Using refined methods to pick up mice: A survey benchmarking prevalence & beliefs about tunnel and cup handling

Refined handling improves laboratory mouse welfare and research outcomes when compared to traditional tail handling, yet implementation does not seem to be widespread. Refined handling includes picking up a mouse using a tunnel or cupped hands. The aim of this study was to determine the current prevalence of and beliefs towards refined handling using the theory of planned behavior. It was predicted that refined handling prevalence is low compared to traditional handling methods, and its implementation is determined by individual and institutional beliefs. Research personnel were recruited via online convenience sampling through email listservs and social media. A total of 261 participants in diverse roles (e.g. veterinarians, managers, caretakers, researchers, etc.) responded primarily from the USA (79%) and academic institutions (61%) Participants were surveyed about their current use, knowledge, and beliefs about refined handling. Quantitative data were analyzed via descriptive statistics and generalised regression. Qualitative data were analyzed by theme. Research personnel reported low levels of refined handling implementation, with only 10% of participants using it exclusively and a median estimate of only 10% of institutional mice being handled with refined methods. Individually, participants had positive attitudes, neutral norms, and positive control beliefs about refined handling. Participants' intention to provide refined handling in the future was strongly associated with their attitudes, norms, and control beliefs (p<0.01). Participants believed barriers included jumpy mice, perceived incompatibility with restraint, lack of time, and other personnel. However, participants also believed refined handling was advantageous to mouse welfare, handling ease, personnel, and research. Although results from this survey indicate that current refined handling prevalence is low in this sample, personnel believe it has important benefits, and future use is associated with their beliefs about the practice. People who believed refined handling was good, felt pressure to use it, and were confident in their use reported higher implementation. Increased refined handling could be encouraged through education on misconceptions, highlighting advantages, and addressing important barriers.

Refinements to rodent head fixation and fluid/food control for neuroscience

The use of head fixation in mice is increasingly common in research, its use having initially been restricted to the field of sensory neuroscience. Head restraint has often been combined with fluid control, rather than food restriction, to motivate behaviour, but this too is now in use for both restrained and non-restrained animals. Despite this, there is little guidance on how best to employ these techniques to optimise both scientific outcomes and animal welfare. This article summarises current practices and provides recommendations to improve animal wellbeing and data quality, based on a survey of the community, literature reviews, and the expert opinion and practical experience of an international working group convened by the UK's National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). Topics covered include head fixation surgery and post-operative care, habituation to restraint, and the use of fluid/food control to motivate performance. We also discuss some recent developments that may offer alternative ways to collect data from large numbers of behavioural trials without the need for restraint. The aim is to provide support for researchers at all levels, animal care staff, and ethics committees to refine procedures and practices in line with the refinement principle of the 3Rs.

Harmonisation of welfare indicators for macaques and marmosets used or bred for research

Background: Accurate assessment of the welfare of non-human primates (NHPs) used and bred for scientific purposes is essential for effective implementation of obligations to optimise their well-being, for validation of refinement techniques and novel welfare indicators, and for ensuring the highest quality data is obtained from these animals. Despite the importance of welfare assessment in NHP research, there is little consensus on what should be measured. Greater harmonisation of welfare indicators between facilities would enable greater collaboration and data sharing to address welfare-related questions in the management and use of NHPs. Methods: A Delphi consultation was used to survey attendees of the 2019 NC3Rs Primate Welfare Meeting (73 respondents) to build consensus on which welfare indicators for macaques and marmosets are reliable, valid, and practicable, and how these can be measured. Results: Self-harm behaviour, social enrichment, cage dimensions, body weight, a health monitoring programme, appetite, staff training, and positive reinforcement training were considered valid, reliable, and practicable indicators for macaques (≥70% consensus) within a hypothetical scenario context involving 500 animals. Indicators ranked important for assessing marmoset welfare were body weight, NHP induced and environmentally induced injuries, cage furniture, huddled posture, mortality, blood in excreta, and physical enrichment. Participants working with macaques in infectious disease and breeding identified a greater range of indicators as valid and reliable than did those working in neuroscience and toxicology, where animal-based indicators were considered the most important. The findings for macaques were compared with a previous Delphi consultation, and the expert-defined consensus from the two surveys used to develop a prototype protocol for assessing macaque welfare in research settings. Conclusions: Together the Delphi results and proto-protocol enable those working with research NHPs to more effectively assess the welfare of the animals in their care and to collaborate to advance refinement of NHP management and use.

Harmonisation of welfare indicators for macaques and marmosets used or bred for research

Background: Accurate assessment of the welfare of non-human primates (NHPs) used and bred for scientific purposes is essential for effective implementation of obligations to optimise their well-being, for validation of refinement techniques and novel welfare indicators, and for ensuring the highest quality data is obtained from these animals. Despite the importance of welfare assessment in NHP research, there is little consensus on what should be measured. Greater harmonisation of welfare indicators between facilities would enable greater collaboration and data sharing to address welfare-related questions in the management and use of NHPs. Methods: A Delphi consultation was used to survey attendees of the 2019 NC3Rs Primate Welfare Meeting (73 respondents) to build consensus on which welfare indicators for macaques and marmosets are reliable, valid, and practicable, and how these can be measured. Results: Self-harm behaviour, social enrichment, cage dimensions, body weight, a health monitoring programme, appetite, staff training, and positive reinforcement training were considered valid, reliable, and practicable indicators for macaques (≥70% consensus) within a hypothetical scenario context involving 500 animals. Indicators ranked important for assessing marmoset welfare were body weight, NHP induced and environmentally induced injuries, cage furniture, huddled posture, mortality, blood in excreta, and physical enrichment. Participants working with macaques in infectious disease and breeding identified a greater range of indicators as valid and reliable than did those working in neuroscience and toxicology, where animal-based indicators were considered the most important. The findings for macaques were compared with a previous Delphi consultation, and the expert-defined consensus from the two surveys used to develop a prototype protocol for assessing macaque welfare in research settings. Conclusions: Together the Delphi results and proto-protocol enable those working with research NHPs to more effectively assess the welfare of the animals in their care and to collaborate to advance refinement of NHP management and use.

Harmonisation of welfare indicators for macaques and marmosets used or bred for research

Background: Accurate assessment of the welfare of non-human primates (NHPs) used and bred for scientific purposes is essential for effective implementation of obligations to optimise their well-being, for validation of refinement techniques and novel welfare indicators, and for ensuring the highest quality data is obtained from these animals. Despite the importance of welfare assessment in NHP research, there is little consensus on what should be measured. Greater harmonisation of welfare indicators between facilities would enable greater collaboration and data sharing to address welfare-related questions in the management and use of NHPs. Methods: A Delphi consultation was used to survey attendees of the 2019 NC3Rs Primate Welfare Meeting (73 respondents) to build consensus on which welfare indicators for macaques and marmosets are reliable, valid, and practicable, and how these can be measured. Results: Self-harm behaviour, social enrichment, cage dimensions, body weight, a health monitoring programme, appetite, staff training, and positive reinforcement training were considered valid, reliable, and practicable indicators for macaques (≥70% consensus) within a hypothetical scenario context involving 500 animals. Indicators ranked important for assessing marmoset welfare were body weight, NHP induced and environmentally induced injuries, cage furniture, huddled posture, mortality, blood in excreta, and physical enrichment. Participants working with macaques in infectious disease and breeding identified a greater range of indicators as valid and reliable than did those working in neuroscience and toxicology, where animal-based indicators were considered the most important. The findings for macaques were compared with a previous Delphi consultation, and the expert-defined consensus from the two surveys used to develop a prototype protocol for assessing macaque welfare in research settings. Conclusions: Together the Delphi results and proto-protocol enable those working with research NHPs to more effectively assess the welfare of the animals in their care and to collaborate to advance refinement of NHP management and use.

The role of MRI in applying the 3Rs to non-human primate neuroscience

Magnetic resonance imaging is playing a significant role in applying the 3Rs to neuroscience studies using non-human primates. MRI scans are contributing to refinement by enhancing the selection and assignment of animals, guiding the manufacture of custom-fitted recording and head fixation devices, and assisting with the diagnosis of health issues and their treatment. MRI is also being used to better understand the impact of neuroscience procedures on the welfare of NHPs. MRI has helped to optimise NHP use and make greater scientific progress than would otherwise be made using larger numbers of animals. Whilst human fMRI studies have replaced some NHP studies, their potential to directly replace NHP electrophysiology is limited at present. Given the considerable advantages of MRI for electrophysiology experiments, including improved welfare of NHPs, consideration should be given to focusing NHP electrophysiology laboratories around MRI facilities. Greater sharing of MRI data sets, and improvements in MRI contrast and resolution, are expected to further advance the 3Rs in the future.

Ethical and Welfare Implications of Genetically Altered Non-Human Primates for Biomedical Research

Breakthroughs in gene editing technologies have made it feasible to create genetically altered (GA) non-human primate (NHP) models of disease. This area of research is accelerating, particularly in China, Japan and the USA, and could lead to an increase in NHP use globally. The hope is that genetic models in animal species closely related to humans will significantly improve understanding of neurological diseases and validation of potential therapeutic interventions, for which there is a dire need. However, the creation and use of GA NHPS raises serious animal welfare and ethical issues, which are highlighted here. It represents a step change in how these highly sentient animals are used in biomedical research, because of the large numbers required, inherent wastage and the sum of the harms caused to the animals involved. There is little evidence of these important issues being addressed alongside the rapidly advancing science. We are still learning about how gene editing tools work in NHPS, and significant added scientific and medical benefit from GA NHP models has yet to be demonstrated. Together, this suggests that current regulatory and review frameworks, in some jurisdictions at least, are not adequately equipped to deal with this emerging, complex area of NHP use.

Ethical and Welfare Implications of the Acquisition and Transport of Non-human Primates for Use in Research and Testing

Assessment of the ethical and welfare implications of any laboratory animal use should encompass the entire life-history of the animals concerned, including their acquisition and transport. This is particularly important in the case of non-human primates, because the acquisition of some species involves capture from the wild, inadequate husbandry, and/or lengthy, multistaged travel from the country of origin to the laboratory where they are used. Thus, non-human primates endure considerable harms even before they reach the laboratory. Despite this, the information necessary to increase awareness of, and to assess, the potential harms of acquisition and transport is not readily available. This paper highlights the ethical and welfare concerns associated with these processes and makes recommendations intended to reduce their impact on welfare. The information presented is collated from a recent report that analyses the UK trade in non-human primates for research and testing, but many of the concerns and recommendations are applicable in an international forum. The need to minimise suffering is emphasised, as is the need for critical review of the necessity and justification for all non-human primate use, a reduction in the numbers used, and the development of alternatives to replace their use.

Applying the 3Rs to non-human primate research: Barriers and solutions

Progress is being made in the development and application of methods to replace, reduce and refine the use of non-human primates (NHPs) in biomedical research and testing of products and devices. However, there remain considerable cultural and practical barriers to widespread uptake of available 3Rs techniques and to further advancement of the 3Rs in NHP research, over and above scientific obstacles. While most of these barriers apply also to the use of other vertebrate species, there is arguably a greater imperative to overcome them in the case of the NHPs, given their high sentience and the degree of societal concern about their use. To do so will require greater awareness among researchers of the availability and scientific benefits of 3Rs approaches; increased funding for the development of new research models and tools, infrastructure and training; more robust scientific and ethical review of research proposals involving NHPs; better retrospective evaluation of the benefits accrued from NHP research; and improved knowledge transfer. Change is not made without inconvenience, but fully applying the 3Rs to research involving NHPs can improve the quality of science, its translation, business efficiency and public support.

An International Survey of Approaches to Chair Restraint of Nonhuman Primates

Specifically designed restraint chairs are the preferred method of restraint for research studies that require NHP to sit in place for sustained periods of time. In light of increasing emphasis on refinement of restraint to improve animal wellbeing, it is important to have a better understanding of this potentially stressful procedure. Although chair restraint is used internationally, very little published information is available on this subject. We developed a survey to obtain an overview of equipment, procedures, and plans for improvement regarding chair restraint. We received 101 responses from people working in academic, government, contract research, and pharmaceutical laboratories within the Americas, Europe and Asia. Findings indicate that the majority of laboratories using restraint chairs work with macaque species. Restraint chairs are used for a wide range of procedures, including cognitive testing, recording neuronal activity, functional MRI, intravenous infusion, and blood sampling. Approximately 2/3 of laboratories use an enclosed 'box chair,' which the animal is trained to enter and then to extend its head through an opening on the top of the chair; the remaining one third of laboratories use an 'open chair' design, in which manual handling or the pole-and-collar system is used to transfer and secure the animal into the chair. Respondents reported that when selecting the type of chair to use, they considered comfort for the animal, ease of use, and the ability to adjust fit between animals of different sizes. Various training methods and timeframes are used to prepare macaques for restraint chair procedures. Several laboratories are incorporating greater use of positive reinforcement training. The community that uses these restraint procedures needs to work together to define best practice; our survey results can help in that effort.

International survey on the use and welfare of zebrafish Danio rerio in research

A survey was conducted regarding zebrafish Danio rerio use for scientific research with a focus on: anaesthesia and euthanasia; housing and husbandry; breeding and production; refinement opportunities. A total of 98 survey responses were received from laboratories in 22 countries in Europe, North America, South America, Asia and Australia. There appears a clear and urgent need to identify the most humane methods of anaesthesia and euthanasia. Aversive responses to MS-222 were widely observed raising concerns about the use of this anaesthetic for D. rerio. The use of anaesthesia in fin clipping for genetic identification is widely practised and there appears to be an opportunity to further develop less invasive methods and refine this process. Optimization (and potentially standardization) of feeding is an area for further investigation. Given that diet and body condition can have such profound effects on results of experiments, differences in practice could have significant scientific implications. Further research into transition between dark and light phases in the laboratory appears to represent an opportunity to establish best practice. Plants and gravel were not considered practical by many laboratories. The true value and benefits need to be established and communicated. Overproduction is a concern both from ethical and financial viewpoints. There is an opportunity to further reduce wastage of D. rerio. There are clear concerns and opportunities for the scientific community to work together to further improve the welfare of these important laboratory models.

Online resources for improving the care and use of non-human primates in research

Published literature and scientific events provide opportunities to expand knowledge and develop skills in the care and use of non-human primates (NHPs) in research. Increasingly, these traditional routes of information exchange are being complemented by dedicated online resources aimed at sharing best practice in NHP care and use, and enhancing the training and professional development of laboratory staff working with NHPs. This article outlines some key online resources from the UK’s National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and other organisations with an interest in NHP research, and the ways in which the resources can be integrated into staff training and research practices to enhance animal welfare, quality of science and application of the 3Rs.

The multifactorial role of the 3Rs in shifting the harm-benefit analysis in animal models of disease

Ethics on animal use in science in Western society is based on utilitarianism, weighing the harms and benefits to the animals involved against those of the intended human beneficiaries. The 3Rs concept (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) is both a robust framework for minimizing animal use and suffering (addressing the harms to animals) and a means of supporting high quality science and translation (addressing the benefits). The ambiguity of basic research performed early in the research continuum can sometimes make harm-benefit analysis more difficult since anticipated benefit is often an incremental contribution to a field of knowledge. On the other hand, benefit is much more evident in translational research aimed at developing treatments for direct application in humans or animals suffering from disease. Though benefit may be easier to define, it should certainly not be considered automatic. Issues related to model validity seriously compromise experiments and have been implicated as a major impediment in translation, especially in complex disease models where harms to animals can be intensified. Increased investment and activity in the 3Rs is delivering new research models, tools and approaches with reduced reliance on animal use, improved animal welfare, and improved scientific and predictive value.

Ethics of primate use

This article provides an overview of the ethical issues raised by the use of non-human primates (NHPs) in research involving scientific procedures which may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. It is not an exhaustive review of the literature and views on this subject, and it does not present any conclusions about the moral acceptability or otherwise of NHP research. Rather the aim has been to identify the ethical issues involved and to provide guidance on how these might be addressed, in particular by carefully examining the scientific rationale for NHP use, implementing fully the 3Rs principle of Russell and Burch (1959) and applying a robust "harm-benefit assessment" to research proposals involving NHPs.

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.

Social interaction with non-averse group-mates modifies a learned food aversion in single- and mixed-species groups of tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis andS. labiatus)

For social species, being a member of a cohesive group and performing activities as a coordinated unit appear to provide a mechanism for the efficient transmission of information about food. Social learning about food palatability was investigated in two captive primates, Saguinus fuscicollis and S. labiatus, which form stable and cohesive mixed-species groups in the wild. We explored whether an induced food aversion toward a preferred food is modified during and after social interaction with non-averse conspecifics or congeners. Sets of intra- and interspecific pairs were presented with two foods, one of which was considered distasteful by one of the pairs (the other was palatable), and their behavior was compared pre-interaction, during interaction, and post-interaction. For the aversely-conditioned individuals of both species, the change in social context corresponded to a change in their preference for the food that they considered unpalatable, regardless of whether they had interacted with a conspecific or congeneric pair, and the change in food preference was maintained post-interaction. In a control condition, in which averse individuals did not have the opportunity to interact with non-averse animals, S. fuscicollis sampled the preferred food, but not as quickly as when given the opportunity to interact. We conclude that the social learning demonstrated here may allow individual tamarins to track environmental change, such as fruit ripening, more efficiently than asocial learning alone, because social learners can more quickly and safely focus on appropriate behavior by sharing up-to-date foraging information. Furthermore, since the behavior of congeners, as well as conspecifics, acts to influence food choice in a more adaptive direction, social learning about food palatability may be an advantage of mixed-species group formation to tamarins of both species.