Protecting Canada's Lab Animals: The Need for Legislation.

Canada's current non-legislated oversight system for animal-based science not only fails to adequately incentivize the replacement of sentient animals as best scientific practice in any meaningful way, but also fails to adequately protect those animals bred, harmed, and killed in the name of science. In this paper, we outline the various shortcomings of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, and we highlight the need for Canada to move towards national legislation akin to that seen in other jurisdictions like the U.K. We conclude that while legislation alone cannot ensure the replacement of sentient animals in science, it appears to be a precondition for significant progress in animal protection and for the development and adoption of non-animal methods.

Animal Research, Accountability, Openness and Public Engagement: Report from an International Expert Forum.

In November 2013, a group of international experts in animal research policy (n = 11) gathered in Vancouver, Canada, to discuss openness and accountability in animal research. The primary objective was to bring together participants from various jurisdictions (United States, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom) to share practices regarding the governance of animals used in research, testing and education, with emphasis on the governance process followed, the methods of community engagement, and the balance of openness versus confidentiality. During the forum, participants came to a broad consensus on the need for: (a) evidence-based metrics to allow a "virtuous feedback" system for evaluation and quality assurance of animal research, (b) the need for increased public access to information, together with opportunities for stakeholder dialogue about animal research, (c) a greater diversity of views to be represented on decision-making committees to allow for greater balance and (d) a standardized and robust ethical decision-making process that incorporates some sort of societal input. These recommendations encourage aspirations beyond merely imparting information and towards a genuine dialogue that represents a shared agenda surrounding laboratory animal use.

Attitudes toward the use of animals in chronic versus acute pain research: results of a web-based forum.

When asked about the use of animals in biomedical research, people often state that the research is only acceptable if pain and distress are minimised. However, pain is caused when the aim is to study pain itself, resulting in unalleviated pain for many of the animals involved. Consequently, the use of animals in pain research is often considered contentious. To date, no research has explored people's views toward different types of animal-based pain research (e.g. chronic or acute pain). This study used a web-based survey to explore people's willingness to support the use of mice in chronic versus acute pain research. The majority of the participants opposed the use of mice for either chronic (68.3%) or acute (63.1%) pain research. There was no difference in the levels of support or opposition for chronic versus acute pain research. Unsupportive participants justified their opposition by focusing on the perceived lack of scientific merit, or the existence of non-animal alternatives. Supporters emphasised the potential benefits that could arise, with some stating that the benefits outweigh the costs. The majority of the participants were opposed to pain research involving mice, regardless of the nature and duration of the pain inflicted, or the perceived benefit of the research. A better understanding of public views toward animal use in pain research may provide a stronger foundation for the development of policy governing the use of animals in research where animals are likely to experience unalleviated pain.

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.

Stakeholder views on the creation and use of genetically-engineered animals in research.

This interview-based study examined the diversity of views relating to the creation and use of genetically-engineered (GE) animals in biomedical science. Twenty Canadian participants (eight researchers, five research technicians and seven members of the public) took part in the interviews, in which four main themes were discussed: a) how participants felt about the genetic engineering of animals as a practice; b) governance of the creation and use of GE animals in research, and whether current guidelines are sufficient; c) the Three Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) and how they are applied during the creation and use of GE animals in research; and d) whether public opinion should play a greater role in the creation and use of GE animals. Most of the participants felt that the creation and use of GE animals for biomedical research purposes (as opposed to food purposes) is acceptable, provided that tangible human health benefits are gained. However, obstacles to Three Rs implementation were identified, and the participants agreed that more effort should be placed on engaging the public on the use of GE animals in research.

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.

The use of genetically-engineered animals in science: perspectives of Canadian Animal Care Committee members.

The genetic engineering of animals for their use in science challenges the implementation of refinement and reduction in several areas, including the invasiveness of the procedures involved, unanticipated welfare concerns, and the numbers of animals required. Additionally, the creation of genetically-engineered animals raises problems with the Canadian system of reporting animal numbers per Category of Invasiveness, as well as raising issues of whether ethical limits can, or should, be placed on genetic engineering. A workshop was held with the aim of bringing together Canadian animal care committee members to discuss these issues, to reflect on progress that has been made in addressing them, and to propose ways of overcoming any challenges. Although previous literature has made recommendations with regard to refinement and reduction when creating new genetically-engineered animals, the perception of the workshop participants was that some key opportunities are being missed. The participants identified the main roadblocks to the implementation of refinement and reduction alternatives as confidentiality, cost and competition. If the scientific community is to make progress concerning the implementation of refinement and reduction, particularly in the creation and use of genetically-engineered animals, addressing these roadblocks needs to be a priority.

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.

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.