A 'road map' toward ending severe suffering of animals used in research and testing.

Ending severe suffering is desirable and achievable. In this article we have outlined a 'road map', or series of steps, that can be used to evaluate the extent to which severe suffering occurs within establishments, and some practical principles that can be employed in order to work toward ending it. We urge researchers to act upon these principles, and to begin a journey toward a future where causing severe suffering to animals used in scientific research is a thing of the past.

Ethical review of projects involving non-human primates funded under the European Union's 7th Research Framework Programme.

Internet searches were performed on projects involving non-human primates ('primates') funded under the European Union (EU) 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7), to determine how project proposals are assessed from an ethical point of view. Due to the incompleteness of the information publicly available, the types and severity of the experiments could not be determined with certainty, although in some projects the level of harm was considered to be 'severe'. Information was scarce regarding the numbers of primates, their sourcing, housing, care and fate, or the application of the Three Rs within projects. Project grant holders and the relevant Commission officer were consulted about their experiences with the FP7 ethics review process. Overall, it was seen as meaningful and beneficial, but some concerns were also noted. Ethical follow-up during project performance and upon completion was recognised as a valuable tool in ensuring that animal welfare requirements were adequately addressed. Based upon the outcome of the survey, recommendations are presented on how to strengthen the ethical review process under the upcoming Framework Programme 'Horizon 2020', while adequately taking into account the specific requirements of Directive 2010/63/EU, with the aim of limiting the harms inflicted on the animals and the numbers used, and ultimately, replacing the use of primates altogether.

Application of the Three Rs to challenge assays used in vaccine testing: tenth report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement.

This report aims to facilitate the implementation of the Three Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) in the testing of vaccines for regulatory and other purposes. The focus is predominantly on identification of reduction and refinement opportunities in batch potency testing but the principles described are widely applicable to other situations that involve experimental infections of animals. The report should also help to interpret the requirements of the European Pharmacopoeia with regard to the use of alternative tests, humane endpoints and other refinements. Two specific worked examples, for batch potency testing of Clostridium chauvoei and canine leptospira, with recommendations for harmonisation of international test requirements for these and other vaccines, are provided as appendices online.

Refinements in husbandry, care and common procedures for non-human primates: Ninth report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement.

Preface Whenever animals are used in research, minimizing pain and distress and promoting good welfare should 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 the broad legal principles in international legislation. It is possible to refine both husbandry and procedures to minimize suffering and improve welfare in a number of ways, and this can be greatly facilitated by ensuring that up-to-date information is readily available. The need to provide such information led the British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation (BVAAWF), the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME), the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) to establish a Joint Working Group on Refinement (JWGR) in the UK. The chair is Professor David Morton and the secretariat is provided by the RSPCA. This report is the ninth in the JWGR series. The RSPCA is opposed to the use of animals in experiments that cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm and together with FRAME has particular concerns about the continued use of non-human primates. The replacement of primate experiments is a primary goal for the RSPCA and FRAME. However, both organizations share with others in the Working Group, the common aim of replacing primate experiments wherever possible, reducing suffering and improving welfare while primate use continues. The reports of the refinement workshops are intended to help achieve these aims. This report produced by the British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation (BVAAWF)/Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME)/Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)/Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) Joint Working Group on Refinement (JWGR) sets out practical guidance on refining the husbandry and care of non-human primates (hereinafter primates) and on minimizing the adverse effects of some common procedures. It provides a valuable resource to help understand the physical, social and behavioural characteristics and needs of individual primates, and is intended to develop and complement the existing literature and legislative guidelines. Topics covered include refinements in housing, husbandry and common procedures such as restraint, identification and sampling, with comprehensive advice on issues such as primate communication, assessing and facilitating primate wellbeing, establishing and maintaining social groups, environmental and nutritional enrichment and animal passports. The most commonly used species are the key focus of this resource, but its information and recommendations are generally applicable to other species, provided that relevant individual species characteristics are taken into account.

Home Office licence abstracts--an assessment.

Since late in 2004, brief abstracts of projects licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 have been published on the Home Office website. These are produced by the Project Licence Holders, and their publication is seen by the Home Office as contributing to greater openness and to greater public understanding of the use of animals in science, and how it is regulated. Here, we assess the value of the database for this purpose, based on an examination of the 1400 abstracts published up to January 2008. The abstracts are generally strong on justification, but often very poor at describing the likely effects on the animals used. In many cases, they lack basic information on the procedures applied, and the numbers, and even the species, of animals involved. A significant number of projects lack abstracts altogether. In order to ensure that the database gives a complete and balanced picture of animal use in research, we consider that it should be mandatory to submit an abstract, which should include at least the species and numbers of animals used, the adverse effects they are likely to experience, and the severity limits assigned to the procedures applied to them. The value of the database would also be improved greatly, if it were more readily searchable, at least by species, level of severity, and broad area of research.

Report of the 2006 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent Welfare Group meeting.

The RSPCA/UFAW Rodent Welfare Group holds a one-day meeting every autumn to discuss current welfare research and to exchange views on rodent welfare issues. A key aim of the group is to encourage people to think about the lifetime experience of laboratory rodents, ensuring that every potential influence on their well-being has been reviewed and refined. Speakers at the 2006 meeting presented preliminary findings of ongoing studies and discussed regulatory updates. Topics included the housing and husbandry of mice and rats, refining the use of rodents in asthma research, good practice for the euthanasia of rodents using carbon dioxide and achieving reduction by sharing genetically modified mice.

Refinement and reduction in the production of genetically modified mice: sixth report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement.

This paper introduces the sixth report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement (JWGR), which addresses reduction and refinement in the generation, management and care of genetically modified (GM) mice. The report provides a comprehensive review of the potential for reduction and refinement at all stages of the generation and maintenance of GM animals. The issues covered include scientific, procedural and practical issues. The need for good training in all of these areas is emphasised. The report concludes with a section on the need to develop comprehensive criteria for welfare assessments for GM mice and a preliminary list of criteria is provided. The full report has been published in Laboratory Animals.

Developing ethics training for laboratory animal users.

Consideration of ethical aspects should be an integral part of training for all laboratory animal users, but it is sometimes difficult to decide what exactly this component of training should encompass and/or how it should be approached. A particular question is how to make ethics training more relevant and applicable to the day-to-day work of researchers. This paper briefly summarises thoughts on how ethics training can best be approached, bearing these questions in mind. Although the specific issues are approached in the context of the UK modular training system, the broad principles are applicable to ethics training in any country. The importance of ensuring that ethics training is practically focused and takes place at an early stage in a scientist's education and career is emphasised.

Ethical and welfare implications of the acquisition and transport of non-human primates for use in research and testing.

Assessment of the ethical and welfare implications of any laboratory animal use should encompass the entire life-history of the animals concerned, including their acquisition and transport. This is particularly important in the case of non-human primates, because the acquisition of some species involves capture from the wild, inadequate husbandry, and/or lengthy, multistaged travel from the country of origin to the laboratory where they are used. Thus, non-human primates endure considerable harms even before they reach the laboratory. Despite this, the information necessary to increase awareness of, and to assess, the potential harms of acquisition and transport is not readily available. This paper highlights the ethical and welfare concerns associated with these processes and makes recommendations intended to reduce their impact on welfare. The information presented is collated from a recent report that analyses the UK trade in non-human primates for research and testing, but many of the concerns and recommendations are applicable in an international forum. The need to minimise suffering is emphasised, as is the need for critical review of the necessity and justification for all nonhuman primate use, a reduction in the numbers used, and the development of alternatives to replace their use.

Ethical implications of using the minipig in regulatory toxicology studies.

Two key questions are addressed in this article. What are the potential harms to minipigs relative to the harms for dogs and non-human primates and can these harms be reduced more easily in minipigs than in other species? Are there potential benefits resulting from the use of minipigs relative to dogs and non-human primates? In considering the answers to these questions, we present an ethical framework which was developed taking into account the viewpoint of all concerned parties. This ethical matrix provides a framework upon which to identify and explore issues raised by the moral imperative to seek a fair compromise between the differing needs of different interest groups, which includes both the moral agents and the moral patients. The moral agents are the different groups of human stakeholders including society at large, regulatory bodies, industrialists and animal care staff. The moral patients are the laboratory animals, both breeding stock held by the animal supplier, and experimental animals in laboratories. In considering these animals it cannot be assumed that dogs, monkeys and minipigs differ with regard to the pain and suffering that they may experience and undergo when treated in studies designed for safety assessment. On this basis we rejected the argument that minipigs are more acceptable experimental animals than dogs or monkeys despite the fact that their use may prove less offensive to some groups within society at large. Species selection must be made on a case-by-case basis where the benefits are assessed by weighing the scientific evidence relating to the predictivity of the animal model, against the harm that may accrue to the animals both from the test procedures and their lifetime experience within the laboratory environment.