The First Rehoming of Laboratory Beagles in Finland: The Complete Process from Socialisation Training to Follow-up

Attending veterinarians improve the research capability and psychological well-being of researchers in animal research institutes

The use of laboratory animals in biomedical research has significantly advanced scientific understanding, yet it raises ethical concerns about animal welfare and the mental health of researchers Recent research has highlighted the potential for stress and compassion fatigue among researchers working with distressed animals. Attending veterinarians (AVs) are crucial in mitigating the pain and stress experienced by animals and, by extension, researchers. However, the impact of AVs on researchers' psychological well-being remains understudied. This study explores how AVs contribute to researchers' research capability and psychological well-being in animal research institutions. AVs oversee animal housing, health, and welfare; their involvement is mandated or strongly recommended in developed countries. AVs enhance animal welfare by ensuring proper housing, nutrition, and social interaction. They monitor animal health, educate researchers on pain assessment, and promote compliance with post-surgical care. AVs also contribute to researchers' well-being by addressing euthanasia procedures, which can be emotionally challenging. Programs for rehoming animals after experiments offer an alternative to euthanasia and positively impact researchers' psychological well-being. Moreover, AVs promote workplace well-being by fostering positive workplace cultures, offering peer counseling, and providing social support. Programs considering animal welfare and researchers' emotions are crucial for a healthy research environment. In conclusion, AVs are essential in balancing scientific progress with animal welfare and researchers' psychological well-being. Therefore, their role should be recognized as vital in achieving social equity that considers the welfare of humans and laboratory animals.

Former laboratory dogs' psychological and behavioural characteristics

It is becoming increasingly common for laboratories to allow the rehoming of dogs when they are no longer needed. There is no research, however, comparing the characteristics of dogs from laboratories to dogs acquired from more traditional sources for pets. This study used the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ) to compare emotional and behavioural characteristics of 100 former laboratory Beagles who were rehomed to a convenience sample of 244 pet Beagles with no known history of laboratory use. Our results revealed that the former laboratory Beagles exhibited increased fearfulness, attention and attachment behaviours, and more abnormal behaviours than the convenience sample, yet were significantly less aggressive, and likely to chase other animals or escape. Importantly, we also found no significant differences in a majority of the everyday behaviours assessed. Our findings demonstrate dogs rehomed from laboratories form strong bonds with their caregivers, and make equally good companions as their non-laboratory counterparts. Our findings may be helpful in designing appropriate rehabilitation programmes, educating laboratory workers and potential adopters, and support the ongoing efforts to offer these dogs for adoption.

What Kinds of Dogs Are Used in Clinical and Experimental Research?

Simple Summary

The objective of this study was to evaluate the signalment of dogs used in veterinary research in six different specialties. In total, 150 randomly chosen clinical studies (25 studies per specialty) published between 2007 and 2019 were evaluated for the breed, sex, neuter status, age, and weight information of the dogs used. Breed information was given for 5.7% of the included animals. Beagles were used 1.9% of the time, which was a less significant role in research than we expected. Information about the sex of the dogs was lacking for 16.2% of the included animals, while age and weight information were missing for 22.7 and 32.7%, respectively. The neuter status was not given in 38.7% of the clinical studies. The results show deficits in the reporting of demographic data for the dogs. The need for an improvement in the documentation and/or reporting of animal signalment is obvious and should be addressed by authors, reviewers, and journal editors in the future.

Abstract

Background: Dogs are widely used in research to answer questions about canine or human conditions. For the latter, research dogs are often used as models, since they are physiologically more similar to humans than other species used in research and they share similar environmental conditions. From a veterinary perspective, research findings are widely based on academic research, and thus are generated under experimental conditions. In that regard, the question arises: do the dogs used for research adequately represent the dog population seen in veterinary practice? It may, for example, be assumed that Beagle dogs are often used as experimental animals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the signalment of dogs used in veterinary research. Furthermore, we aimed to assess other relevant criteria regarding the validity of clinical trials in the context of six different veterinary medicine specialties: cardiology, internal medicine, neurology, orthopaedics, reproduction, and surgery. Methods: A literature search was conducted and 25 studies per specialty were randomly selected. The breed, sex, neuter status, median age, and median weight of the dogs used for clinical studies (n = 150) published between 2007 and 2019 were evaluated. Results: In total, 596,542 dogs were used in the 150 trials. Breed information was given for 33,835 of these dogs (5.7%). Of the latter, 1.9% were Beagles. Nine clinical trials exclusively used Beagles. The most frequently used breeds were German Shepherds (7.3%), Labrador Retrievers (6.7%), and Golden Retrievers (4.7%). The major reporting deficits found were missing breed specification in 25.3% of the articles; missing information about the sex of the dogs in 16.2%; missing age and weight information in 22.7 and 32.7%, respectively; and missing neuter status in 38.7% of the clinical studies. The median sample size was 56 (Q1:29; Q3:365) dogs. Conclusions: The presented project revealed that Beagle dogs represent only a small proportion of dogs in veterinary research. Based on the evaluated publications, it seems that some relevant dog attributes differ between the specialties. The results, however, show deficits in the reporting of demographic data for the dogs. The need for an improvement in the documentation and/or reporting of animal signalment is obvious and should be addressed by authors, reviewers, and journal editors in the future.