I am truly delighted to be asked to write the foreword to this collection of essays. I have been using earlier editions as a guide as to how best I [as the animals' advocate and veterinarian] can protect the physiological and psychological integrity of the animals in my care and, therefore, their scientific utility. In this 9th edition, the editors have expanded the chapter on rodents. This is particularly timely given the tremendous increase in the production and use of transgenic mice, a trend that will continue for several decades. Also the chapter on chickens is substantially revised, and for those using other species of birds another recent review may be of interest (Hawkins et al., 2001).
Some years ago I defined 'Refinement' along the lines of minimising animal suffering during an experiment but in addition incorporating the notion of enhancing animal wellbeing through better husbandry. This is important as laboratory animals spend all of their lives in confinement of one sort or another. It should not be forgotten that their environment encompasses the effects that handlers and researchers have on the animals, which can be significant, and this has recently been reviewed (ILAR, 2001). There is now a plethora of evidence that confinement and husbandry conditions in general can, not surprisingly, impact on the physiological responses of animals in many sorts of experiments. Mind body separation is no more valid in animals than it is in humans, and the effects of psychological perturbations on physiological outcomes are considerable and ignored at the expense of producing poor science. Even when we are not sure of any impact on the animals, attempting to meet their needs and avoiding adverse mental or physical states, such as boredom, frustration, pain, distress, can only be to the benefit of both animals and science. This book addresses specifically what might count as good and poor environments for most of the common species used in laboratories. Each chapter not only provides, in the editors' words `inspiration', but also a wealth of practical ideas and guidance and those contributing to this book have provided us with a rich resource of information. By 'us' I mean animal care staff, veterinarians, scientists, inspectors and members of ethical review processes such as IACUCs.
The notion that it is of
importance to animals that husbandry practices contribute to their
wellbeing raises an ethical dimension to the debate. Poor husbandry
and poor scientific practices of any sort will adversely affect
their welfare, and if we can do it better then we are morally
obliged to do so for ethical, legal, scientific and ultimately
economic reasons. (NB, economic as poor welfare will increase
the variance of data and so more animals will have to be used;
worse still the results obtained may actually be invalid.) Consequently,
it is useful to consider 'suffering', such as pain and mental
distress, that is 'avoidable' from suffering that is 'necessary'
to achieve a scientific objective. The former is impermissible,
the latter should be minimized. Consequently, if it is possible
to avoid causing poor animal wellbeing, then we are obliged to
do so and this book will help us do just that.
Hawkins P, Morton DB, Cameron D, Cuthill I, Francis R, Freire R, Gosler A, Healy S, Hudson A, Inglis I, Jones A, Kirkwood J, Lawton M, Monaghan P, Sherwin C, Townsend P 2001. Laboratory birds: refinements in husbandry and procedures: Fifth report of BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement. Laboratory Animals 35(Supplement 1), 1-163
ILAR Journal 2002. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources (National Research Council) Implications of Human-Animal Interactions and Bonds in the Laboratory. ILAR Journal 43(1) [Contributors: Thomas L. Wolfle, Kathryn Bayne, Fon T. Chang, Lynette A. Hart, Hank Davis, Harold Herzog, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Susan A. Iliff]
| Prof. David
B. Morton, Head Centre for Biomedical Ethics University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT United Kingdom |