Watching me watching you: Training and assessment in a virtual world.

Virtual education isn't new. Teaching has been delivered remotely for many years, although it came to prominence with the enforced move to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technologies provide tools that are integral to our everyday lives, and training and assessment are no different. Stepping back from the obligatory remote delivery of practical skills training, now we have the opportunity to review and evaluate our own learning (as educators) about the value of resources for training delivery. Combining sound educational principles with the available technologies, we can use remotely delivered learning to enhance our teaching and to increase access to learning, without hindrance because of distance or the type of facility. Remote connections allow expertise and best practice to become suddenly available to a wider cohort of researchers, rapidly spreading new ideas about refinement of in vivo procedures and supporting colleagues to learn and develop. We currently use only a few of the technological tools available, and there is much to learn from other disciplines where virtual and augmented reality are assisting surgeons, aircraft pilots and others daily. By harnessing remote and assisted technologies in teaching, we can also develop the mindset and ability of the biomedical community to use them to augment, or even to replace, animal studies in future and to democratise training globally.

The IMPROVE Guidelines (Ischaemia Models: Procedural Refinements Of in Vivo Experiments).

Most in vivo models of ischaemic stroke target the middle cerebral artery and a spectrum of stroke severities, from mild to substantial, can be achieved. This review describes opportunities to improve the in vivo modelling of ischaemic stroke and animal welfare. It provides a number of recommendations to minimise the level of severity in the most common rodent models of middle cerebral artery occlusion, while sustaining or improving the scientific outcomes. The recommendations cover basic requirements pre-surgery, selecting the most appropriate anaesthetic and analgesic regimen, as well as intraoperative and post-operative care. The aim is to provide support for researchers and animal care staff to refine their procedures and practices, and implement small incremental changes to improve the welfare of the animals used and to answer the scientific question under investigation. All recommendations are recapitulated in a summary poster (see supplementary information).

Olfaction variation in mouse husbandry and its implications for refinement and standardization: UK survey of animal scents.

Olfaction plays a crucial role in mouse communication, providing information about genetic identity, physiological status of conspecifics and alerting mice to potential predators. Scents of animal origin can trigger physiological and behavioural responses that could affect experimental responses and impact positively or negatively on mouse welfare. Additionally, differing olfactory profiles could help explain variation in results between laboratories. A survey was sent to animal research units in the UK to investigate potential transfer of scents of animal origin during routine husbandry procedures, and responses were obtained from animal care workers and researchers using mice in 51 institutions. The results reveal great diversity between animal units regarding the relevant husbandry routines covered. Most [71%] reported housing non-breeding male and female mice in the same room, with 76% reporting that hands were not washed and gloves not changed between handling male and female mice. The most commonly reported species housed in the same facility as mice was the rat (91%), and 41% of respondents were aware that scents from rats could affect mice. Changing of gloves between handling mice and other species was reported by 79% of respondents. Depending on the aspect considered, between 18 and 33% of respondents believed human and non-human animal odours would strongly affect mouse physiology, behaviour or standardization, while approximately 32-54% believed these effects would be weak. This indicates uncertainty regarding the significance of these factors. Understanding and controlling these practices could reduce unwanted variability in experimental results and maximize welfare.

Olfactory variation in mouse husbandry and its implications for refinement and standardization: UK survey of non-animal scents.

With their highly sensitive olfactory system, the behaviour and physiology of mice are not only influenced by the scents of conspecifics and other species, but also by many other chemicals in the environment. The constraints of laboratory housing limit a mouse's capacity to avoid aversive odours that could be present in the environment. Potentially odorous items routinely used for husbandry procedures, such as sanitizing products and gloves, could be perceived by mice as aversive or attractive, and affect their behaviour, physiology and experimental results. A survey was sent to research institutions in the UK to enquire about husbandry practices that could impact on the olfactory environment of the mouse. Responses were obtained from 80 individuals working in 51 institutions. Husbandry practices varied considerably. Seventy percent of respondents reported always wearing gloves for handling mice, with nitrile being the most common glove material (94%) followed by latex (23%) and vinyl (14%). Over six different products were listed for cleaning surfaces, floors, anaesthesia and euthanasia chambers and behavioural apparatus. In all cases Trigene™ (now called Anistel™) was the most common cleaning product used (43, 41, 40 and 49%, respectively). Depending on the attribute considered, between 7 and 19% of respondents thought that cleaning products definitely, or were likely to, have strong effects on standardization, mouse health, physiology or behaviour. Understanding whether and how these odours affect mouse welfare will help to refine mouse husbandry and experimental procedures through practical recommendations, to improve the quality of life of laboratory animals and the experimental data obtained.

Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare.

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Refinement of the use of food and fluid control as motivational tools for macaques used in behavioural neuroscience research: report of a Working Group of the NC3Rs.

This report provides practical guidance on refinement of the use of food and fluid control as motivational tools for macaques used in behavioural neuroscience research. The guidance is based on consideration of the scientific literature and, where data are lacking, expert opinion and professional experience, including that of the members of a Working Group convened by the United Kingdom National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). The report should be useful to researchers, veterinarians and animal care staff responsible for the welfare of macaques used in food and fluid control protocols, as well as those involved with designing, performing and analysing studies that use these protocols. It should also assist regulatory authorities and members of local ethical review processes or institutional animal care and use committees concerned with evaluating such protocols. The report provides a framework for refinement that can be tailored to meet local requirements. It also identifies data gaps and areas for future research and sets out the Working Group's recommendations on contemporary best practice.