Andrew N. Rowan

Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) of the National Research Council in the USA, is well known among most individuals involved in laboratory animal care and use. Most of the time insiders refer to it as the ‘Guide’. In the year 2011, ILAR published its eighth edition. This new edition gathered the latest facts, incorporated up-to-date knowledge and reorganized the contents to provide better guidance to laboratory animal care and use programmes. The history of the Guide began in 1946, when Dr Nathan R Brewer and his colleagues in the Chicago area started to improve the care and wellbeing of laboratory animals by exchanging ideas at monthly meetings. The activities of this group led, in 1950, to the foundation of the Animal Care Panel (ACP), which became a growing non-profit organization and was later renamed as American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS). In 1963, the Animal Facilities Standards Committee of the ACP prepared the first edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Gradually, the Guide has become the primary reference in many research organizations in the USA, and compliance with it is obligatory for the Public Health Service (PHS)-assured institutions. When the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation for Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC International) expanded its activities beyond the USA and went international, the Guide became a resource for animal care and use programmes around the world. Today the Guide is one of three primary standards AAALAC uses to evaluate an institution’s animal care and use programme. The other two documents are the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching (Ag Guide), FASS 2010; and the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes, Council of Europe (ETS 123). Over time, the Guide was updated several times culminating in the seventh edition being published in 1996. In the last decade, laboratory animal science advanced so significantly that another update was considered necessary to promote the best animal care and use practices. In 2006, a committee was appointed by the National Research Council in the USA, and started the process of updating the Guide. This process was accompanied by extensive public hearings and solicited comments from a wide range of scientific communities and the public. Fifteen years after its seventh edition, the new eighth edition of the Guide was finally completed and published. The Guide is not a handbook; it is an extensive collection of detailed descriptions of standards for all components of a good laboratory animal care and use programme. The frame of the book not only focuses on the wellbeing of lab animals, but also on the health and safety of people working with animals. Compared with the previous edition, the eighth edition is organized differently. After a brief overview, the Guide is divided into five chapters covering details of recommended standards for the care and use of laboratory animals. In addition, extra information related to the Guide can be found in the appendices at the end of the book. The first chapter introduces and defines the key concepts and terms used in the Guide. It describes the goals of the Guide as well as the intended audience and how to use the Guide. The overall intention is to support the readers to build a programme which creates a system of selfregulation and regulatory oversight, a concept that has been proven of value in many research situations. The concept of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) was always part of the philosophy of the Guide. In this eighth version now, this concept is mentioned expressis verbis and the individual definitions of each ‘R’ are outlined. Chapter 2 highlights the components of a state of the art animal care and use programme. After a short summary of the programme management, the chapter defines in details the respective roles and responsibilities of programme oversight. In the past, the primary responsibility of programme oversight fell primarily on the Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC); now it is shared with the institutional official (IO) and the attending veterinarian (AV). The chapter further defines the roles and responsibilities of the key management for all elements of the programme and supplies definitions for regulations and policies. Many recommendations on occupational health and safety are provided here. The need for a disaster plan is now changed from the ‘should’ to the ‘must’ requirement. Environment, housing and management of laboratory animals are the topics of the third chapter. It should be noted that, in this chapter, a new section was added for addressing the care and use of aquatic animals. With this, the authors acknowledge the increased importance of these species, especially zebrafishes, in the laboratory environment. As in the previous editions, this chapter provides well-organized tables for quick references for housing space for species typically used in research. It is important to mention that the Guide stresses in particular for this topic the uses of a performance-based approach to decide on the space requirements for each particular case. Therefore, the recommended space is now defined as ‘recommended minimum space’. The next chapter discusses issues related to veterinary care. It covers regular aspects of veterinary care in laboratory animals, such as acquisition and clinical care of animals, surgery, pain management and anaesthesia, and preventive medicine. The Guide gives a lot of importance

Ethical Issues in Animal-Assisted Therapy Programs

(1991). Ethical Issues in Animal-Assisted Therapy Programs. Anthrozoos: Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 154-163.

Determining Dog and Cat Numbers and Population Dynamics

(1995). Determining Dog and Cat Numbers and Population Dynamics. Anthrozoos: Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 199-205.

Companion animal demographics and sterilization status: results from a survey in four Massachusetts towns

AbstractA survey was conducted in four Massachusetts communities to determine levels of pet ownership and the sterilization status of those pets, to analyze the impact of sterilization on pet overpopulation, to identify major reasons owners do or do not sterilize their animals, and to assess the impact of cost on an owners decision to sterilize, among other factors. The survey was conducted by telephone using randomly generated telephone numbers. Interviews were conducted with 343 households of which 42% owned pets and 58% owned no pets. The percentages of households owning dogs (22%) and cats (21%) were lower than those reported in national surveys, as were the numbers of dogs (1.17) and cats (1.66) per owning household. Information was collected on 209 animals of which 42% were dogs and 52% were cats. Of the animals in the survey, 18.6% were intact and 81.3% were sterilized. Female dogs were sterilized at a significantly higher rate (87.8%) than were male dogs (45%). There was no difference in the ster...

The Success of Companion Animal Management Programs: A Review

In the early 1970s, a surge of interest in and attention to pet overpopulation led to a revamping of animal control programs around the country and to the promotion of an approach known as LES (legislation, education, sterilization). Concern about pet overpopulation and the killing of healthy animals in shelters continues to be high, but little is known about the effectiveness of LES over the past few years. The present paper reviews the available data and concludes that the pet overpopulation problem has improved in the last ten to fifteen years with only 10% of the national dog and cat population being euthanized in shelters today as compared to 20% in 1973. The data are insufficient to determine which of legislation, education, or enforcement has been the most important factor. Questions are, however, raised about the effectiveness of a sterilization program in the absence of good animal control.

Pain, suffering, and anxiety in animals and humans

We attempt to bring the concepts of pain, suffering, and anxiety into sufficient focus to make them serviceable for empirical investigation. The common-sense view that many animals experience these phenomena is supported by empirical and philosophical arguments. We conclude, first, that pain, suffering, and anxiety are different conceptually and as phenomena, and should not be conflated. Second, suffering can be the result — or perhaps take the form — of a variety of states including pain, anxiety, fear, and boredom. Third, pain and nociception are not equivalent and should be carefully distinguished. Fourth, nociception can explain the behavior of insects and perhaps other invertebrates (except possibly the cephalopods). Fifth, a behavioral inhibition system associated with anxiety in humans seems to be present in mammals and most or all other vertebrates. Based on neurochemical and behavioral evidence, it seems parsimonious to claim that these animals are capable of experiencing anxious states.

The Case for Phasing Out Experiments on Primates

Whether they realize it or not, most stakeholders in the debate about using animals for research agree on the common goal of seeking an end to research that causes animals harm. The central issues in the controversy are about how much effort should be devoted to that goal and when we might reasonably expect to achieve it. Some progress has already been made: The number of animals used for research is about half what it was in the 1970s, and biomedical research has reached the point where we can reasonably begin to envision a time when it could advance without causing harm to animals. With some effort and aggressive development of new biomedical research technologies, full replacement of animals in harmful research is within our grasp. The goal will not be reached all at once, however, and phasing out invasive research on all nonhuman primates should be the priority.

Formulation of ethical standards for use of animals in medical research

In the past 200 years, moral theories and attitudes toward both humans and animals have changed considerably. These changes have led to widespread criticism of animal use in some or all research and testing. For the most part, the debate has been marked more by rhetoric than scholarship, but the underlying philosophical theories and their protagonists have been a very important influence on the modern debate over animal use. This paper examines some of the moral philosophy and attempts to present the main arguments concisely and simply and to refute common misconceptions.

The Human-Animal Bond in Academic Veterinary Medicine

This article outlines the development of academic veterinary interest in the human-animal bond (HAB) and provides short summaries of the various centers currently studying the HAB at North American universities. Although most of these centers are at veterinary schools, the level of involvement by veterinarians is surprisingly low, considering how important a strong HAB is for the average veterinary practitioner (the stronger the bond, the more the client will be willing to pay for veterinary services).

Ethics education in science and engineering: The case of animal research

ConclusionThe past one hundred fifty years of debate over the use of animals in research and testing has been characterized mainly byad hominem attacks and on uncritical rejection of the other sides’ arguments. In the classroom, it is important to avoid repeating exercises in public relations and to demand sound scholarship.