Canadian dairy farmer views about animal welfare.

Concerns regarding the welfare of farm animals continue to grow. Traditionally, research efforts have largely focused on refining existing management practices to improve welfare. However, the incorporation of views from those directly involved in animal care is equally, if not more, important. This study investigated the perspectives of Canadian dairy farmers on animal welfare. We conducted 16 interviews with a total of 22 participants from four provinces across Canada. Recorded audio files and field notes were transcribed, anonymised, and coded using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. The interview data revealed two major themes: (1) animal dimension of animal welfare, including views related to biological functioning, naturalness and affective states; and (2) dairy farmer identity, including, the voice of the 'city', what it means to be a good 'cow-man', and the nature of human-animal relationships. Dairy farmers emphasised biological functioning, but they made numerous references to the emotional and natural living aspects of their animals' lives. Our work also provides evidence that farmers believed it was their duty to care for their animals beyond simply milking cows and making a profit. In terms of the larger debate, this study identified potential shared values with members of the public: opportunities for natural living and agency, attentiveness to individual animals, and the value of life over death. Finally, the emotional relationship that farmers developed with their animals highlights the values dairy farmers have for their animals beyond simply utilitarian function. Overall, these shared values could contribute to constructive dialogue.

An Intraplantar Hypertonic Saline Assay in Mice for Rapid Screening of Analgesics.

BACKGROUND: Development of new analgesics is limited by shortcomings of existing preclinical screening assays such as wide variations in response, suitability for a narrow range of analgesics, and propensity to induce tissue damage. Our aim was to determine the feasibility of a new in vivo animal assay as an analgesic screen based on nociceptive responses (licking and biting) after intraplantar (i.pl.) injection of hypertonic saline (HS) in mice. METHODS: With approval from the Institutional Animal Care Committee, we conducted a randomized, investigator-blinded in vivo study in adult CD-1 mice. We first studied the concentration-response relationship, time course, and sex difference of animals' nociceptive responses to HS. Subsequently, we assessed the screening ability of the HS assay to detect a range of established analgesics belonging to different classes. Finally, we performed histopathologic studies to assess potential tissue damage. RESULTS: The response produced by i.pl. HS was greater and longer in female than in male mice. The responses to HS were concentration dependent with minimal variance. Ten percent HS evoked a maximal response within the first 5 minutes. Morphine dose-dependently attenuated animals' nociceptive responses (1-10 mg/kg intraperitoneally [i.p.]). The peripherally restricted µ-opioid receptor agonist, loperamide, reduced nociceptive responses when injected locally (30-100 µg/paw, i.pl.) but not systemically (1-10 mg/kg, i.p.). Acetylsalicylic acid (300 mg/kg, i.p.), naproxen (150 mg/kg, i.p), and acetaminophen (300 mg/kg, i.p.) all decreased nociceptive responses, as did i.pl. coinjections of lidocaine (0.003%-1%) with 10% HS. Histopathologic assessment revealed no tissue damage due to HS. CONCLUSIONS: The i.pl. HS assay is easily performed, rapidly detects standard analgesics, and produces minimal animal suffering without tissue damage. We propose this assay as a useful addition to the armamentarium of existing preclinical analgesic screens.

International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control.

Human-wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence-based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human-wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2-day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human-wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals; have measurable outcome-based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long-term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation.

Understanding attitudes towards the use of animals in research using an online public engagement tool.

Using an online public engagement experiment, we probed the views of 617 participants on the use of pigs as research animals (to reduce agricultural pollution or to improve organ transplant success in humans) with and without genetic modification and using different numbers of pigs. In both scenarios and across demographics, level of opposition increased when the research required the use of GM corn or GM pigs. Animal numbers had little effect. A total of 1037 comments were analyzed to understand decisions. Participants were most concerned about the impact of the research on animal welfare. Genetic modification was viewed as an intervention in nature and there was worry about unpredictable consequences. Both opponents and supporters sought assurances that concerns were addressed. Governing bodies for animal research should make efforts to document and mitigate consequences of GM and other procedures, and increase efforts to maintain a dialogue with the public around acceptability of these procedures.

Public Attitudes toward Animal Research: A Review.

The exploration of public attitudes toward animal research is important given recent developments in animal research (e.g., increasing creation and use of genetically modified animals, and plans for progress in areas such as personalized medicine), and the shifting relationship between science and society (i.e., a move toward the democratization of science). As such, public engagement on issues related to animal research, including exploration of public attitudes, provides a means of achieving socially acceptable scientific practice and oversight through an understanding of societal values and concerns. Numerous studies have been conducted to explore public attitudes toward animal use, and more specifically the use of animals in research. This paper reviews relevant literature using three categories of influential factors: personal and cultural characteristics, animal characteristics, and research characteristics. A critique is given of survey style methods used to collect data on public attitudes, and recommendations are given on how best to address current gaps in public attitudes literature.

Factors affecting people's acceptance of the use of zebrafish and mice in research.

The species of laboratory animal used is known to influence people's willingness to support animal-based research. An online experiment was used to test people's willingness to accept the use of zebrafish or mice, two of the most commonly used species, in research involving either induced mutation (specifically, ethyl-N-nitrosourea [ENU] mutagenesis) or genetic modification, with and without regulatory oversight. Participants who were willing to support research on zebrafish (31.9%) were also willing to support the same research on mice. The participants expressed low levels of support for research involving ENU mutagenesis of zebrafish in both unregulated (30.7%) and regulated (38.5%) research programmes. A reason for the rejection of ENU mutagenesis was the perception that the procedure is painful. Some participants expressed a preference for the use of genetically-modified (GM) animal models over ENU mutagenesis, based on the belief that the former involves less pain and improves both the accuracy and efficiency of the animal models. Better informing the public about scientific practice, and scientists about public attitudes, may help reduce the disconnect between scientific practice and societal values.

Attitudes towards the use of genetically modified animals in research.

Here we provide the first experimental evidence that public concerns about the use of animals in research are accentuated when genetically modified (GM) animals are used. Using an online survey, we probed participant views on two uses of pigs as research animals (to reduce agricultural pollution or to improve organ transplant success in humans) with and without GM. We surveyed 327 animal technicians, researchers, advocates, university students and others. In both scenarios and across demographics, support dropped off when the research required the use of GM pigs or GM corn. For example, 66% of participants supported using pigs to reduce phosphorus pollution, but this declined to 49% when the pigs were fed GM corn and to 20% when the research required the creation of a new GM line of pigs. Those involved in animal research were more consistently supportive compared to those who were not or those who were vegetarians.

Scientists' perspectives on the ethical issues of stem cell research.

This paper describes findings from an ethics education project funded by the Canadian Stem Cell Network (SCN). The project is part of a larger research initiative entitled "The Stem Cell Research Environment: Drawing the Evidence and Experience Together". The ethics education study began with a series of focus groups with SCN researchers and trainees as part of a "needs assessment" effort. The purpose of these discussions was to identify the main ethical issues associated with stem cell (SC) research from the perspective of the stem cell community. This paper will focus on five prominent themes that emerged from the focus group data including: (1) the source of stem cells; (2) the power of stem cells; (3) working within a charged research environment; (4) the regulatory context; and (5) ethics training for scientists. Additional discussions are planned with others involved in Canadian stem cell research (e.g., research ethics board members, policy makers) to supplement initial findings. These assessment results combined with existing bioethics literature will ultimately inform a web-based ethics education module for the SCN. We believe that our efforts are important for those analyzing the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) in this area because our in depth understanding of stem cell researcher perspectives will enable us to develop more relevant and effective education material, which in turn should help SC researchers address the important ethical challenges in their area.

Worldwide trends in the use of animals in research: the contribution of genetically-modified animal models.

The Three Rs--Reduction, Replacement and Refinement--which were first proposed in 1959 by Russell and Burch, have become widely accepted principles in the governance of humane animal research. However, there is substantial variation in the ways in which different countries document the numbers and types of research animals used, making it difficult to determine how effectively the Three Rs are being implemented. Here, we provide the first data illustrating worldwide trends in animal use for research purposes. To document global trends in animal use, we sampled 2691 articles from 24 countries, published between 1983 and 2007, in four scientific journals. We show that the percentage of articles reporting animal use has risen in the past 15 years. The rising popularity of genetic modification methods has contributed to this trend: reported genetically-modified animal use has more than doubled since 1997. We also show that mice are the most commonly-used species for genetic modification, and that, even in 2007, relatively inefficient random integration methods were still widely used to achieve genetic modification. These results illustrate shortcomings in the effort to implement the Three Rs in animal research.

The interpretation and application of the three Rs by animal ethics committee members.

The Three Rs form the basis of review of animal-use protocols by Animal Ethics Committees (AECs), but little research has examined how AECs actually interpret and implement the Three Rs. This topic was explored through in-depth, open-ended interviews with 28 members of AECs at four Canadian universities. In describing protocol review, AEC members rarely mentioned the Three Rs, but most reported applying some aspects of the basic concepts. Comments identified several factors that could impede full application of the Three Rs: incomplete understanding of the Three Rs (especially Refinement), trust that researchers implement Replacement and Reduction themselves, belief by some members that granting agency review covers the Three Rs, focus on sample size rather than experimental design to achieve Reduction, focus on harm caused by procedures to the exclusion of housing and husbandry, and lack of consensus on key issues, notably on the nature and moral significance of animal pain and suffering, and on whether AECs should minimise overall harm to animals. The study suggests ways to achieve more consistent application of the Three Rs, by providing AECs with up-to-date information on the Three Rs and with access to statistical expertise, by consensus-building on divisive issues, and by training on the scope and implementation of the Three Rs.

Expanding the three Rs to meet new challenges in humane animal experimentation.

The Three Rs are the main principles used by Animal Ethics Committees in the governance of animal experimentation, but they appear not to cover some ethical issues that arise today. These include: a) claims that certain species should be exempted on principle from harmful research; b) increased emphasis on enhancing quality of life of research animals; c) research involving genetically modified (GM) animals; and d) animals bred as models of disease. In some cases, the Three Rs can be extended to cover these developments. The burgeoning use of GM animals in science calls for new forms of reduction through improved genetic modification technology, plus continued attention to alternative approaches and cost-benefit analyses that include the large numbers of animals involved indirectly. The adoption of more expanded definitions of refinement that go beyond minimising distress will capture concerns for enhancing the quality of life of animals through improved husbandry and handling. Targeting refinement to the unpredictable effects of gene modification may be difficult; in these cases, careful attention to monitoring and endpoints are the obvious options. Refinement can also include sharing data about the welfare impacts of gene modifications, and modelling earlier stages of disease, in order to reduce the potential suffering caused to disease models. Other issues may require a move beyond the Three Rs. Certain levels of harm, or numbers and use of certain species, may be unacceptable, regardless of potential benefits. This can be addressed by supplementing the utilitarian basis of the Three Rs with principles based on deontological and relational ethics. The Three Rs remain very useful, but they require thoughtful interpretation and expansion in order for Animal Ethics Committees to address the full range of issues in animal-based research.