocols have leaned heavily
upon their precepts. Animal research oversight
committees the world over spend countless hours
contemplating if proposed research projects adhere to
the standards promulgated as a result of those three
ideas put forth by two scientists some six decades
ago. This veterinarian, for one, believes whole-
heartedly that the life of research animals and the
quality of biomedical research has improved
dramatically as a result.
However, I believe that even Drs. Russell and Burch
would have understood that over time, the universe of
animal based research would change dramatically, and
with that change, the need for refreshing our
understandings of the 3Rs would become self-evident.
In particular, I would like to revisit the first of the 3Rs,
‘replacement’, in the light of today’s complex and
global research arena. Recall that the generally
accepted definition in use today for ‘replacement’ is
methods which permit a given purpose to be achieved
without conducting procedures on animals. This
interpretation (or re-interpretation) is heavily weighted
towards scientists writing protocols and conducting
research, and animal welfare oversight bodies charged
with assuring wellbeing. However, that definition, and
the context of its original intent, can only be truly
appreciated when considered in light of Russell and
Burch’s observation and vision that ‘The greatest
scientific achievements have always been the most
humane and the most aesthetically attractive,
conveying that sense of beauty and elegance which is
the essence of science at its most successful.’
1
One
can only marvel at the “sense of beauty and elegance”
that Russell and Burch would observe in today’s world
of science. Animal models are now selectively created
using gene editing technologies, entire colonies of
animals being maintained free of adventitious
pathogens using simple biochemistr y-based
methodologies, valuable research animal lines being
preser ved, derived, and rederived in laboratories
across the world using cryopreservation innovations,
targeted genetic testing and strain background testing
to assure the most optimised use of research animal
models possible. And through all of that, their three
foundational principles designed to abolish inhumanity
OPINION ARTICLE
The 3Rs and optimisation in a decentralised
research world: new perspectives on an established
paradigm
DARRELL HOSKINS
Transnetyx, 8110 Cordova Road, Suite 119, Cordova TN 38016, USA
Correspondence: sbugeon@transnetyx.com
August 2019 Animal Technology and Welfare
LATEST_6-648255753.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 6/8/19 07:19 Page 117
Opinion Article
118
in biomedical research has shaped the nature of the
world every step of the way.
Conduct of global animal research today mandates a
level of model-sharing and outsourcing of experimental
techniques and technologies that Drs. Russell and
Burch could not have possibly foreseen. The
outsourcing phenomenon has revolutionised
biomedical research in countless ways but has also
presented the research community with a need to
revisit the impact of research service providers and
outsourcing companies on the welfare of animals as
measured using the foundational 3Rs principles.
This exercise in juxtaposing the 3Rs against modern
biomedical outsourcing processes could, and perhaps
should, be conducted for a wide variety of divergent
technologies but for the purposes of this discourse, let
us limit our considerations to the narrower fields of
outsourced automated genotyping and related
technologies.
One common inefficiency in mouse research the world-
over is insufficient housing space, made more
complicated because litters of mouse pups reside in
cages longer than necessary until research laboratory
personnel can find time to set up for, conduct manual
genotyping, quality check results, and create culling
lists. Only then can animals with the desired genotype
be separated from those who lack the required genetic
characteristics, finally allowing unusable animals to be
culled. Russell and Burch would not have characterised
this process, which once was the standard in the
industry, as giving one a ‘sense of beauty and
elegance’. Consider, on the other hand, outsourcing of
genotyping as a new norm. Tissue samples can be
collected prior to weaning, can be shipped to a
robotically automated genotyping laboratory within 24
hours of collection, and can be processed, with the
resultant data uploaded to the scientists’ animal colony
databases within 72 hours, anywhere in the world. Pups
can be identified, culled, and new research housing
space created before the animals are old enough to be
weaned from their mothers. Automated genotyping is
manyfold more time and cost efficient and significantly
less prone to human error than is possible to achieve by
any manual genotyping process in laboratories around
the world ‘beauty and elegance’ in action! By
identifying the animals that need to be culled early, and
proactively preventing unnecessar y down-stream
activities, outsourcing of genotyping is serving the 3Rs
principle of ‘reduction’.
Yet another example of outsourcing which is quickly
becoming a standard necessity for adhering to the 3Rs
principles and for preventing issues with non-
reproducibility of results is genetic background testing.
It is now clear that a gene acts within the context of the
entire genome of the animal in which it is situated.
3
If
the gene is studied without confirming and controlling
for the genetic background of the model being studied,
it is very likely that any research data obtained will be
errant and will not be reproducible.
4-7
A simple test on
a tissue sample sent to an automated outsourcing
genotyping lab can confirm both the gene(s) of interest
and the genetic background upon which they exist. The
speed, cost efficiency and confidence in the model
being used enhances the quality of the data produced
and prevents the necessity of having to attempt to
repeat studies on other strains of mice. It occurs to this
author that Drs. Russell and Burch would find such
outsourced resources both desirable and necessary as
a means of promoting animal welfare ‘reduction’ and
‘refinement’. I anticipate that in time many animal
welfare oversight bodies and publications will begin
arriving at the same conclusions.
Today we are faced with an even more elusive issue
that continues to challenge the 3Rs approach to animal
welfare the data non-reproducibility crisis that much
of the research world now believes is associated with
divergent microbiome and microbiota across studies
and settings. Just as rodent pathogens were once an
elusive source of variability in research results, it now
seems clear that as the sophistication of our research
endeavours increases, the microbiome represents the
next elusive, only modestly characterised, source of
scientific variability.
8-14
The microbiome is clearly
associated with changes in phenotype, yet methods to
efficiently characterise and manage it are just now
gaining significant traction. Clearly, issues related to
the microbiome and microbiota are playing havoc with
the 3Rs. Drs. Russell and Burch would surely be
unsettled! But once again, highly automated, robotic
laboratories, with systems optimised to both identify
and characterise the microbiome of animal models are
poised to salvage the applicability of the 3Rs. A fresh
faecal sample shipped to a specialised microbiome
outsourcing laboratories can be used to generate highly
reliable data sets, optimised for interpretation by
scientists and veterinarians in a matter of days to
weeks. In time, we will learn to efficiently use that
microbiome data to fur ther minimise avoidable
scientific variability and the associat