Does accreditation by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) ensure greater compliance with animal welfare laws?

Does Accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums Correlate with Animal Welfare Act Compliance?

The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) promotes itself as the "gold standard" for animal welfare in zoos and aquariums; however, no objective evaluation of this claim has been performed. As the only statute providing protection to individual animals in the United States, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) also seeks to assure animal welfare at facilities exhibiting animals to the public. In this study, the incidences of AWA noncompliant items (NCIs) at AZA-accredited facilities were evaluated and compared to non-accredited facilities licensed as exhibitors by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Based on our analysis, non-accredited exhibitors had significantly more total NCIs than AZA-accredited facilities, and non-accredited facilities also had more NCIs related to improper veterinary care, animal husbandry, and record-keeping, but not with respect to personnel qualifications. Additionally, accreditation status and number of regulated species were significant predictors of the number of NCIs. This study revealed that AZA accreditation is correlated with improved compliance with the AWA and perhaps enhanced animal welfare.

Expectations for the methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of the general public, medical students and animal researchers in North America

To determine what are considered acceptable standards for animal research (AR) methodology and translation rate to humans, a validated survey was sent to: a) a sample of the general public, via Sampling Survey International (SSI; Canada), Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT; USA), a Canadian city festival (CF) and a Canadian children's hospital (CH); b) a sample of medical students (two first-year classes); and c) a sample of scientists (corresponding authors and academic paediatricians). There were 1379 responses from the general public sample (SSI, n = 557; AMT, n = 590; CF, n = 195; CH, n = 102), 205/330 (62%) medical student responses, and 23/323 (7%, too few to report) scientist responses. Asked about methodological quality, most of the general public and medical student respondents expect that: AR is of high quality (e.g. anaesthesia and analgesia are monitored, even overnight, and 'humane' euthanasia, optimal statistical design, comprehensive literature review, randomisation and blinding, are performed), and costs and difficulty are not acceptable justifications for lower quality (e.g. costs of expert consultation, or more laboratory staff). Asked about their expectations of translation to humans (of toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity and treatment findings), most expect translation more than 60% of the time. If translation occurred less than 20% of the time, a minority disagreed that this would "significantly reduce your support for AR". Medical students were more supportive of AR, even if translation occurred less than 20% of the time. Expectations for AR are much higher than empirical data show to have been achieved.

Neuronal uptake of serum albumin is associated with neuron damage during the development of epilepsy

It is well established that brain blood barrier dysfunction following the onset of seizures may lead to serum albumin extravasation into the brain. However, the effect of albumin extravasation on the development of epilepsy is yet to be fully elucidated. Previous studies have predominantly focused on the effect of albumin absorption by astrocytes; however, the present study investigated the effects of neuronal uptake of albumin in vitro and in kainic acid-induced Sprague-Dawley rat models of temporal lobe epilepsy. In the present study, electroencephalogram recordings were conducted to record seizure onset, Nissl and Evans blue staining were used to detect neuronal damage and albumin extravasation, respectively, and double immunofluorescence was used to explore neuronal absorption of albumin. Cell counting was also conducted in vitro to determine whether albumin contributes to neuronal death. The results of the present study indicated that extravasated serum albumin was absorbed by neurons, and the neurons that had absorbed albumin died and were dissolved 28 days after seizure onset in vivo. Furthermore, significant neuronal death was detected after albumin absorption in vitro in a dose- and time-dependent manner. These results suggested that albumin may be absorbed by neurons following the onset of seizures. Furthermore, the results indicated that neuronal albumin uptake may be associated with neuronal damage and death in epileptic seizures. Therefore, attenuating albumin extravasation following epileptic seizures may reduce brain damage and slow the development of epilepsy.

Survey of 2014 behavioral management programs for laboratory primates in the United States

The behavioral management of laboratory nonhuman primates in the United States has not been thoroughly characterized since 2003. This article presents the results of a survey behavioral management programs at 27 facilities and covering a total of 59,636 primates, 27,916 housed in indoor cages and 31,720 in group enclosures. The survey included questions regarding program structure, implementation, and methodology associated with social housing, positive reinforcement training, positive human interaction, exercise enclosures, and several categories of inanimate enrichment. The vast majority of laboratory primates are housed socially (83%). Since 2003, the proportion of indoor-housed primates reported to be housed singly has fallen considerably, from 59% to 35% in the facilities surveyed. The use of social housing remains significantly constrained by: 1) research protocol requirements, highlighting the value of closely involved IACUCs for harmonizing research and behavioral management; and 2) the unavailability of compatible social partners, underscoring the necessity of objective analysis of the methods used to foster and maintain compatibility. Positive reinforcement training appears to have expanded and is now used at all facilities responding to the survey. The use of enrichment devices has also increased in the participating facilities. For most behavioral management techniques, concerns over the possibility of negative consequences to animals are expressed most frequently for social housing and destructible enrichment, while skepticism regarding efficacy is limited almost exclusively to sensory enrichment. Behavioral management program staffing has expanded over time in the facilities surveyed, due not only to increased numbers of dedicated behavioral management technicians but also to greater involvement of animal care technicians, suggesting an increase in the integration of behavioral care into animal husbandry. Broad awareness of common practice may assist facilities with program evaluation and assessment of progress in the field can generate recommendations for continuing the advancement of primate behavioral management programs. Am. J. Primatol. 78:780-796, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A defense of 'risk-benefit' terminology

The longstanding concept of risk-benefit analysis is an established and familiar practice among animal research programs. It is generally preferred by researchers and statisticians and this term is used throughout the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. However, the term 'harm-benefit analysis' has recently come into use, particularly in the accreditation process for animal research programs. The Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care has incorporated a new interpretation of the eighth edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals into their assessment and evaluation process, whereby they may require institutions to conduct a 'harm-benefit analysis'. However, whereas 'risk-benefit analysis' is specifically described in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, harm-benefit analysis is not mentioned at all. The source of this harm-benefit language appears to be Article 38 of the European Directive 2010/63/EU. Here, the authors present a case for retaining the current language of risk-benefit analyses and not specifically introducing the language of harm-benefit analyses into ethical considerations of animal research activities, including protocol review procedures of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees.