This paper is the result of an international initiative and is a first attempt to develop guidelines for the care and welfare of cephalopods (i.e. nautilus, cuttlefish, squid and octopus) following the inclusion of this Class of ∼700 known living invertebrate species in Directive 2010/63/EU. It aims to provide information for investigators, animal care committees, facility managers and animal care staff which will assist in improving both the care given to cephalopods, and the manner in which experimental procedures are carried out. Topics covered include: implications of the Directive for cephalopod research; project application requirements and the authorisation process; the application of the 3Rs principles; the need for harm-benefit assessment and severity classification. Guidelines and species-specific requirements are provided on: i. supply, capture and transport; ii. environmental characteristics and design of facilities (e.g. water quality control, lighting requirements, vibration/noise sensitivity); iii. accommodation and care (including tank design), animal handling, feeding and environmental enrichment; iv. assessment of health and welfare (e.g. monitoring biomarkers, physical and behavioural signs); v. approaches to severity assessment; vi. disease (causes, prevention and treatment); vii. scientific procedures, general anaesthesia and analgesia, methods of humane killing and confirmation of death. Sections covering risk assessment for operators and education and training requirements for carers, researchers and veterinarians are also included. Detailed aspects of care and welfare requirements for the main laboratory species currently used are summarised in Appendices. Knowledge gaps are highlighted to prompt research to enhance the evidence base for future revision of these guidelines.

Addressing psychosocial concerns should become part of the care routinely given to stoma patients. We recommend more emphasis on dispelling negative thoughts and encouraging social interactions.

Cephalopods have been utilised in neuroscience research for more than 100 years particularly because of their phenotypic plasticity, complex and centralised nervous system, tractability for studies of learning and cellular mechanisms of memory (e.g. long-term potentiation) and anatomical features facilitating physiological studies (e.g. squid giant axon and synapse). On 1 January 2013, research using any of the about 700 extant species of “live cephalopods” became regulated within the European Union by Directive 2010/63/EU on the “Protection of Animals used for Scientific Purposes”, giving cephalopods the same EU legal protection as previously afforded only to vertebrates. The Directive has a number of implications, particularly for neuroscience research. These include: (1) projects will need justification, authorisation from local competent authorities, and be subject to review including a harm-benefit assessment and adherence to the 3Rs principles (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction). (2) To support project evaluation and compliance with the new EU law, guidelines specific to cephalopods will need to be developed, covering capture, transport, handling, housing, care, maintenance, health monitoring, humane anaesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia. (3) Objective criteria need to be developed to identify signs of pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm particularly in the context of their induction by an experimental procedure. Despite diversity of views existing on some of these topics, this paper reviews the above topics and describes the approaches being taken by the cephalopod research community (represented by the authorship) to produce “guidelines” and the potential contribution of neuroscience research to cephalopod welfare.

No abstract

No abstract

The OAI-23 is a valid and reliable measure of psychosocial adjustment that will be of interest to both researchers investigating life after stoma surgery and clinicians making objective assessments of their patients' progress.

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

SummaryThis paper reports the results of an examination of the 'methods' sections of a range of experimental research papers in biomedical science, focusing on the descriptions of animal use and housing. Detailed descriptions in the methods should enable replication, and also enable readers to judge scientific quality. Relatively few papers sampled gave adequate descriptions of housing conditions and many failed to give details of physiologically relevant variables such as weight of animals. Thirty per cent of papers omitted the number of animals used, and the deaths of animals (whether as part of the protocol, or accidental death) were not always recorded.Adequate reporting of the conditions of animal maintenance and use are important, both in relation to the quality of the science produced, and also because of public concerns about the ethics of animal experiments.