The Laboratory Rabbit, Guinea Pig, Hamster, and Other Rodents

By Mark A. Suckow

The Laboratory Rabbit, Guinea Pig, Hamster, and Other Rodents is a single volume, comprehensive book sanctioned by the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM), covering the rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, gerbil and other rodents often used in research. This well-illustrated reference won a 2012 PROSE Award for Best Single Volume Reference in Science from the Association of American Publishers. The book includes basic biology, anatomy, physiology, behavior, infectious and noninfectious diseases, husbandry and breeding, common experimental methods, and use of the species as a research model. With many expert contributors, this will be an extremely valuable publication for biomedical researchers, laboratory animal veterinarians and other professionals engaged in laboratory animal science.

• 2012 PROSE Award winner for Best Single Volume Reference in Science from the Association of American Publishers
• One-stop resource for advancements in the humane and responsible care of: rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, gerbil, chinchilla, deer mouse, kangaroo rat, cotton rat, sand rat, and degu
• Includes up-to-date, common experimental methods
• Organized by species for easy access during bench research

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Dec 14, 2011
• ISBN: 9780123809216

Book preview

American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine Series

Steven H. Weisbroth, Ronald E. Flatt, and Alan L. Kraus, eds.: The Biology of the Laboratory Rabbit, 1974

Joseph E. Wagner and Patrick J. Manning, eds.: The Biology of the Guinea Pig, 1976

Edwin J. Andrews, Billy C. Ward, and Norman H. Altman, eds.: Spontaneous Animal Models of Human Disease, Volume 1, 1979; Volume II, 1979

Henry J. Baker, J. Russell Lindsey, and Steven H. Weisbroth, eds.: The Laboratory Rat, Volume I: Biology and Diseases, 1979; Volume II: Research Applications, 1980

Henry L. Foster, J. David Small, and James G. Fox, eds.: The Mouse in Biomedical Research, Volume I: History, Genetics, and Wild Mice, 1981; Volume II: Diseases, 1982; Volume Ill: Normative Biology, Immunology, and Husbandry, 1983; Volume IV: Experimental Biology and Oncology, 1982

James G. Fox, Bennett J. Cohen, and Franklin M. Loew, eds.: Laboratory Animal Medicine, 1984

G. L. Van Hoosier, Jr., and Charles W McPherson, eds.: Laboratory Hamsters, 1987

Patrick J. Manning, Daniel H. Ringler, and Christian E. Newcomer, eds.: The Biology of the Laboratory Rabbit, 2nd Edition, 1994

B. Taylor Bennett, Christian R. Abee, and Roy Henrickson, eds.: Nonhuman Primates in Biomedical Research, Volume I: Biology and Management, 1995; Volume II: Diseases, 1998

Dennis F. Kohn, Sally K. Wixson, William J. White, and G. John Benson, eds.: Anesthesia and Analgesia in Laboratory Animals, 1997

James G. Fox, Lynn C. Anderson, Franklin M. Loew and Fred W. Quimby, eds.: Laboratory Animal Medicine, 2nd Edition, 2002

Mark A. Suckow, Steven H. Weisbroth and Craig L. Franklin, eds.: The Laboratory Rat, 2nd Edition, 2006

James G. Fox, Muriel T. Davisson, Fred W. Quimby, Stephen W. Barthold, Christian E. Newcomer and Abigail L. Smith, eds.: The Mouse in Biomedical Research, 2 nd Edition, Volume I: History, Wild Mice, and Genetics , 2007; Volume II: Diseases, 2007; Volume III: Normative Biology, Husbandry, and Models, 2007; Volume IV: Immunology, 2007

Richard E. Fish, Marilyn J. Brown, Peggy J. Danneman and Alicia Z. Karas, eds.: Anesthesia and Analgesia in Laboratory Animals, 2nd Edition, 2008

Jack R. Hessler and Noel D.M. Lehner, eds.: Planning and Designing Animal Research Facilities, 2009

Mark A. Suckow, Karla A. Stevens, and Ronald P. Wilson, eds.: The Laboratory Rabbit, Guinea Pig, Hamster and other Rodents, 2011

Christian R. Abee, Keith Mansfi eld, Suzette Tardif and Timothy Morris, eds.: Nonhuman Primates in Biomedical Research, 2nd Edition, Volume I: Biology and Management, 2012; Volume II: Diseases, 2012

Kathryn Bayne and Patricia V. Turner, eds.: Laboratory Animal Welfare, 2012

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

32 Jamestown Road, London NW1 7BY, UK

225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA

525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA

First edition 2012

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher

Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (+44) (0) 1865 843830; fax (+44) (0) 1865 853333; email: [e-mail]. Alternatively, visit the Science and Technology Books website at www.elsevierdirect.com/rights for further information

Notice

No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN : 978-0-12-380920-9

For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at www.elsevierdirect.com

Typeset by MPS Limited, a Macmillan Company, Chennai, India www.macmillansolutions.com

Printed and bound in United States of America

12 13 14 15 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Preface

Though the majority of animals used in biomedical research at present are mice and rats, a number of other species continue to serve as models in the effort to advance human and animal health. In this regard, The Laboratory Rabbit, Guinea Pig, Hamster, and Other Rodents is meant to be an authoritative summary of the basic biology, husbandry, veterinary perspective, and experimental use of these species.

While this is the first edition of The Laboratory Rabbit, Guinea Pig, Hamster, and Other Rodents, it should be recognized that this volume builds upon the work of previous volumes in the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine Series. In particular, we wish to recognize the following works as providing the foundation for the present book:

Biology of the Laboratory Rabbit, 1st Edition (Edited by S. H. Weisbroth, R. E. Flatt, and A. L. Kraus)

Biology of the Laboratory Rabbit, 2nd Edition (Edited by P. J. Manning, D. H. Ringler, and C. E. Newcomer)

The Biology of the Guinea Pig (Edited by J. E. Wagner and P. J. Manning)

Laboratory Hamsters (Edited by G. L. Van Hoosier, Jr., and C. W. McPherson)

The editors and many authors of these books should feel gratified that their efforts have helped guide and inform veterinarians, scientists, students, and technicians with respect to the proper use of these species in work which has benefited many. It is our hope that we have carried these earlier works forward in a way which will proclaim a similar contribution.

The Laboratory Rabbit, Guinea Pig, Hamster, and Other Rodents combines the content of several books into a single volume along with material on additional species such as the chinchilla, gerbil, and miscellaneous rodents other than laboratory rats and mice. It is meant to be relatively concise, yet sufficiently complete that readers will find ready access to information likely to be of practical use.

As part of the series sponsored by the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM), The Laboratory Rabbit, Guinea Pig, Hamster, and Other Rodents is a component of the ACLAM mission to support the scientific community, in general, and expertise in laboratory animal medicine, in particular. All royalty income from this publication is assigned to support other continuing education activities of the College.

A work such as this represents the collective thoughts and efforts of many contributors and reviewers, and we wish to express our sincere gratitude to all. It is often a challenge to coordinate chapters and timelines with a multi-author work such as this, and we wish to further acknowledge the patience and support of the editorial staff at Elsevier. Though some variation in depth and style between authors in a book such as this is inevitable, it is our hope that readers will view this volume as a valuable reference to be consulted on a frequent basis.

List of Contributors

Leanne C. Alworth    University Research Animal Resources CVM and Department of Population Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

James E. Artwohl    University of Illinois at Chicago, Biologic Resources Lab, Chicago, IL, USA

Margaret Batchelder    Bristol-Myers Squibb, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Wallingford, CT, USA

Beth A. Bauer    University of Missouri, Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Research Animal Diagnostic Laboratory (RADIL), Columbia, MO, USA

Valerie K. Bergdall    University Laboratory Animal Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

Diana M.P. Berger    Northwestern University, Center for Comparative Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

Cynthia L. Besch-Williford    University of Missouri, Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Research Animal Diagnostic Laboratory (RADIL), Columbia, MO, USA

Thea Brabb    University of Washington, Department of Comparative Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

David W. Brammer    University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

Jeleen A. Briscoe    USDA/APHIS Animal Care Program, Riverdale, MD, USA

Kristie Brock    Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Marilyn J. Brown    Charles River Laboratories, East Thetford, Vermont, USA

Rochelle Buffenstein    University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA

Andrew Burich    Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason, Seattle, WA, USA

Tanya H. Burkholder    Division of Veterinary Resources, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

Holly N. Burr    Tri-Institutional Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science, New York, NY, USA

Amy Cassano    Tri-Institutional Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, The Rockefeller University; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

Neil D. Christensen    Penn State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA

Kimberly Cohen    Covance Research Products, Cumberland, VA, USA

Lesley A. Colby    Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Dale M. Cooper    Laboratory Animal Medicine, Quality and Technical Services, North America, Harlan Laboratories, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA

Marcelo A. Couto    UCLA School of Medicine – DLAM, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Suzanne Craig    The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, Houston, TX, USA

Joseph F. Curlee Jr.    Harlan Laboratories, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA

Erin K. Daugherity    Cornell University, Cornell Center for Animal Resources and Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ithaca, New York, USA

David DeLong    Department of Veterans Affairs, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN; Research Animal Resources, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

M. Susan DeVries    Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA

Robert C. Dysko    Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

William P. Feeney    Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Orangeburg, New York, USA

Stephen A. Felt    Veterinary Service Center, Comparative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Judy Fenyk-Melody    Amgen Inc., Seattle, WA, USA

Craig S. Frisk    Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Ronald F. Di Giacomo    University of Washington, Department of Epidemiology and Department of Comparative Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

Diane Gaertner    University Laboratory Animal Resources, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Mihai Gagea-Iurascu    The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, Houston, TX, USA

Laura Gallaugher    University Laboratory Animal Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

Tracy L. Gluckman    Northwestern University, Center for Comparative Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

Fady I. Guirguis    US Naval Medical Research Unit #3, Cairo, Egypt

F. Claire Hankenson    University Laboratory Animal Resources, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Martha Hanes    University of Texas Health Science Center – San Antonio, Lab Animal Resources, San Antonio, TX, USA

Maureen Hargaden    Roche, Department of Comparative Medicine, Nutley, NJ, USA

Stephen B. Harvey    University Research Animal Resources CVM and Department of Population Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Susan Henwood    Covance Laboratories Inc., Madison, WI, USA

Robert F. Hoyt Jr.    National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA

Charlie C. Hsu    Laboratory Animal Resources, Merck Research Laboratories, West Point, PA, USA

Richard B. Huneke    University Laboratory Animal Resources, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Hussein I. Hussein    Animal Resources Department, US Naval Medical Research Unit #3, Cairo, Egypt

Rony Kalman    Authority for Animal Facilities, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

Brian Karolewski    sanofi-aventis, Bridgewater, NJ, USA

Angela B. Keffer    Robinson Animal Hospital, McKees Rocks, PA, USA

Lynn S. Keller    Bristol-Myers Squibb, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Wallingford, CT, USA

Debra Kirchner    Covance Laboratories Inc., Madison, WI, USA

Galila Lazarovici    Authority for Animal Facilities, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

Theresa M. Lee    Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Vanessa K. Lee    Emory University Division of Animal Resources, Atlanta, GA, USA

Patrick A. Lester    Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Conrad Jobst Vascular Research Laboratories, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Stephen I. Levin    Northwestern University, Center for Comparative Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

Garry Linton    Division of Veterinary Resources, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

Neil S. Lipman    Center of Comparative Medicine and Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the Weill Cornell Medical College; Tri-Institutional Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science, New York, NY, USA

John P. Long    Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Department of Comparative Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA

Megan M. Mahoney    Veterinary Biosciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA

Brent J. Martin    Lab Animal Veterinary Consultants, Pella, IA, USA

Lisa Martin    Comparative Medicine and Laboratory Animal Facilities, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

James O. Marx    University Laboratory Animal Resources, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Kirk J. Maurer    Cornell University, Cornell Center for Animal Resources and Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ithaca, New York, USA

Thomas W. Mayer    sanofi-aventis, Bridgewater, NJ, USA

Nancy L. Merrill    Animal Resources Department, US Naval Medical Research Unit #3, Cairo, Egypt

Rashida M. Moore    NIAID/CMB National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Comparative Medicine Branch, Bethesda, MD, USA

Kathleen A. Murray    U.S. PCS Laboratory Animal Medicine, Charles River Laboratories, Wilmington, MA, USA

Daniel D. Myers Jr.    Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Conrad Jobst Vascular Research Laboratories, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Katherine A. Naff    The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, Houston, TX, USA

Denise Newsom    University of Washington, Department of Comparative Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

John N. Norton    Division of Laboratory Animal Resources, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

Lee-Ronn Paluch    Tri-Institutional Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science, New York, NY, USA

Thomas Park    University of Illinois at Chicago, Dept. Biological Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA

Cynthia A. Pekow    Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA

Xuwen Peng    Penn State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA

Stacy Pritt    Absorption Systems, San Diego, CA, USA

Robert H. Quinn    Department of Laboratory Animal Resources, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA

Skye Rasmussen    Tri-Institutional Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, The Rockefeller University; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

Randall P. Reynolds    Division of Laboratory Animal Resources, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

Gordon S. Roble    Tri-Institutional Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science, New York, NY, USA

Gaye Ruble    sanofi-aventis, Bridgewater, NJ, USA

Howard G. Rush    Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Mary Ball Sauer    Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA

Jodi A. Carlson Scholz    Yale University School of Medicine, Section of Comparative Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Heather Sedlacek    Sedlacek Veterinary Systems, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

Eleazar Shafrir    Diabetes Research Unit, Hadassah University Hospital and Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

Katherine A. Shuster    Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Jerald Silverman    Department of Animal Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

Laura Singer    Roche, Department of Comparative Medicine, Nutley, NJ, USA

Bhupinder Singh    Cornell University, Cornell Center for Animal Resources and Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ithaca, New York, USA

Kathleen Smiler    Consultant, Laboratory Animal Medicine, Lakeville, Michigan, USA

Gerald D. Smith    Veterinary Research Advisor, Veterinary Resources, Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Peter C. Smith    Yale University School of Medicine, Section of Comparative Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Joanne Sohn    UCLA School of Medicine – DLAM, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Harold F. Stills    Division of Laboratory Animal Resources, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

Douglas K. Taylor    Emory University Division of Animal Resources, Atlanta, GA, USA

Peggy T. Tinkey    The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, Houston, TX, USA

Rajesh K. Uthamanthil    The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, Houston, TX, USA

Helen Valentine    Cornell University, Cornell Center for Animal Resources and Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ithaca, New York, USA

Gerald Van Hoosier    Department of Comparative Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Ida M. Washington    Department of Comparative Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA

Steven H. Weisbroth    McLean, VA, USA

Cheri L. West    Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Department of Comparative Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA

Wanda L. West    Bristol-Myers Squibb, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Princeton, NJ, USA

Bruce H. Williams    American College of Veterinary Pathologists, Department of Veterinary Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC, USA

Jolaine M. Wilson    Laboratory Animal Services, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Steven R. Wilson    Yale University School of Medicine, Section of Comparative Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Felix R. Wolf    Tri-Institutional Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, The Rockefeller University; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; Center of Comparative Medicine and Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

Richard Young    Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

Ehud Ziv    Diabetes Research Unit, Hadassah University Hospital and Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

List of Reviewers

Lauren Bakaletz

August Battles

Kathryn Bayne

David Besselsen

Kenneth R. Boschert

Ralph Bunte

Larry Carbone

Jodi Carlson-Scholz

Elizabeth Carney

Calvin Carpenter

Jeff H. Carraway

Yan Chang

Carol Clarke

Donna Clemmons

Dale Cooper

Robert C. Dysko

Melissa Dyson

Vicki Eng

Everett Engle

Mike Felder

Sanford Feldman

Judy Fenyk-Melody

Karl Field

Anne Fitzgerald

Patricia Foley

James G. Fox

Craig Franklin

Alexis Garcia

Sylvia Gogafe

Troy Hallman

Claire Hankenson

John Harkness

Jill Heatley

Debra L. Hickman

Lori Hill

Harm HogenEsch

Walter Horne

Patty Huai Chen

Michael J. Huerkamp

Stephanie Huffman

Richard Hurley

Todd Jackson

Cathy Johnson-Delaney

Nancy Johnston

Robin Kastenmayer

Mary Kennett

Ann B. Kier

Jeanie Kincer

William King

Angela King-Herbert

Steven L. Leary

Edward Leiter

Angela Lennox

Teresa A. Liberati

Jeffrey J. Lohmiller

Christopher Mans

Brent Martin

Diane McClure

Christopher L. Medina

Robert E. Meyer

Stephanie Monecke

Judith L. Nielsen

Dennis Padovan

Dean Percy

Kathy A. Perdue

Marcel Perret-Gentil

Paul Pevet

Charles Pierre Pignon

Kate Pritchett-Corning

Mary Proctor

Mildred Randolph

Irene Rodgers

Robert Rose

Harry Rozmiarek

Richard Salvi

Trenton Schoeb

Diana Scorpio

Heidi Shafford

Patrick Sharp

James Simmons

Meredith Simon

Janet Simpson

J. David Small

Gerald D. Smith

Peter Smith

Linda Sullivan

Joanne Tetens

Patricia Turner

Kimberly S. Waggie

Ken Walder

Jeanne Wallace

Craig Wardrip

Steven H. Weisbroth

Tiffany Whitcomb

Bruce Williams

Norman D. Wiltshire

Jeffrey D. Wyatt

Table of Contents

Cover Image

Title

Copyright

Preface

List of Contributors

List of Reviewers

PART I. General

Chapter 1. Ethical Considerations and Regulatory Issues

Introduction

Ethical Concepts

Ethical Challenges

Institutional Animal Welfare Oversight

Regulations and Non-regulatory Considerations

Conclusion

REFERENCES

Chapter 2. Anesthesia and Analgesia

Pre-anesthetic Preparation

Controlled Substances

Pharmacology

Anesthesia Circuits

Anesthesia Monitoring and Support

Surgical Anesthesia

Post-operative Monitoring and Pain Assessment

REFERENCES

Chapter 3. Clinical Biochemistry and Hematology

Introduction

Clinical Biochemistry

Rabbit

Guinea Pig

Hamster

Other Rodents

Hematology

Rabbit

Guinea Pig

Hamster

Other Rodents

REFERENCES

Chapter 4. Euthanasia and Necropsy

Introduction

Euthanasia

Necropsy

Pathology Considerations

Acknowledgments

REFERENCES

Chapter 5. Zoonoses and Occupational Health

Introduction

Viral Diseases

Rickettsial Diseases

Chlamydial Diseases

Bacterial Diseases

Fungal Diseases

Cestode Infections

Arthropod Infections

Allergies

Prevention of Allergy and Zoonotic Disease

REFERENCES

PART II. Rabbits

Chapter 6. The Domestic Rabbit,

Introduction and Background

Phylogeny and Taxonomy

Geographic Origins and Diversity

Domestication and Breed Development

Ecology and Conservation

REFERENCES

Chapter 7. Rabbit Genetics and Transgenic Models

Rabbit Genetics

Transgenic Rabbits

Conclusions

REFERENCES

Chapter 8. Anatomy, Physiology, and Behavior

Introduction

External Features

Osteology

Oral Cavity

Abdominal Viscera

Urogenital System

Thoracic Viscera

Brain and Spinal Cord

Metabolism

Behavior

Acknowledgments

REFERENCES

Chapter 9. Rabbit Colony Management and Related Health Concerns

Introduction

Laboratory Management

Breeding

Nutrition

Nutritionally Related Diseases

REFERENCES

Chapter 10. Basic Experimental Methods in the Rabbit

Introduction

Handling and Restraint

Sampling Techniques

Compound Administration

Specialized Research Techniques

REFERENCES

Chapter 11. Polyclonal Antibody Production

Introduction

The Immunogen

Immunogen Dose

Route of Immunization

Immunization Schedule

Adjuvants

Summary

REFERENCES

Chapter 12. Toxicity and Safety Testing

Introduction

Toxicity Testing

Safety Testing

Metabolism and Toxicokinetics

Acknowledgments

REFERENCES

Chapter 13. Bacterial Diseases

Introduction

Pasteurellosis

Enterotoxemia

Tyzzer’s Disease

Colibacillosis

Salmonellosis

Staphylococcosis

Treponematosis

Necrobacillosis

Listeriosis

Tuberculosis

Tularemia

Proliferative Enteropathy

Miscellaneous Bacterial Diseases

REFERENCES

Chapter 14. Viral Diseases

Introduction

DNA Virus Infections

RNA Virus infections

REFERENCES

Chapter 15. Parasitic Diseases

Introduction

Protozoa

Arthropods

Helminths

REFERENCES

Chapter 16. Rabbit Neoplasia

Introduction

Neoplasms of Oryctolagus cuniculus

Neoplasms of Sylvilagus

Neoplasms of Lepus

REFERENCES

Chapter 17. Mycoses and Non-Infectious Diseases

Introduction

Mycotic Diseases

Non-Infectious Diseases

REFERENCES

Chapter 18. The Rabbit as an Experimental Model

Introduction

Cardiovascular Diseases

Ophthalmic Diseases

Central Nervous System Diseases

Respiratory Diseases

Urogenital Diseases

Gastrointestinal Diseases

Musculoskeletal Diseases

Multisystemic Diseases

Acknowledgments

REFERENCES

PART III. Guinea Pigs

Chapter 19. Taxonomy and History

Introduction

Taxonomy and Geographical Distribution

Origin and Domestication

Genetics

REFERENCES

Chapter 20. Anatomy, Physiology, and Behavior

Introduction

External Anatomy

Musculoskeletal System

Digestive System

Cardiovascular System

Pulmonary System

Genitourinary System

Nervous System

Special Senses

Behavior

REFERENCES

Chapter 21. Management, Husbandry, and Colony Health

Introduction

Handling

Housing

Reproduction and Breeding

Nutrition

Colony Health

Record Keeping

REFERENCES

Chapter 22. Basic Experimental Methods

Introduction

Handling and Restraint

Sampling Techniques

Compound Administration

Specialized Research Techniques

REFERENCES

Chapter 23. Infectious Diseases

Introduction

Viral infections

Bacterial infections

Fungal infections

Protozoa infections

Parasitic infections

REFERENCES

Chapter 24. Non-Infectious Diseases

Introduction

Cardiovascular System

Respiratory System

Gastrointestinal System

Urinary System

Endocrine System

Reproductive System

Musculoskeletal System

Integumentary System

Special Senses

Hematolymphatic System

Multisystemic Conditions

REFERENCES

Chapter 25. Guinea Pigs as Experimental Models

Introduction

Models of Disease

REFERENCES

PART IV. Hamsters

Chapter 26. Taxonomy and History

Taxonomy

Geographical Distribution

Origin and Domestication

Genetics

Acknowledgments

REFERENCES

Chapter 27. Anatomy, Physiology, and Behavior

Introduction

External Features

Musculoskeletal System

Digestive System

Circulatory System

Pulmonary System

Genitourinary System

Nervous System

Special Senses

Behavior

REFERENCES

Chapter 28. Management, Husbandry, and Colony Health

Introduction

Housing

Environmental Conditions

Nutrition

Breeding

Colony Health

Record Keeping

REFERENCES

Chapter 29. Biomedical Research Techniques

Introduction

General Non-Surgical Procedures

Injections and Intubations

Biological Specimen Collections

Other Surgical Procedures

REFERENCES

Chapter 30. Bacterial and Fungal Diseases

Introduction

Bacterial Diseases

Fungal Diseases

REFERENCES

Chapter 31. Viral Diseases

Introduction

DNA Viruses

RNA Viruses

Miscellaneous Viruses

REFERENCES

Chapter 32. Parasitic Diseases

Introduction

Protozoa

Nematodes

Arthropods

REFERENCES

Chapter 33. Non-Infectious Diseases

Introduction

Diseases Associated with Aging

Nutritional Disorders

Genetic, Traumatic, Environmental and Other Non-Infectious Diseases

Neoplasms

REFERENCES

Chapter 34. The Experimental Use of Syrian Hamsters

Introduction

Cancer Research

Metabolic Diseases

Non-Cancerous Respiratory Diseases

Cardiovascular

Infectious Disease Research

Other Models

REFERENCES

Chapter 35. The Chinese or Striped-Back Hamster

Introduction

Biology

Care and Husbandry

Cytogenetics and Fetal Development

Diseases

Research Uses

Summary

REFERENCES

Chapter 36. The European Hamster

Taxonomy

History

Biology

Behavior

Diseases

Management, Husbandry, and Colony Health

Experimental Methodology

Use in Biomedical Research

REFERENCES

Chapter 37. Other Hamsters

Introduction

Phodopus sungorus (Djungarian Hamster)

Mesocricetus brandti (Turkish Hamster)

Cricetulus migratorius (Armenian Hamster)

Mesocricetus newtoni (Romanian Hamster)

REFERENCES

PART V. Chinchillas

Chapter 38. Taxonomy and History

Introduction

Taxonomy

History

REFERENCES

Chapter 39. Anatomy, Physiology, and Behavior

Introduction

External Features

Unique Biological Characteristics

Behavior

REFERENCES

Chapter 40. Management, Husbandry, and Colony Health

Introduction

Housing Systems

Environmental Conditions

Nutrition

Breeding

Colony Health

Record Keeping

REFERENCES

Chapter 41. Basic Experimental Methods

Introduction

Handling and Restraint

Mechanical Methods

Sampling Techniques

Compound Administration

Specialized Research Techniques

REFERENCES

Chapter 42. Diseases and Veterinary Care

Introduction

Gastrointestinal and Metabolic Diseases

Traumatic Lesions

Management-Related Disorders

Neoplastic Diseases

Miscellaneous Conditions

REFERENCES

Chapter 43. Chinchillas as Experimental Models

Introduction

Models Related to Aural Disease

Models Related to Hearing Loss

Future of Chinchilla Models

REFERENCES

PART VI. Other Rodents

Chapter 44. Degu

Introduction

History and Taxonomy

Anatomy, Physiology, and Behavior

Management, Husbandry, and Colony Health

Handling and Restraint

Sampling Techniques

Compound Administration

Anesthesia and Analgesia

Euthanasia and Necropsy

Diseases

The Degu as an Experimental Model

REFERENCES

Chapter 45. Naked Mole Rat

History

Taxonomy

General Description

Natural Habitat

Behavior

Reproductive Behavior

General Physiology

Anatomy and Physiology of Organ Systems

Aging

Husbandry

Colony Health

Use in Research

REFERENCES

Chapter 46. Deer Mice, White-Footed Mice, and their Relatives

Introduction

Biology

Husbandry

Captive Breeding

Diseases

Anesthesia/Analgesia

REFERENCES

Chapter 47. Dormouse

Introduction

Taxonomy and History (Table 47.1)

Anatomic Characteristics

Husbandry

Nutrition

Housing

Environmental Conditions

Handling

Breeding

Diseases and Zoonoses

Colony Health Monitoring

Experimental Applications

Biomethodology

REFERENCES

Chapter 48. Kangaroo Rat

Introduction

Biology

Diseases

Use in Research

Laboratory Care

REFERENCES

Chapter 49. Cotton Rat

Introduction

Biology

Husbandry

Diseases

Experimental Methods

Use in Research

Acknowledgments

REFERENCES

Chapter 50. Pocket Gopher

Introduction

Biology

Diseases

REFERENCES

Chapter 51. White-Tailed Rat

Introduction

Taxonomy, History, and Genetics

Anatomy, Physiology, and Behavior

Management, Husbandry, and Colony Health

Basic Experimental Methods

Diseases and Veterinary Care

Experimental Models

REFERENCES

Chapter 52. Gerbils

Introduction

Taxonomy and History

Anatomy, Physiology, and Behavior

Management, Husbandry, and Colony Health

Basic Experimental Methods

Veterinary Care and Diseases

Gerbils as Experimental Models

REFERENCES

Chapter 53. Egyptian Fat-Tailed Jird

Introduction

Anatomy, Physiology, and Behavior

Management, Husbandry, and Colony Health

Diseases

Anesthesia/Analgesia, Euthanasia, and Necropsy

Use in Research

Basic Experimental Methods

REFERENCES

Chapter 54. Sand Rat

Introduction

Selection of Reliable Diets and Psammomys Lines for Diabetes Research

Metabolic Efficiency

Morphology, Physiology, Breeding Performance, and Husbandry

The Basis of Diabetes in Psammomys

The Relevance of Psammomys to Diabetes Research

The Genetic Basis of Psammomys Diabetes

Worldwide Research Using Psammomys

Complications of Diabetes in Psammomys

Concluding Remarks

REFERENCES

PART VII. Formulary and Normative Values

Chapter 55. Formulary

Introduction

Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

Guinea Pig (Cavia porcellus)

Hamster (Mesocricetus auratus)

Degu (Octodon degus)

Other Species

REFERENCES

Chapter 56. Normative Values

Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

Guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus)

Hamsters

Gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus)

Chinchillas (Chinchilla laniger)

Other rodents

REFERENCES

Index

PART I

General

Chapter 1 Ethical Considerations and Regulatory Issues

Chapter 2 Anesthesia and Analgesia

Chapter 3 Clinical Biochemistry and Hematology

Chapter 4 Euthanasia and Necropsy

Chapter 5 Zoonoses and Occupational Health

Chapter 1

Ethical Considerations and Regulatory Issues

Marilyn J. Brown¹, and Kathleen L. Smiler²

¹ Charles River Laboratories, East Thetford, Vermont, USA

² Lakeville, Michigan, USA

Outline

Introduction

Ethical Concepts

Moral Theories

Descriptive Laboratory Animal Use Ethics

Ethical Principles

Respect for Life

Societal Benefit

Non-Maleficence

The Three Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement)

Ethical Challenges

Breeding Colonies

Genetically Modified Rodents

Cancer Research

Perinatal Animal Use

Neuroscience and Behavioral Research

Food and Fluid Restriction

Neuroanatomic Studies

Neural Injury and Disease

Behavioral Studies

Prolonged Restraint and Anesthesia

Restraint of Awake Animals

Prolonged Studies in Anesthetized Animals

Institutional Animal Welfare Oversight

Regulations and Non-regulatory Considerations

United States Regulatory Considerations

United States Animal Welfare Act

Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Animals

Food and Drug Administration Good Laboratory Practices

Interagency Cooperation

Environmental Protection Agency Good Laboratory Practices

Non-Regulatory Considerations

Institute for Laboratory Animal Research

Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Guide)

International Regulations, Policies, and Standards

AAALAC, International

Canada

European Union

Pacific Rim

Conclusion

References

… by now it is widely recognized that the [most humane] possible treatments of experimental animals, far from being an obstacle, is actually a prerequisite for successful animal experiments.

Russell and Burch, 1959

The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique

Introduction

Like many aspects of life, involvement with animal research presents ethical challenges – areas where competing interests require use of an ethical decision-making process, to provide guidance. Individuals in the laboratory may face basic competing interests between scientists, technicians, veterinary colleagues, an employing institution, the public, and concern for the animals themselves (e.g., individual health versus health of the colony). According to Tannenbaum, normative veterinary ethics refers to the search for correct principles of good and bad, right and wrong, and looks for the correct norms for veterinary professional behavior and attitudes (Tannenbaum, 1995). The intent of this chapter is to provide information which will be useful to all individuals involved in animal-based research, testing and teaching: scientists; technicians; laboratory animal veterinarians; and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) members. This process might be considered an effort to define normative laboratory animal use ethics. The search for an appropriate ethical solution rarely leads to a complete and absolute answer, as science is a very dynamic field and new issues and new insights influence the outcome. This look at normative laboratory animal use ethics will examine some general ethical concepts within the context of Tannebaum’s definition of descriptive [laboratory animal use] ethics, where descriptive ethics is the study of the actual values or standards of a profession; that is, what members of a profession consider to be right and wrong regarding professional behavior and attitudes (Tannenbaum, 1995). In this chapter, reference will be made to relevant values and standards found in various principles and guidelines developed for use by individuals involved in animal research. Potential ethical challenges which might confront laboratory animal professionals using rodents and rabbits (e.g., challenges related to breeding colonies, genetically modified rodents, use of animals in cancer research, perinatal animal use, and use of animals in neuroscience and behavioral research) will be used as examples. Related ethical questions, and the appropriate principles which may pertain to the situation are discussed. The reader is challenged to test the general rules and principles against his or her own moral experience and intuition and thus create his or her own descriptive laboratory animal ethos. Further, the reader is encouraged to recognize that this is an ongoing process, that one’s professional ethos will likely grow and mature as new challenges are encountered.

It is recognized that animal welfare is a core concern of veterinary ethics … [and] this subject has gained increased importance as society and the profession endorse ever more strongly the moral imperative to treat animals decently. When discussing laboratory animal ethics, one often uses the term humane (Tannenbaum, 1995). The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Guide) states Humane care means those actions taken to assure that laboratory animals are treated according to high ethical and scientific standards (National Research Council, 2011). The Guide uses the words ‘ethics’ or ‘ethical’ 59 times in either the text or references. The first place ‘ethics’ is mentioned in the Guide is the Preface: "The Guide is also intended to assist investigators in fulfilling their obligation to plan and conduct animal experiments in accord with the highest scientific, humane, and ethical principles" (National Research Council, 2011). Humane care, ethics, and animal welfare are closely linked and, for the purposes of this chapter, may be used interchangeably.

Ethical Concepts

Moral Theories

Moral theory is an expansive field of study with its own vocabulary and competing points of view. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide a comprehensive discussion of the many theories that discuss the humane use of animals. Instead, focus is made on some principles which the authors have found helpful.

Consideration of ethics with respect to use of animals in research begins with the basic idea of where one feels animals (versus people) fit in the moral spectrum. In other words, what is the moral value of an animal relative to a human? Moral status or standing represents the position or rank of an entity along a moral continuum from minimal to maximal moral significance (Kraus and Renquist, 2000). Because animals lack moral agency, defined as a uniquely human capacity for making moral judgments (Kraus and Renquist, 2000), it may be concluded that animals, while having some moral status, fall below that accorded to humans. Even when examining the moral status of animals, there are many who accord different levels of moral status for different species. Such a continuum of moral status is essentially a sliding scale where moral status is based on a combination of cognitive and sensory capacities. This concept has been coined speciesism by some philosophers who then compare it to other concepts which foster differential treatment based upon a given trait, similar to racism or sexism (Singer, 1975). Regardless of where a species is placed on this Darwinian scale, a commonality shared by all vertebrates is that of sentience. Sentience is the capacity to perceive and process sensory input and thus the ability to feel pain and distress. Moral agents (humans) have obligations or are bound to do certain things out of a sense of duty, custom, or law and have responsibility toward other beings. It is from this obligation that most humans feel it is right to minimize the pain and distress felt by other sentient beings. This obligation may be called non-maleficence and is addressed in greater detail later in this chapter.

In the most general sense, there are two approaches to ethics: utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarian theories look at the consequences of actions to determine which actions are good and which are bad. The goal is to maximize good consequences and minimize bad ones. In its most basic form, this is similar to what an IACUC protocol review does when it performs a cost or harm/benefit analysis. However, there are different views of the good that should be maximized. Utilitarianism is an example of action-oriented ethical theories, because it examines the consequences of actions. These theories tend to stress the concepts of duty and obligation. In contrast, deontological theories are also action-oriented ethical theories; however, there are some moral imperatives which are independent of how much good results from an action. Some deontologists advocate a set of obligatory moral principles but allow some compromise when different moral principles are conflicting (e.g., one principle trumps another). There may also be non-obligatory principles which are desirable but not mandatory to follow.

Other ethical approaches include those based on values and ethics. Value-based ethics center around basic values to be sought. These values tend to be hierarchical. There are also virtue-oriented ethical theories. A virtue contributes to a good moral life (e.g., honesty, kindness, generosity). These approaches tend to instill attitudes, feelings, and states of mind central to the virtuous disposition (Tannenbaum, 1995). It has been suggested that a satisfactory approach to normative ethics must include actions, values, and virtues (Tannenbaum, 1995).

Descriptive Laboratory Animal Use Ethics

Ethical Principles

Descriptive laboratory animal ethics represents an approach for determining appropriate moral behavior and attitude (Tannenbaum, 1995). Principles can be defined as accepted generalizations about a topic that are frequently endorsed by many and diverse organizations (National Research Council, 2011); and several sets of principles with relevance to ethical use of laboratory animals will be discussed. It is hoped that application of these principles in the discussion of example ethical challenges later in this chapter will serve as a basis for how other ethical challenges may be approached.

One set of principles, the concept of the Five Freedoms, was originally created by the United Kingdom Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Council (FAWC) in 1979 specifically to address issues related to the use of animals in agriculture. Today, the Five Freedoms are also often mentioned within the context of animals used in research. The Five Freedoms include: (1) freedom from malnutrition; (2) freedom from thermal or physical discomfort; (3) freedom from injury and disease; (4) freedom to express normal social behavior; and (5) freedom from fear. The Five Freedoms were revised in 1993 to include: (1 ) freedom from hunger and thirst, by assuring ready access to fresh water and a diet sufficient to maintain full health and vigor; (2) freedom from discomfort, by providing an environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area; (3) freedom from pain, injury and disease, by preventive means or rapid diagnosis and treatment; (4) freedom from fear and distress, by ensuring conditions that avoid mental suffering; and (5) freedom to express normal behavior, by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal’s own kind (Webster, 2001).

In 1996, the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) developed basic principles, referred to as the Sundowner Principles (NASA, 1996). These principles were based upon the Belmont Report which had been written for the protection of human research subjects (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). These principles of bioethics offer a simple, yet elegant framework for looking at ethical questions:

"The use of animals in research involves responsibility – not only for the stewardship of the animals but to the scientific community and society as well. Stewardship is a universal responsibility that goes beyond the immediate research needs to include acquisition, care and disposition of the animals, while responsibility to the scientific community and society requires an appropriate understanding of, and sensitivity to scientific needs and community attitudes toward the use of animals.

Among the basic principles generally accepted in our culture, three are particularly relevant to the ethics of research using animals: respect for life, societal benefit, and non-maleficence"

(NASA, 1996 ).

Respect for Life

Living creatures deserve respect. This principle requires that animals used in research should be of an appropriate species and health status, and should involve the minimum number required to obtain valid scientific results. It also recognizes that the use of different species may raise different ethical concerns. Selection of appropriate species should consider cognitive capacity and other morally relevant factors. Additionally, methods such as mathematical models, computer simulation, and in vitro systems should be considered and used whenever possible.

Societal Benefit

The advancement of biological knowledge and improvements in the protection of the health and well-being of both humans and other animals provide strong justification for biomedical and behavioral research. This principle entails that when animals are used, the assessment of the overall ethical value of such use should include consideration of the full range of potential societal goods, the populations affected, and the burdens that are expected to be borne by the subjects of the research.

Non-Maleficence

Based upon the idea that vertebrate animals are sentient, this principle holds that the minimization of distress, pain, and suffering is a moral imperative. Unless the contrary is established, investigators should consider that procedures that cause pain or distress in humans may cause pain or distress in other sentient animals (Interagency Research Animal Committee, 1985).

The International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (Table 1.1) were developed by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) as a result of extensive international and interdisciplinary consultations spanning 1982–1984 (Bankowski, 1985; Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, 1985). These principles have a considerable measure of acceptance internationally. European Medical Research Councils (EMRC), an international association that includes all the West European medical research councils, fully endorsed the CIOMS Guiding Principles in 1984. In the same year, the CIOMS Guiding Principles were endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) Advisory Committee on Medical Research. It should be noted that, at the time of writing this chapter, the CIOMS were undergoing revision.

TABLE 1.1. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) Basic Principles (1985)

During 1984–1985, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened the U.S. Interagency Research Animal Committee (IRAC) which created a similar set of principles, the U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals used in Testing, Research and Training (Table 1.2) for research funded by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) (Interagency Research Animal Committee, 1985). These principles were, to a considerable extent, based on the CIOMS Guiding Principles.

TABLE 1.2. Interagency Research Animal Committee (IRAC) U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training ( Interagency Research Animal Committee, 1985 )

As an indication of the wide acceptance of both the IRAC and CIOMS Principles, discussion of the IRAC Principles can be found under the heading Ethics and Animal Use in the Guide (National Research Council, 2011). NASA and CIOMS are also listed in Appendix A of the Guide under the heading Ethics and Welfare (National Research Council, 2011). The complete IRAC Principles are found on the cover of the PHS Policy (Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, 2002) and Appendix B of the Guide (National Research Council, 2011).

There are really no points of conflict and, in fact, there are many points of consensus between the Sundowner, CIOMS, and IRAC principles all of which offer that animal-based research should:

•   Acknowledge the importance of research with relevance to human or animal health, advancement of knowledge, or the good of society;

•   Stress consideration of alternatives to reduce or replace the use of animals;

•   Require avoiding or minimizing discomfort, distress, and pain.

Some items which are addressed in greater detail in the CIOMS and IRAC principles but are more generally under the concept of non-maleficence in the Sundowner Principles include:

•   Use of appropriate sedation, analgesia, and anesthesia;

•   Establishment of humane endpoints;

•   Provision of adequate veterinary care;

•   Assurance of appropriate training and qualifications of personnel using and caring for animals.

As previously mentioned, descriptive ethics is the study of actual values or standards of a profession. With respect to ethics governing laboratory animal use, the Sundowner, CIOMS, and IRAC principles could be considered major components.

Commonly accepted ethical principles result in development of professional guidelines. For example, in 1831 in the United Kingdom (U.K.), Marshall Hall, a leading British physiologist, developed guidelines for animal experimentation (Zurlo et al., 1993). The British Association for the Advancement of Science further refined these principles in 1871, 5 years before the first legislation in the U.K. In 1909, Walter B. Cannon developed guidelines for animal experimentation for the American Physiological Association. Many other scientific organizations have also created similar guidelines. Scientists are urged to seek those within their own professional societies. (e.g., Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology at http://www.faseb.org/Policy-and-Government-Affairs/Science-Policy-Issues/Animals-in-Research-and-Education/Statement-of-Principles.aspx; American Physiological Society at http://www.the-aps.org/pa/resources/policyStmnts/paPolicyStmnts_Guide.htm).

Examples of professional guidelines for laboratory animal veterinarians include the Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics and Veterinary Oath of the American Veterinary Medical Association (at http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/ethics.asp, http://www.avma.org/about_avma/whoweare/oath.asp). Further, many laboratory animal science professionals refer to the Position Statements of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS; http://www.aalas.org/association/position_statements.aspx).

Central to these codes of conduct, principles, statements of ethics, and position statements is the commitment to the humane care and use of research animals.

The Three Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement)

Several sets of ethical principles and guidelines covering the use of animals in research, testing, and teaching have been mentioned but perhaps the simplest and the one with the greatest impact on animal research today is the ethical concept called The 3Rs, a call to apply whenever possible the alternatives of replacement of animals, reduction in the number of animals used, and the refinement in procedures used on animals in research (Russell and Burch, 1959).

The Guide was originally published in 1963 and has undergone numerous revisions, with the most recent edition being published in 2011. The Statement of Task of the latest revision committee begins with The use of laboratory animals for biomedical research, testing and education is guided by the principles of the Three Rs…. (National Research Council, 2011). The 3Rs are a common theme in the Guide which states "Throughout the Guide, scientists and institutions are encouraged to give careful and deliberate thought to the decision to use animals taking into consideration the contribution that such use will make to new knowledge, ethical concerns, and the availability of alternatives to animal use. A practical strategy for decision making, [is] the Three Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) approach, …"(National Research Council, 2011).

The concept of the 3Rs is also infused in U.S. regulations covering research using animals. Although the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations do not include the word alternatives in its section of definitions, the term is used several times in the regulations themselves. For example, in the section on IACUC review of protocols the regulations state protocols must indicate that (i) Procedures involving animals will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals; (ii) The principle investigator has considered alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals, and has provided a written narrative description of the methods and sources, e.g., The Animal Welfare Information Center, used to determine that alternatives were not available …. (Office of the Federal Register, 2002). The focus of USDA inspectors on adherence to this section of the regulations can be appreciated when looking at the USDA Research Facility Inspection Guide which instructs inspectors several times to evaluate institutional compliance in this area (USDA, 2009). In addition, the requirement for a search for alternatives is the subject of a specific Animal Care Policy – Policy 12 (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2000). Strategies to enhance electronic search efficiency using a search filter for PubMed have been published (Hooijmans et al., 2010b). A Gold Standard Publication Checklist has been proposed to help fully integrate the 3Rs into systematic reviews of the literature (Hooijmans et al., 2010a).

In a section on personnel qualifications, the AWA Regulations state that the institution should assure adequate training and qualifications and that this is fulfilled in part through the provision of training and instruction on the concept, availability, and use of research and testing methods that limit the use of animals [Reduction] or minimize animal distress [Refinement] (Office of the Federal Register, 2002). The AWA Regulations further indicate that research staff should be trained on the utilization of services (e.g., National Agriculture Library of Medicine) available to find information: … (ii) On alternatives to the use of live animals in research [Replacement]; … (Office of the Federal Register, 2002).

In addition to the specific references above, the AWA Regulations also refer to the use of anesthetics, analgesics, and sedatives, the availability of appropriate veterinary care, the use of appropriate housing; and timely, appropriate euthanasia, all of which demonstrate the practice of refinement.

The United States Public Health Service (PHS) Policy contains similar language regarding minimizing discomfort, distress pain, use of appropriate anesthesia, and the use of humane endpoints as examples of refinement. In addition, the PHS Policy refers to the IRAC Principles, requiring institutions receiving PHS funds to use the Guide as a basis for their animal care and use programs.

National and international agencies and organizations such as the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) (http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/), the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) (http://ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/), and the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) (http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/) are charged with helping to find and promote the use of alternatives.

With so much official emphasis on the 3Rs, there is sometimes a perception that the concept is not being adequately implemented in practice. Indeed, it has been suggested that scientists and IACUCs do not fully understand the concepts of the 3Rs (Graham, 2002; Schuppli and Fraser, 2005). In addition to incomplete understanding of the concepts, factors believed to negatively influence the full implementation of the 3Rs by IACUCs might include: (1) a belief that the scientists themselves would implement the 3Rs; (2) an assumption that funding agencies have reviewed the use of the 3Rs during proposal review; (3) confidence that sample size, rather than study design, is the sole criterion for reduction; and (4) focus upon potential harm from procedures without consideration for potential distress that animals might experience from husbandry and housing. Although these conclusions were based upon a relatively small number of IACUCs, these are troubling observations and indicate the need for greater emphasis on the 3Rs in training programs for scientists and IACUCs. The authors hope that this chapter can be a resource for that process.

It would be disingenuous to imply that, although well accepted, the concept of the 3Rs is universally accepted. In an article titled Time to Abandon the Three Rs, Derbyshire wrote that the 3Rs draw attention away from the value of experimentation and toward the importance of animal welfare (Derbyshire, 2006). Although the article supports the concept of reducing animal stress for the sake of science, the authors do not clearly recognize the opportunity to balance facilitation of science and application of the 3Rs.

Replacement

Replacement refers to methods that avoid using animals. The term includes absolute replacements (i.e., replacing animals with inanimate systems such as computer programs) as well as relative replacements (i.e., replacing animals, such as vertebrates, with animals that are lower on the phylogenic scale) (National Research Council, 2011). Relative replacement may be controversial to some people as it implies speciesism, the idea that one species has greater moral standing than another (Singer, 1975).

Like many of the ethical considerations relating to animal use, relative replacement is essentially a continuum of moral standing. Society, in general, often differentiates between humans and non-human animals; however, with respect to the animal world, different opinions exist regarding our obligations to some species versus others. For example, non-human primates and animals commonly kept as pets such as horses, dogs, and cats are often regarded differently than rats and mice, which in turn are regarded differently from fruit flies and worms, and so on.

Development of fully validated and accepted replacement alternatives can be a frustratingly slow process. However, there are significant examples of successful replacement of live animals. For example, one of the most criticized uses of animals for toxicity testing is the Draize test in rabbits. This test was developed to determine ocular toxicity and irritancy caused by products and chemicals. Ocular toxicity tests represent one of the four most commonly conducted product safety tests (Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2010). The 3Rs were implemented by the development of three validated and accepted replacements for screening products for ocular toxicity: the bovine corneal opacity and permeability test using a cow eye or the isolated chicken eye test (both by-products of the meat industry); and the Cytosensor® microphysiometer (Molecular Devices, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). A balanced preemptive pain management plan for rabbit Draize test studies, when the test is still required, has also been validated and accepted as a refinement (Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2010).

A second example of implementation of the 3Rs involves the replacement of rabbits in the testing of pharmaceuticals and medical devices for pyrogens by use of an in vitro alternative, the Limulus Ameobecyte Lysate (LAL) Test. In the LAL, blood of horseshoe crabs is collected and the animals are returned, unharmed, back to the ocean. Previous tests required the injection of drugs, biologics, medical devices, or raw materials into rabbits to look for a febrile response as an indication of contamination with endotoxins.

Reduction

"Reduction includes strategies for obtaining comparable levels of information from the use of fewer animals or for maximizing the information obtained from any given number of animals (without increasing pain or distress) so to ultimately require fewer animals to acquire the same scientific information. This approach relies on an analysis of experimental design, applications of newer technologies, the use of appropriate statistical methods, and control of environmentally related variability in animal housing and study areas" (National Research Council, 2011).

Strategies to reduce the numbers of animals needed include improved statistical design of a study (Dell et al., 2002) and improved selection of an animal model, including selection of animals with the most appropriate health and genetic status. Control of the genetic status is an advantage of using rats and mice. The use of inbred strains of rats and mice allows scientists to control and investigate genetic variation, and to evaluate responses to treatments on specific areas of interest (Festing, 2004). The use of animals without confounding disease or genetic variation results in less variation, thus requiring fewer animals to determine a treatment effect.

Individuals involved with study design, study review, or those participating as a member of the research team, have the ethical imperative to ensure studies use the minimum number of animals necessary to achieve the scientific objective of the study. Scientists should design studies with particular attention to methodology, statistics, and choice of model. Veterinarians and facility staff should collaborate to minimize non-experimental variables in animal care. IACUCs should be diligent during review of the protocol, semiannual program and facility evaluations, and review of post-approval monitoring to assure that the appropriate number of animals have been used. Having a statistician on the IACUC is one strategy that may be helpful.

Refinement

"Refinement refers to modifications of husbandry or experimental procedures to enhance animal well-being and minimize or eliminate pain and distress" (National Research Council, 2011). In the authors’ opinion, refinement is commonly employed by scientists in ongoing efforts to improve their science; that is, better animal welfare leads to higher-quality science. Many scientists do not recognize this as utilization of alternatives, even though it clearly falls within the 3Rs. However, this is also an area where scientists, veterinarians, and IACUCs can make significant strides to enhance animal welfare. Use of less invasive procedures (e. g., use of a blood pressure cuff instead of an implanted catheter for blood pressure monitoring) is one method of refinement. However, there are also situations where an invasive procedure, such as implantation of telemetry sensors to allow ongoing collection of real-time data, can result in much less stressful data collection (Stephens et al., 2002). Examples of other refinements include accurate recognition of pain and the use of analgesics and supportive care; implementation of humane endpoints; and enhanced housing and husbandry.

Carbone and Garnett (2008), state, … the prime ethical concerns in laboratory animal welfare is what animals consciously experience: their pain, distress, fear, boredom, happiness and psychological well being. The emotional dimension of pain, a characteristic of suffering, requires pain pathways to extend to higher levels of the cortex unique to humans and some other primates (such as apes) (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2005), but it has been stated that … the absence of analogous structures cannot necessarily be taken to mean that they [animals] are incapable of experiencing pain, suffering or distress or any other higher order states of conscious experience (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2005).

Basic to minimization of pain is the ability to recognize the signs of pain in specific species. It has been suggested that some animals, particularly prey species, may try to mask pain to avoid displaying abnormal activity that might increase their risk of predation (Roughan and Flecknell, 2000). Further, many animals are most active during the dark cycle, when observations are more difficult. Since clinical indices of pain may be very subtle, it is important to be able to recognize a departure from normal behavior and appearance (Table 1.3; National Research Council, 2003). A short list of general signs and measurements that might indicate pain or distress includes: (1) vigorous attempt to escape; (2) changes in biological characteristics such as food and water consumption and body weight; (3) changes in blood levels of hormones and glucose; (4) increased adrenal gland mass; and (5) appearance, posture, and behavior (Moberg, 1985, 2000). Behavioral indicators of pain in mice and rats have also been described (Flecknell, 1999; Kohn et al., 2007; Roughan and Flecknell, 2000, 2001, 2003). In addition, guidelines for the assessment and management of pain in rodents and rabbits have been published by the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM, 2006).

Table 1.3. Indicators of Pain in Rodents and Rabbits

No single observation is sufficiently reliable to indicate pain; rather several signs, taken in the context of the animal’s situation should be evaluated. The signs of pain may vary with the type of procedure (e.g., orthopedic versus abdominal pain) (National Research Council, 2003)

Scientists sometimes have concerns about the effect of perioperative analgesics on the research. Many studies have been done investigating analgesic effect on a wide variety of parameters (e.g., litter size, body weight, behavior, and hemodynamic parameters) (Bourque et al., 2010; Goulding et al., 2010; Lamon et al., 2008; McBrier et al., 2009; Valentim et al., 2008). These studies have demonstrated varying effects on parameters of interest, including no effect. Therefore, rather than assuming that