A Good Life for Laboratory Rodents?

ILAR Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
I Joanna Makowska ◽  
Daniel M Weary

Abstract Most would agree that animals in research should be spared “unnecessary” harm, pain, or distress, and there is also growing interest in providing animals with some form of environmental enrichment. But is this the standard of care that we should aspire to? We argue that we need to work towards a higher standard—specifically, that providing research animals with a “good life” should be a prerequisite for their use. The aims of this paper are to illustrate our vision of a “good life” for laboratory rats and mice and to provide a roadmap for achieving this vision. We recognize that several research procedures are clearly incompatible with a good life but describe here what we consider to be the minimum day-to-day living conditions to be met when using rodents in research. A good life requires that animals can express a rich behavioral repertoire, use their abilities, and fulfill their potential through active engagement with their environment. In the first section, we describe how animals could be housed for these requirements to be fulfilled, from simple modifications to standard housing through to better cage designs and free-ranging options. In the second section, we review the types of interactions with laboratory rodents that are compatible with a good life. In the third section, we address the potential for the animals to have a life outside of research, including the use of pets in clinical trials (the animal-as-patient model) and the adoption of research animals to new homes when they are no longer needed in research. We conclude with a few suggestions for achieving our vision.

1992 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 241-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane H. Liles ◽  
P. A. Flecknell

The data concerning the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and evidence for their efficacy in laboratory rats and mice are reviewed. This information is then extrapolated to clinical situations and dose rates that take account of ulcerogenic side effects are recommended. NSAIDs have the potential to be a very useful group of analgesics and should always be considered when attempting to provide pain relief in laboratory animals.


2009 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
E L Stokes ◽  
P A Flecknell ◽  
C A Richardson

A structured literature review was carried out to assess recent trends in the administration of analgesics and anaesthetics to laboratory rats and mice undergoing surgical procedures. The ScienceDirect database was used to systematically identify studies published in peer-reviewed journals over two periods (2000–2001 and 2005–2006), 86 studies from each time period were included in the review. The total number of animals that underwent surgery, species used, type of procedure, anaesthetic regimen and analgesic administration were noted for each study. There was an increase in the reported administration of systemic analgesics from 10% in 2000–2001 to 20% in 2005–2006. Buprenorphine was the most commonly reported analgesic in both periods (2000–2001: 78%, 2005–2006: 35%) and reporting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increased from 11% to 53%. There was also a change in reported anaesthetic practices, notably a decrease in the use of pentobarbital and an increase in the use of isoflurane and ketamine/xylazine. Although reported administration of analgesics has increased and there has been some refinement in the selection of anaesthetic agents used, the findings of this review suggest that there is still significant scope for improvement with respect to the perioperative care of laboratory rodents.


Author(s):  
Diksha Saluja ◽  
Rishabh Jhanji ◽  
Swati Kaushal ◽  
Bharti Verma ◽  
Neelam Sharma ◽  
...  

Abstract:: In the previous years of research, the use of animal model becomes very common for the screening of novel drugs. Animal model represents the complex problems of humans into simplest forms which can be extended further to include the experimental procedure. The most successful models in neuroscience, rats and mice, undoubtedly considered as one of the best models to understand the psychology of mammalian brain and its associated functions involved in various behavioral repertoire. Moreover, recently researchers in behavioral neuroscience are focusing more on the use of aquatic animals especially fish as model species due to their simplicity, and cost effectiveness. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) is a tropical fish from minnow family a genetic structure surprisingly 84 % similar to humans. It is gaining popularity as a model to study the mechanism in behavioral neuropharmacology. Moreover, Zebrafish is having numerous advantages over other rodent models like ease in maintenance due to their small size; breeding power is more, transparency of embryos, overall reduced cost of experimentation and many more. Nowadays, it is considered as an ideal model to study the neurobehavioral aspects with relevance to humans. It is also used in varieties of scientific studies like genetics, neuroscience, pharmacology, and toxicology. In this manuscript, we have described the feasibility and importance of Zebrafish as a model for the screening of novel drugs for different neurological disorders.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Carbone

AbstractAlone among Western nations, the United States has a two-tier system for welfare protections for vertebrate animals in research. Because its Animal Welfare Act (AWA) excludes laboratory rats and mice (RM), government veterinarians do not inspect RM laboratories and RM numbers are only partially reported to government agencies1. Without transparent statistics, it is impossible to track efforts to reduce or replace these sentient animals’ use or to project government resources needed if AWA coverage were expanded to include them. I obtained annual RM usage data from 16 large American institutions and compared RM numbers to institutions’ legally-required reports of their AWA-covered mammals. RM comprised approximately 99.3% of mammals at these representative institutions. Extrapolating from 780,070 AWA-covered mammals in 2017–18, I estimate that 111.5 million rats and mice were used per year in this period. If the same proportion of RM undergo painful procedures as are publicly reported for AWA-covered animals, then some 44.5 million mice and rats underwent potentially painful experiments. These data inform the questions of whether the AWA needs an update to cover RM, or whether the NIH should increase transparency of funded animal research. These figures can benchmark progress in reducing animal numbers in general and more specifically, in painful experiments. This estimate is higher than any others available, reflecting the challenges of obtaining statistics without consistent and transparent institutional reports.


ILAR Journal ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Hutchinson ◽  
A. Avery ◽  
S. VandeWoude

1979 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Grant ◽  
Patrick T. K. Woo

Experimental infections of Giardia-free laboratory rats and mice with their respective parasites (Giardia simoni in rats and Giardia muris in mice) demonstrated that the infections persisted for the duration of the study period (4 months). Similarly, naturally infected meadow voles (with Giardia microti) and deer mice (with Giardia peromysci) retained their infections during their captivity (6 months). Rigorous precautions were taken to prevent contamination and coprophagy. The relative numbers of cysts in consecutive faecal samples varied considerably and there were periods when the numbers of cysts were extremely low. The excretions of cysts were cyclical and there were periods of 7 and 8 days between peaks in laboratory rats and mice infected with G. simoni and G. muris respectively.


2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Gsell ◽  
John Innes ◽  
Pim de Monchy ◽  
Dianne Brunton

Context. Better techniques to detect small numbers of mammalian pests such as rodents are required both to complete large-scale eradications in restoration areas and to detect invaders before they become abundant or cause serious impacts on biodiversity. Aims. To evaluate the ability of certified rodent dogs (Canis familiaris) to locate Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) and mice (Mus musculus) or their scent trails at very low densities in field conditions. Methods. We experimentally tested two rodent dogs by releasing small numbers of laboratory rats and mice in a 63 ha rodent-free forest sanctuary and then determining if the dogs and their handlers could find the rodents and their scent trails. We divided the enclosure into two halves, east and west of the midpoint, and alternated releases daily between the two areas to minimise residual scent between consecutive trials. Radio-tagged rats or mice were released a total of 96 times at random locations that were unknown to handlers, followed for 50–100 m, then caught and either placed in hidden cages at the end of the scent trail or removed from the forest. Handlers and their dogs had up to 6 h to search for rodents. Key Results. Despite the extremely low density of rodents in the effective research area of 32 ha, both dogs were highly successful at finding rodents, together locating 87% of rats and 80% of mice. Handlers reported few false positive detections. We found that well-trained dogs can effectively cover 30–40 ha of steep forested habitat in half a day (6 h). Conclusions. Despite the limitations of our study design, we conclude that well-trained rodent dogs may be able to locate wild rodents at low densities in forest situations. Implications. Our results support the ongoing use of certified dogs to detect rodent survivors and invaders in conservation areas in New Zealand and elsewhere. Additional research is required to trial dogs on experimentally released wild rodents and to compare the cost-effectiveness of dogs with other detection methods.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document