Rats as pets: Predictors of adoption and surrender of pet rats (Rattus norvegicus domestica) in British Columbia, Canada.

Whereas much research has been conducted on rats in their roles as pests and laboratory animal models, little is known about rats in their role as companion animals. However, rats have become the third most common companion animal admitted to the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BC SPCA) shelter system after cats and dogs. This paper analyses 5 years of province-wide rat admission and outcome data (n = 3,392) at the BC SPCA. Most rats that entered BC SPCA shelters were white, sexually intact, and pups less than 6 months old. Rats were mostly relinquished by their owners, and the most common surrender reasons were due to owner-related issues and housing issues. Reasons for euthanasia were primarily poor health and neonatal age. A multiple linear regression model found that rats that were either senior, albino, unhealthy, seized by humane officers, or born onsite tended to stay longer in shelters (F[12, 1466] = 9.565, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .06). Time to adoption for albino rats was 79% longer than for white rats. These findings help us understand the preferences of rat adopters and why the rat-human relationship may fail. Results may also be useful to improve the quality of life for pet rats by identifying programs to reduce their length of stay in animal shelters. Finally, our study highlights new questions for welfare research in an understudied companion animal-the pet rat.

Cuestionamientos éticos a la generación de conocimiento en la investigación biomédica con animales no humanos / Ethical issues in the generation of knowledge in biomedical research using non-human animals / Qüestionaments ètics a la generació de coneixement en la investigació biomèdica amb animals no humans

El uso de animales para obtener conocimiento y desarrollar tratamientos para enfermedades humanas, se justifica argumentando que son similares a nosotros, pero, al mismo tiempo sus intereses se ignoran enfatizando que ellos son diferentes de nosotros, lo que se considera un doble estándar moral en la ciencia. Millones de animales son sometidos a dolor y sufrimiento cuando no siempre hay certeza de que se obtendrá un beneficio real, en ocasiones la extrapolación no es exitosa, los resultados no son aplicables o nunca se publican. ¿Qué tan éticos y válidos son los métodos que utilizamos para alcanzar nuestros objetivos? Los animales deberían ser considerados un grupo vulnerable a los que se extiendan algunos principios éticos establecidos en la Declaración de Helsinki

The use of animals to obtain knowledge and develop treatments for human diseases is justified by arguing that they are like us, yet their interests are ignored by emphasizing that they are not similar to us, which is considered a double moral standard in science. Millions of animals are subjected to pain and suffering, even when there is no certainty that a real benefit will be obtained. Sometimes extrapolation is not successful, results are invalid, not applicable or even never published. Then, how ethical and valid are the methods we use to achieve our goals? We propose animals should be considered as a vulnerable group and to extend them some of the ethical principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki

L'ús d'animals per obtenir coneixement I desenvolupar tractaments per a malalties humanes es justifica argumentant que són similars a nosaltres, però, al mateix temps els seus interessos s'ignoren emfatitzant que ells són diferents de nosaltres, el que es considera un doble estàndard moral en la ciència. Milions d'animals són sotmesos a dolor I sofriment quan no sempre hi ha la certesa de que s'obtindrà un benefici real, de vegades l'extrapolació no és exitosa, els resultats no són aplicables o mai es publiquen. Què tan ètics I vàlids són els mètodes que utilitzem per assolir els nostres objectius? Els animals haurien de ser considerats un grup vulnerable als que afecten alguns principis ètics establerts en la Declaració d'Hèlsinki

Bodies in Transition: Ethics in Xenotransplantation Research.

Xenotransplantation, or the grafting of organs from one species to another, may seem at first a far cry from brain death, but there is rising hope in some quarters of the biomedical community that such transplants may reduce, even obviate, the need to harvest human organs-and hence eliminate the primary reason for needing an unambiguous definition of brain death. As with all research on the frontiers of biomedicine, xenotransplantation raises its own ethical quandaries. One concern that has long occupied ethical thought is the degree to which advances in science and technology should control the boundaries between the human and the nonhuman. Might the dimming of a previously entrenched bright line between species entail negative consequences for concepts, such as human dignity and bodily integrity, that historically anchored the protection of both human and animal subjects in biomedical treatment and research? To date, ethical thinking about xenotransplantation, and about gene editing, has largely been left in the hands of scientists, subject only to loose supervision by institutional review boards and animal welfare committees whose remit may be too narrow to address age-old moral concerns.

La legitimación del carnismo y el especismo. Una aproximación cualitativa a los discursos del alumnado universitario / The legitimation of carnism and speciesism. A qualitative approach to speeches of university students

El hecho de que el ser humano se haya alimentado con productos de origen animal desde sus inicios ha provocado que esta cuestión alimentaria sea vista como una necesidad y no como una elección. No obstante, las personas que comen productos de origen animal están influenciadas por un sistema de creencias, muchas veces invisible, denominado carnismo. Este trabajo ahonda, mediante una aproximación cualitativa, en tal sistema de creencias y analiza las justificaciones que utilizan los individuos para tratar a unas especies de animales como comida y a otras como mascotas. Concluyendo que, aunque se utilizan múltiples argumentos para respaldar este consumo tales como la necesidad, el gusto, la economía o la comodidad, es la falta de empatía hacia los demás animales lo que perpetúa la ideología carnista

The fact that the human being has been fed animal products since its inception has made people accept this food supply as a necessity rather than a choice. However, people who include animal products in their diet are influenced by a belief system, often invisible, called carnism. This paper explores this belief system through a qualitative approach, as well as analysing the justifications that individuals use for the different treatment given to animals. Some are used as food, as opposed to those considered pets. Concluding that, although many arguments are used to support this consumption such as the need, taste, economy, or comfort, is the lack of empathy for other animals which perpetuates the carnist ideology

Una crítica a la profesión veterinaria desde una perspectiva antiespecista / A critique of the veterinary profession from an antispeciesist viewpoint

La idea de que la profesión veterinaria tiene entre sus funciones el cuidado de los animales junto con la salvaguarda de sus derechos, pese a encontrarse difundida entre algunas personas, está totalmente desinformada. La profesión veterinaria se dirige básicamente a controlar el modo en el que los animales no humanos son usados y tratados, de manera que la salud y otros intereses de los seres humanos se vean protegidos. Solo se presta una cierta atención al llamado "bienestar animal", pero de una manera que no toma realmente en cuenta los intereses de los animales. Este artículo defiende que, si asumimos un punto de vista contrario al especismo, es necesario un enfoque distinto para la medicina veterinaria, que ponga los intereses de los animales no humanos en el centro y que, conforme a eso, promueva una investigación para el desarrollo de métodos de diagnóstico y terapéuticos que beneficien a estos (AU)

The idea that the veterinary profession has among its aims caring for nonhuman animals along with safeguarding their rights, although shared by a number of people, is totally uninformed. Veterinary profession is basically aimed at controlling the way in which nonhuman animals are used or treated, so human health and other interests are protected. Only some concern for what has been called "animal welfare" is considered, but in a way that does not really take animals’ interests seriously. If we accept an antispeciesist viewpoint, a different approach for veterinary medicine is needed. Such an approach should be focused on animal interests and promote the research for diagnosis and therapeutic methods that benefit them (AU)

Individual and collective responsibility to enhance regulatory compliance of the Three Rs.

Investigators planning to use animals in their research and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) members who review the research protocols must take personal responsibility for ensuring that they have the skills and knowledge to perform their duties, applying the Three Rs principles of Russell and Burch. The two Korean laws introduced in 2008 and 2009 regulating animal use for scientific purposes in line with the Three Rs principles have been revised a total of 11 times over the last 6 years. Both regulatory agencies, e.g., the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, provide regular training based on the legal requirements. Based on the amended Animal Welfare Act, the IACUC appointment framework has been upgraded: appointments are now for two-year terms and require a qualified training certificate issued by the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency since 2012. The authors reviewed the current curricular programs and types of training conducted by the two governing agencies through Internet searches. Our Internet survey results suggest that: a) diversity should be provided in training curricula, based on the roles, backgrounds and needs of the individual trainees; b) proper and continued educational programs should be provided, based on trainees' experiences; and c) active encouragement by government authorities can improve the quality of training curricula.

Animal welfare: a complex domestic and international public-policy issue--who are the key players?

Animal-welfare issues are usually portrayed in the media in a black-and-white fashion, with simple, single-perspective solutions proposed for what are often, in fact, complex policy issues. In this article, we argue that animal welfare is a multifaceted international and domestic public-policy issue that must take account of not only scientific, ethical, and economic issues but also religious, cultural, and international trade policy considerations. Management of animal welfare at a government policy level also requires an approach based on incremental change. Such change must be both science based and ethically principled, and the rate of change must recognize both the expectations of society and the constraints on the animal user. Ideally, such change should involve full ownership and buy-in from the affected animal user group. The range of stakeholders involved in the animal-welfare debate includes industry and producer groups, science bodies, and animal-welfare non-governmental organizations and professional groups, including the veterinary and legal professions. The veterinary profession, in particular, is expected to play an animal-welfare leadership role, and we discuss expectation versus reality at both a national and an international level. This latter discussion includes specific reference to the role of the World Organisation for Animal Health (the OIE) as an intergovernmental organization representing 175 countries and details some of the major achievements since the OIE assumed its international animal-welfare standard-setting role in 2002. We also address the role of the veterinary profession at national, regional, and international levels.

Why should we care about nonhuman animals during times of crisis?

Incentives to care for nonhuman animals derive in part from the extent to which people depend on animals for food, for livelihood, and for cultural and psychological reasons as well as from the duty to protect animals in their care. When attention is turned to solving and preventing animal welfare problems at times of crisis, it becomes clear that those problems are also associated with problems for human welfare and environmental impact. The incidence and spread of animal diseases is affected by how animals are treated, and this can have very important effects. Similarly, during disasters caused by either natural or human-made events, outcomes for animals are important both in themselves and for their effects on humans and the environment. The need to plan and prepare to care for animals in advance of disease pandemics and disasters - and then to provide coordinated, measured management in response when such crises occur - requires collaboration between all agencies involved as well as increasing attention and resources.