The human–animal bond with laboratory animals

Shyan-Norwalt, Melissa R.

doi:10.1038/laban0409-132

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The survey tool does not directly address the extensively described links or bonds that are established between the animal care personnel and the animals. 2,20 –24…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the Culture of Care working with laboratory animals by using a comprehensive survey tool

Bertelsen

Øvlisen

2021

Lab Anim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term Culture of Care, within the scientific community using laboratory animals, is being used more and more frequently after it was introduced in the EU Directive 2010/63/EU, where it is phrased as a ‘climate of care’, which became effective in national legislation from January 2013. However, there is a risk that the term could become a meaningless phrase if no agreed local definition of the term exists at the animal facility (called establishment in the EU Directive). This paper presents a comprehensive survey tool that provides a means to describe what the Culture of Care in an establishment looks like. The tool is one of the elements that can contribute to the overall picture of the culture; however, it cannot stand alone. Together with an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Culture of Care (e.g. key performance indicators) and a description of the outcomes and achievements in terms of animal welfare and the 3Rs (Replace, Reduce, Refine), the survey tool will constitute a comprehensive picture. The survey tool offers a multilevel and comprehensive view of different subcultures, presenting details on mindset and behaviour of the employees and the different relations within the culture, thus enabling the initiation of improvement projects if required. The tool addresses essential elements of a co-operative culture in terms of what we think, what we do and how we work together.

show abstract

“…The survey tool does not directly address the extensively described links or bonds that are established between the animal care personnel and the animals. 2,20 –24…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the Culture of Care working with laboratory animals by using a comprehensive survey tool

Bertelsen

Øvlisen

2021

Lab Anim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A bond between humans and animals in research has frequently been reported [ 7 ] and is not just limited to cases involving primates and companion animals but extends to include less expected species, such as chickens and reptiles. However, some stakeholders in this domain had reportedly been trained to minimize or avoid such interactions with the animal subjects for the sake of objectivity [ 8 , 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varying Degrees of Animal Reification by Stakeholders in Experimental Research

Cabaret

Fortin

2022

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The attitude towards animals in research depends on both the role of the stakeholder and their personal characteristics. Most studies on the subject have been carried out on stakeholders from biomedical research institutes with comparatively few sociological studies on stakeholders from agricultural research centers. Previous findings suggest that animal caretakers at agricultural research centers felt undervalued by the hierarchy, and that animal reification was present in the sector. This may indicate that a lack of consideration for the animal subjects correlates with an inadequate sensitivity towards humans. Since these findings were published twenty years ago, there has been an increasing emphasis on the importance and actions of ethics committees in research, animal welfare bodies, and public concern for animals, which may have impacted the current perspective. To better understand current degrees of animal reification amongst stakeholders of agricultural research, we conducted semi-directive interviews at a leading agricultural research institute in France (INRAE). The interviews targeted both animal caretakers and researchers who were involved in the study of infectious diseases in livestock, or the behavior of horses and quails. After having transcribed the recorded interviews into text, semi-automatized analyses were carried out to categorize them into distinct groups, from which the most characteristic words and sentences were extracted. Three groups of stakeholders were identified: (i) animal caretakers involved in invasive infectious disease research; (ii) animal caretakers involved in behavioral research; and (iii) researchers. The findings show that animal caretakers felt acknowledged by their hierarchy. It is possible the increased skill criteria for people recruited into this position over the years, combined with greater prospects for continuous learning and development in the profession, may have fostered a more respectful regard across the hierarchy. The animal caretakers clearly expressed that their primary objective was to successfully execute the research protocols and that the animals were viewed as prototypes for research, with which they could, on occasion, develop a bond with. The bond was more important for animal caretakers involved in behavioral studies than for those involved in the study of infectious diseases, where invasive biological sampling and restraining of the animals is required. Researchers prioritized the procurement of robust data to test hypotheses, analyze phenomena, and publish their results. Their concern for the animals rather reflected the views of the general public opposed to thought-out personal opinions on the matter; this is possibly due to their comparatively limited interaction with the animals. They considered the animals in abstract terms that were indicative of reification. This study concludes that animal reification is still present, albeit to varying degrees amongst the stakeholders.

show abstract

“…This is no great surprise. There is within much animal studies a persistent and entirely understandable emphasis on the human side of human-animal relations and to the human-directed methodologies (Franklin, 2004) that elucidate it, whether it be with pet owners (Fox, 2006;Power, 2008), farmers (Bock and Van Huik, 2007), laboratory technicians (Birke et al, 2007;Shyan-Norwalt, 2009), and so on. Yet, as Hodgetts and Lorimer (2014) point out, this continued human focus runs to some extent counter to the discipline's more-thanhuman aspirations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%