The refinement of husbandry and procedures to reduce animal suffering and improve welfare is an essential component of humane science. Successful refinement depends upon the ability to assess animal welfare effectively, and detect any signs of pain or distress as rapidly as possible, so that any suffering can be alleviated. This document provides practical guidance on setting up and operating effective protocols for the welfare assessment of animals used in research and testing. It sets out general principles for more objective observation of animals, recognizing and assessing indicators of pain or distress and tailoring these to individual projects. Systems for recording indicators, including score sheets, are reviewed and guidance is set out on determining practical monitoring regimes that are more likely to detect any signs of suffering. This guidance is intended for all staff required to assess or monitor animal welfare, including animal technologists and care staff, veterinarians and scientists. It will also be of use to members of ethics or animal care and use committees. A longer version of this document, with further background information and extra topics including training and information sharing, is available on the Laboratory Animals website.

No abstract

Simple SummaryWild mice live in territories inhabited by one adult male, several females, and their offspring. This cannot be replicated in the laboratory, so male mice are usually housed in single-sex groups or individually. However, there can be serious animal welfare problems associated with both these approaches, such as lack of social contact when housed individually or aggression between males when kept in groups. Group housing is widely recommended to give male laboratory mice the opportunity to behave as ‘social animals’, but social stress can be detrimental to the welfare of these animals, even without injurious fighting. All of this can also affect the quality of the science, giving rise to ethical concerns. This review discusses whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be housed in groups, or alone. We conclude that it is not possible to give general recommendations for good practice for housing male laboratory mice, as responses to single- and group-housing can be highly context-dependent. The welfare implications of housing protocols should be researched and considered in each case. AbstractIt is widely recommended to group-house male laboratory mice because they are ‘social animals’, but male mice do not naturally share territories and aggression can be a serious welfare problem. Even without aggression, not all animals within a group will be in a state of positive welfare. Rather, many male mice may be negatively affected by the stress of repeated social defeat and subordination, raising concerns about welfare and also research validity. However, individual housing may not be an appropriate solution, given the welfare implications associated with no social contact. An essential question is whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be group- or singly housed. This review explores the likely impacts—positive and negative—of both housing conditions, presents results of a survey of current practice and awareness of mouse behavior, and includes recommendations for good practice and future research. We conclude that whether group- or single-housing is better (or less worse) in any situation is highly context-dependent according to several factors including strain, age, social position, life experiences, and housing and husbandry protocols. It is important to recognise this and evaluate what is preferable from animal welfare and ethical perspectives in each case.

No abstract

A survey was undertaken to evaluate how animal pain, suffering and distress are recognized and assessed in UK scientific procedure establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. A total of 28 institutions were visited between June 1999 and April 2001, within which 137 people were interviewed including scientists, veterinarians and animal technicians. All 28 establishments use clinical observation sheets to assist the recognition of adverse effects, nine use score sheets and seven use computerized data management systems. Clinical signs used as indicators of potential pain, suffering or distress are largely subjective. The survey also addressed protocols and methods for avoiding and alleviating adverse effects, record keeping, review of policies and protocols and issues relating to team work and training. Respondents use a range of techniques for reducing suffering including analgesia, humane endpoints, ensuring competence and refining husbandry. All establishments review projects regularly but few have the time or resources formally to review adverse effects noted in practice and to compare observations with predictions made in licence applications. Training is very consistent between different establishments and most aim to achieve a 'team approach' for monitoring and assessing animals. Results are summarized in the present, abridged paper and set out in full in a report that can be downloaded at http://www.lal.org.uk/pain/(Hawkins 2002). The present paper and the full report, including its recommendations, are intended to provide a source of information, discussion topics and ideas for all establishments that need to monitor animal well-being.

Simple Summary: Millions of laboratory animals are killed each year worldwide. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding what methods of killing are humane for many species and stages of development. This report summarises research findings and discussions from an international meeting of experts and stakeholders, with recommendations to inform good practice for humane killing of mice, rats and zebrafish. It provides additional guidance and perspectives for researchers designing projects that involve euthanasing animals, researchers studying aspects of humane killing, euthanasia device manufacturers, regulators, and institutional ethics or animal care and use committees that wish to review local practice.Abstract: Millions of laboratory animals are killed each year worldwide. There is an ethical, and in many countries also a legal, imperative to ensure those deaths cause minimal suffering. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding what methods of killing are humane for many species and stages of development. In 2013, an international group of researchers and stakeholders met at Newcastle University, United Kingdom to discuss the latest research and which methods could currently be considered most humane for the most commonly used laboratory species (mice, rats and zebrafish). They also discussed factors to consider when making decisions about appropriate techniques for particular species and projects, and priorities for further research. This report summarises the research findings and discussions, with recommendations to help inform good practice for humane killing.

Preface 262 1 Aims of this report 263 2 Telemetry and data logging 263 3 How to use this report 264 4 Harms and bene ts associated with telemetry 264 4.1 Potential harms associated with telemetry 265 4.2 Opportunities for re nement using telemetry 266 4.2.1 Re ning procedures using telemetry 266 4.2.2 Using telemetry to re ne housing and care 267 4.2.3 The potential for reduction 267 4.2.4 Data quality 267 5 Legal issues 268 6 Experimental design 268 6.1 Data and sampling 268 6.2 Physical arrangement of hardware 269 7 Selecting or designing a device 270 7.1 Mass of the device 270 WORKING PARTY REPORT # Laboratory Animals Ltd. Laboratory Animals (2003) 37, 261-299 7.2 Shape and dimensions 7.3 Location 7.4 Attachment or implantation? 7.4.1 Total implants 7.4.2 External devices-jackets and backpacks 7.4.3 Internal devices with exterior components, including skin buttons 8 Basic principles of surgical implantation 8.1 Surgery-general considerations 8.1.1 Expertise and training 8.1.2 The use of animals to gain manual skills 8.1.3 Asepsis 8.1.4 Fitting implants, cables and catheters 8.1.5 Inserting transducers into blood vessels 8.1.6 Checking and closing 8.1.7 Standard Operating Procedures 8.2 Anaesthesia 8.3 Pain management 8.3.1 Analgesia 8.3.2 Postoperative husbandry and care 8.4 Monitoring animals following surgery 8.5 Potential postoperative complications and repairing surgery 8.6 Long-term monitoring 9 Re-use of animals 10 Removing implanted devices and rehoming or releasing 11 Telemetry studies in the eld or using wild animals 11.1 Surgical facilities at eld research stations 11.2 External attachment in the eld 11.3 Releasing instrumented animals to the wild 12 Writing up projects involving telemetry 13 Keeping up with new developments References Appendix 1: Selected useful information Appendix 2: Score sheet for postoperative monitoring of rats following laparotomy and telemeter placement Preface Whenever animals are used in research, minimizing pain and distress and promoting good welfare must 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 broad legal principles such as those stated in the European Convention and Directive on animals used for experimental and other scienti c purposes (Council of Europe 1986, European Community 1986),

Report of the Transport Working Group established by the Laboratory Animal Science Association (LASA)