Refinement of the use of non-human primates in scientific research. Part III: refinement of procedures

Culture of care: the question of animal agency in laboratory animal science

Background

A majority of the current debates in experimental animal science research focus to a large extent on the significance and implementation of the 3Rs principle according to Russell and Burch. In this context, not least due to the EU Directive 2010/63/EU, the concept of a culture of care has become more prevalent. Although animals are essential actors in the field of laboratory science, the discussion around animal agency, as well as the resulting consequences for laboratory animal science, is currently unconsidered.

Methods

The purpose of this qualitative survey was to identify the perception and understanding of professional workers in laboratory animal science regarding the culture of care in general and aspects of animal agency in particular. Using a non-standardized qualitative survey method (topic-oriented, guideline-based expert interviews), persons involved in animal experimentation in different groups (management, science, regulation, and care) were interviewed.

Results

Overall, the results of the qualitative survey showed that animal agency plays a subordinate role in the question of a culture of care in animal research. Although not all groups explicitly applied the construct of animal agency or comparable terminology for this, there were links to the theoretical construct. Overall, the interviews showed a recognized network between humans and animals and that animals can interact dialogically in research. This is justified, for example, by the transfer of emotions from carers or scientists to animals. Nevertheless, a differentiated reflection of an animal's agency remains disregarded.

Conclusion

The present qualitative survey approached the understanding of a culture of care among experts in the field of animal research. Animal agency does occur in the theoretical reception of the culture of care model. However, it is not conclusively established in everyday practice. Rather, the results lead to the assumption that strategies are being implemented to largely fade out animal agency.

Non-Lethal Dose-Response Models Replace Lethal Bioassays for Predicting the Hazard of Para-Aminopropiophenone to Australian Wildlife

Para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) is a potent methaemoglobin (MetHb) forming agent used for the lethal control of exotic carnivores and mustelids. To assess the sensitivity of Australian wildlife to PAPP we developed an in vivo assay that did not use death as an endpoint. Sub-lethal dose-response data were modelled to predict PAPP doses required to achieve an endpoint set at 80% MetHb (MetHb₈₀). The comparative sensitivity of non-target mammals referenced to this endpoint was found to be highly variable, with southern brown bandicoots (Isoodon obesulus) the most sensitive species (MetHb₈₀ = 6.3 mg kg^-1) and bush rats (Rattus fuscipes) the most tolerant (MetHb₈₀ = 1035 mg kg^-1). Published LD₅₀ estimates were highly correlated with PAPP doses modelled to achieve the MetHb₈₀ endpoint (r² = 0.99, p < 0.001). Most dose-response data for native mammals were collected in the field or in semi-natural enclosures, permitting PAPP and placebo dosed animals to be fitted with tracking transmitters and transponders and released at their point of capture. A protracted morbidity and mortality was observed only in Australian ravens (Corvus coronoides). The combination of sub-lethal dose-response assay and survival data collected in the field provided more relevant information about the actual hazard of pest control agents to non-target wildlife species than laboratory-based lethal-dose bioassays. We discuss the need to replace lethal-dose data with biologically meaningful insights able to define a continuum of toxicological hazards that better serve the needs of conservation and veterinary scientists and wildlife managers.

Refinement of the use of non-human primates in scientific research. Part I: the influence of humans

The welfare of non-human primates used in scientific research must be safeguarded to promote scientific validity and for ethical reasons. Welfare can be improved by the refinement of practice, particularly if these refinements are applied to every aspect of the life of an animal used in the laboratory, from birth to death with the aim of both minimising harm and maximising well-being. Many refinement methods have been described in nationally and internationally accepted guidelines on laboratory practice, but awareness of these guidelines is not universal. In Part I of this review, we examine the influence of humans on non-human primates and summarise and evaluate methods of refinement that are or could be used to reduce suffering and improve welfare. In particular we focus on staff selection, education and training, human–animal bonds, staff communication, and training primates. In Parts II and III, refinements of housing, husbandry and experimental procedures are reviewed.