Guidelines for the ethical review of laboratory animal welfare People's Republic of China National Standard GB/T 35892-2018 [Issued 6 February 2018 Effective from 1 September 2018].

These Chinese National Guidelines (GB/T 35892-20181) were issued February 06, 2018 and became effective September 01, 2018. The authors recognized the urgent need for an authentic English translation to inform the international community of the compliance requirements in China. It was appreciated that the final translation must reflect the specialist understanding of those working under the Guideline whilst remaining faithful to the meaning of the original Chinese text. A three-step translation process was therefore determined. Step 1: A professional interpretation service (KL Communications, UK) was commissioned to prepare a literal translation of the Chinese text. Supportive documents were provided which explained specialist terminology. This translation was checked by two bilingual experts. Step 2: A workshop was held in Nanjing in May 2019 to which were invited experts in laboratory animal welfare and ethical use. These included international native English-speaking and Chinese-speaking delegates. The delegates worked in multi-lingual teams to review sections of the literal translation ahead of the workshop, and to agree an authentic interpretation during the workshop. Step 3: Following the workshop, three bilingual experts (two native Chinese speakers and one native English speaker) reviewed the entire document to ensure consistency of terminology and general accuracy. This document is thus not a "literal translation" but an "accurate interpretation" of the original text. Any challenge of work being performed under these Guidelines should rely on the Chinese text in the first place. However, this translation may be used as mitigating evidence, especially where those performing the work are non-Chinese speakers.

Communicating About Animal Research with the Public.

Animals play a key role in biomedical research and other areas of scientific inquiry. But public opinion plays a key role in influencing how this area of science is regulated and funded. Nevertheless, scientists have historically been reticent to speak openly about their animal research or to open their animal facilities to the public in any way. Consequently, most of the available information has come from those opposed to animal research. This imbalance has led to suspicion and lagging public support for this work. To reverse this effect, efforts are now being made in many parts of the world to increase openness and transparency in this sector. The authors firmly believe that encouraging more institutions to join this movement, focused on better and greater communication, is essential to preserve the research community's "permission" to perform justifiable studies involving animals. For the purposes of this article, we consider "the public" to include that cross-section of society who may be asked their views in opinion poll studies and who may vote in elections. It also includes other influential groups such as the media, scientists working in other disciplines, animal welfare groups, and politicians who may shape regulatory frameworks. Public opinion on this issue matters. The majority of funding for biomedical research comes, either directly or indirectly, from the public purse. In the case of pharmaceutical research, funding derives from selling medicines to consumers. We therefore all have a vested interest in this funding. Furthermore, legislation that covers the use of animals in research is permissive-it allows scientists to do things that might otherwise contravene animal welfare laws. But this permission is normally contingent on complying with strict protective measures designed to ensure the work stays within the ethical framework that public opinion has deemed appropriate. Open and transparent communication is the best way to promote public understanding. There is thus a responsibility on all those involved in animal research, whether scientists, animal care staff, physicians, veterinarians, members of ethics committees, or managers and leaders, to support and promote public awareness and trust in this work. Circumstantial evidence shows that, with such open dialogue, there is decreased targeting and harassment of individuals and job pride and satisfaction for all involved is improved.

The 3Rs in research: a contemporary approach to replacement, reduction and refinement.

First promulgated in 1959, the 3Rs of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement have evolved as fundamental principles underlying the use of animals and alternatives in science throughout the modern world. This review describes a contemporary approach to delivering the 3Rs through acknowledging the contribution of new technologies and emphasising that applying the 3Rs can be beneficial to good science as well as to animal welfare. This science-led approach moves the concept of the 3Rs out of an ethical silo where they were often considered by scientists to be an inconvenient obligation. On the contrary, relevant examples demonstrate the opportunity to practise better science using 3Rs technologies which deliver faster, more reproducible and more cost-effective results. Indeed, methods harnessing Replacement approaches may permit discoveries which are simply not feasible using animals and frequently are more flexible and agile since compliance with regulatory oversight requirements is simplified. Although the necessity for rigorous oversight is well recognised, it is important that the associated bureaucracy is not allowed to become prohibitive, causing scientists to avoid pursuing justifiable and important research involving animals. Public support for research is conditional - animals should not suffer unnecessarily and sufficient potential benefit should accrue from the research. However, society also actively seeks pioneering medical and scientific advances which can only be achieved through research. Therefore, a balance must be struck between safeguarding animal welfare whilst enabling high-quality science. It is this balance which promotes and sustains public confidence that animal based research is acceptable and being appropriately managed.

Implementing the 3Rs in neuroscience research: a reasoned approach.

The 3Rs--replacement, reduction, and refinement--are aimed at minimizing the welfare costs to animals used in research. Some neuroscientists fear that implementing the 3Rs will prohibit essential studies. Others view them as fundamental ethical principles that improve the quality of research. A regulatory system that integrates science and welfare is most likely to deliver public confidence.

Microbiological monitoring in individually ventilated cage systems.

Housing rodents in IVC racks has many advantages over conventional cages but also presents unique challenges related to health monitoring. The authors review the issues to consider in design of a sentinel program using IVC systems.