An RSPCA/FRAME Survey of the Use of Non-human Primates as Laboratory Animals in Great Britain, 1984–1988

It is now more than 20 years since both Council of Europe Convention ETS123 and EU Directive 86/609?EEC were introduced, to promote the implementation of the Three Rs in animal experimentation and to provide guidance on animal housing and care. It might therefore be expected that reports of the implementation of the Three Rs in animal research papers would have increased during this period. In order to test this hypothesis, a literature survey of animal-based research was conducted. A randomly-selected sample from 16 high-profile medical journals, of original research papers arising from European institutions that featured experiments which involved either mice or primates, were identified for the years 1986 and 2006 (Total sample = 250 papers). Each paper was scored out of 10 for the incidence of reporting on the implementation of Three Rs-related factors corresponding to Replacement (justification of non-use of non-animal methods), Reduction (statistical analysis of the number of animals needed) and Refinement (housing aspects, i.e. increased cage size, social housing, enrichment of cage environment and food; and procedural aspects, i.e. the use of anaesthesia, analgesia, humane endpoints, and training for procedures with positive reinforcement). There was no significant increase in overall reporting score over time, for either mouse or primate research. By 2006, mouse research papers scored an average of 0 out of a possible 10, and primate research papers scored an average of 1.5. This review provides systematic evidence that animal research is still not properly reported, and supports the call within the scientific community for action to be taken by journals to update their policies.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting the Implementation of the Three Rs in European Primate and Mouse Research Papers: Are We Making Progress?

Taylor¹

2010

“…In this distress score, water deprivation of longer duration has to be classified as highly stressful (Category D "experiments that involve significant but unavoidable stress or pain to vertebrate animal species") to the animals, as does the use of the socalled primate chair and the fastening of the head (7). Hampson et al also consider such measures to cause great suffering and anxiety (11). A cooperation that is obtained through depriving the animal of water and strapping it in the primate chair must rather be viewed in terms of the resignation of an animal confronted with a situation from which there is no escape.…”

Section: Ethical Evaluation Of Electrophysiological Recordings In Thementioning

confidence: 99%

The Moral Standing of Non-human Primates: Why They Merit Special Consideration

Sauer¹

2004

Scientific experiments with non-human primates are viewed very controversially. Those who use non-human primates for scientific purposes contend that the results will be of great benefit to humans. They say that the distress to the animals is minimal and that, therefore, their experiments are ethically acceptable. On the other hand, there are those who oppose non-human primate experiments altogether, due to the close relationship between these animals and humans. In a literature study on non-human primate experiments in fundamental brain research, the outcome of research projects performed over the period of a decade was evaluated retrospectively. Objective criteria were applied both for determining the cost (internationally published distress scores, taking into account distress due to procurement, transportation and housing) and the benefit (evaluating publications that arose from the experiments, citation scores and so forth). Taking the example of electrophysiological recordings in the brain of the awake macaque, this balancing ended up very different from that proposed by the scientists, and did not support the conclusion that the experiments had been ethically acceptable.

“…All that is chillingly-reminiscent of what was said in the 1990 report of an RSPCA/FRAME survey of NHP use in Britain from 1984 to 1988: 3 "It was impossible to tell from many of the published papers precisely what had been done to the animals, why they had been used, how many animals had been involved, where they had come from, what post-operative care was given, how they had been generally cared for, or what eventually happened to them. "…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Transparency and Public Accountability on the Use of Non-Human Primates as Laboratory Animals Needs Actions, as Well as Words

Balls

2013

Self Cite