What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy book. Happy reading What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy Pocket Guide.
Chairman, Raymond R. Tice, PhD

Loew and F. Quimby Editors L33 Descriptors: laboratory animal medicine, legislation and regulation, management, diseases, design of facilities, biohazards, anesthesia and analgesia, animal behavior. Gluck, J. DiPasquale and F. Orlans ISBN: alk. A66 Descriptors: animal experimentation, moral and ethical aspects, laboratory animals, animal welfare. Hare, V. Worley I58 Descriptors: animal welfare congresses, environmental enrichment, Sea World.

Mason, G. Rushen Editors ISBN: ; Descriptors: stereotypic behavior, abnormal behavior, rearing environment, treatment modalities, motivation, cause of stereotypies, welfare implications, nonhuman primates, rodents. Poole, T. Volume 1. U5 Abstract: The new edition of this leading textbook on laboratory animals is the work of 60 contributors, and it incorporates numerous improvements in husbandry, arising from experience gained since the previous edition of The text deals with mammals 30 chapters , birds 6 chapters and reptiles one chapter. Each chapter describes biological features, housing, breeding, feeding and 'common welfare problems' of a given species.

Thus there are 31 pages on mice, 18 on rats, 22 on guinea-pigs, and 20 on dogs. Research uses of animals vary widely. Some animals are used to produce cells or tissues for use in test tubes and tissue culture. This may be as simple as humanely euthanizing an animal to collect cells and organs. Or it could require several months of immunizing a rabbit to collect blood samples rich in antibodies. Some projects require complicated surgeries, as when surgeons and immunologists work together to develop organ transplant procedures or to study organ rejection.

In some experiments, cancers, infection, or other diseases may be induced and treatments or vaccines studied. Some studies remove organs or specific cell types, so that their function may be learned by studying the resulting deficit. It is impossible to understand the value and justification of animal research without considering the complex concept of animals as models. There are thousands of examples thus the menagerie aspect of the modern animal laboratory.

Animal welfare: animal-based indicators

Songbirds show remarkable brain growth as they learn new songs, and so may also shed light on regeneration of central nervous system tissue after injury. Dogs and pigs are an ideal size for developing new techniques in cardiac surgery. Frog eggs provide large cell-membranes for the study of biochemical functions. Woodchucks carry a woodchuck hepatitis virus similar in many ways to the human hepatitis B virus, while the susceptibility of armadillos to leprosy has earned them a place in the laboratory.

Rats are classic model animals in learning research. Even a single area of inquiry can enlist a range of animal species. Take HIV research as an example. Cats or monkeys with the feline or the simian immunodeficiency virus similar in many ways to humans with the human immune deficiency virus infection are enlisted in the search for vaccines and antivirals. Chimpanzees have been infected with the actual human virus Muchmore , as have immunedeficient mice, who may receive both human immune cells and the human virus.

Sometimes, animal models are valuable precisely because they differ somehow from humans. We could then test all of our antiviral drugs and vaccines and treatments. And yet, if they don t, perhaps we can learn the source of their resistance and find our way out of this epidemic. The differences can be as powerful as the similarities in a wellcharacterized animal model. Thus cats and monkeys and horses and sheep, all with their own retroviruses more or less similar to HIV, are enrolled alongside the transgenic mice, the cells in tissue culture, and the human volunteers in the medical battle against AIDS.

Animal numbers By all counts, American research laboratories employ a very large number of animals, but how many? An exact count is impossible. For starters, no government agency requires reporting of rat, mouse, fish, bird, frog, or invertebrate numbers. Where the two disagree, USDA numbers are used. Moreover, many laboratories do not count baby animals until they have been weaned from their mother, and that number can be substantial in mouse research.

Rowan, Loew, and Weer of the Tufts University Center for Animals and Public Policy make an admittedly rough estimate that some million animals were used in American laboratories in , down from an all-time high of 50 million or more in p. They provided a very rough estimate of annual animal use in the early s by species, combed from various government and other sources. They did not count invertebrates such as shrimp or fruit flies, and they did not distinguish frogs, fish, or birds among other animals in their charts.

Their tallies for are in table 2. Since those estimates, USDA figures show a rough leveling, or slight decrease in use of the larger animals. Dog and cat numbers are down by a third, while monkey numbers are roughly stable or may even be increasing USDA Mouse and rat numbers, however, are booming.

Since the development of transgenic technologies in the early s, any possible trend toward decreasing numbers have been dramatically reversed. Most major campuses of which I am aware are frantically building new facilities to keep up with increasing demand for rodent housing. Absent any formal figures, surveys, or required reporting, I believe my own observations are as accurate an estimate as any, and I believe that there were surely million laboratory rats and mice bred for research in the United States in , and that number will continue to increase for several years.

By comparison, and to put these numbers in a broader context, Peter Singer, in his best-selling book Animal Liberation , reported some 5 billion animals. So, depending on how you count and define animals, there may be some or more animals eaten for every laboratory animal used in America. Of more concern than the raw numbers, of course, is what happens to those animals in the laboratories: their confinement, their pain and distress, their suffering, their deaths. Here the reader should start to appreciate the critical role of knowing the facts about animals experiences in assessing the ethics and policy of animal research: How you feel about animal research probably reflects what you believe the animals feel in the laboratories.

As Congress reworked the Animal Welfare Act in to minimize the pain and distress of laboratory animals, it added reporting requirements to quantify how many animals of what species were undergoing painful research projects, and whether scientists were taking steps to treat pain and distress with anesthetics, painkillers, and tranquilizers. The USDA, charged with enforcing the act, developed a reporting scheme, revised in , in which laboratories categorize the animal use they report as: Category C: No pain or distress greater than minor or momentary, Category D: Potentially painful or distressful animal experiments for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used, or Category E: Potentially painful or distressful animal experiments for which the use of appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs would adversely affect the procedures, results or interpretation of the research U.

Department of Agriculture , p. Just as we cannot get a precise count of how many animals are used in American laboratories, it is virtually impossible to quantify with any precision how much pain and suffering those animals experience. Mandatory self-reporting only applies to USDA-regulated species, and so it does not include rats or mice or birds or frogs. Moreover, this quantification of pain and distress depends on how the reporting facilities define, identify, and classify pain or distress, which is part of the mandatory reporting system and is not separated from pain.

Though the human experience of pain exists on a continuum think of a broken bone versus a paper cut , for animal work the typical threshold for reporting is pain which is greater than minor or momentary. A simple injection of a painless substance or collection of a blood sample are the paradigm examples of pain that need not be reported or treated. Anything more severe goes in the annual report, under either category D or E. The Humane Society of the United States counters that pain and distress are underestimated in laboratories self-reporting Stephens et al.

The animals in category D, for instance, undergo invasive procedures and receive painkilling medications, but there is no guarantee that those drugs obliterate all pain. Animals may be reported in category D, for instance, if they are anesthetized for surgery, even if postoperative pain is left undiagnosed and untreated Stephens et al. Indeed, the USDA gives little guidance on how to report animals on complicated studies. And if the AMA s and USDA s figures are accurate, along with my estimate of rodent numbers, then some 8 million animals per year would be category E animals, experiencing unrelieved pain and distress of varying severity.

ehomyqev.gq - buy, sell and rent books

I remain skeptical of anyone s efforts to quantify laboratory animal suffering nationwide with our current knowledge base and unclear criteria. Antivivisectionists want you to believe that most research animals experience severe and unremitting pain; research advocates would prefer you thought of the laboratory as a high-tech petting zoo where almost all the animals are almost always happy.

Neither extreme seems an accurate portrayal to me, but I hope the intelligent reader will come to see that even in the middle zone, in which we assume that some animals experience some degree of pain and distress which must be attended to, questions of how to recognize, diagnose, and quantify animals experiences loom large.

Searching for alternatives So much animal suffering aren t there alternatives? Yes, indeed, there are some, and federal law since requires that scientists consider alternatives to any procedure likely to produce pain to or distress in an experimental animal U. Congress a. Dating back to the work of William Russell and Rex Burch , laboratory animal professionals and their external watchdogs discuss alternatives in the language of the 3Rs : replacement, reduction, and refinement.

Replacement alternatives are conceptually the most straightforward: find ways to generate research data without using animals at all. Candidates for consideration include studying cells in tissue culture in vitro techniques , developing computer simulations, making better use of human epidemiological data and human volunteers, or using inanimate models in teaching. Scientists also seek to replace so-called higher animals when possible, by switching from dogs to mice, or from mice to fruit flies. The CAAT provides grants, hosts conferences, and publishes reports to develop methods to replace animals in testing Zurlo et al.

Nonanimal replacements are often cheaper and easier than working with animals and may yield data that are cleaner and simpler to interpret. Most animal research groups with which I am familiar do indeed incorporate several nonanimal replacements but have not found they could yet wean. As fluid distention progresses, it debilitates and can kill the mouse. Cells grown in tissue culture have largely replaced this technique. One major limiting factor is technology, the lag in developing reliable nonanimal alternatives.

But the technologies are improving. When I started in laboratory animal care in the early s, mice were essential for producing monoclonal antibodies. Tumor cells hybridomas injected into the mouse abdomen produced fluid ascites rich in antibodies, but at great discomfort to the mouse figure 2. The cells could grow in culture, but not well enough to produce good yields of antibodies.

But technology has developed, and it s rare to find a mouse on an ascitesproduction protocol now. This often means rethinking statistical tests, to use just the number necessary for statistically valid results Festing and Altman Reduction attempts may rely on refining the study, as when use of healthier, more genetically homogeneous animals lowers in-group variability.

Sometimes, the move toward reduction can compete with other alternative approaches; switching from dogs to frogs, for instance, may increase several-fold the number of test animals for a study, if only. Choice of experimental endpoints that precede onset of disease or mortality Improved use of anesthetics and painkillers Housing social animals in compatible groups Using flexible tethers to replace rigid restraint devices Replacing open surgery with endoscopic techniques Providing supportive veterinary care Maintaining infection-free animal colonies Designing cages that allow animals to dig, run, climb, and hide Training animals to cooperate with research procedures Frequent monitoring of body weight or other indicators of well-being Using positive reinforcement in behavioral studies Killing animals using the least painful methods because of their smaller size.

Reducing the number of procedures per animal in a training course may increase the number of animals required; the result will be less pain per animal, and possibly less aggregate pain, but typically increased numbers of animals being killed. Refinement alternatives are the core of this book: all the myriad ways to rethink animal care and use to reduce the potential for pain and distress.

Scientists may seek humane endpoints, stopping tumor or toxicity studies before animals develop severe disease. They may expand their use of anesthetics and painkillers. They may develop assays that require smaller or less frequent blood samples. They may improve the housing for animals in their experiments. Table 2. Refinement is a team effort that enrolls several people s expertise and action. To illustrate the pursuit of refinement alternatives and to introduce the human dramatis personae of the animal laboratory, we ll consider the life of one experimental animal in detail.

The people in the animal laboratories Figure 2. Monkeys account for a tiny proportion of laboratory animals, and only a small minority of them undergo this sort of research.

The commonest application of this research method would be to implant electrodes into the monkey s brain. The electrodes serve not to shock the monkey, but to record the activity in individual brain cells as the animal performs a task for a reward following a visual image across a screen, operating some computer equipment by hand, recognizing a specific sound.

It s ugly to look at, but. Poster of a monkey with brain electrodes implanted. For this animal s sake, we need to overcome immediate revulsion and look closer at her life. Months before the animal arrives at the campus, a scientist the principal investigator designs the experiment and writes the grant application, hoping to convince the National Institutes of Health or another funding agency of the novelty and value of the science.

Final approval of the grant, as well as local permission to obtain animals, rests on approval by the IACUC of that university. Though most of its members may be faculty scientists on an academic campus, by law it must also include a veterinarian, a nonscientist, and at least one person whose only affiliation with the institution is as an IACUC member.

Other members may include students or technical staff. The IACUC will not review the scientific detail so much as the efforts to minimize pain and distress, to seek alternatives to any potentially painful experiments, and to safeguard the monkey s welfare. The alternatives questions to ask in assessing the appropriateness of this research project include: Why monkeys and not frogs, or cells in culture?

How many monkeys are absolutely required? What pain management is used for the surgery and postsurgical care? Must the animal be rigidly restrained during recording sessions? Can the animal have in-cage companions and enrichments between sessions? If the reward is food or fluid, how much must the animal be restricted beforehand to willingly work for such a reward? How well trained are the people performing the various tasks of surgery, testing, health assessment, and animal care? What criteria signal the time to call in veterinarians or to end the animal s enrollment in the study? The staff veterinarian and his or her assistants examine the monkey upon her arrival.

Unlike pet dogs and cats, rhesus monkeys must usually be anesthetized for physical examination or for blood collection. They are much too strong and wild to be handled safely without sedation; even administration of the sedative requires specialized caging, a squeeze-cage with a cage-back that can be pulled forward to immobilize the animal between the front and back cage walls.

  • Greece and Rome at War.
  • The Utility of Basic Animal Research!
  • What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy!
  • Scientific Computing with MATLAB and Octave (4th Edition) (Texts in Computational Science and Engineering, Volume 2)!
  • What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy!

The veterinary staff turn her care over to the husbandry staff who will feed her, clean her cage, and make daily observations of her health and behavior. On the morning of surgery, the monkey might see the animal caregiver early on, feeding the other animals in the room though just like a human patient, she herself would not be allowed food so close to general anesthesia.

One group of technicians or students or veterinarians might administer anesthesia during the procedure, while another will perform the surgical instrumentation. Anesthesia is monitored and delivered much as in human surgery; heart rate and body temperature and blood pressure and responsiveness are all monitored to ensure that the animal is deeply anesthetized enough not to feel anything, but not so deeply anesthetized as to threaten her life.

Surgery requires the same scalpels and suture as in. When the monkey awakens from anesthesia, she may be back in her home cage. Technicians will monitor her recovery, watch for signs of pain, and administer painkillers.

  1. Dark Nights (Dark Saga, Books 7 & 11).
  2. Start Here! Learn the Kinect API.
  3. Links to subject heading searches.
  5. After a few weeks, her convalescent period has ended and scientists will begin the actual experiment and data collection. There is no requirement that a veterinarian be present during the surgery or anesthesia, but if things do not go well, back comes the vet to diagnose and treat, with painkillers, anti-inflammatory drugs, or antibiotics. A member of the behavior staff will assess how well this animal adapts to caged life and oversee efforts at pair-housing or enriching the environment with toys and treats.

    At any point during all of this, a veterinary inspector from the USDA may visit, inspect the animal and her quarters, and review her health and research records. Not all animal projects pull in quite such a full cast. If this were a rat instead of a monkey, the committee would still review plans to work with her, but she would have no vet check on her arrival and she would be out of the USDA Animal Welfare Act inspector s jurisdiction. One graduate student working late into the night might simultaneously serve as her anesthetist, scrub nurse, surgeon, and recovery room nurse.

    Few formal rules govern which individuals can perform different experimental procedures on animals. For example, there is no requirement that research surgeries on animals be performed by veterinarians though there are such laws for therapeutic surgeries performed on pet and food animals. Instead, IACUCs review the qualifications and training of the specific individual for the task at hand.

    Much of research animal surgery and anesthesia is performed by technicians, undergraduates, graduate students, or faculty scientists often quite competently, in my experience with little or no training or oversight from veterinarians. The principal investigators may have medical training themselves as physicians, psychiatrists, or dentists and may see human patients as well as conduct research. The dramatis personae of the animal laboratory include both the research scientist and staff, as well as the individuals I collectively refer to as laboratory animal professionals.

    In a large institution with centralized animal care, animal caregivers also known, and professionally certified, as laboratory animal technicians provide daily care, cleaning, and feeding for several researchers animals. They may work one or several tiers below a director of animal care, often a veterinarian with academic faculty status. In some settings, animal caregivers may also perform research services. They collect animals blood samples, feed them test diets, weigh them, and euthanize them. Or they may perform some medical care, report illnesses to the veterinary staff, and administer vaccinations and medications.


    What Animals Want Expertise And Advocacy In Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy

    In other settings, separate specialized groups of research technicians and veterinary assistants may perform these more technical but less frequent tasks. Curiously, though prominent actors in sociological studies of laboratory culture, animal caregivers and other technicians are virtually invisible in the policy discussions that I document throughout this book. Virtually no one, for instance, proposes a. As Arluke and Sanders have observed, however, animal technicians are the hands through which the institutional culture and the research programs are filtered, and their power, for better or worse, in the animals lives is significant.

    But the laboratory animal professionals who figure most prominently in this book are the laboratory animal veterinarians, like myself, who staff the animal facilities, oversee the animals health care, and find themselves increasingly in regulatory, administrative, and oversight positions.

    Veterinarians did not always have a central place in animal research laboratories, but the s round of legislative updates secured vets a role that had been expanding for half a century. No behindthe-scenes look at an animal laboratory is complete without looking at the development of these laws and the changes they have wrought.

    6 editions of this work

    Animal welfare rules and regulations I write about regulations for two reasons. The first is that they are potentially powerful forces in the lives of the animals I have cared for. Though they must first be filtered, and sometimes dampened in the process through IACUCs, laboratory animal veterinarians, administrators, animal caregivers, and scientists, the regulations do trickle down with some impact on how people treat animals in the laboratory.

    They must house their animals in cages of a certain minimum size, spare them certain research procedures when possible, and meet standards of hygiene and medical care. As a laboratory animal veterinarian, it has been my responsibility to know these national standards for animal care and to strive to meet or exceed them for animals in my care. I write about the regulations as well because periods of regulatory revision become a public stage on which to audition ideas of how to treat animals.

    • What Animals Want?
    • Environmental Enrichment For Nonhuman Primates Resource Guide: Books and Conference Proceedings!
    • Nonviolence and Peace Psychology;
    • POEMS 1950-2009;
    • Heat Treatment Procedure Qualification (Steel)!
    • Managing Food Industry Waste: Common Sense Methods for Food Processors.
    • Annotated Bibliography - Kasey Remillard Deanna Dixon....

    In writing their letters to the USDA to shape the Animal Welfare Act regulations, scientists, animal protectionists, and veterinarians have described what they believe they know about animals and how they think that knowledge should balance against the needs of medical progress. They describe their values and their allegiances. They discuss their conceptions of animal welfare, which sorts of evidence count and which do not, in determining that a particular policy will hurt or harm the animals. This correspondence to the USDA is a matter of public record, and its review constituted much of my research for this book.

    Thus, rules and regulations are important in and of themselves for the effects they have, while their construction provides a window into the thinking of those who would speak for animals. Most American laboratories operate under two main sets of animal welfare regulations, which I will refer to as the Animal Welfare Act and the NIH guidelines. The two have converged over three decades of convoluted history and are now virtually indistinguishable.

    They do, however, have important distinctions in their history, philosophical basis, and scope that the reader should appreciate. At the risk of gross oversimplification, I characterize the Animal Welfare Act as a top-down law, written by Congress in response to public pressure and imposed upon research. The NIH guidelines however, grew from a set of self-regulatory standards and guidance written for laboratory animals, later encoded, from the bottom up, as federal law. While the Animal Welfare Act represents what people want for animals, the NIH guidelines have been presented as expert information on what animals want and need.

    Readers content to trust me with this oversimplification can look at tables 2. For more of the background on these regulations, and why I draw the distinction between their underlying philosophies, read on. The United Kingdom passed its first law protecting laboratory animals in Townsend and Morton Ninety years later, the United States followed suit. Several bills had been introduced over the years to regulate laboratory animal use in America at the federal level.

    In , Sports Illustrated magazine ran a story on Pepper, a dalmatian strayed or stolen from her family and sold to a medical laboratory Phinizy The public response was overwhelming, and before long, Congress had passed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of U. The act gives some broad and some specific direction to the USDA on what to cover. The amendment resulted in a contentious period of USDA rules writing, finally completed in February , over five years and two months after passage of the amended act.

    The controversies of this rule-writing period fill most of the remaining chapters of this book. For present purposes, readers should understand the distinction between the act the law as passed and amended by Congress and the regulations as promulgated by the USDA. As with many other areas of regulation, Congress fleshes out a general law, empowering and funding a government agency to fill in and enforce the details.

    For instance, when Congress determined in that the secretary of agriculture should set standards giving laboratory dogs the opportunity for exercise, it fell to the USDA to decide which dogs should get how much exercise and under whose direction all points of contention as the USDA tried to finalize rules. The history of the Animal Welfare Act is fairly simple and public, explaining why most descriptions and analyses of the American regulatory scene focus mainly on the act.

    In contrast, the other set of rulebooks is an assortment of 1 self-regulatory professional standards written by laboratory animal veterinarians and scientists, 2 policies on grant administration within the NIH and its parent institution, the Public Health Service PHS , 3 a voluntary program of accreditation, and 4 a congressional act of law, the Health Research Extension Act of Small wonder that so many discussions quickly skip over this complex with eyes averted, and stay.

    Who writes the rules Enforcement Species of research animals covered Regulates how animals are obtained Regulates how animals are used in experiments Exercise for dogs Psychological well-being See text for specific references. Warm-blooded animals. Birds and lab mice and rats are excluded, as are farm animals on agricultural research projects.

    Proposed in ; not mandated until Flexible performance standards with veterinarian overseeing an appropriate plan to provide dogs with the opportunity for exercise. Mandated for primates in ; flexible performance standards with veterinarian overseeing an appropriate plan for environment enhancement adequate to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates.

    Subsequent editions by vets and others assembled by the National Academy of Science nongovernmental, but with government funding. All vertebrate animals No, though All animals must be acquired lawfully. Has always contained some suggestions for animal use. Committee review first suggested in fourth edition Left to professional judgment in early editions. Dog pens encouraged for animals housed greater than three months. Year Animal Welfare Act Guide First edition; written by Animal Care Panel as Guide for Laboratory Animal Facilities and Care Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, focus on animal acquisition Amended: species coverage expanded to all warm-blooded animals but USDA excludes mice and rats ; provision for adequate vet care including pain relief during experiments ; annual report required on painful experiments and use of painkillers USDA proposes dog exercise regulations, never adopted as final rules Amended.

    Focus on animal transportation standards. No mention of exercise proposal Amended. Amended: Pet Protection Act Second edition; written by Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources as are all subsequent editions Third edition Fourth edition; title changed to Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals to reflect expanded coverage of animal use Fifth edition Health Research Extension Act gives Guide the force of law; sixth edition of Guide USDA finalizes rules subsequent to the amendment Seventh edition; first with a non Amended: Definition of animal amended to specifically exclude birds, rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research scientist, nonveterinarian community representative.

    This malnourished dog was the lead photo. But the differences between the two including their different handling by historians and analysts are important enough that it is worth trying to sort out this mishmash. This was thrust upon the scientific community and their animal suppliers, with enforcement placed in the hands of the USDA s veterinarians rather than the NIH s scientists. The final form of act amendments and updated regulations are compromises of animal protectionist and research advocacy interests.

    Since passage of the Freedom of Information Act in , much of the process of regulation writing has been public information hence my easy access to the USDA correspondence of the late s. In contrast, the Animal Care Panel, a professional association of veterinarians and other laboratory animal professionals, wrote the first edition of the Guide in Animal Care Panel The emphasis from the start was on flexible selfregulation by research facilities. A program for institutions to voluntarily seek ac-.

    In , a few months before a major overhaul of the Animal Welfare Act, the U. Congress granted this complex of self-regulatory policies, documents, and programs legal status. Tables 2. Neither set of rules was born de novo, nor have they evolved independently. They followed a series of booklets of standards published by the Guide s publishers the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources , professional codes of various research societies such as the American Physiological Society , or codes and guidelines promoted by animal protection organizations such as the Animal Welfare Institute s Comfortable Quarters, first published in the late s.

    These assorted documents, along with their various European counterparts, have provided a pool of ideas and standards that have been available to the authors of the Guide and the act, but in no way undermine the centrality and significance of these two documents. The Animal Welfare Act contained several controversial provisions, such as the institution of animal care and use committees to review research proposals, exercise programs for dogs, and provisions for the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates.

    The USDA s regulations that followed contained their own controversial topics, including the continued exclusion of rats, mice, and birds from coverage, changes in mandated cage sizes, delineation of the attending laboratory animal veterinarian s role in research institutions, compliance with the American Veterinary Medical Association s recommendations on humane animal euthanasia, and a shift in regulatory philosophy toward flexible performance standards.

    Some appeared first in early editions of the Guide, as recommendations for good practice, before they found their way into the act as law. In other instances, as in the Guide s dismissal of public concerns for dog exercise programs in its earlier editions, the Guide stands as the professionals corrective and resistance to what they saw as ill-informed agendas of protectionists and legislators. The important distinction to reiterate here between the Guide with its associated programs and policies and the Animal Welfare Act is that the Guide is relatively closed to outsiders, both in its authorship and in its enforcement.

    I see three important differences between the two. Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act in , with strong input from animal protection organizations, as well as from the scientific community in government terms, the regulated industry , research advocacy organizations, and the NIH. This pattern continued with each amendment. The USDA publishes its proposed regulations in the Federal Register, solicits comments, and publicly summarizes and responds to those comments as it publishes its final rules.

    In the late s, the Animal Welfare Institute and other animal protection organizations stand out as prime players, carefully analyzing proposed regulations and mobilizing their memberships into letter-writing campaigns. Most of the Animal Welfare Act regulations are a negotiated settlement between these two interest groups, along with less publicly visible efforts within government offices to harmonize the NIH and the USDA.

    The active role of the animal protectionists and the more-or-less transparent political process with correspondence to Congress and the USDA matters of public record and fully accessible have always kept the Animal Welfare Act a more visible document for historians and critics than the Guide has been. The authoring institutions, the Animal Care Panel in , and later, the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources now renamed the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research , are technically nongovernmental and exempt from government s rules-writing regulations.

    The USDA s reputation among the laboratory animal professionals I have spoken to has been one of rigid inflexibility, while the Guide s approach has been flexible self-regulation. This distinction, which may never have been as sharp as it has often been painted, blurred in the s. Life in the animal laboratory. Animal welfare Philosophy meets science. A rat is a pig The significance of species.

    Performance standards How big is your guinea pigs house? Centaurs and science The professionalization of laboratory animal care and use. The problem of pain.

    What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy
    What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy
    What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy
    What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy
    What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy

Related What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved