Penny Hawkins

A guide to defining and implementing protocols for the welfare assessment of laboratory animals: eleventh report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement.

The refinement of husbandry and procedures to reduce animal suffering and improve welfare is an essential component of humane science. Successful refinement depends upon the ability to assess animal welfare effectively, and detect any signs of pain or distress as rapidly as possible, so that any suffering can be alleviated. This document provides practical guidance on setting up and operating effective protocols for the welfare assessment of animals used in research and testing. It sets out general principles for more objective observation of animals, recognizing and assessing indicators of pain or distress and tailoring these to individual projects. Systems for recording indicators, including score sheets, are reviewed and guidance is set out on determining practical monitoring regimes that are more likely to detect any signs of suffering. This guidance is intended for all staff required to assess or monitor animal welfare, including animal technologists and care staff, veterinarians and scientists. It will also be of use to members of ethics or animal care and use committees. A longer version of this document, with further background information and extra topics including training and information sharing, is available on the Laboratory Animals website.

Refinements in husbandry, care and common procedures for non-human primates Ninth report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement

Preface Whenever animals are used in research, minimizing pain and distress and promoting good welfare should be as important an objective as achieving the experimental results. This is important for humanitarian reasons, for good science, for economic reasons and in order to satisfy the broad legal principles in international legislation. It is possible to refine both husbandry and procedures to minimize suffering and improve welfare in a number of ways, and this can be greatly facilitated by ensuring that up-to-date information is readily available. The need to provide such information led the British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation (BVAAWF), the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME), the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) to establish a Joint Working Group on Refinement (JWGR) in the UK. The chair is Professor David Morton and the secretariat is provided by the RSPCA. This report is the ninth in the JWGR series. The RSPCA is opposed to the use of animals in experiments that cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm and together with FRAME has particular concerns about the continued use of non-human primates. The replacement of primate experiments is a primary goal for the RSPCA and FRAME. However, both organizations share with others in the Working Group, the common aim of replacing primate experiments wherever possible, reducing suffering and improving welfare while primate use continues. The reports of the refinement workshops are intended to help achieve these aims. This report produced by the British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation (BVAAWF)/Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME)/Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)/Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) Joint Working Group on Refinement (JWGR) sets out practical guidance on refining the husbandry and care of non-human primates (hereinafter primates) and on minimizing the adverse effects of some common procedures. It provides a valuable resource to help understand the physical, social and behavioural characteristics and needs of individual primates, and is intended to develop and complement the existing literature and legislative guidelines. Topics covered include refinements in housing, husbandry and common procedures such as restraint, identification and sampling, with comprehensive advice on issues such as primate communication, assessing and facilitating primate wellbeing, establishing and maintaining social groups, environmental and nutritional enrichment and animal passports. The most commonly used species are the key focus of this resource, but its information and recommendations are generally applicable to other species, provided that relevant individual species characteristics are taken into account.

Guidance on the transport of laboratory animals

Report of the Transport Working Group established by the Laboratory Animal Science Association (LASA)

Refinement of animal models of sepsis and septic shock.

ABSTRACT This report aims to facilitate the implementation of the Three Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement) in the use of animal models or procedures involving sepsis and septic shock, an area where there is the potential of high levels of suffering for animals. The emphasis is on refinement because this has the greatest potential for immediate implementation. Specific welfare issues are identified and discussed, and practical measures are proposed to reduce animal use and suffering as well as reducing experimental variability and increasing translatability. The report is based on discussions and submissions from a nonregulatory expert working group consisting of veterinarians, animal technologists, and scientists with expert knowledge relevant to the field.

Three Rs Approaches in the Production and Quality Control of Fish Vaccines

The workshop on Three Rs Approaches in the Production and Quality Control of Fish Vaccines aimed a) to identify animal tests currently stipulated for the production and quality control of fish vaccines and to highlight animal welfare concerns associated with these tests; b) to identify viable options to replace, reduce, and refine animal use for fish vaccine testing; and c) to discuss the way forward and set out how the Three Rs may be implemented without jeopardizing the quality of the vaccines. The workshop participants - experts from academia, regulatory authorities, a scientific animal welfare organization, and the fish vaccine industry - agreed that efforts should be undertaken to replace the vaccination-challenge batch potency testing with tests based on antigen quantification or antibody response tests. Regulatory requirements of questionable scientific value and relevance for the quality of fish vaccines, such as the re-testing of batches produced outside Europe, or the double-dose batch safety test, should be re-considered. As an immediate measure the design of the current animal tests should be evaluated and modified in the light of refinement and reduction, for example, the number of unprotected control fish in vaccination-challenge tests should be reduced to the minimum.

Applying refinement to the use of mice and rats in rheumatoid arthritis research

Abstract Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a painful, chronic disorder and there is currently an unmet need for effective therapies that will benefit a wide range of patients. The research and development process for therapies and treatments currently involves in vivo studies, which have the potential to cause discomfort, pain or distress. This Working Group report focuses on identifying causes of suffering within commonly used mouse and rat ‘models’ of RA, describing practical refinements to help reduce suffering and improve welfare without compromising the scientific objectives. The report also discusses other, relevant topics including identifying and minimising sources of variation within in vivo RA studies, the potential to provide pain relief including analgesia, welfare assessment, humane endpoints, reporting standards and the potential to replace animals in RA research.

Report of the 2006 RSPCA/ UFAW Rodent Welfare Group meeting

The RSPCA/UFAW Rodent Welfare Group holds a one-day meeting every autumn to discuss current welfare research and to exchange views on rodent welfare issues. A key aim of the group is to encourage people to think about the lifetime experience of laboratory rodents, ensuring that every potential influence on their well-being has been reviewed and refined. Speakers at the 2006 meeting presented preliminary findings of ongoing studies and discussed regulatory updates. Topics included the housing and husbandry of mice and rats, refining the use of rodents in asthma research, good practice for the euthanasia of rodents using carbon dioxide and achieving reduction by sharing genetically modified mice.

A Good Death? Report of the Second Newcastle Meeting on Laboratory Animal Euthanasia

Simple Summary Millions of laboratory animals are killed each year worldwide. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding what methods of killing are humane for many species and stages of development. This report summarises research findings and discussions from an international meeting of experts and stakeholders, with recommendations to inform good practice for humane killing of mice, rats and zebrafish. It provides additional guidance and perspectives for researchers designing projects that involve euthanasing animals, researchers studying aspects of humane killing, euthanasia device manufacturers, regulators, and institutional ethics or animal care and use committees that wish to review local practice. Abstract Millions of laboratory animals are killed each year worldwide. There is an ethical, and in many countries also a legal, imperative to ensure those deaths cause minimal suffering. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding what methods of killing are humane for many species and stages of development. In 2013, an international group of researchers and stakeholders met at Newcastle University, United Kingdom to discuss the latest research and which methods could currently be considered most humane for the most commonly used laboratory species (mice, rats and zebrafish). They also discussed factors to consider when making decisions about appropriate techniques for particular species and projects, and priorities for further research. This report summarises the research findings and discussions, with recommendations to help inform good practice for humane killing.

Guidance on the severity classification of scientific procedures involving fish: report of a Working Group appointed by the Norwegian Consensus-Platform for the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal experiments (Norecopa)

The severity classification of procedures using animals is an important tool to help focus the implementation of refinement and to assist in reporting the application of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement). The recently revised Directive that regulates animal research and testing within the European Union requires Member States to ensure that all procedures are classified as ‘non-recovery’, ‘mild’, ‘moderate’ or ‘severe’, using assignment criteria set out by the European Commission (EC). However, these are focused upon terrestrial species, so are of limited relevance to fish users. A Working Group set up by the Norwegian Consensus-Platform for the 3Rs (Norecopa) has produced guidance on the classification of severity in scientific procedures involving fish, including examples of ‘subthreshold’, ‘mild’, ‘moderate’, ‘severe’ and ‘upper threshold’ procedures. The aims are to complement the EC guidelines and help to ensure that suffering in fish is effectively predicted and minimized. Norecopa has established a website (www.norecopa.no/categories) where more information on severity classification for procedures using fish, including field research, will be made available.

To Group or Not to Group? Good Practice for Housing Male Laboratory Mice

Simple Summary Wild mice live in territories inhabited by one adult male, several females, and their offspring. This cannot be replicated in the laboratory, so male mice are usually housed in single-sex groups or individually. However, there can be serious animal welfare problems associated with both these approaches, such as lack of social contact when housed individually or aggression between males when kept in groups. Group housing is widely recommended to give male laboratory mice the opportunity to behave as ‘social animals’, but social stress can be detrimental to the welfare of these animals, even without injurious fighting. All of this can also affect the quality of the science, giving rise to ethical concerns. This review discusses whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be housed in groups, or alone. We conclude that it is not possible to give general recommendations for good practice for housing male laboratory mice, as responses to single- and group-housing can be highly context-dependent. The welfare implications of housing protocols should be researched and considered in each case. Abstract It is widely recommended to group-house male laboratory mice because they are ‘social animals’, but male mice do not naturally share territories and aggression can be a serious welfare problem. Even without aggression, not all animals within a group will be in a state of positive welfare. Rather, many male mice may be negatively affected by the stress of repeated social defeat and subordination, raising concerns about welfare and also research validity. However, individual housing may not be an appropriate solution, given the welfare implications associated with no social contact. An essential question is whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be group- or singly housed. This review explores the likely impacts—positive and negative—of both housing conditions, presents results of a survey of current practice and awareness of mouse behavior, and includes recommendations for good practice and future research. We conclude that whether group- or single-housing is better (or less worse) in any situation is highly context-dependent according to several factors including strain, age, social position, life experiences, and housing and husbandry protocols. It is important to recognise this and evaluate what is preferable from animal welfare and ethical perspectives in each case.