Chimpanzees in Research: Past, Present, and Future

Although the welfare of chimpanzees encompasses many issues, this chapter addresses their use in research, including their historical and current use in the United States, ethical and scientific concerns, public opinion, international legislation, and future directions

Chimpanzees in Research: Past, Present, and Future

Although the welfare of chimpanzees encompasses many issues, this chapter addresses their use in research, including their historical and current use in the United States, ethical and scientific concerns, public opinion, international legislation, and future directions

The Minimization of Research Animal Distress and Pain: Conclusions and Recommendations

While the attention given to preventing, assessing, and alleviating pain in research animals has increased noticeably in recent decades, much remains to be done both in terms of implementing best practices and conducting studies to answer outstanding questions. In contrast, the attention to distress (particularly non-pain induced distress) has shown no comparable increase. There are many reasons for this discrepancy, including the conceptual untidiness of the distress concept, the paucity of pharmacological treatments for distress, and perceived lack of regulatory emphasis on distress. These are challenges that need to be addressed and overcome. This book is intended to help meet these and other challenges to effectively tackling distress and pain in research animals. The chapter, in particular, distills the various recommendations regarding recognition, assessment, measurement and alleviation of animal distress and pain throughout this book, in order to provide the reader with practical information in a succinct format

Addressing Distress and Pain in Animal Research: The Veterinary, Research, Societal, Regulatory and Ethical Contexts for Moving Forward

While most people recognize that biomedical scientists are searching for knowledge that will improve the health of humans and animals, the image of someone deliberately causing harm to an animal in order to produce data that may lead to some future benefit has always prompted an uncomfortable reaction outside the laboratory. However, proponents of animal research have usually justified the practice by reference to greater benefits (new knowledge and medical treatments) over lesser costs (in animal suffering and death). Given that one of the costs of animal research is the suffering experienced by the animals, the goal of eliminating distress and pain in the animal laboratory wherever feasible, is one that few, if any, people (especially scientists) would argue against. Moreover, we contend that a laudable, long-range goal would be the elimination of all substantial distress and pain in the animal laboratory (Stephens and Conlee, 2004) although some might see this as an insurmountable technical challenge

Addressing Distress and Pain in Animal Research: The Veterinary, Research, Societal, Regulatory and Ethical Contexts for Moving Forward

While most people recognize that biomedical scientists are searching for knowledge that will improve the health of humans and animals, the image of someone deliberately causing harm to an animal in order to produce data that may lead to some future benefit has always prompted an uncomfortable reaction outside the laboratory. However, proponents of animal research have usually justified the practice by reference to greater benefits (new knowledge and medical treatments) over lesser costs (in animal suffering and death). Given that one of the costs of animal research is the suffering experienced by the animals, the goal of eliminating distress and pain in the animal laboratory wherever feasible, is one that few, if any, people (especially scientists) would argue against. Moreover, we contend that a laudable, long-range goal would be the elimination of all substantial distress and pain in the animal laboratory (Stephens and Conlee, 2004) although some might see this as an insurmountable technical challenge

Carbon Dioxide for Euthanasia: Concerns Regarding Pain and Distress, with Special Reference to Mice and Rats

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most commonly used agent for euthanasia of laboratory rodents, used on an estimated tens of millions of laboratory rodents per year worldwide, yet there is a growing body of evidence indicating that exposure to CO2 causes more than momentary pain and distress in these and other animals. We reviewed the available literature on the use of CO2 for euthanasia (as well as anaesthesia) and also informally canvassed laboratory animal personnel for their opinions regarding this topic. Our review addresses key issues such as CO2 flow rate and final concentration, presence of oxygen, and prefilled chambers (the animal is added to the chamber once a predetermined concentration and flow rate have been reached) versus gradual induction (the animal is put into an empty chamber and the gas agent(s) is gradually introduced at a fixed rate). Internationally, animal research standards specify that any procedure that would cause pain or distress in humans should be assumed to do so in nonhuman animals as well (Public Health Service 1986, US Department of Agriculture 1997, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2000). European Union guidelines, however, specify a certain threshold of pain or distress, such as ‘skilled insertion of a hypodermic needle’, as the starting point at which regulation of the use of animals in experimental or other scientific procedures begins (Biotechnology Regulatory Atlas n.d.). There is clear evidence in the human literature that CO2 exposure is painful and distressful, while the non-human literature is equivocal. However, the fact that a number of studies do conclude that CO2 causes pain and distress in animals indicates a need for careful reconsideration of its use. Finally, this review offers recommendations for alternatives to the use of CO2 as a euthanasia agent

Possibilities for Refinement and Reduction: Future Improvements Within Regulatory Testing

Approaches and challenges to refining and reducing animal use in regulatory testing are reviewed. Regulatory testing accounts for the majority of animals reported in the most painful and/or distressful categories in the United States and Canada. Refinements in testing, including the use of humane endpoints, are of increasing concern. Traditional approaches to reduction (e.g., improving experimental design) are being supplemented with complementary approaches, such as the use of tier testing to eliminate some chemicals prior to in vivo testing. Technological advances in telemetry and noninvasive techniques will help decrease either the demand for animals in testing or animal suffering. Further decreases in animal use will stem from international harmonization and coordination of testing programs. Progress in refinement and reduction faces a variety of broad challenges, including limited funding for research. In the specific area of refinement, a key challenge is the issue of distress (as distinct from pain). In the area of reduction, the practice of using unjustifiably high numbers of animals from small species (e.g., rodents) should be challenged. One case study of the use of carbon dioxide as a euthanasia agent illustrates the need for further analysis and research. Notwithstanding the complexities and challenges, the potential for refinement and reduction in regulatory testing is encouraging

Resolving Animal Distress and Pain: Principles and Examples of Good Practice in Various Fields of Research

Pain and distress are central topics in legislation, regulations, and standards regarding the use of animals in research. However, in practice, pain has received greatly increased attention in recent years, while attention to distress has lagged far behind, especially for distress that is not induced by pain. A contributing factor is that there is less information readily available on distress, including practical information on its recognition, assessment and alleviation. This chapter attempts to help fill that void by reversing the usual pattern and giving greater attention to distress than to pain. In addition, we also bypass the pain versus distress dichotomy by adopting a holistic treatment of adverse effects, i.e., not parsing distress and pain, by providing guidance on how to assess deviations from normality through tools such as score sheets. Our aim is to provide practical information to IACUCs, scientists, technicians and animal care personnel. We organize the chapter according to specific research areas and case studies. However, the principles and approaches are readily generalized to other research areas. CONTENTS Effect of surgical technical skill on pain and distress in animals - Alicia Karas, DVM Carbon dioxide euthanasia: example of aversion techniques - Matthew C. Leach, PhD The Refinement of Infectious Disease Research - Karl A. Andrutis DVM, MS, DACLAM Polyclonal antibody production - Kathleen Conlee, BS, MPA Animal models of human psychopathology: anxiety - John P. Gluck PhD Refinement In Toxicology Testing: A Workshop to Promote Current Advances and Disseminate Best Practices - Andrew N. Rowan, Martin L. Stephens, and Kathleen M. Conle

Report of the Working Group on Animal Distress in the Laboratory

Finding ways to minimize pain and distress in research animals is a continuing goal in the laboratory animal research field. Pain and distress, however, are not synonymous, and often measures that alleviate one do not affect the other. Here, the authors provide a summary of a meeting held in February 2004 that focused on distress in laboratory animals. They discuss the difficulties associated with defining ‘distress,’ propose methods to aid in recognizing and alleviating distressful conditions, and provide recommendations for animal research conduct and oversight that would minimize distress experienced by laboratory animals

A Holistic Approach to Taking Research Animal Suffering Seriously

It is widely agreed, and often legally required, that distress and pain in research animals should be minimized--for the sake of animal welfare, ethical obligation, and public concern, as well as scientific quality. As testimony to the importance of distress and pain to stakeholders interested in research animals, many countries compile and publish annual statistics documenting overall patterns and trends on distress and pain in research animals. We argue for a holistic approach to minimizing research animal suffering, with all relevant parties sharing in this responsibility. Researchers, laboratory personnel, oversight committees, and facility administrators are central to day-to-day animal care. Oversight agencies are key to animal welfare enforcement and annual reporting. Funding agencies can be instrumental by supporting pain- and distress-related research. Professional organizations can support training and develop best practices. Journals can stipulate authors\u27 adherence to ethical codes and inclusion of pain- and distress-related information in published articles. Legislators can pass or amend laws to strengthen legislative mandates. And animal protection organizations can apply outside pressure to decision-makers for positive changes. In our view, much more can and should be done to minimize research animal suffering; we make several recommendations to improve this situation