Applying the 3Rs: A Case Study on Evidence and Perceptions Relating to Rat Cage Height in the UK

Perceptions of 3R implementation in European animal research: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-synthesis of barriers and facilitators

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine how the scientific community in Europe that is involved with research with animals perceives and experiences the implementation of 3R (Replace, Reduce, Refine).

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature published in the past ten years was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. Publications were screened for eligibility using a priori inclusion criteria, and only empirical evidence (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodologies) was retained. Quantitative survey items were investigated by conducting a meta-analysis, and the qualitative data was summarized using an inductive meta-synthetic approach. Included publications were assessed using the Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies tool.

RESULTS

17 publications were included (eight quantitative, seven qualitative, two mixed-methods). The meta-analysis revealed that scientists are skeptical about achieving replacement, even if they believe that 3R improve the quality of experimental results. They are optimistic concerning the impact of 3R on research costs and innovation, and see education as highly valuable for the implementation of 3R. The meta-synthesis revealed four barriers (systemic dynamics, reification process, practical issues, insufficient knowledge) and four facilitators (efficient use of animals, caring for animals, regulatory uptake, supportive workplace environment).

CONCLUSION

These findings show actionable levers at the local and systemic levels, and may inform regulators and institutions in their 3R policies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered into the PROSPERO database under the number CRD42023395769.

Developing guidelines for pet rat housing through expert consultation

BACKGROUND

Pet care guidelines play an important role in ensuring that owners are well informed about good husbandry practices, allowing them to provide the best care for their animals. However, the development of such guidelines is difficult when there is little appropriate empirical evidence on which to base guidelines, as in the case of pet rats. The consultation of multiple experts can help to surmount this challenge.

METHODS

We developed a set of guidelines for pet rat housing by consulting with a group of experts, including veterinarians, veterinary nurses, animal welfare scientists and experienced pet rat owners. The consultation involved two rounds of online surveys (n = 13) and one online discussion (n = 8).

RESULTS

The resulting guidelines cover a broad range of features within pet rat housing, including injury prevention, details of suitable refuges and substrates, and suitable cage sizing. The guidelines may evolve as more information about pet rats comes to light but may nonetheless provide a useful starting point for any future guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, these guidelines may not only be useful for pet rat owners and those advising pet rat owners, such as veterinarians, but may also be useful in the design of housing, including for laboratory rodents.

Environmental Enrichment for Rats and Mice Housed in Laboratories: A Metareview

Simple Summary

Environmental enrichment has been widely studied with laboratory rodents, but there is no consensus regarding what counts as enrichment or what it should achieve. Inconsistent use of the term “enrichment” creates challenges in drawing conclusions about the quality of an environment. We conducted a metareview to better understand the definitions and goals of enrichment, perceived risks or requirements of enrichment, and what forms of enrichment have previously been endorsed for use with rodents housed in laboratories. This may help researchers and animal care staff to better define their chosen approach and intended outcomes when providing environmental enrichment.

Abstract

Environmental enrichment has been widely studied in rodents, but there is no consensus on what enrichment should look like or what it should achieve. Inconsistent use of the term “enrichment” creates challenges in drawing conclusions about the quality of an environment, which may slow housing improvements for laboratory animals. Many review articles have addressed environmental enrichment for laboratory rats and mice (Rattus norvegicus and Mus musculus). We conducted a metareview of 29 review articles to assess how enrichment has been defined and what are commonly described as its goals or requirements. Recommendations from each article were summarised to illustrate the conditions generally considered suitable for laboratory rodents. While there is no consensus on alternative terminology, many articles acknowledged that the blanket use of the terms “enriched” and “enrichment” should be avoided. Environmental enrichment was most often conceptualised as a method to increase natural behaviour and improve animal welfare. Authors also commonly outlined perceived risks and requirements of environmental enrichment. We discuss these perceptions, make suggestions for future research, and advocate for the adoption of more specific and value-neutral terminology.