essay on lab animals

EssayEmpire

Lab animals essay.

This Lab Animals Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic, please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

I n vertebrate a nd ver tebrate animals are vivisected for a wide range of laboratory research, testing, and teaching purposes. Vertebrates, however, serve as the primary experimental lab subjects for toxicity testing, as well as for pure and applied research by universities, corporate pharmaceutical testing labs, governmental health agencies, and the military. The number of vertebrates used annually as laboratory animals is estimated at approximately 100 million. Mice and rats are the most frequently used lab animals, but any animal may be bred, captured from the wild, or procured from pounds and specialized dealers for use in experimentation. While most lab animals are purposely bred, previously many wild animals were used in laboratories and this resulted in the depopulation of some species. For instance, population estimates for Indian rhesus macaques neared 10 million monkeys in the 1930s but, after a vivisection trade erupted for the animal due to its use in producing a polio vaccine and other experiments, their number was reduced to fewer than 200,000 by the late 1970s and India was forced to enact conservationist protections.

Vivisection of nonhuman animals has a long history dating back to early Greek manuscripts from the 5th century B.C.E. The Roman physician Galen first conducted experiments on dogs, monkeys, and pigs during the 2nd century C.E., utilizing vivisection to test biomedical hypotheses and study biological anatomical structures. Experimental surgery on animals in the context of modern science dates back to the work of Vesalius in the 17th century, but it was not until the 19th century that modern lab experimentation on animals became truly systematic and widespread through the work of scientists such as Claude Bernard, Louis Pasteur, and Robert Koch. Bernard, who is regarded as the founder of modern experimental medicine, held that laboratory experimentation on animals was essential for biomedical advances and he disparaged clinically based studies made by practicing physicians. By the late 1800s, scientists such as Pasteur and Koch made highly popularized advances in immunology and microbiology based on their own lab animal studies.

Anesthetics for animal experimentations were unknown until well into the 1800s and are not always used on animals even today. As a result, vivisected animals have often suffered greatly from experiments and therefore there has always been controversy surrounding the practice. During the19th century, a strong anti-vivisection movement arose alongside animal research and its legacy currently lives on in animal welfare and rights organizations, humane societies, and more radical animal liberation groups. Largely because of their political action, laws governing the code and conduct of animal research now exist, but activists continue to argue that they are frequently not enforced and need to be broadened.

Alternatives to animal tests such as in vitro testing of cell and tissue cultures, epidemiology, and computer modeling exist; but many researchers insist that while they are useful, lab animal studies are also required to effectively monitor the thousands of drugs and tens of thousands of synthetic chemicals now on the market.

Researchers are promoting new forms of animal experimentation such as genetic modification of animals and xenotransplantation as necessary for achieving a new age of scientific breakthroughs. Many fear that these experiments unethically threaten society and the environment and should be regulated as a precaution. Yet, some genetic experiments on animals could result in improved animal and environmental welfare. For instance, Australian scientists have attempted to produce genetically modified sheep that would be resistant to flies and parasites. If successful, the inhumane act of mulesing sheep-surgically removing strips of skin from near the tail-and the heavy use of pesticides by the sheep industry would become unnecessary in the future. Therefore, while alternatives to laboratory animal science exist and should be increasingly utilized, some forms of lab animal experimentation could lead to environmental and societal improvements.

Bibliography:

• Pietro Croce, V ivisection or Science?: An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health (Zed Books, 2000);
• Anita Guerrini, Experi menting with Humans and Animals: From Galen to Animal Rights (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003);
• Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science: Dilem mas of Animal Experimentation (Routledge, 1996).
• How to Write an Essay
• Essay Topics
• Essay Examples

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Special offer!

GET 10% OFF WITH  24START  DISCOUNT CODE

Related posts.

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Themed Issues
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access
• About ILAR Journal
• About the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, animal welfare, human-animal bonds, mentoring and habituation, translational value and intellectual virtue.

• < Previous

Virtue Ethics and Laboratory Animal Research

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Rebecca L Walker, Virtue Ethics and Laboratory Animal Research, ILAR Journal , Volume 60, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 415–423, https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilaa015

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article appeals to virtue ethics to help guide laboratory animal research by considering the role of character and flourishing in these practices. Philosophical approaches to animal research ethics have typically focused on animal rights or on the promotion of welfare for all affected, while animal research itself has been guided in its practice by the 3Rs (reduction, refinement, replacement). These different approaches have sometimes led to an impasse in debates over animal research where the philosophical approaches are focused on whether or when animal studies are justifiable, while the 3Rs assume a general justification for animal work but aim to reduce harm to sentient animals and increase their welfare in laboratory spaces. Missing in this exchange is a moral framework that neither assumes nor rejects the justifiability of animal research and focuses instead on the habits and structures of that work. I shall propose a place for virtue ethics in laboratory animal research by considering examples of relevant character traits, the moral significance of human-animal bonds, mentorship in the laboratory, and the importance of animals flourishing beyond mere welfare.

Does a researcher or laboratory technician who develops relationships with her animal subjects owe them a greater duty of care than one who does not? What is the moral significance of the positive or negative psychological effects on the researcher of doing animal research? Can, or should, a rhesus macaque live a good life when housed in a research facility? What about a genetically modified mouse? Questions such as these are of critical importance for a virtue ethical assessment of laboratory animal research practices. Yet similar questions are rarely addressed by the 2 most common moral theory approaches to animal research (and the 2 rival philosophical accounts of morality to virtue ethics): deontological and consequentialist accounts.

Laboratory animal research is, and has historically been, a subject of deep moral controversy. Some are adamantly opposed to all harmful uses of animals in research, and others are dedicated to research on animals in the service of alleviating human suffering, contributing to veterinary medicine, and supporting food or environmental science. While most members of the general public support biomedical animal research generally, many are concerned that animals are only used when necessary for biomedical advances [ 1 , 2 ]. Even those who perform research on animals sometimes have ethical misgivings about their animal work and doubts about the value of some kinds of research [ 3 ].

Virtue ethics was a mainstay of both ancient Greek and Chinese philosophy but was less visible in contemporary thought until a revival starting in the late 1950s with the publication of Elizabeth Anscombe’s essay critiquing “modern moral philosophy” [ 4 ]. These days, virtue ethics faces concerns as diverse as whether it is action guiding and whether character traits actually exist in the way needed to support this approach to ethics [ 5 , 6 ]. So what do laboratory animal research and virtue ethics have to offer each other?

In the philosophical literature, animal research has mainly been addressed through consequentialist (primarily utilitarian) or deontological (primarily rights-based) theories. These theories are well suited to addressing questions about whether or when animal research is justified but less helpful in considering ethical issues internal to animal research. Issues such as whether a researcher who bonds with her animal subjects owes them a greater duty of care than one who does not or what the moral significance is of the positive or negative psychological—or characterological—effects of doing animal research. In terms of the animals themselves, utilitarian theories are concerned with sentient animal experiences and rights-based theories fundamentally with whether animals have the moral status of rights bearers. Yet neither is primarily concerned with what a good life would look like for the particular animals in question.

Virtue ethics emphasizes the role of an agent’s character in determining the moral value of an action, focuses on the significance of habit in developing good character traits, and transforms questions of welfare into questions about lives well lived. Rather than promoting rights or duties that are held or owed impartially, virtue ethics takes rich account of the context of an action (Who or what does the action engage? In what setting? In what manner?) as well as of the perception and feelings of the actor [ 7 ]. This mode of assessment creates a significant space for the moral dimensions of care and relationship. Further, in addressing how to treat other beings, virtue ethical thought is less focused on questions of moral status and more focused on the development and maintenance of virtues of character.

These features of virtue ethics make it particularly well suited as a framework for considering animal research. In what follows, I first give a bit more detail on the philosophical backdrop against which a renewed appeal to virtue ethics makes sense for laboratory animal research. I then turn to 4 key issues in animal research, addressing both how virtue ethics may help in our consideration of these topics as well as some potential limitations to the approach. These issues are, in particular: animal welfare, human-animal bonds (HABs), mentoring, and translational science value.

PHILOSOPHICAL BACKDROP

The philosophical turn toward animal ethics in the later part of the 20th century found its iconic expression in Peter Singer’s utilitarianism and the animal rights view of Tom Regan. While these authors differ significantly in their theoretical bases for promoting animal interests, their united animal protection perspective and status as public figures created a more shared than divergent vision of practical animal ethics. Thus, while a utilitarian view of animal research must balance harms to the animal subjects against potential benefit to humans (and other sentient animals), Singer’s equal consideration of the interests of all sentient beings, combined with his pessimism about the benefits of animal research, created a context in which he could doubt the moral justification of most animal research [ 8 ,p92]. Regan, for his part, dismisses altogether the possibility of the moral value of harmful research on animal “subjects of a life” since such research cannot be justified on the back of prudential benefit to us [ 9 ,pp384-392].

Philosophers writing about animal ethics after Singer and Regan have offered insightful elaboration on the principle of equal consideration of like animal and human interests [see e.g., 10 ] as well as nuanced visions of how we should consider animal rights [see e.g., 11 , 12 ]. Others have taken a “political turn” in their approach, considering animal rights as part of a broader political philosophy [see e.g., 13 , 14 ]. Some writing in the aftermath of Singer and Regan rejected altogether the idea that animals have moral standing [see e.g., 15 ] or that we should cut back on biomedical research using animals [see e.g., 16 ]. More recently, 1 set of authors has argued that equal consideration of like interests can support even stroke research using nonhuman primates [ 17 ]. The important point for our purposes is that the dominant philosophical approaches to animal ethics found in rights and utilitarian views when applied to biomedical research specifically have focused on the questions of whether and when such research is justified.

Perhaps taking a cue from these debates, the sparse recent literature on virtue ethics and animal research has also parsed the moral question as one of justification [ 18 , 19 ]. In my view, however, virtue ethics is better positioned to reach into the world of animal experimentation and address the moral issues that arise specifically in the context of laboratory animal research [ 20 ]. Consider, for example, the following excerpt in which psychologist Harold Herzog describes the situation of his colleague whose brain lesion study with cats involved euthanizing them and examining their brains.

Perfusion, although not for the squeamish, is common and painless and normally entails no greater moral problem, and perhaps less, than the slaughter of a cow or a pig. However, to hold in your hand the disconnected head of a cat you have petted every morning for a year is, to say the least, unsettling. The other graduate students in Neibor’s laboratory knew how he felt about his cats, and two of them offered to do the “dirty work”; however, Neibor refused. The dozen or so perfusions took place over several weeks during which time, he became reclusive and depressed and shaky. It was clear that his need to confront the moral consequences of his studies involved considerable personal costs [ 21 ,p27].

One important question is whether this research was justified. Answering that question may require addressing the moral standing of the cats and the relative harms to them and potential for human (or other animal) benefit. A virtue ethical approach to the question of justification would focus instead on whether a virtuous (practically wise) researcher would do (or propose) the research. However, virtue ethics also makes room for considering the obligations of care arising from friendship (or HABs), directs us to consider the courage involved in Neibor’s choice to “face the moral consequences of his studies,” and draws attention to the question of whether habituation into such practices bolsters or undermines the virtues that should be cultivated in the context of animal research. This is especially salient in the context of today’s laboratory norms in which it is recognized that researchers and animal care staff with a primary responsibility for particular animals may experience psychological difficulty when individual animals are euthanized “even though the animals are often purpose-bred for research” [ 22 ,p15].

Of course animal research already has its own internal ethical framework, which is generated by regulatory and policy considerations and manifested through an animal welfare orientation and the internationally recognized 3Rs first proposed by zoologist William Russell and microbiologist Rex Burch in 1959 [ 23 ]. That framework calls for researchers to consider reduction in the number of animals used (or maximization of information gained from each animal without increase in pain or distress), refinement of the circumstances and methods of animal research to promote welfare and minimize pain and distress, and replacement of animals in research where feasible (or use of insentient animals or those lower on the phylogenetic scale) [ 24 ,p5]. It might appear, then, that virtue ethics can neither rival a utilitarian or rights approach to the question of whether and when animal research is justified nor improve on a 3Rs approach to the practice of this research.

Importantly, I do not argue in this article that virtue ethics can or should replace either the 3Rs or the broader moral theoretical perspectives of utilitarian and rights accounts. My goal instead is the positive elaboration of the contributions of a virtue ethical approach to animal research. Fortunately, I think it can do more than has been previously recognized. With respect to the justificatory issues, virtue ethics offers challenging alternatives to the primary focus on animal moral status, draws attention to promotion of animal good lives beyond questions of welfare, and places central emphasis on the character traits promoted or undermined by engagement in animal research. For the purposes of this paper, however, I focus mainly on what virtue ethics offers internally to the practice of laboratory animal research. Specifically, I argue that virtue ethics addresses animal welfare in unique ways, attends to the moral dimensions of care and obligation, and calls for special consideration of ethical habituation.

“Virtue ethics” does not denote 1 specific approach to normative moral theory but covers a wide variety of approaches that may diverge on a number of fronts, including how the virtues relate to human flourishing ( eudaimonia ), whether the view is compatible with a principle-based approach, the unity or disunity of the virtues, and what particular virtues or vices are envisioned and supported. To offer a virtue ethics for animal research, then, the theoretical assumptions and structure of the particular approach must be at least minimally specified. In this article, I rely on a generally Aristotelian approach to virtue ethics.

According to Aristotle, the virtues are those settled dispositions to act and feel according to reason that are both necessary for, and part of, living well as a human being. The particular virtues are specified within domains of significant human activity and fall within a mean, relative to us, between excessive and deficient responses. Courage, for example, is a disposition to respond to certain types of danger in a mean between the excess of rashness and the deficiency of cowardice [ 25 ,III.6.1115a6–III.7.1116a7]. The mean, moreover, is not a mathematical mean, but determined relative to general human as well as individual tendencies [ 25 ,II.6.1106a30–1106b7; II.8.1109a–II.9.1109b10]. Human beings generally tend toward fearful responses to danger, for example, and so the mean of courage is closer to rashness. Any individual, however, may tend toward the vice of rashness and so must correct her aim accordingly. And while a general account of the virtues can specify the relevant domains of human activity, as well as human tendencies in those domains, it cannot specify in advance the actions called for in each particular circumstance or in light of each personal tendency [ 25 ,II.9.1109b12–27; I.3.1094b12–1095a2; II.2.1104a1–11]. Such determinations are best made by the practically wise person who is able to accurately perceive both the moral contours of each situation and what action is called for [ 25 ,III.4.1113a25–35; II.2.1104a5–10; VI.13.1144b37–1145a7; VI.7.1141b9–23]. To feel and act virtuously is to do so at the right time, about the right things, in the right manner, toward the right recipient, and for the right end [ 25 ,II.6.1106b21–25]. Thus, good activity is both highly contextually determined and derivative of a good life overall (e.g., the life of the practically wise).

Animal research oversight prioritizes a welfare approach to the ethical treatment of laboratory animals, affirming that “all who care for, use, or produce animals for research, testing, or teaching must assume responsibility for their well-being” [ 24 ,p1]. Researchers may distinguish this approach from a rights perspective, which is viewed as having potentially abolitionist ramifications for the use of at least some sentient animals in laboratory research [see e.g., 26 ]. However, as we have seen, utilitarianism, according to which animal research is justified to the extent that it promotes overall welfare for all affected, may also hold a dim view of much laboratory animal research. Important differences between an animal researcher and an ethical utilitarian perspective thus likely hold despite the fact that both promote “welfare.” These differences may include how sanguine each view is about the benefits of laboratory animal research, the moral weight given to animal harms in comparison with human benefit, and the generality with which benefits of animal research are considered. With regard to this last point, for example, animal research is often justified in oversight guidance by global appeal to its necessity for the benefit of humans, other animals, and the environment [ 27–29 ], whereas a more localized assessment of the harms and benefits of individual research projects (as required by a utilitarian approach) may find on balance negative welfare.

In a more fundamental sense, while a utilitarian perspective is focused on the question of general ethical justification of animal research, animal research practices are constrained in their promotion of animal welfare by both the aims of the science as well as the nature of the research facility. Thus, for example, animal welfare is seen as crucial to successful animal studies as stress or illness can undermine the quality of data. However, even severe pain and/or distress is considered justifiable when needed for the aims of the science [ 30 ]. Similarly, laboratory animal welfare is necessarily constrained within certain basic parameters imposed by animal facilities themselves (such as the necessity of caging, lack of access to outdoor spaces, lack of natural lighting, and handling of species adverse to human contact).

How can virtue ethics intervene on, or differ from, the dialectic set-up between these ostensibly welfare-based approaches to animal research? One way is through the demands of the specific virtues that are part of a flourishing or well-lived human life, and the other way is through attention to the concept of flourishing as translated to the animal context. A central idea of Aristotelian virtue ethics is that the end goal ( telos ) of human beings is eudaimonia , which can be understood as a well-lived or flourishing life. For human beings, eudaimonia is achieved through “activity of the soul expressing virtue” [ 25 ,i.9.1099b25]. Importantly, I do not act virtuously if I do so egoistically to achieve my own happiness, but rather I must be motivated as prescribed by the virtue. Virtue ethics, then, is “agent-centered” in the sense that it looks to the character of the agent to determine the moral quality of the action. However, that agent-centeredness need not be a form of egoism when the good life aimed at is the well-lived life of virtue [ 31 ]. Most of the virtues, after all, are other-directed and even those (such as temperance) that are not are discordant with problematically egoistical aims. For example, appeal to temperance (a self-directed virtue) plays a crucial role in Porphyry’s (AD 234–305) treatise “On Abstinence from Animal Food” [ 32 ].

How, then, ought we to think about nonhuman animal welfare from a eudaimonistic virtue ethical perspective? Initially, the solution is simple. While the virtues have traditionally been construed with human interlocutors in mind, those such as compassion, kindness, mercy, loyalty, and benevolence are easily applied to our interactions with animals [see also 18 , 33 ]. Other virtues such as courage and justice may also relate to our treatment of animals in the right circumstances. Further, we might specifically expand some virtues to include our interactions with animals or the environment, for example, in respect for nature or fidelity to animal companions [see also 34 ]. Since acting virtuously is a necessary part of human flourishing, treating animals in the ways required by these and other virtues is straightforwardly part of living well as a human being.

We can break down the implications for laboratory animal ethics by considering compassion. Compassion as a virtue is a kind of multi-track disposition to be appropriately responsive to suffering on the part of others. To say the virtue is “multi-track” is to remind us that it involves a holistic concordance of action, feeling, and perception toward the good end of the virtue [ 7 ,p4]. The vice that is oppositional to compassion is cruelty, which most significantly for our purposes involves indifference to suffering. Between the virtue and vice are other states in which the agent knows what is right to do but struggles internally and may either behave compassionately but not with the virtue of compassion or may behave in ways that are not compassionate.

Let us posit that part of what compassion involves in the context of laboratory animal research is vigilance in enforcement and monitoring of humane endpoints for trials that may otherwise involve animal suffering. If this is correct, the compassionate researcher will be attentive to potential animal suffering, have an accurate perception of when a humane endpoint is reached, and will ensure swift enforcement of that endpoint. Researchers, in contrast, who enforce humane endpoints, but only reluctantly, will not be compassionate but will still behave appropriately. Those who fail to enforce humane endpoints because of other competing interests, for example to further the objectives of the science, will both lack compassion and behave inappropriately but will not necessarily be cruel, whereas those who fail to enforce humane endpoints and don’t care about animal suffering can be considered cruel.

Considering that at least some of the virtues demand ethical treatment not only of other humans but also of nonhuman animals thus frames animals as proper recipients of ethical care and also draws attention to the ways in which welfare for researchers themselves may be construed as a well-lived or flourishing life of virtue. Hence, the researcher’s ethical behavior is not judged merely by external constraints such as regulations or rules of animal care and use but by whether it expresses virtue and avoids vice.

Still, a focus on human flourishing alone obscures a primary benefit of a virtue ethical analysis of how we ought to treat animals, namely that such an analysis also makes room for the ethical significance of animal flourishing. The good life for an animal will depend on its characteristics and the environment to which it is best suited as normal member of a particular kind [ 35 ,pp203–205]. Elsewhere, I have argued that while animals are not capable of virtue, they do partake in other aspects of living well that are also necessary for human flourishing [ 36 ]. In the human case, these aspects are the external supports to virtue and include social, environmental, and physical features of living well. Further, despite lacking capacities for some requirements of virtue rooted in understanding—such as the ability to know that an action is virtuous or choosing an action for its own sake—some animals may be capable of at least some emotive and social proto-virtues [ 37 ]. Even the lowly mouse has been attributed empathetic concern for her fellow mice [ 38 ], though how to interpret these findings is far from clear. Thus, while animals cannot exhibit human virtue, they do flourish in ways relevantly similar to us through both the external contributions of environment, social support, and physical health as well as manifestation of characteristic proto-virtues.

There are other ways to link animal flourishing and concepts relevant to virtue ethics. In recent work, Bernard Rollin explores how animal welfare is connected to telos understood as a kind of common sense metaphysics of animal nature, which he describes colloquially as “the ‘pigness’ of the pig, the ‘dogness’ of the dog” [ 39 ,pX]. Yet Rollin does not rely on human virtue in his elaboration of what animals are owed. Rather, the basis of ethical obligation on his view is that undermining animal welfare through frustrated telos matters to the animal through some “negative mode of awareness in the creature in question” [ 39 ,p53]. Like Rollin’s appeal to telos , Nussbaum applies Aristotle’s conception of flourishing to nonhuman animals; however, she does so in the furtherance of her capabilities approach rather than a broader Aristotelian virtue ethics [ 40 ]. Rosalind Hursthouse, on the other hand, takes an Aristotelian virtue ethical approach to our treatment of animals and in so doing resists generally the construct of moral status [ 18 ]. Animals’ capacity to flourish thus does not, in her view, give them moral status in the contemporary sense of the term.

Delving into the most theoretically satisfying connections between animal flourishing, virtue ethics, and animal moral status is beyond the scope of this paper. What is important here is that attending to animal flourishing as a way of understanding the obligation to protect animal welfare has important implications for laboratory animal ethics. In particular, viewing welfare as flourishing demands that we ask whether and how it is possible for particular animals to live good lives within research facility spaces. For animals for which this is possible, applying the virtue of care will necessitate that we structure those animals’ environments in ways most compatible with their flourishing. For animals for which flourishing is impossible within the confines of a research facility, this approach offers an ethical critique of their use in research.

To illustrate this, let us consider how animal model choice is an ethical issue as well as a scientific and pragmatic one [ 41 ]. Take as an example a decision to use either common marmosets or rhesus macaques for a neuroscience study for which either animal would be appropriate but no nonprimate model is viable. Important relevant information includes facts such as marmosets, while primates, are relatively much smaller in size than macaques, breed well in captivity, and are easier to handle [ 42 ]. In terms of traditional welfare concerns, the choice may thus be posed in this way: “The species selected should have the lowest welfare cost resulting from experimentation, including transport to the laboratory, captivity, handling and experimental procedures” [ 42 ,p117]. So posed, the question is one of harms and benefits where the objective is to limit welfare harm and, to the extent possible, offer specific environmental enrichment.

Understood as a question about animal flourishing, however, we must also ask whether it is possible for 1 type of animal to live a life that is a good one for its kind in a particular research setting while the other cannot. Under that framing, breeding well in captivity may be interpreted as a sign (though not a certitude) that an environment is relatively more appropriate for a particular type of animal [ 35 ,pp200–204]. Similarly, ease of handling could have important implications for whether human-animal interactions are compatible with normal social development for the animals even if not typical in the animals’ natural setting. More significant for flourishing, however, is whether the social organization patterns, group infant support, and communication signals of the animals can be reproduced in the captive setting [ 43 ]. In this regard, it is important to also note that marmosets as a relatively newer laboratory research animal are less well understood by most primate researchers and are subject to a number of diseases in captivity as well as to poor “parenting performance” [ 44 ,p8]. The size of the animal, while related to welfare through nourishment and housing needs, is less significant to the broader question of flourishing than is the question of home-range size in a natural environment—which is reportedly relatively small for the common marmoset [ 45 ] and varies widely for the rhesus macaque depending on habitat [ 46 ].

The point of this example is neither to argue that marmosets can flourish in research settings nor that macaques cannot do so. It is instead to illustrate how consideration of these creatures as potential research animals should look beyond issues of scientific usefulness, cost, and efficiency to the ethical dimensions of animal model choice. In so doing, it is important to consider welfare not only in terms of set-backs and enrichment, but also how these factors contribute to whether and how a research animal may (or may not) lead a life that is a good one for its kind in the provided facility. Thus, the idea of flourishing in a eudaimonistic virtue ethics offers a conceptual lens through which to filter animal welfare in addition to its role as the aim of a well-lived human life.

HABs offer an important construct through which to consider the ethics of laboratory animal research as a practice in which animals and humans come into close social contact with one another. As characterized by Lilly-Marlene Russow, HABs involve reciprocal and ongoing relationships between individual human and nonhuman animals that hold the potential for increased well-being for both parties [ 47 ,p34]. So understood, HABs may be critical to furthering both research goals and laboratory animal welfare. For example, they may underwrite voluntary compliance of animals with research interventions, thus avoiding the use of restraints or other stressful manipulations of animals [ 48 ]. HABs may also generally support animal welfare by serving as a source of comfort or distraction for animals and in helping to motivate careful attention to individual animal needs on the part of researchers and caretakers [ 20 , 49 ].

HABs in the laboratory also have their risks. As illustrated in the previous example of Neibor’s cats, forming HABs risks feelings of loss or distress on the part of researchers or caretakers when protocols involve harm or death for the animals. Additional concerns involve avoiding biased or unfair beneficial treatment for some animals when an entire group of animals is in the researcher’s care [ 20 ,p139]. Within animal research, HABs have historically been viewed somewhat dubiously. Researchers avoided giving names even to animals like monkeys where HABs might be expected to form [ 50 ,pp49–50]. Naming animals was especially discouraged in print, where animals were instead reported on by numbers [ 51 ,pp72–75].

While animals used in research are still assigned numbers, the welfare-enhancing role of human-animal interaction is increasingly recognized, alongside the importance of training animals for research compliance to reduce stress [ 48 , 49 ]. At the same time, the recognition of the ethical complexity of HABs in terms of the relationship itself has received less attention. In guidance documents, outside of the attention to humane method, animal killing is viewed as a psychological rather than primarily ethical issue. Supervisors are advised that “Euthanizing animals is psychologically difficult for some animal care, veterinary, and research personnel, particularly if they perform euthanasia repetitively or are emotionally attached to the animals....” [ 24 ,p124]. To avoid negative psychological impact, researchers or veterinary staff may even be excused from the laboratory space when animals they have especially cared for are euthanized [ 52 ,pp186–189]. As anthropologist Lesley Sharp explains, however, there is another dimension to this attachment that more closely tracks our differential moral valuation of species. She writes, “the more sentient the species, the more likely such animals are considered ‘partners’ in research and thus their loss felt more acutely once they are dead” [ 52 ,pp138–139].

Traditional philosophical approaches to moral theory make room for special obligations to particular other individuals through the idea of associative obligation or special responsibilities [ 53 , 54 ]. While these special obligations are typically understood as applying to interhuman relationships, such as familial, friendship, role-based, or political association, they can be applied to the HAB case as well. Of import to our inquiry, both consequentialist and deontological approaches to ethics must justify such special duties against a background presumption that ethical obligations are impartially owed. Indeed, ethical impartiality arguably underwrites the particular ways in which duties are extended to nonhuman animals within these theories (ie, through equal consideration of interests or extension of basic rights).

What particularly sets virtue ethics apart in the space of HABs is that it provides an ethical framework through which to view relationships (including HABs) that does not rest on a presumption of moral impartiality [ 55 ]. As right action is determined contextually by the practically wise person, virtue ethics easily accommodates obligations brought forward through particular relationships (including HABs) or for significant social roles (including medical researcher). Aristotle spends a significant portion of his ethics discussing friendship as a core aspect of the development and maintenance of virtue—through living in a community with other selves. While HABs cannot be considered friendships in the Aristotelian sense (as true friends are also virtuous), they can be expected to give rise to special obligations of care-taking and fidelity as in the case of special human relationships that are not full friendships (such as with parenting). Crucially, they can also be expected to play an important role in the development of habits of care as a core virtue in our interactions with nonhuman animals.

In this way, we can see that the tensions described earlier as “risks” of HABs are instead ethical questions in the balancing, for example, of the demands of justice with those of care and/or fidelity. Consider the concern that HABs may result in biased preference for some animals over others. Justice requires that we give to others what they are owed, while care can allow for preferential treatment in particular circumstances. In our example, however, if a caretaker has broad obligations to an entire group of animals, virtue is inconsistent with preferential care that undermines giving each what they are owed. Thus, it is important that the virtues of justice and care are not in conflict, but rather that the specification of what justice and care as virtues demand must be worked out in context. This is an important distinction because, at least on Aristotle’s view, being virtuous requires the virtues work as a unified whole within the practically wise individual [ 25 ,VI.13.1144b33–1145a2].

We can consider another example where the ostensible tension between justice and care or fidelity might resolve in the other direction. John Gluck describes how, in moving to a new faculty position from a research position in Harry Harlow’s laboratory, he was able to bring several monkeys with him [ 50 ,pp108–109]. In addition to animals he had worked with for his thesis, Gluck selected 2 animals with which he had bonded: Manny and Greta. He had previously “rescued” this pair from a brain lesion study by claiming their involvement in his research project and wanted to bring them with him because they were really his “pets” whom he hoped save from invasive research that might be part of their future in the Harlow laboratory [ 50 ,pp109–120]. He writes about the reunion upon arrival of the monkeys to his new institution (shipped by airline) this way: “To me they all looked like old friends, but I was particularly happy to see the stumps” (Manny and Greta were stump-tailed macaques) [ 50 ,p120]. This example raises broader issues of what Gluck could or could not have done to ameliorate any potential harm to other monkeys left behind in the Harlow laboratory. Could the practically wise researcher simply protect monkeys he had a relationship with but leave the other monkeys behind? It may be impossible to answer this question in hindsight. Other things equal, however, it does not seem that Gluck’s selection based in particular relationships with the 2 primates was unjust; indeed given his bond with them it may have been uncaring to make a different choice.

Let us return finally to the example of Niebor and his cats. Developing bonds with laboratory animals that will be subject to painful or distressing research interventions or killed at the end of a study may cause distress to the researcher. However, that fact does not determine whether it is virtuous to form such bonds because they may be the appropriate manifestation of care and compassion in the circumstances. Nor should it be assumed that the way to address the ethical implications of such a HAB is through avoidance of the psychological consequences of the bond. Instead, at least for Neibor, it was important to take responsibility for the fate of the cats through euthanizing them himself. If the research, with all of its implications for the sacrificed cats, was justified, then it is arguably morally courageous to take such responsibility. If the research was not itself justifiable, then a practically wise researcher should not allow it at all. Thus the apparently negative psychological effects of HABs in some cases may stem from action in keeping with virtue. In other cases, negative emotional responses to animal harm will be a signal that the research itself is ethically problematic. Positioning HABs, then, within a virtue perspective helps to illuminate the ways in which both positive and negative consequences of such bonds are ethically salient and not merely a matter of psychological welfare.

Mentorship plays a key role in establishing good animal research practices, and virtue ethics can help to position its ethical significance. Specifically, proper habituation in ethically good practices is critical for the development of the virtues. Aristotle understands the instilling of good habits in youth as sustained by virtuous social institutions as a key condition of developing into a practically wise adult [ 25 ,I.4.1095b4–9; II.1.1103b20–25]. Since the standard for ethically good action is the behavior of the practically wise person who “judges each sort of thing correctly” [ 25 ,III.4.1113a30] the role of a virtuous model to illustrate and guide correct behavior is a critical part of this picture. Extrapolating, we might consider sound mentorship in ethically robust animal research as a kind of professional habituation for junior scientist mentees.

One way to illuminate the role of virtue ethics with respect to habituation and mentorship is through considering the “situationist” critique of virtue ethics, which purports to undermine the very existence of virtues by attribution of human behavior to mere circumstance rather than stable dispositions of character [see e.g., 6 , 56 ]. This critique of virtue ethics, when applied to animal research, may highlight the influence of institutional pressures and laboratory norms incentivizing certain types of researcher beliefs and activities [see e.g., 57 ]. For example, research timetables may undermine efforts at nonrestraint engagement with animals due to the time commitment involved, or young investigators may learn to distance themselves from animal suffering through the use of scientific language and objective framing of science. Thus, apparently unvirtuous behavior is chalked up to social situations, not character traits. However, the virtue ethicist is also well poised to emphasize the importance of structural factors in determining behaviors. In so doing, however, she focuses on researcher habituation and reminds us that the development and support of practical wisdom has never been individualistic. Rather, virtue is acknowledged to be possible only in certain, in fact highly limited, circumstances that offer not only proper raising of youth (mentorship in our situation), but also material, social, and political support. Thus, instead of denying the possibility of virtue because of the socially situated nature of human behavior, a virtue ethicist must pay very careful attention to how the existing structures and norms of animal research undermine or reinforce the development of virtuous habits.

Given these necessary supports for the development of virtue, it is important to face head on the potential rarity of the practically wise researcher. Aristotle was critical of the general public as he deemed the “many” to be concerned only with the life of pleasure—he also thought that the practically wise had to be free male citizens. While we may be more optimistic (or egalitarian) about the potential for the development of practical wisdom, we would be sanguine indeed if we thought that most animal researchers, technicians, and veterinarians were exemplars of practical wisdom. But if most individuals involved in research are not virtuous in the full sense, why consider virtue ethics to be a helpful approach to animal research? Just as all moral theories need some role for character, they also all recognize the importance of action guidance through policies, rules, and laws. For virtue ethics, as for other moral theories, these may help to educate the young, ethically naïve, or those taking on a new social role. But they may also help guide (or even “control”) the nonvirtuous who act rightly only with internal struggle or through fear of externally imposed consequences.

At this juncture, a key supposition of taking a virtue ethics approach to the practice of laboratory animal research must be made explicit. It would be impossible to be a practically wise laboratory animal researcher if the abolitionist perspective is correct and no laboratory research using sentient animals is permissible. Thus we must suppose that there is at least some such justifiable research in order to posit the usefulness of the perspective of the practically wise researcher. This is a different supposition than the consequentialist claim that we should address the ethics of the practice as a way to lessen its harms given that such research is ongoing. From a virtue perspective, which animal research practices are justified is a contextually situated question—taking into account with whom or what, in which way, toward what end, and in what manner the activity is conducted. One worry about such an approach is its potential moral conservatism. If we start from the need to address ethical issues that arise within animal research, are we too comfortable already with the practices at hand? Will the “virtues” in that context be constrained by conventional understandings of the relevant social roles of researcher, veterinarian, or animal technician?

Concerns about moral conservatism offer important critique of any perspective that works to address ethical solutions from within an ethically controversial practice. My goal here is to raise and acknowledge this issue and in so doing to take note of a potential trade-off between the capacity of virtue ethics to provide moral framing for significant ethical issues arising in the practice of animal research on the one hand and its difficulty in providing a radical critique of animal research on the other. Unless the practically wise laboratory animal researcher is a foreclosed impossibility, however, such an approach adds ethical value to the discussion of animal research.

Animal research communities and the bodies that oversee them lean into the research enterprise with the assumption of the value, indeed necessity, of the use of live animals to achieve human benefits. Biomedical laboratory animal research would not be justifiable from a research oversight perspective without positing that such uses of animals are necessary to promote human and other animal health. The US Government Principles Guiding Research With Vertebrate Animals states, for example, that "The development of knowledge necessary for the improvement of the health and well-being of humans as well as other animals requires in vivo experimentation with a wide variety of animal species" [ 27 ]. Moreover, EU legislation makes clear that the appeal to benefit is justificatory in acknowledging that the use of live animals in research is not ethically desirable, but rather a necessity. EU Directive 2010/63 states, “While it is desirable to replace the use of live animals in procedures by other methods not entailing the use of live animals, the use of live animals continues to be necessary to protect human and animal health and the environment” (Preamble point 10 [ 28 ]).

Given the pivotal role of human benefit in offering presumed ethical justification for the use of animals in laboratory research, it is not surprising that animal research groups and animal protection groups differ radically on their overarching assessments of these benefits. As is often the case when the stakes are high, realities on the ground seem to fall somewhere in between. For example, while animal research is a mandated part of the drug approval process, it has also struggled with high attrition rates throughout the drug development process [ 58 ]. Low rates of success in drug development from compound discovery through to approval for use in patients may be due to the deficiencies of at least some common animal models in mimicking human disease and drug response processes and/or with issues of rigor and transparency of the science itself [ 59 ]. Mice, the mainstay model animal of biomedical research throughout the genomic era, have been increasingly questioned as adequately representative of the human problems that biomedicine aims to address [ 60 , 61 ]. And while historically much of medical advancement has been associated with animal research, some highly beneficial advances did not stem in a directly linear manner from animal to human research at all (eg, the smallpox vaccine), while others utilized animal subjects but proceeded through a leap to human application that would be frowned on in today’s biomedical oversight regimes (eg, the rabies vaccine).

How might attention to virtue help in an appreciation of the complexities of the translational value of laboratory animal research to human health rather than reinforcing these entrenched positions? In the previous sections of this article, moral traits such as care, compassion, and fidelity were raised in conjunction with particular features of animal research practices. However, in addition to moral traits, virtues of thought are a necessary feature of the wise person. While Aristotle discusses theoretical and practical wisdom, science ( epistêmê ), intuitive understanding ( nous ), and craft expertise [ 62 ], contemporary work on epistemic virtues relevant to science includes consideration of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, open-mindedness, intellectual courage, intellectual perseverance, and inquisitiveness, among others [ 63–68 ].

These intellectual virtues are recognizable to any well-trained scientist as crucial to good science practice. Attending to their proper development requires continual striving not only to achieve the promise of a scientific field but also to recognize and admit both limitations and failures. The argument to be made in a more capacious venue is that attention to intellectual virtue development is critical in furthering the moral imperative to do better in achieving the aims of translational science and validating adequate harm-benefit balances in animal work. This is not a plea that individual researchers simply do better in enacting intellectual virtues, but rather for institutional shifts that put into place an environment in which such virtues can flourish as part of habituation into best research practices. Factors that can support the development of these virtues include mentorship by researchers with the right kinds of experiences, oversight mechanisms that require attention to translational value issues, and institutional support for scientists willing to make major shifts in their approach to animal research for translational value reasons. Factors that may undermine the development of these virtues include grant mechanisms that focus only on “bedside” application value rather than contributions that animal research is better situated to make, publication cultures that focus only on positive results rather than negative or inconclusive experiments, and a lack of institutional transparency in animal use that leaves researchers feeling they have to hide or protect their animal work from public scrutiny.

Science researchers abide by significant regulatory regimes, which govern their care and use of laboratory animals. An overarching concern for animal welfare and the 3Rs provides a framework for the responsible conduct of this research. Animal research nevertheless remains socially controversial in part because sentient creatures are used in ways that do sometimes cause pain and distress and frequently terminate in animal euthanasia. Common philosophical approaches to the issue have aimed to provide a broader moral perspective by relying on ethical principles such as an equal consideration of interests or the protection of certain shared basic rights. In this article, I have proposed—and explored—what a virtue ethics perspective might add to the discussion. In so doing I have suggested that, while rights or utility approaches to animal research have been helpful in considering hurdles to the ethical justification of animal research, they have offered less insight into common issues arising in the ethical practice of such research. Laboratory animal research oversight, for its part, addresses these practical issues but not in a way that places them within a broader moral theory and so often not in a way that makes sense of their role in the ethical practice of animal research.

While the proposal to consider virtue ethics and laboratory animal research has come up against some hurdles in this article—specifically regarding the rarity of practical wisdom and the vexing issue of moral conservatism—some bright spots have also been illuminated. I have suggested, in particular, that virtue ethics can offer a coherent narrative for the ethical contours of issues arising in the practice of animal research as related to animal welfare, mentorship, HABs, and the evaluation of the translational value of animal work. While this narrative is far from complete, it is sketched here in outline to be filled in as the practice of animal research, and scholarship regarding it, develops.

Potential conflicts of interest. Author: No reported conflicts.

Ipsos   MORI , Office for Life Sciences. Public attitudes to animal research . https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-05/18-040753-01_ols_public_attitudes_to_animal_research_report_v3_191118_public.pdf . Published 2018. Accessed February 19, 2020 .

Jones   J , Saad   L . Gallup poll social series: values and beliefs . https://www.gallup.com/201200/gallup-poll-social-series-work.aspx . Published 2019 . Accessed February 19, 2020 .

Cressey   D . Battle scars . Nature   2011 ; 470 : 452 – 453 .

Google Scholar

Anscombe   GEM . Modern moral philosophy . Philosophy.   1958 ; 33 ( 124 ): 1 – 19 .

Louden   RB . On some vices of virtue ethics . Am Philos Q.   1984 ; 21 ( 3 ): 227 – 236 .

Doris   J . Lack of Character . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press ; 2002 .

Google Preview

Hursthouse   R , Pettigrove   G . Virtue Ethics. In: Zalta   EN , ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .   Stanford, CA, USA : Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University   https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/ethics-virtue/ . Published Winter 2018 . Accessed February 19, 2020 .

Singer   P . Animal Liberation: Towards an End to Man's Inhumanity to Animals . New York, NY : Harper Collins ; 2002 . (first published 1975) .

Regan   T . The Case for Animal Rights . Berkeley, CA : University of California Press ; 1983 .

DeGrazia   D . Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press ; 1996 .

Anderson   E . Animal rights and the values of nonhuman life. In: Sunstein   CR , ed. Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions . Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press ; 2004 . p. 290 – 311 .

Beauchamp   TL . Rights theory and animal rights. In: Beauchmap   TL , Frey   RG , eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics . Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press ; 2011 : 198 – 227 .

Milligan   T . The political turn in animal rights . Politics and Animals   2015 ; 1 ( 1 ): 6 – 15 .

Donaldson   S , Kymlicka   W . Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights . Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press ; 2011 .

Carruthers   P . The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press ; 1992 .

Cohen   C . The case for the use of animals in biomedical research . NEJM   1986 ; 315 ( 14 ): 865 – 870 .

Sughrue   ME , Mocco   J , Mack   WJ  et al.    Bioethical considerations in translational research: primate stroke . AJOB   2009 ; 9 ( 5 ): 3 – 12 .

Hursthouse   R . Applying virtue ethics to our treatment of the other animals. In: Welchman   J , ed. The Practice of Virtue . Indianapolis, IN : Hackett Publishing ; 2006 . p. 136 – 155 .

Merriam   G . Virtue, vice, and vivisection. In: Garret   JR , ed. The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press ; 2012 . p. 125 – 146 .

Walker   RL . Virtue, vice, and "voracious" science: how should we approach the ethics of primate research?   Perspect Biol Med.   2018 ; 61 ( 1 ): 130 – 146 .

Herzog   H . Ethical aspects of relationships between humans and research animals . ILAR J.   2002 ; 43 ( 1 ): 27 – 32 .

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Panel on Euthanasia . AVMA guidelines for the euthanasia of animals . 2020 Edition. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Guidelines-on-Euthanasia-2020.pdf . Accessed on February 19, 2020.

Russell   WMS , Burch   RL . The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique . London, UK : Methuen and Co. ; 1959 .

National Research Council (NRC) . Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals . 8th ed. Washington, DC : National Academies Press ; 2011 .

Aristotle . Nicomachean Ethics . Irwin   T , transl. Indianapolis, IN/Cambridge, UK : Hackett Publishing Co. ; 1985 .

Francione   GL , Garner   R . The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?   New York, NY : Columbia University Press ; 2010 .

US Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training . Fed. Regist.   1985 ; 50 ( 97 ):Doc. 85 – 12059 .

European Parliament, Council of the European Union . Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes . Off J Eur Union.   2010 ; L276 : 33 – 79 .

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) and International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) . International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals . https://olaw.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Guiding_Principles_2012.pdf . Published 2012 . Accessed February 19, 2020 .

Carbone   L . Pain in laboratory animals: the ethical and regulatory imperatives . PLoS One   2011 ; 6 ( 9 ):e21578. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021578 .

Annas   J . The Morality of Happiness . Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press ; 1993 .

Porphyry . On abstinence from animal food. In: Taylor   T , trans. Select Works of Porphyry . London, UK : Printed for Thomas Rodd ; 1823 : 1 – 11 .

Rowlands   M . Virtue ethics and animals. In: Protopapadakis   ED , ed. Animal Ethics: Past and Present Perspectives . Berlin, Germany: Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH ; 2012 . p. 29 – 38 .

Hursthouse   R . Environmental virtue ethics. In: Walker   RL , Ivanhoe   PJ , eds. Working Virtue: Virtue Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems . Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press ; 2007 . p. 155 – 171 .

Hursthouse   R . On Virtue Ethics . Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press ; 1999 .

Walker   RL . The good life for non-human animals: what virtue requires of humans. In: Walker   RL , Ivanhoe   PJ , eds. Working Virtue: Virtue Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems . Oxford : Oxford University Press ; 2007 . p. 173 – 189 .

de Waal   FBM . Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press ; 1996 .

Langford   DJ , Crager   SE , Shehzad   Z  et al.    Social modulation of pain as evidence for empathy in mice . Science.   2006 ; 312 ( 5782 ): 1967 – 1970 .

Rollin   BE . A new basis for animal ethics: telos and common sense . Colombia, MO : University of Missouri Press ; 2017 .

Nussbaum   MC . Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press ; 2007 .

Walker   RL , Eggel   M . From mice to monkeys? Beyond orthodox approaches to the ethics of animal model choice . Animals.   2020 ; 10(1):77 . doi: 10.3390/ani10010077 .

Smith   D , Trennery   P , Farningham   D  et al.    The selection of marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus) in pharmaceutical toxicology . Lab Anim.   2001 ; 35 ( 2 ): 117 – 130 .

Cawthon Lang   K.   Primate factsheets: common marmoset ( Callithrix jacchus ) behavior . 2005 . http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/common_marmoset/behav . Accessed June 15, 2020.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) . Care, Use, and Welfare of Marmosets as Animal Models for Gene Editing-Based Biomedical Research: Proceedings of a Workshop . Washington, DC : The National Academies Press ; 2019 . doi: 0.17226/25356 .

Hubrecht   RC . Home-range size and use and territorial behavior in the common marmoset, Callithrix jacchus, at the Tapacura Field Station, Recife . Brazil Folia Primatol.   1985 ; 6 ( 5 ): 533 – 550 .

Cawthon Lang   K.   Primate factsheets: Rhesus Macaque ( Macaca mulatta ) taxonomy, morphology, & ecology . http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/rhesus_macaque . Published 2005 . Accessed February 19, 2020 .

Russow   LM . Ethical implications of the human-animal bond in the laboratory . ILAR J.   2002 ; 43 ( 1 ): 33 – 37 .

Graham   ML , Rieke   EF , Mutch   LA  et al.    Successful implementation of cooperative handling eliminates the need for restraint in avcomplex non-human primate disease model . J Med Primatol.   2012 ; 41 : 89 – 106 .

Olsson   IAS , Sandøe   P . “What’s wrong with my monkey?” Ethical perspectives on germline transgenesis in marmosets . Transgenic Res.   2010 ; 19 ( 2 ): 181 – 186 .

Gluck   JP . Voracious Science and Vulnerable Animals: A Primate Scientist's Ethical Journey . Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press ; 2016 .

Lederer   SE . Political animals: the shaping of biomedical research literature in twentieth-century America . Isis.   1992 ; 83 ( 1 ): 61 – 79 .

Sharp   LA . Animal Ethos: The Morality of Human-Animal Encounters in Experimental Lab Science . Berkeley, CA : University of California Press ; 2018 .

Dworkin   R . Law’s Empire . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press ; 1986 .

Scheffler   S . Relationships and responsibilities . Philos Public Aff.   1997 ; 26 : 189 – 209 .

Darwall   S . Introduction. In: Darwall   S , ed. Virtue Ethics . Oxford, UK : Blackwell Publishers ; 2003 . p. 1 – 4 .

Harman   G . Moral philosophy meets social psychology: virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error . Proc. Aristot. Soc.   1999 ; 99 : 315 – 331 .

Birke   L , Arluke   A , Michael   M . The Sacrifice: How Scientific Experiments Transform Animals and People . West Lafayette, IN : Purdue University Press ; 2007 .

Hay   M , Thomas   DW , Craighead   JL  et al.    Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs . Nat Biotechnol.   2014 ; 32 ( 1 ): 40 – 51 .

Hewitt   JA , Brown   LL , Murphy   SJ  et al.    Accelerating biomedical discoveries through rigor and transparency . ILAR J.   2017 ; 58 ( 1 ): 115 – 128 .

Perrin   S . Make mouse studies work . Nature   2014 ; 504 : 423 – 425 .

Perlman   RL . Mouse models of human disease: an evolutionary perspective . Evol Med Public Health.   2016 ; 1 : 170 – 176 . doi: 10.1093/emph/eow014 .

Kraut   R.  Aristotle’s Ethics. In: Zalta , EN , ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Summer 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/aristotle-ethics/ . Accessed on February 19, 2020 .

Calhoun   C . Standing for something . J Philos.   1995 ; 92 ( 5 ): 235 – 260 .

Arpaly   N . Open mindedness as a moral virtue . Am Philos Q.   2011 ; 48 ( 1 ): 75 – 85 .

Whitcomb   D , Battaly   H , Baehr   J  et al.    Intellectual humility: owning our limitations . Philos Phenomenol Res.   2017 ; XCIV ( 3 ): 509 – 539 .

Roberts   R , Wood   J . Humility and epistemic goods. In: DePaul   M , Zagzebski   L , eds. Intellectual Virtue: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology . Oxford, UK : Clarendon Press ; 2003 . p. 257 – 279 .

King   NL . Perseverance as an intellectual virtue . Synthese.   2014 ; 191 ( 15 ): 3501 – 3523 .

Watson   L . What is inquisitiveness?   Am Philos Q.   2015 ; 52 ( 3 ): 273 – 287 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1930-6180
• Print ISSN 1084-2020
• Copyright © 2024 Institute for Laboratory Animal Research
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Our Program Divisions
• Our Three Academies
• Government Affairs
• Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
• Our Study Process
• Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
• Project Comments and Information
• Read Our Expert Reports and Published Proceedings
• Explore PNAS, the Flagship Scientific Journal of NAS
• Access Transportation Research Board Publications
• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Economic Recovery
• Fellowships and Grants
• Publications by Division
• Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
• Division on Earth and Life Studies
• Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
• Gulf Research Program
• Health and Medicine Division
• Policy and Global Affairs Division
• Transportation Research Board
• National Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Engineering
• National Academy of Medicine
• Publications by Topic
• Agriculture
• Behavioral and Social Sciences
• Biography and Autobiography
• Biology and Life Sciences
• Computers and Information Technology
• Conflict and Security Issues
• Earth Sciences
• Energy and Energy Conservation
• Engineering and Technology
• Environment and Environmental Studies
• Food and Nutrition
• Health and Medicine
• Industry and Labor
• Math, Chemistry, and Physics
• Policy for Science and Technology
• Space and Aeronautics
• Surveys and Statistics
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Searchable Collections
• New Releases

VIEW LARGER COVER

Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

Eighth edition.

A respected resource for decades, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals has been updated by a committee of experts, taking into consideration input from the scientific and laboratory animal communities and the public at large. The Guide incorporates new scientific information on common laboratory animals, including aquatic species, and includes extensive references. It is organized around major components of animal use:

• Key concepts of animal care and use. The Guide sets the framework for the humane care and use of laboratory animals.
• Animal care and use program. The Guide discusses the concept of a broad Program of Animal Care and Use, including roles and responsibilities of the Institutional Official, Attending Veterinarian and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
• Animal environment, husbandry, and management. A chapter on this topic is now divided into sections on terrestrial and aquatic animals and provides recommendations for housing and environment, husbandry, behavioral and population management, and more.
• Veterinary care. The Guide discusses veterinary care and the responsibilities of the Attending Veterinarian. It includes recommendations on animal procurement and transportation, preventive medicine (including animal biosecurity), and clinical care and management. The Guide addresses distress and pain recognition and relief, and issues surrounding euthanasia.
• Physical plant. The Guide identifies design issues, providing construction guidelines for functional areas; considerations such as drainage, vibration and noise control, and environmental monitoring; and specialized facilities for animal housing and research needs.

The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals provides a framework for the judgments required in the management of animal facilities. This updated and expanded resource of proven value will be important to scientists and researchers, veterinarians, animal care personnel, facilities managers, institutional administrators, policy makers involved in research issues, and animal welfare advocates.

RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

• Press Release
• Report Brief
• Presentation on the Guide
• Thai version of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition
• Japanese version of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition

• ↓ Scroll Down for More Resources
• Biology and Life Sciences — Laboratory Animal Research
• Agriculture — Animal Health and Nutrition
• Biology and Life Sciences — Policy, Reviews and Evaluations

Suggested Citation

National Research Council. 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12910. Import this citation to: Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager

Publication Info

• Paperback:  978-0-309-15400-0
• Ebook:  978-0-309-18663-6

What is skim?

The Chapter Skim search tool presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter. You may select key terms to highlight them within pages of each chapter.

Statement on the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

Copyright information.

The National Academies Press (NAP) has partnered with Copyright Clearance Center's Marketplace service to offer you a variety of options for reusing NAP content. Through Marketplace, you may request permission to reprint NAP content in another publication, course pack, secure website, or other media. Marketplace allows you to instantly obtain permission, pay related fees, and print a license directly from the NAP website. The complete terms and conditions of your reuse license can be found in the license agreement that will be made available to you during the online order process. To request permission through Marketplace you are required to create an account by filling out a simple online form. The following list describes license reuses offered by the NAP through Marketplace:

• Republish text, tables, figures, or images in print
• Post on a secure Intranet/Extranet website
• Use in a PowerPoint Presentation
• Distribute via CD-ROM

Click here to obtain permission for the above reuses. If you have questions or comments concerning the Marketplace service, please contact:

Marketplace Support International +1.978.646.2600 US Toll Free +1.855.239.3415 E-mail: [email protected] marketplace.copyright.com

To request permission to distribute a PDF, please contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected] .

What is a prepublication?

An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book. We publish prepublications to facilitate timely access to the committee's findings.

What happens when I pre-order?

The final version of this book has not been published yet. You can pre-order a copy of the book and we will send it to you when it becomes available. We will not charge you for the book until it ships. Pricing for a pre-ordered book is estimated and subject to change. All backorders will be released at the final established price. As a courtesy, if the price increases by more than $3.00 we will notify you. If the price decreases, we will simply charge the lower price. Applicable discounts will be extended.

Downloading and Using eBooks from NAP

What is an ebook.

An ebook is one of two file formats that are intended to be used with e-reader devices and apps such as Amazon Kindle or Apple iBooks.

Why is an eBook better than a PDF?

A PDF is a digital representation of the print book, so while it can be loaded into most e-reader programs, it doesn't allow for resizable text or advanced, interactive functionality. The eBook is optimized for e-reader devices and apps, which means that it offers a much better digital reading experience than a PDF, including resizable text and interactive features (when available).

Where do I get eBook files?

eBook files are now available for a large number of reports on the NAP.edu website. If an eBook is available, you'll see the option to purchase it on the book page.

View more FAQ's about Ebooks

Types of Publications

Consensus Study Report: Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Ethical care for research animals

WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH?

The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses, and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals., stanford shares the public's concern for laboratory research animals..

Many people have questions about animal testing ethics and the animal testing debate. We take our responsibility for the ethical treatment of animals in medical research very seriously. At Stanford, we emphasize that the humane care of laboratory animals is essential, both ethically and scientifically.  Poor animal care is not good science. If animals are not well-treated, the science and knowledge they produce is not trustworthy and cannot be replicated, an important hallmark of the scientific method .

There are several reasons why the use of animals is critical for biomedical research: 

••  Animals are biologically very similar to humans. In fact, mice share more than 98% DNA with us!

••  Animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans – cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

••  With a shorter life cycle than humans, animal models can be studied throughout their whole life span and across several generations, a critical element in understanding how a disease processes and how it interacts with a whole, living biological system.

The ethics of animal experimentation

Nothing so far has been discovered that can be a substitute for the complex functions of a living, breathing, whole-organ system with pulmonary and circulatory structures like those in humans. Until such a discovery, animals must continue to play a critical role in helping researchers test potential new drugs and medical treatments for effectiveness and safety, and in identifying any undesired or dangerous side effects, such as infertility, birth defects, liver damage, toxicity, or cancer-causing potential.

U.S. federal laws require that non-human animal research occur to show the safety and efficacy of new treatments before any human research will be allowed to be conducted.  Not only do we humans benefit from this research and testing, but hundreds of drugs and treatments developed for human use are now routinely used in veterinary clinics as well, helping animals live longer, healthier lives.

It is important to stress that 95% of all animals necessary for biomedical research in the United States are rodents – rats and mice especially bred for laboratory use – and that animals are only one part of the larger process of biomedical research.

Our researchers are strong supporters of animal welfare and view their work with animals in biomedical research as a privilege.

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of all animals in their care..

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of animals in their care, in strict adherence to the highest standards, and in accordance with federal and state laws, regulatory guidelines, and humane principles. They are also obligated to continuously update their animal-care practices based on the newest information and findings in the fields of laboratory animal care and husbandry.  

Researchers requesting use of animal models at Stanford must have their research proposals reviewed by a federally mandated committee that includes two independent community members.  It is only with this committee’s approval that research can begin. We at Stanford are dedicated to refining, reducing, and replacing animals in research whenever possible, and to using alternative methods (cell and tissue cultures, computer simulations, etc.) instead of or before animal studies are ever conducted.

Organizations and Resources

There are many outreach and advocacy organizations in the field of biomedical research.

• Learn more about outreach and advocacy organizations

Stanford Discoveries

What are the benefits of using animals in research? Stanford researchers have made many important human and animal life-saving discoveries through their work. 

• Learn more about research discoveries at Stanford

Research using animals: an overview

Around half the diseases in the world have no treatment. Understanding how the body works and how diseases progress, and finding cures, vaccines or treatments, can take many years of painstaking work using a wide range of research techniques. There is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some research using animals is still essential for medical progress.

Animal research in the UK is strictly regulated. For more details on the regulations governing research using animals, go to the UK regulations page .

Why is animal research necessary?

There is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some animals are still needed in order to make medical progress.

Where animals are used in research projects, they are used as part of a range of scientific techniques. These might include human trials, computer modelling, cell culture, statistical techniques, and others. Animals are only used for parts of research where no other techniques can deliver the answer.

A living body is an extraordinarily complex system. You cannot reproduce a beating heart in a test tube or a stroke on a computer. While we know a lot about how a living body works, there is an enormous amount we simply don’t know: the interaction between all the different parts of a living system, from molecules to cells to systems like respiration and circulation, is incredibly complex. Even if we knew how every element worked and interacted with every other element, which we are a long way from understanding, a computer hasn’t been invented that has the power to reproduce all of those complex interactions - while clearly you cannot reproduce them all in a test tube.

While humans are used extensively in Oxford research, there are some things which it is ethically unacceptable to use humans for. There are also variables which you can control in a mouse (like diet, housing, clean air, humidity, temperature, and genetic makeup) that you could not control in human subjects.

Is it morally right to use animals for research?

Most people believe that in order to achieve medical progress that will save and improve lives, perhaps millions of lives, limited and very strictly regulated animal use is justified. That belief is reflected in the law, which allows for animal research only under specific circumstances, and which sets out strict regulations on the use and care of animals. It is right that this continues to be something society discusses and debates, but there has to be an understanding that without animals we can only make very limited progress against diseases like cancer, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and HIV.

It’s worth noting that animal research benefits animals too: more than half the drugs used by vets were developed originally for human medicine. 

Aren’t animals too different from humans to tell us anything useful?

No. Just by being very complex living, moving organisms they share a huge amount of similarities with humans. Humans and other animals have much more in common than they have differences. Mice share over 90% of their genes with humans. A mouse has the same organs as a human, in the same places, doing the same things. Most of their basic chemistry, cell structure and bodily organisation are the same as ours. Fish and tadpoles share enough characteristics with humans to make them very useful in research. Even flies and worms are used in research extensively and have led to research breakthroughs (though these species are not regulated by the Home Office and are not in the Biomedical Sciences Building).

What does research using animals actually involve?

The sorts of procedures research animals undergo vary, depending on the research. Breeding a genetically modified mouse counts as a procedure and this represents a large proportion of all procedures carried out. So does having an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan, something which is painless and which humans undergo for health checks. In some circumstances, being trained to go through a maze or being trained at a computer game also counts as a procedure. Taking blood or receiving medication are minor procedures that many species of animal can be trained to do voluntarily for a food reward. Surgery accounts for only a small minority of procedures. All of these are examples of procedures that go on in Oxford's Biomedical Sciences Building. 

How many animals are used?

Figures for 2023 show numbers of animals that completed procedures, as declared to the Home Office using their five categories for the severity of the procedure.

# NHPs - Non Human Primates

Oxford also maintains breeding colonies to provide animals for use in experiments, reducing the need for unnecessary transportation of animals.

Figures for 2017 show numbers of animals bred for procedures that were killed or died without being used in procedures:

Why must primates be used?

Primates account for under half of one per cent (0.5%) of all animals housed in the Biomedical Sciences Building. They are only used where no other species can deliver the research answer, and we continually seek ways to replace primates with lower orders of animal, to reduce numbers used, and to refine their housing conditions and research procedures to maximise welfare.

However, there are elements of research that can only be carried out using primates because their brains are closer to human brains than mice or rats. They are used at Oxford in vital research into brain diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Some are used in studies to develop vaccines for HIV and other major infections.

What is done to primates?

The primates at Oxford spend most of their time in their housing. They are housed in groups with access to play areas where they can groom, forage for food, climb and swing.

Primates at Oxford involved in neuroscience studies would typically spend a couple of hours a day doing behavioural work. This is sitting in front of a computer screen doing learning and memory games for food rewards. No suffering is involved and indeed many of the primates appear to find the games stimulating. They come into the transport cage that takes them to the computer room entirely voluntarily.

After some time (a period of months) demonstrating normal learning and memory through the games, a primate would have surgery to remove a very small amount of brain tissue under anaesthetic. A full course of painkillers is given under veterinary guidance in the same way as any human surgical procedure, and the animals are up and about again within hours, and back with their group within a day. The brain damage is minor and unnoticeable in normal behaviour: the animal interacts normally with its group and exhibits the usual natural behaviours. In order to find out about how a disease affects the brain it is not necessary to induce the equivalent of full-blown disease. Indeed, the more specific and minor the brain area affected, the more focussed and valuable the research findings are.

The primate goes back to behavioural testing with the computers and differences in performance, which become apparent through these carefully designed games, are monitored.

At the end of its life the animal is humanely killed and its brain is studied and compared directly with the brains of deceased human patients. 

Primates at Oxford involved in vaccine studies would simply have a vaccination and then have monthly blood samples taken.

How many primates does Oxford hold?

* From 2014 the Home Office changed the way in which animals/ procedures were counted. Figures up to and including 2013 were recorded when procedures began. Figures from 2014 are recorded when procedures end.

What’s the difference between ‘total held’ and ‘on procedure’?

Primates (macaques) at Oxford would typically spend a couple of hours a day doing behavioural work, sitting in front of a computer screen doing learning and memory games for food rewards. This is non-invasive and done voluntarily for food rewards and does not count as a procedure. After some time (a period of months) demonstrating normal learning and memory through the games, a primate would have surgery under anaesthetic to remove a very small amount of brain tissue. The primate quickly returns to behavioural testing with the computers, and differences in performance, which become apparent through these carefully designed puzzles, are monitored. A primate which has had this surgery is counted as ‘on procedure’. Both stages are essential for research into understanding brain function which is necessary to develop treatments for conditions including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and schizophrenia.

Why has the overall number held gone down?

Numbers vary year on year depending on the research that is currently undertaken. In general, the University is committed to reducing, replacing and refining animal research.

You say primates account for under 0.5% of animals, so that means you have at least 16,000 animals in the Biomedical Sciences Building in total - is that right?

Numbers change daily so we cannot give a fixed figure, but it is in that order.

Aren’t there alternative research methods?

There are very many non-animal research methods, all of which are used at the University of Oxford and many of which were pioneered here. These include research using humans; computer models and simulations; cell cultures and other in vitro work; statistical modelling; and large-scale epidemiology. Every research project which uses animals will also use other research methods in addition. Wherever possible non-animal research methods are used. For many projects, of course, this will mean no animals are needed at all. For others, there will be an element of the research which is essential for medical progress and for which there is no alternative means of getting the relevant information.

How have humans benefited from research using animals?

As the Department of Health states, research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century.

Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. It has enabled us to find treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections (which were developed in Oxford laboratories), vaccines to prevent some of the most deadly and debilitating viruses, and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities.

Life expectancy in this country has increased, on average, by almost three months for every year of the past century. Within the living memory of many people diseases such as polio, tuberculosis, leukaemia and diphtheria killed or crippled thousands every year. But now, doctors are able to prevent or treat many more diseases or carry out life-saving operations - all thanks to research which at some stage involved animals.

Each year, millions of people in the UK benefit from treatments that have been developed and tested on animals. Animals have been used for the development of blood transfusions, insulin for diabetes, anaesthetics, anticoagulants, antibiotics, heart and lung machines for open heart surgery, hip replacement surgery, transplantation, high blood pressure medication, replacement heart valves, chemotherapy for leukaemia and life support systems for premature babies. More than 50 million prescriptions are written annually for antibiotics. 

We may have used animals in the past to develop medical treatments, but are they really needed in the 21st century?

Yes. While we are committed to reducing, replacing and refining animal research as new techniques make it possible to reduce the number of animals needed, there is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some research using animals is still essential for medical progress. It only forms one element of a whole research programme which will use a range of other techniques to find out whatever possible without animals. Animals would be used for a specific element of the research that cannot be conducted in any alternative way.

How will humans benefit in future?

The development of drugs and medical technologies that help to reduce suffering among humans and animals depends on the carefully regulated use of animals for research. In the 21st century scientists are continuing to work on treatments for cancer, stroke, heart disease, HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson’s, and very many more diseases that cause suffering and death. Genetically modified mice play a crucial role in future medical progress as understanding of how genes are involved in illness is constantly increasing. 

Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research Essay

Introduction, laboratory rodents, 3r’s concept, neurosis studies, current methodologies, works cited.

One of the most common forms of pathology of the nervous system is neuroses. The term neurosis is used to refer to functional disorders of the nervous system. Neuroses are associated with “diseases of civilization” and associate their widespread prevalence with the growing urbanization of the population, information overloads, reducing the impact on human life, affecting both social factors and psycho-traumatic factors. It must be emphasized that the experiments cannot be carried out with the use of mice if there are other replacement methods for obtaining relevant results. It is ethically correct to strive to improve the conditions of experimental animals in a vivarium.

The neurosis studies were chosen due to the fact that they mainly use rodent model organisms, such as mice due to their mammalian feature. In addition, the symptoms of neurosis are highly similar to human ones, thus, laboratory rodents serve as an outstanding template for laboratory studies (Varela et al. 17). Neurosis is among the most prevalent diseases of the nervous systems, where pathological features are present across all mammals (Castellano et al. 491).

In addition, the mice and rats possess short life spans and gestational periods compared to other mammalians. Their larger litter size is another key advantage of conducting experiments in the mice (Castellano et al. 490). Thus, rodents serve as a highly useful model organism due to their genealogical closeness to humans and shorter life spans.

The concept of 3R’s is an essential idea, which helps to significantly increase the productivity of the experimental procedures. The principle of reduction is aimed at reducing the number of animals involved in the experiment. It is possible with a careful preliminary study of the “design” of the research, including taking into account the preliminary results of in vitro experiments and computer modeling. The refinement principle possesses an optimal minimum required for a specific study of animals is established by statistical analysis (Konger et al. 687). Thus, the variability of individuals within a species as a basic problem of a biological experiment can be solved by using genetically identical animals.

The principle of replacement involves conducting an experiment using scientific technology without using animals in all possible cases. For example, insulin testing can be carried out not by a biological method on animals, but by laboratory chromatographic analysis. Complete replacement of animals in the experiment is unlikely, so the idea of developing alternative models is bioethically attractive. Therefore, reduction, refinement, and replacement allow to easily navigate and structure the research data and its variables, which make a significant impact on the accuracy and precision of the experimental studies in neurosis (Konger et al. 690). In addition, the study flow becomes more fast-paced due to the orderliness of the research tasks.

Neurosis studies in mice determine the key underlying changes occurring in the body. Epidemiological studies of neurosis are due not only to the great medical but also to the socio-economic significance of this problem: the incidence of the symptom is the central part. Therefore, the development and preclinical evaluation of the effectiveness of new anti-neurotic agents (Leung et al. 2). Pathogenetic aspects of the formation of experimental neuroses.

The clinical picture of almost all forms of neuronal sepsis includes sleep disorders, emotional state, and autonomic-visceral, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal disorders. Recently, indications of an essential role in the pathogenesis of neuroses in the structural limbic-reticular complex, with which the main symptoms of the disease are associated, are becoming increasingly common. These changes resemble human neurosis symptoms due to the mammalian resemblance.

In addition, the study should follow the rules in order to avoid violations of conditioned-reflex activity after neurotic effects observed in all laboratory mice. The given model organism was used as a template for neurosis studies because both humans and rodents are mammals. They are expressed in different ways: in the form of an increase in the number of latent periods and disturbances of power relations, and decreases or loss of conditioned reflexes. These changes in the state of the autonomic and reflex nervous activity are not only a manifestation of the incipient disease but the most likely mobilization of the body’s defenses (Kim et al. 4).

When neurotic disorders are caused by prolonged stress, depletion of catecholamine systems occurs, which can lead to a decrease in the rate of metabolic processes. The deep phases of sleep are an increase in the number of awakenings, defectiveness, and functional inferiority. Neurotransmitter, vascular, and glioneuronal disorders were identified, indicating the development of hypoxia and a decrease in the rate of local cerebral blood flow. The given symptoms can indicate the opportunities for targeted medical aid among humans.

At present, the following methodological approaches to the modeling of neurosis-like states in laboratory mice are encountered in research practice: limiting the reflex, changing the daily light rhythm and sleep rhythms, and asthenia of the nervous system. An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of various methodological approaches to experimental neuroticization of laboratory animals showed intricate results (Varela et al. 19).

In the absence of additional special requirements, a path to the conflict of afferent excitations and the formation of desynchronizes in laboratory mice can be considered adequate to the tasks of psychopharmacological studies. Thus, it is important to determine the methodological approaches in mice-based experiments.

It should also be noted that in the literature there is no single view on the information content of various methods for assessing the state of mice in the process of neuroticism, as well as the criteria for the formation of neurosis. The state of neuronal sepsis is usually judged on the basis of qualitative signs, while quantitative assessments of its severity are either absent altogether, or affect only individual symptoms, but not their totality. Nor are quantitative data on the effect of such factors as seasonality, sex, and age of laboratory mice that are significant for the state of rodents on the efficiency of neurosis formation (Kim et al. 3).

The study showed that experimental neurosis in laboratory animals (white mice) could be obtained with chronic stress effects, forming a conflict of afferent excitations. An effective model of neurotic states in animals can be considered a model in which, for at least four weeks, animals are exposed to complex stress effects, combining alternating light, sound, and electrodermal afferent irritations. The functional state of the animals that are formed reflects both the stress response and the adaptation to chronic stress.

In conclusion, it was demonstrated that for the formation of experimental neurosis in rats, the spring-summer period is more optimal. The concept 3R’s is also relevant for the conductance of the research. In the autumn-winter period, animals experience differences in the phase of the neurotic process and its severity, which complicates the process of biomodelling. The shown biomedical model of experimental neurosis can be used in the development and preclinical studies of the effectiveness of new anti-neurotic drugs. Various methodological approaches identify the key symptomatic features of human neurosis.

Castellano, Joseph M., et al. “Human umbilical cord plasma proteins revitalize hippocampal function in aged mice”. Nature, vol. 544, no. 7651, 2017, pp. 488-492.

Kim, Won H., et al. “BACE1 elevation engendered by GGA3 deletion increases β amyloid pathology in association with APP elevation and decreased CHL1 processing in 5XFAD mice”. Molecular neurodegeneration, vol. 13, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-5.

Konger, Raymond L., et al. “Comparison of the acute ultraviolet photoresponse in congenic albino hairless C57BL/6J mice relative to outbred SKH1 hairless mice”. Experimental dermatology, vol. 25, no. 9, 2016, pp. 688-693.

Leung, Jacqueline M., et al. “Rapid environmental effects on gut nematode susceptibility in rewilded mice”. PLoS biology, vol. 16, no. 3, 2018, pp. 1-3.

Varela, Elisa et al. “Generation of mice with longer and better preserved telomeres in the absence of genetic manipulations”. Nature communications, vol. 7, no. 11739, 2016, pp. 3-21.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, June 3). Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research. https://ivypanda.com/essays/laboratory-animals-in-neurosis-research/

"Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research." IvyPanda , 3 June 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/laboratory-animals-in-neurosis-research/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research'. 3 June.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research." June 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/laboratory-animals-in-neurosis-research/.

1. IvyPanda . "Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research." June 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/laboratory-animals-in-neurosis-research/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research." June 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/laboratory-animals-in-neurosis-research/.

• "Black Swan" by Darren Aronofsky: Film Analysis
• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: Joseph Wolpe Treatment Theory
• Music Therapy as Experiential Activity
• Human Inheritance and Disorders Prevention
• Managed Care Tools for Patient Relationships
• Stem Cell Therapies Evaluation
• Female Smokers Study: Inferential Statistics Article
• Risperidone in Children With Autism: ANOVA Article

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Laboratory Animals

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

The international journal of laboratory animal science, technology, welfare and medicine, Laboratory Animals publishes peer-reviewed original papers and reviews on all aspects of the care and use of animals in research. The journal is published on behalf of Laboratory Animals Ltd ( http://www.lal.org.uk/ ) by SAGE Publishing Ltd.

Laboratory Animals is also the official journal of:

• AFSTAL (Association Française des Sciences et Techniques de l'Animal de Laboratoire)
• DALAS (Dutch Association for Laboratory Animal Science)
• ECLAM ( European College of Laboratory Animal Medicine )
• ESLAV (European Society of Laboratory Animal Veterinarians)
• FELASA (Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations)
• GV-SOLAS (Gesellschaft für Versuchstierkunde)
• ILAF ( Israeli Laboratory Animal Forum )
• LASA (Laboratory Animal Science Association)
• SECAL (Sociedad Española para las Ciencias del Animal de Laboratorio)
• SGV (Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Versuchstierkunde)
• SPCAL ( Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências em Animais de Laboratório )

AALAS Gold Members are entitled to a special discount on Laboratory Animals -  More information . Click here for additional information from 'The Design of Animal Experiments' by Festing et al This journal is a member of the  Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)  

The international journal of laboratory animal science, technology, welfare and medicine, Laboratory Animals publishes peer-reviewed original papers, case reports, perspectives, and reviews on all aspects of the care and use of animals in research and the 3Rs principle. The journal seeks to promote the 3Rs principle, particularly looking at refinement for experimental procedures, animal care and welfare, promoting best culture of care and reduction and replacement approaches to improve scientific validity and reproducibility. This includes, but is not limited to, innovations in laboratory animals training and education, ethics, breeding and husbandry, veterinary medicine, procedures and care, animal unit facility management and biosafety developments. The journal is published on behalf of Laboratory Animals Ltd ( http://www.lal.org.uk/ ) by SAGE Publishing Itd.

• Helminthological Abstracts
• Academic Search - Premier
• Academic Search Alumni Edition
• Academic Search Elite
• AgBiotechNet
• Agricultural Engineering Abstracts
• Animal Breeding Abstracts
• Animal Science Database
• CABI: Abstracts on Hygiene and Communicable Diseases
• CABI: Agricultural Economics Database
• CABI: CAB Abstracts
• CABI: Dairy Science Abstracts
• CABI: Environmental Impact
• CABI: Forest Products Abstracts
• CABI: Forest Science Database
• CABI: Global Health
• CABI: Nutrition and Food Sciences Database
• CABI: Veterinary Science Database
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
• Clarivate Analytics: BIOSIS Previews
• Clarivate Analytics: Biological Abstracts
• Clarivate Analytics: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)
• Current Contents
• EBSCO: Sales & Marketing Source
• EBSCOhost: Academic Search Complete
• EBSCOhost: Biological Abstracts (Online)
• EBSCOhost: Current Abstracts
• Electronic Collections Online
• Elsevier: EMBASE
• Focus On: Veterinary Science and Medicine
• Maize Abstracts
• OCLC: Article First
• Parasitology Database
• Personal Alert (E-mail)
• Poultry Abstracts
• ProQuest 5000 International
• ProQuest Agriculture Journals
• ProQuest Biology Journals
• ProQuest Central
• ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
• ProQuest Medical Library
• ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source
• ProQuest: Professional ProQuest Central
• Proquest Natural Science Journals
• Proquest SciTech Journals
• Protozoological Abstracts
• PubMed: MEDLINE
• Referativnyi Zhurnal
• Review of Medical and Veterinary Entomology
• Review of Plant Pathology
• Soil Science Database
• Soils and Fertilizers
• Soybean Abstracts
• Web of Science
• Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide
• Wildlife Review Abstracts
• World Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Abstracts

Manuscript Submission Guidelines: Laboratory Animals

This Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics

Please read the guidelines below then visit the Journal’s submission site http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/la to upload your manuscript. Please note that manuscripts not conforming to these guidelines may be returned. Authors interested in open access publishing in Laboratory Animals please find the necessary information here: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/sage-choice

Only manuscripts of sufficient quality that meet the aims and scope of Laboratory Animals will be reviewed. Please read the Editorial entitled ‘You and your research report: implementing the ARRIVE Guidelines’ . 

There are no fees payable to submit or publish in this Journal. Open Access options are available - see section 3.3 below.

As part of the submission process you will be required to warrant that you are submitting your original work, that you have the rights in the work, and that you have obtained and can supply all necessary permissions for the reproduction of any copyright works not owned by you, that you are submitting the work for first publication in the Journal and that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere and has not already been published elsewhere. Please see our guidelines on prior publication and note that Laboratory Animals  accepts submissions of papers that have been posted on pre-print servers; please alert the Editorial Office when submitting (contact details are at the end of these guidelines) and include the DOI for the preprint in the designated field in the manuscript submission system. Authors should not post an updated version of their paper on the preprint server while it is being peer reviewed for possible publication in the journal. If the article is accepted for publication, the author may re-use their work according to the journal's author archiving policy.

Please ensure you strictly adhere to the Vancouver referencing style. In the reference list, note that up to three (3) authors may be listed per reference. If there are more than three (3) authors, then list the first three names and represent the rest using et al. Journal titles need to be listed in italics.  

In addition to the main body of the manuscript, the word count includes: the authors and their affiliations; abstract; keywords; figure/table captions; the contents of tables; references; the acknowledgments; funding statement; and conflict of interest statement.

• What do we publish? 1.1 Aims & Scope 1.2 Article types 1.3 Writing your paper 1.3.1 Make your article discoverable
• Editorial policies 2.1 Peer review policy 2.2 Authorship 2.3 Acknowledgements 2.3.1 Writing Assistance 2.4 Funding 2.5 Declaration of conflicting interests 2.6 Research ethics 2.6.1 Animals, materials and methods 2.7 Reporting Guidelines 2.8 Research Data availability statement
• Publishing policies 3.1 Publication ethics 3.1.1 Plagiarism 3.1.2 Prior publication   3.2 Contributor's publishing agreement 3.3 Open access and author archiving
• Preparing your manuscript 4.1 Formatting 4.2 Artwork, figures and other graphics 4.3 Supplemental material 4.4 Reference style 4.5 English language editing services
• Submitting your manuscript 5.1 ORCID 5.2 Information required for completing your submission 5.3 Permissions
• On acceptance and publication 6.1 Sage Production 6.2 Online First publication 6.3 Access to your published article 6.4 Promoting your article
• Further information

1. What do we publish?

1.1 Aims & Scope

Before submitting your manuscript to  Laboratory Animals , please ensure you have read the Aims & Scope .

1.2 Article Types

Working Group Reports Articles describing the recommendations or conclusions from working parties or groups mandated by one or more subscribing associations. These should be up to 7,500 words including references (of which there should be no more than 50), abstract, figure/table captions and the abstract. A hyperlink to additional information or the full deliberations of the Working Group will be accommodated and hosted as supplementary information on the journal website. All cited members of working parties will be considered as authors for the purposes of copyright.

Review Articles Articles of a substantial and topical nature. These should be up to 7,500 words including abstract, figure/table captions and references.

Original Articles Articles describing substantial original research that fall within the aims and scope of the journal. These should be up to 5,500 words including the abstract, figure/table captions and references and have no more than six displays (figures and tables). Structured headings are required and must include: Introduction; Animals, Material and Methods; Results; Discussion; Acknowledgements and References. The abstract must be unstructured and consist of a single paragraph with fewer than 250 words. Please refer to section 6.4 regarding required information on animals, and their conditions of husbandry and care. For manuscripts whose word counts exceed 5,500 or more than six displays, the additional information and displays can be submitted as supplementary information. 

Case Reports The journal also publishes case reports or case series which report one of the following:

a) A new and/or emerging disease; b) A new association or variation in a disease process; c) An unreported or unusual adverse drug reaction; d) An unexpected or unusual presentation of a common problem or an unexpected event in the course of observing or treating an experimental animal that has not been previously reported; e) Findings that shed new light on the possible pathogenesis of a disease or an adverse effect; f) A case which could be used as a teaching exercise in deductive reasoning and clinicopathological correlation and/or a practical lesson for the investigation and/or management of similar cases.

Word count should not exceed 3,000 words, including abstract and references. Word count for the abstract should be 250 words. No more than 4 displays (tables and/or figures). Up to 30 references.

Short Reports Technical notes and preliminary communications with adequate methodological details and conclusions. These should have fewer than 1,500 words including abstract, figure/table captions and references. The abstract should have fewer than 200 words, and have no more than two figures or tables. 

Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor will be considered for publication but only on issues related to the scientific or ethical content of the journal, and authors will be given the opportunity to publish a reply to any letters.

LAS Perspectives Perspective or opinion papers as well as news on current laboratory animal science topics. Word count should not exceed 1,500 words, excluding references. No abstract is needed, no subheadings needed. No more than 2 displays (tables and/or figures). Up to 10 references.

News Items  Submissions are only accepted from  Subscribing Societies .  Submissions should be no more than 1,500 words including abstract and references. If two pictures are included the word limit reduces to 1,000 words. Articles can be in the language of the societies and/or in English. Contributions to the News section are not subject to peer review and they reflect the opinion of the subscribing society. If accepted for publication, authors will be required to provide contact details and sign an electronic copyright form. Questions may be sent to the Editorial Office at  [email protected] .

1.3 Writing your paper

The Sage Author Gateway has some general advice and on  how to get published , plus links to further resources. Sage Author Services also offers authors a variety of ways to improve and enhance their article including English language editing, plagiarism detection, and video abstract and infographic preparation.

1.3.1 Make your article discoverable

When writing up your paper, think about how you can make it discoverable. The title, keywords and abstract are key to ensuring readers find your article through search engines such as Google. For information and guidance on how best to title your article, write your abstract and select your keywords, have a look at this page on the Gateway: How to Help Readers Find Your Article Online .

Back to top

2. Editorial policies

2.1 Peer review policy

Sage does not permit the use of author-suggested (recommended) reviewers at any stage of the submission process, be that through the web-based submission system or other communication. Reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Our policy is that reviewers should not be assigned to a paper if:

•  The reviewer is based at the same institution as any of the co-authors

•  The reviewer is based at the funding body of the paper

•  The author has recommended the reviewer

•  The reviewer has provided a personal (e.g. Gmail/Yahoo/Hotmail) email account and an institutional email account cannot be found after performing a basic Google search (name, department and institution). 

2.2 Authorship

Papers should only be submitted for consideration once consent is given by all contributing authors. Those submitting papers should carefully check that all those whose work contributed to the paper are acknowledged as contributing authors.

The list of authors should include all those who can legitimately claim authorship. This is all those who:

• Made a substantial contribution to the concept or design of the work; or acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data,
• Drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content,
• Approved the version to be published,
• Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

Authors should meet the conditions of all of the points above. When a large, multicentre group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship.

Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship, although all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. Please refer to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines for more information on authorship.

Please note that AI chatbots, for example ChatGPT, should not be listed as authors. For more information see the policy on Use of ChatGPT and generative AI tools .

2.3 Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a department chair who provided only general support. 

2.3.1 Third party submissions

Where an individual who is not listed as an author submits a manuscript on behalf of the author(s), a statement must be included in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript and in the accompanying cover letter. The statements must:

• Disclose this type of editorial assistance – including the individual’s name, company and level of input
• Identify any entities that paid for this assistance
• Confirm that the listed authors have authorized the submission of their manuscript via third party and approved any statements or declarations, e.g. conflicting interests, funding, etc.

Where appropriate, Sage reserves the right to deny consideration to manuscripts submitted by a third party rather than by the authors themselves .

2.3.2 Writing assistance

Individuals who provided writing assistance, e.g. from a specialist communications company, do not qualify as authors and so should be included in the Acknowledgements section. Authors must disclose any writing assistance – including the individual’s name, company and level of input – and identify the entity that paid for this assistance.

It is not necessary to disclose use of language polishing services.

Please supply any personal acknowledgements separately to the main text to facilitate anonymous peer review.

2.4 Funding

Laboratory Animals requires all authors to acknowledge their funding in a consistent fashion under a separate heading.  Please visit the Funding Acknowledgements page on the Sage Journal Author Gateway to confirm the format of the acknowledgment text in the event of funding, or state that: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 

2.5 Declaration of conflicting interests

It is the policy of  Laboratory Animals  to require a declaration of conflicting interests from all authors enabling a statement to be carried within the paginated pages of all published articles.

Please ensure that a ‘Declaration of Conflicting Interests’ statement is included at the end of your manuscript, after any acknowledgements and prior to the references. If no conflict exists, please state that ‘The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest’. For guidance on conflict of interest statements, please see the ICMJE recommendations here .

2.6 Research ethics 

All research involving animals submitted for publication must be approved by an ethics committee with oversight of the facility in which the studies were conducted. The Journal has adopted the ARRIVE guidelines.

Papers will only be published if the experimental procedures employed conform with the accepted principles of how animals are used in biomedical science. Usually the principles applied will be those specified in the  European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals  used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes and its appendices and/or the  National Research Council Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals .

If the experimental design or programme of work reported in the manuscript raises particular ethical or welfare concerns, the Editorial Board will consider the current  UK legislation  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and its contemporary interpretation.

Submitted manuscripts should conform to the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals , and all papers reporting animal and/or human studies must state in the methods section that the relevant Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board provided (or waived) approval. Please ensure that you have provided the full name and institution of the review committee, in addition to the approval number.

2.6.1 Animals, materials and methods

The journal requires detailed information on the animals and their conditions of husbandry (see  Laboratory Animals  1985;19:106–108 ). The methodology for the euthanasia of animals should be consistent with recommendations in previously published reports (see  Laboratory Animals  1996;30:293–316  and  1997;31:1–32 ). The journal recommends referring to the American Veterinary Medical Association document on euthanasia also ( https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf ). The protocols and studies involving fish should be reported in the manner detailed in  Laboratory Animals  2000;34:131–135 . Please read the Editorial entitled ' You and your research report: implementing the ARRIVE Guidleines ' for further clarification. 

Of particular note, the source and full strain nomenclature of any laboratory animal stock must be specified according to international recommendations. Authors should note this information is available from source laboratories and animal vendors. A brief statement describing the legislative controls on animal care and use should be provided. Measures to refine experimental techniques to benefit animal welfare can be described in detail and the disposition and fate of the animals at the end of the experiment should be clear. Products used (e.g. drugs, equipment, feed, bedding) should be described in the format “generic description (trade name, vendor name, city and country where vendor located)".  The experimental design and the statistical analysis should be detailed, particularly in relation to using only the appropriate numbers of animals (see Festing M et al.  The Design of Animal Experiments: Reducing the use of animals in research through better experimental design 2 nd Edition , available from Sage). Pre-test power analyses should be presented in justification of sample size or number of animals required whenever possible. Power analyses for many common statistical procedures both parametric and non-parametric are given in Zar J. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edn. When reporting variability about the mean, variances, and/or discussing significance or non-significance of statistically derived values, the Zar recommendations should be considered, and claims of statistical non-significance should be accompanied by post-test power analyses whenever possible.

2.7 Reporting Guidelines

If your research involves pre-clinical studies, please confirm that you have carefully read and adhered to all the guidelines and instructions to authors provided in the ARRIVE guidelines before submitting your manuscript. Please read the Editorial entitled 'You and your research report: implementing the ARRIVE guidelines' for further clarification. 

You must complete and upload the ARRIVE checklist with your submission.

The relevant EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines should be followed depending on the type of study. For example, systematic reviews and meta-analysis shoudl include the completed PRISMA flow chart as a cited figure and the completed PRISA checklist should be uploaded with your submission as a supplementary file. The EQUATOR wizard can help you identify the appropriate guideline. 

Other resources can be found at NLM's Research Reporting Guidelines and Initatives . 

2.8 Research Data availability statement

All research articles should include a data availability statement at the end of the paper before the references ; this should state if the original data are available and how it can be accessed. Laboratory Animals strongly encourages authors to make available any primary data used in their research articles. This can be made available as the supplementary material, or via a link to a third-party data repository,  and include detailed contact information for third-party data sources. Examples of data types include but are not limited to statistical data files, replication code, text files, audio files, images, videos, appendices, and additional charts and graphs necessary to understand the original research. All data submitted should comply with Institutional or Ethical Review Board requirements and applicable government regulations.

3. Publishing Policies

3.1 Publication ethics

Sage is committed to upholding the integrity of the academic record. We encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’ International Standards for Authors and view the Publication Ethics page on the Sage Author Gateway

3.1.1 Plagiarism

Laboratory Animals  and Sage take issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of the journal against malpractice. Submitted articles may be checked with duplication-checking software. Where an article, for example, is found to have plagiarised other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgement, or where the authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction); retracting the article; taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author's institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; or taking appropriate legal action.

3.1.2 Prior publication

If material has been previously published it is not generally acceptable for publication in a Sage journal. Nevertheless,  Laboratory Animals  does accept material that has previously been posted on a preprint server, inistitutional archive, or a scholarly collaboration network. 

3.2 Contributor's publishing agreement

Before publication, Sage requires the author as the rights holder to sign a Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement. Sage’s Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement is an exclusive licence agreement which means that the author retains copyright in the work but grants Sage the sole and exclusive right and licence to publish for the full legal term of copyright. Exceptions may exist where an assignment of copyright is required or preferred by a proprietor other than Sage. In this case copyright in the work will be assigned from the author to the society. For more information please visit the Sage Author Gateway .

3.3 Open access and author archiving

Laboratory Animals offers optional open access publishing via the Sage Choice programme and Open Access agreements, where authors can publish open access either discounted or free of charge depending on the agreement with Sage. Find out if your institution is participating by visiting Open Access Agreements at Sage . For more information on Open Access publishing options at Sage please visit Sage Open Access . For information on funding body compliance, and depositing your article in repositories, please visit Sage’s Author Archiving and Re-Use Guidelines and Publishing Policies .

4. Preparing your manuscript for submission

4.1 Formatting

Preferred formats for the text and tables of your manuscript are Word DOC, RTF, XLS. LaTeX files are also accepted. The text should be double-spaced throughout and with a minimum of 3cm for left and right hand margins and 5cm at head and foot. Text should be standard 10 or 12 point. 

4.2 Artwork, figures and other graphics

For guidance on the preparation of illustrations, pictures and graphs in electronic format, please visit Sage’s Manuscript Submission Guidelines .

Figures supplied in colour will appear in colour online regardless of whether or not these illustrations are reproduced in colour in the printed version. For specifically requested colour reproduction in print, you will receive information regarding the costs from Sage after receipt of your accepted article. 

4.3 Supplemental material

This journal is able to host additional materials online (e.g. datasets, podcasts, videos, images etc) alongside the full-text of the article. For more information please refer to our guidelines on submitting supplemental files .

4.4 Reference style

Laboratory Animals adheres to the Sage Vancouver reference style. View the Sage Vancouver guidelines to ensure your manuscript conforms to this reference style.

If you use EndNote to manage references, you can download the Sage Vancouver EndNote output file .

4.5 English language editing services

Authors seeking assistance with English language editing, translation, or figure and manuscript formatting to fit the journal’s specifications should consider using Sage Language Services. Visit Sage Language Services on our Journal Author Gateway for further information. 

5. Submitting your manuscript

Laboratory Animals is hosted on Sage Track, a web based online submission and peer review system powered by ScholarOne™ Manuscripts. Visit http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/la to login and submit your article online.

IMPORTANT: Please check whether you already have an account in the system before trying to create a new one. If you have reviewed or authored for the journal in the past year it is likely that you will have had an account created.  For further guidance on submitting your manuscript online please visit ScholarOne Online Help.

As part of our commitment to ensuring an ethical, transparent and fair peer review process Sage is a supporting member of ORCID , the Open Researcher and Contributor ID. ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between researchers and their professional activities ensuring that their work is recognised.

The collection of ORCID iDs from corresponding authors is now part of the submission process of this journal. If you already have an ORCID iD you will be asked to associate that to your submission during the online submission process. We also strongly encourage all co-authors to link their ORCID ID to their accounts in our online peer review platforms. It takes seconds to do: click the link when prompted, sign into your ORCID account and our systems are automatically updated. Your ORCID iD will become part of your accepted publication’s metadata, making your work attributable to you and only you. Your ORCID iD is published with your article so that fellow researchers reading your work can link to your ORCID profile and from there link to your other publications.

If you do not already have an ORCID iD please follow this link to create one or visit our ORCID homepage to learn more.

5.2 Information required for completing your submission

You will be asked to provide contact details and academic affiliations for all co-authors via the submission system and identify who is to be the corresponding author. These details must match what appears on your manuscript. The affiliation listed in the manuscript should be the institution where the research was conducted. If an author has moved to a new institution since completing the research, the new affiliation can be included in a manuscript note at the end of the paper. At this stage please ensure you have included all the required statements and declarations and uploaded any additional supplementary files (including reporting guidelines where relevant).

5.3 Permissions

Please also ensure that you have obtained any necessary permission from copyright holders for reproducing any illustrations, tables, figures or lengthy quotations previously published elsewhere. For further information including guidance on fair dealing for criticism and review, please see the Copyright and Permissions page on the Sage Author Gateway .

6. On acceptance and publication

6.1 Sage Production

Your Sage Production Editor will keep you informed as to your article’s progress throughout the production process. Proofs will be made available to the corresponding author via our editing portal Sage Edit or by email, and corrections should be made directly or notified to us promptly. Authors are reminded to check their proofs carefully to confirm that all author information, including names, affiliations, sequence and contact details are correct, and that Funding and Conflict of Interest statements, if any, are accurate.

6.2 Online First publication

Online First allows final articles (completed and approved articles awaiting assignment to a future issue) to be published online prior to their inclusion in a journal issue, which significantly reduces the lead time between submission and publication. Visit the Sage Journals help page for more details, including how to cite Online First articles.

6.3 Access to your published article

Sage provides authors with online access to their final article.

6.4 Promoting your article

Publication is not the end of the process! You can help disseminate your paper and ensure it is as widely read and cited as possible. The Sage Author Gateway has numerous resources to help you promote your work. Visit the Promote Your Article page on the Gateway for tips and advice.  

7. Further information

Any correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the manuscript submission process should be sent to the Laboratory Animals editorial office as follows:

Editorial Office:  [email protected]

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

All Experimentation on Animals Is Bad And Should be Outlawed - IELTS Task 2 Band 9 Sample Essay

Get your personalised   IELTS Essay Feedback   from a former examiner

Download IELTS eBooks ,   get everything you need to achieve a high band score

Model Essay 1

The debate over animal experimentation is complex, pivoting on ethical considerations and the pursuit of scientific advancements. Proponents of animal testing argue that it is indispensable for developing medical treatments and ensuring safety in consumer products. However, opponents question its morality and the suffering it causes to animals, advocating for alternatives.

The use of animals in scientific research is often justified by the physiological similarities they share with humans. These similarities enable researchers to glean insights that are directly applicable to human conditions. For instance, studies involving non-human primates have been crucial in evolving our understanding of Parkinson's disease, significantly enhancing treatment options. Such research is generally considered essential during the initial phases of medical studies, aimed at assessing the safety and efficacy of new treatments before they are trialed in humans. This necessary step ensures that potential therapies have been rigorously tested, thereby safeguarding human health during clinical trials.

Despite the current necessity of animal testing in some areas of research, there is a growing emphasis on developing alternatives that could one day eliminate the need for animal subjects entirely. Innovations like sophisticated computer simulations and organ-on-a-chip technology are at the forefront of this shift. Organ-on-a-chip, for example, replicates human organ systems on microchips, enabling researchers to observe the effects of drugs on human tissues in real-time. This technology not only provides data that are potentially more relevant to humans but also reduces the reliance on animal testing. Such advancements underscore the scientific community's commitment to the '3Rs' principle - Reduce, Refine, and Replace - aiming to minimize and eventually end animal testing.

In conclusion, while the current scientific landscape still often requires animal testing, the development of alternative methods is imperative. By investing in and prioritizing these innovations, we can look forward to a future where animal testing is no longer necessary. This not only aligns with ethical standards but also enhances the applicability of research results to human health.

Model Essay 2

The contentious issue of animal experimentation hinges on ethical concerns versus scientific benefits. This essay contends that while animal testing can be justified by its critical role in medical advancements, it is imperative to enforce stringent ethical guidelines and prioritize the development of alternative methods. The ensuing discussion will explore the necessity of such practices for medical progress and the evolving viability of non-animal testing techniques.

Firstly, the justification for animal testing primarily rests on its indispensability in advancing medical science. Many life-saving treatments, including insulin and vaccines, were developed through research involving animals. For instance, the polio vaccine, which has saved countless lives globally, was pioneered using non-human primates to study the disease's progression and test preliminary vaccine trials. Such examples underscore the argument that when human lives are at stake, animal experimentation can be considered a necessary albeit regrettable option. However, this necessity is contingent upon the absence of alternative methods that could achieve the same results without using animal subjects. Moreover, strict ethical guidelines must govern such experiments to minimize suffering and ensure that such measures are truly the last resort.

Secondly, the increasing availability and advancement of alternatives to animal testing highlight the potential for reducing reliance on animal subjects. Techniques such as in vitro testing, computer modeling, and the use of human cell cultures offer promising results without ethical compromises. For example, organs-on-chips technology uses human cells to simulate organ functions, allowing researchers to conduct experiments in ways that mimic human responses more accurately than animal testing. The adoption of these technologies not only enhances the ethical standards of research but also improves the reliability of scientific outcomes by reducing interspecies variability in test results. This shift not only reflects a more humane approach to research but also aligns with scientific advancements that could ultimately render animal testing obsolete.

In conclusion, while the necessity of animal testing in certain critical research areas remains, it is imperative that it is conducted with the utmost ethical standards and only when there are no suitable alternatives. Simultaneously, the development and validation of non-animal methods should be actively pursued to ensure that the scientific community moves towards more humane and scientifically robust research practices.

Model Essay 3

It is undeniable that many research centres around the world still perform experiments on lab animals. Many people, especially animal lovers and pet owners, are against the practice. In my opinion, this movement against animal testing, though it is  noble and benevolent, is not yet one hundred percent achievable.

In order to make any product safe for human consumption, be it a next generation vaccine or a new type of cosmetic cream, the most reliable method to ensure its safety is to test it  thoroughly under stringent processes. In doing so, sometimes, this  inevitably includes exposing animals to these new products first. The main reason is  because some animals' biological markups are very similar to human beings, and we can achieve more accurate and direct results. For example, mice are used in research on Alzheimer’s diseases. Additionally, for some cases, we simply do not have a  technology advanced enough to test without live animals. Moreover, testing without live animals may drive up the research costs and make the end product's prices higher for the general public. 

However, this does not mean that we should continue this practice indefinitely and unnecessarily. First of all, governments should establish well-defined rules and regulations to ensure humane treatment of all animals used in research environments. This will help to provide a level of protection for the animals. Another measure is to outlaw animal testing on all non-essential products such as make-up and beauty products. Last but not least, research organizations should dedicate parts of their effort in advancing the research methodologies so that animal testing can one day be completely eliminated.

In conclusion, though removing the animal testing from the science and research field is not yet possible as of now, we can be kind towards animals by establishing strict welfare guidelines and supporting cruelty-free methods.

• Task 2 Essays

Related Posts

People Are Suffering from Health Problems As a Result of Eating Too Much Fast Food - IELTS Band 9 Essay

Ordinary People Like to Copy the Famous People They See in Magazines And on TV - IELTS Essay

Prisons Are Overcrowded And Expensive For Governments To Maintain - IELTS Band 9 Essay

Lab on a Chip

The egg-counter: a novel microfluidic platform for characterization of caenorhabditis elegans egg-laying †.

* Corresponding authors

a Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA E-mail: [email protected]

Reproduction is a fundamental process that shapes the demography of every living organism yet is often difficult to assess with high precision in animals that produce large numbers of offspring. Here, we present a novel microfluidic research platform for studying Caenorhabditis elegans' egg-laying. The platform provides higher throughput than traditional solid-media behavioral assays while providing a very high degree of temporal resolution. Additionally, the environmental control enabled by microfluidic animal husbandry allows for experimental perturbations difficult to achieve with solid-media assays. We demonstrate the platform's utility by characterizing C. elegans egg-laying behavior at two commonly used temperatures, 15 and 20 °C. As expected, we observed a delayed onset of egg-laying at 15 °C degrees, consistent with published temperature effects on development rate. Additionally, as seen in solid media studies, egg laying output was higher under the canonical 20 °C conditions. While we validated the Egg-Counter with a study of temperature effects in wild-type animals, the platform is highly adaptable to any nematode egg-laying research where throughput or environmental control needs to be maximized without sacrificing temporal resolution.

Supplementary files

• Supplementary information PDF (1376K)

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

The egg-counter: a novel microfluidic platform for characterization of Caenorhabditis elegans egg-laying

S. A. Banse, C. M. Jarrett, K. J. Robinson, B. W. Blue, E. L. Shaw and P. C. Phillips, Lab Chip , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D3LC01073B

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications, without requesting further permission from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.

To request permission to reproduce material from this article in a commercial publication , please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party commercial publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements

I know how the caged bird jams

via Nautilus

Dec. 14, 2023

• Rebecca Kleinberger Former Postdoctoral Associate
• Media Lab Research Theme: Cultivating Creativity

Share this article

By Elena Kazamia

In a modest rectangular enclosure surrounded by sparse green shrubbery, just past the main gate of San Diego Zoo Safari Park, a middle-aged hyacinth macaw blasts Daft Punk on his bespoke boombox. His name is Sampson and he likes to dance.

Sampson can operate the boombox, aptly named  JoyBranch , by biting or holding on to a kind of joystick made to look like a slice of log with a twig protruding from it. Motion sensors (called BobTrigger) keep the music going as long as he bobs and nods, dipping his head in rhythm. Within weeks of its installation, the boombox changed the dynamics of Sampson’s interactions with visitors. To draw them in, he could rock out. When he tired of entertaining, he could stop dancing to switch off the music. More often than not, when the show was over, his visitors moved on.

JoyBranch is one of a number of sound projects at San Diego Zoo and other zoos around the country that aim to give captive animals more agency over their environments. The boombox came into being after Sampson’s caretakers noticed how much the bird enjoyed grooving to the rhythms wafting from an iPhone during care sessions. (The BobTrigger was added when they realized he couldn’t press play on the JoyBranch and dance at the same time.)

The project was led by Rébecca Kleinberger, a digital technology, cognition, and sound researcher trained in MIT’s Media Lab who now runs her own research group at Northeastern University in Boston. When Kleinberger walks through a zoo, she doesn’t just look, she listens. Here is the cackle of families laughing and talking as they walk by, a gasp of excitement as an animal turns to face them, a child’s piercing cry for attention. Then the sound wave of human noise retreats as the crowd moves on, and she can suddenly detect the roar of a male lion in the distance. It is a deep, penetrating, regal growl that visitors delight in. But how does it make the gazelle standing just a few feet away from her behind the slim barrier feel? The animal is evolved to feel fear. 

Rébecca Kleinberger, From DJ Macaw to Video-Flocking: Leveraging audio technology for animal’s social and cognitive enrichment

Alum Rébecca Kleinberger discusses her work at the intersection of new technology, animal-computer interaction, and the sonic environment.

Interspecies Interactions Mediated by Technology: An Avian Case Study at the Zoo

Kleinberger, Rébecca, et al. "Interspecies Interactions Mediated by Technology: An Avian Case Study at the Zoo." ACM CHI 2020 Conference (April 2020).

Meet the Labbers: Rébecca Kleinberger

"I like to think of the voice and all the sound from our bodies as some kind of rhythm of life and music of life."

Rébecca Kleinberger Dissertation Defense

Vocal Connection: Rethinking the voice as a medium for personal, interpersonal, and interspecies understanding

Animal Essay

500 Words Essay on Animal

Animals carry a lot of importance in our lives. They offer humans with food and many other things. For instance, we consume meat, eggs, dairy products. Further, we use animals as a pet too. They are of great help to handicaps. Thus, through the animal essay, we will take a look at these creatures and their importance.

Types of Animals

First of all, all kinds of living organisms which are eukaryotes and compose of numerous cells and can sexually reproduce are known as animals. All animals have a unique role to play in maintaining the balance of nature.

A lot of animal species exist in both, land and water. As a result, each of them has a purpose for their existence. The animals divide into specific groups in biology. Amphibians are those which can live on both, land and water.

Reptiles are cold-blooded animals which have scales on their body. Further, mammals are ones which give birth to their offspring in the womb and have mammary glands. Birds are animals whose forelimbs evolve into wings and their body is covered with feather.

They lay eggs to give birth. Fishes have fins and not limbs. They breathe through gills in water. Further, insects are mostly six-legged or more. Thus, these are the kinds of animals present on earth.

Importance of Animals

Animals play an essential role in human life and planet earth. Ever since an early time, humans have been using animals for their benefit. Earlier, they came in use for transportation purposes.

Further, they also come in use for food, hunting and protection. Humans use oxen for farming. Animals also come in use as companions to humans. For instance, dogs come in use to guide the physically challenged people as well as old people.

In research laboratories, animals come in use for drug testing. Rats and rabbits are mostly tested upon. These researches are useful in predicting any future diseases outbreaks. Thus, we can protect us from possible harm.

Astronomers also use animals to do their research. They also come in use for other purposes. Animals have use in various sports like racing, polo and more. In addition, they also have use in other fields.

They also come in use in recreational activities. For instance, there are circuses and then people also come door to door to display the tricks by animals to entertain children. Further, they also come in use for police forces like detection dogs.

Similarly, we also ride on them for a joyride. Horses, elephants, camels and more come in use for this purpose. Thus, they have a lot of importance in our lives.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of Animal Essay

Thus, animals play an important role on our planet earth and in human lives. Therefore, it is our duty as humans to protect animals for a better future. Otherwise, the human race will not be able to survive without the help of the other animals.

FAQ on Animal Essay

Question 1: Why are animals are important?

Answer 1: All animals play an important role in the ecosystem. Some of them help to bring out the nutrients from the cycle whereas the others help in decomposition, carbon, and nitrogen cycle. In other words, all kinds of animals, insects, and even microorganisms play a role in the ecosystem.

Question 2: How can we protect animals?

Answer 2: We can protect animals by adopting them. Further, one can also volunteer if one does not have the means to help. Moreover, donating to wildlife reserves can help. Most importantly, we must start buying responsibly to avoid companies which harm animals to make their products.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• NIH Grants & Funding
• Blog Policies

NIH Extramural Nexus

Webinar Recording Available: Congruence Review (for Studies Involving Vertebrate Animals)

Did you miss this informative webinar hosted by the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) earlier this year? Congruence review is required prior to award (e.g., grants, cooperative agreements, contracts) for activities that involve the use of live vertebrate animals per PHS Policy IV.D. It is the process that ensures that the information in IACUC protocols is consistent with the application to be awarded, and is an institutional responsibility. This OLAW Online Seminar covers the foundations of congruence review, including definitions, requirements, flexibilities, and answers to common compliance questions.  

The webinar recording, slides, transcript, and additional questions are now available on the OLAW website.  Find other recent webinars here .

RELATED NEWS

Before submitting your comment, please review our blog comment policies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Research Council (US) Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th edition. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011.

Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th edition.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

3 Environment, Housing, and Management

This chapter provides guidelines for the environment, housing, and management of laboratory animals used or produced for research, testing, and teaching. These guidelines are applicable across species and are relatively general; additional information should be sought about how to apply them to meet the specific needs of any species, strain, or use (see Appendix A for references). The chapter is divided into recommendations for terrestrial (page 42) and aquatic animals (page 77), as there are fundamental differences in their environmental requirements as well as animal husbandry, housing, and care needs. Although formulated specifically for vertebrate species, the general principles of humane animal care as set out in the Guide may also apply to invertebrate species.

The design of animal facilities combined with appropriate animal housing and management are essential contributors to animal well-being, the quality of animal research and production, teaching or testing programs involving animals, and the health and safety of personnel. An appropriate Program (see Chapter 2 ) provides environments, housing, and management that are well suited for the species or strains of animals maintained and takes into account their physical, physiologic, and behavioral needs, allowing them to grow, mature, and reproduce normally while providing for their health and well-being.

Fish, amphibians, and reptiles are poikilothermic animals: their core temperature varies with environmental conditions and they have limited ability (compared with birds and mammals) to metabolically maintain core temperature. The majority of poikilothermic laboratory animals are aquatic species—for example, fish and most amphibians—although some, such as reptiles and certain amphibian species, are terrestrial. Personnel working with aquatic animals should be familiar with management implications, e.g., the importance of providing appropriate temperature ranges for basic physiologic function.

• TERRESTRIAL ANIMALS

Terrestrial Environment

Microenvironment and macroenvironment.

The microenvironment of a terrestrial animal is the physical environment immediately surrounding it; that is, the primary enclosure such as the cage, pen, or stall. It contains all the resources with which the animals come directly in contact and also provides the limits of the animals’ immediate environment. The microenvironment is characterized by many factors, including illumination, noise, vibration, temperature, humidity, and gaseous and particulate composition of the air. The physical environment of the secondary enclosure, such as a room, a barn, or an outdoor habitat, constitutes the macroenvironment .

Microenvironment: The immediate physical environment surrounding the animal (i.e., the environment in the primary enclosure such as the cage, pen, or stall).

Although the microenvironment and the macroenvironment are generally related, the microenvironment can be appreciably different and affected by several factors, including the design of the primary enclosure and macroenvironmental conditions.

Macroenvironment: The physical environment of the secondary enclosure (e.g., a room, a barn, or an outdoor habitat).

Evaluation of the microenvironment of small enclosures can be difficult. Available data indicate that temperature, humidity, and concentrations of gases and particulate matter are often higher in the animal microenvironment than in the macroenvironment ( Besch 1980 ; Hasenau et al. 1993 ; Perkins and Lipman 1995 ; E. Smith et al. 2004 ), while light levels are usually lower. Microenvironmental conditions can directly affect physiologic processes and behavior and may alter disease susceptibility ( Baer et al. 1997 ; Broderson et al. 1976 ; Memarzadeh et al. 2004 ; Schoeb et al. 1982 ; Vesell et al. 1976 ).

Temperature and Humidity

Maintenance of body temperature within normal circadian variation is necessary for animal well-being. Animals should be housed within temperature and humidity ranges appropriate for the species, to which they can adapt with minimal stress and physiologic alteration.

The ambient temperature range in which thermoregulation occurs without the need to increase metabolic heat production or activate evaporative heat loss mechanisms is called the thermoneutral zone (TNZ) and is bounded by the lower and upper critical temperatures (LCTs and UCTs; Gordon 2005 ). To maintain body temperature under a given environmental temperature animals adjust physiologically (including their metabolism) and behaviorally (including their activity level and resource use). For example, the TNZ of mice ranges between 26°C and 34°C ( Gordon 1993 ); at lower temperatures, building nests and huddling for resting and sleeping allow them to thermoregulate by behaviorally controlling their microclimate. Although mice choose temperatures below their LCT of 26°C during activity periods, they strongly prefer temperatures above their LCT for maintenance and resting behaviors ( Gaskill et al. 2009 ; Gordon 2004 ; Gordon et al. 1998 ). Similar LCT values are found in the literature for other rodents, varying between 26–30°C for rats and 28–32°C for gerbils ( Gordon 1993 ). The LCTs of rabbits (15–20°C; Gonzalez et al. 1971 ) and cats and dogs (20–25°C) are slightly lower, while those of nonhuman primates and farm animals vary depending on the species. In general, dry-bulb temperatures in animal rooms should be set below the animals’ LCT to avoid heat stress. This, in turn, means that animals should be provided with adequate resources for thermoregulation (nesting material, shelter) to avoid cold stress. Adequate resources for thermoregulation are particularly important for newborn animals whose LCT is normally considerably higher than that of their adult conspecifics.

Environmental temperature and relative humidity can be affected by husbandry and housing design and can differ considerably between primary and secondary enclosures as well as within primary enclosures. Factors that contribute to variation in temperature and humidity between and within enclosures include housing design; construction material; enrichment devices such as shelters and nesting material; use of filter tops; number, age, type, and size of the animals in each enclosure; forced ventilation of enclosures; and the type and frequency of contact bedding changes ( Besch 1980 ).

Exposure to wide temperature and humidity fluctuations or extremes may result in behavioral, physiologic, and morphologic changes, which might negatively affect animal well-being and research performance as well as outcomes of research protocols ( Garrard et al. 1974 ; Gordon 1990 , 1993 ; Pennycuik 1967 ). These effects can be multigenerational ( Barnett 1965 , 1973 ).

The dry-bulb temperatures listed in Table 3.1 are broad and generally reflect tolerable limits for common adult laboratory animal species, provided they are housed with adequate resources for behavioral thermoregulation; temperatures should normally be selected and maintained with minimal fluctuation near the middle of these ranges. Depending on the specific housing system employed, the selection of appropriate macro- and microenvironmental temperatures will differ based on a variety of factors, including but not limited to the species or strain, age, numbers of animals in the enclosure, size and construction of the primary enclosure, and husbandry conditions (e.g., use/provision of contact bedding, nesting material and/or shelter, individually ventilated cages). Poikilotherms and young birds of some species generally require a thermal gradient in their primary enclosure to meet basic physiological processes. The temperature ranges shown may not apply to captive wild animals, wild animals maintained in their natural environment, or animals in outdoor enclosures that have the opportunity to adapt by being exposed to seasonal changes in ambient conditions.

Recommended Dry-Bulb Macroenvironmental Temperatures for Common Laboratory Animals.

Some conditions require increased environmental temperatures for housing (e.g., postoperative recovery, neonatal animals, rodents with hairless phenotypes, reptiles and amphibians at certain stages of reproduction). The magnitude of the temperature increase depends on housing details; sometimes raising the temperature in the microenvironment alone (e.g., by using heating pads for postoperative recovery or radiant heat sources for reptiles) rather than raising the temperature of the macroenvironment is sufficient and preferable.

Relative humidity should also be controlled, but not nearly as narrowly as temperature for many mammals; the acceptable range of relative humidity is considered to be 30% to 70% for most mammalian species. Microenvironmental relative humidity may be of greater importance for animals housed in a primary enclosure in which the environmental conditions differ greatly from those of the macroenvironment (e.g., in static filter-top [isolator] cages).

Some species may require conditions with high relative humidity (e.g., selected species of nonhuman primates, tropical reptiles, and amphibians; Olson and Palotay 1983 ). In mice, both abnormally high and low humidity may increase preweaning mortality ( Clough 1982 ). In rats, low relative humidity, especially in combination with temperature extremes, may lead to ringtail, a condition involving ischemic necrosis of the tail and sometimes toes ( Crippa et al. 2000 ; Njaa et al. 1957 ; Totten 1958 ). For some species, elevated relative humidity may affect an animal’s ability to cope with thermal extremes. Elevated microenvironmental relative humidity in rodent isolator cages may also lead to high intracage ammonia concentrations ( Corning and Lipman 1991 ; Hasenau et al. 1993 ), which can be irritating to the nasal passages and alter some biologic responses ( Gordon et al. 1980 ; Manninen et al. 1998 ). In climates where it is difficult to provide a sufficient level of environmental relative humidity, animals should be closely monitored for negative effects such as excessively flaky skin, ecdysis (molting) difficulties in reptiles, and desiccation stress in semiaquatic amphibians.

Ventilation and Air Quality

The primary purpose of ventilation is to provide appropriate air quality and a stable environment. Specifically, ventilation provides an adequate oxygen supply; removes thermal loads caused by the animals, personnel, lights, and equipment; dilutes gaseous and particulate contaminants including allergens and airborne pathogens; adjusts the moisture content and temperature of room air; and, where appropriate, creates air pressure differentials (directional air flow) between adjoining spaces. Importantly, ventilating the room (i.e., the macroenvironment) does not necessarily ensure adequate ventilation of an animal’s primary enclosure (i.e., the microenvironment), that is, the air to which the animal is actually exposed. The type of primary enclosure may considerably influence the differences between these two environments—for example, differences may be negligible when animals are housed in open caging or pens, whereas they can be significant when static isolator cages are used.

The volume and physical characteristics of the air supplied to a room and its diffusion pattern influence the ventilation of an animal’s primary enclosure and are important determinants of the animal’s microenvironment. The type and location of supply air diffusers and exhaust registers in relation to the number, arrangement, location, and type of primary and secondary enclosures affect how well the microenvironments are ventilated and should therefore be considered. The use of computer modeling for assessing those factors in relation to heat loading, air diffusion patterns, and particulate movement may be helpful in optimizing ventilation of micro- and macroenvironments ( Hughes and Reynolds 1995 ).

Direct exposure of animals to air moving at high velocity (drafts) should be avoided as the speed of air to which animals are exposed affects the rate at which heat and moisture are removed from an animal. For example, air at 20°C moving at 60 linear feet per minute (18.3 m/min) has a cooling effect of approximately 7°C ( Weihe 1971 ). Drafts can be particularly problematic for neonatal homeotherms (which may be hairless and have poorly developed mechanisms for thermoregulatory control), for mutants lacking fur, and for semiaquatic amphibians that can desiccate.

Provision of 10 to 15 fresh air changes per hour in animal housing rooms is an acceptable guideline to maintain macroenvironmental air quality by constant volume systems and may also ensure microenvironmental air quality. Although this range is effective in many animal housing settings, it does not take into account the range of possible heat loads; the species, size, and number of animals involved; the type of primary enclosure and bedding; the frequency of cage changing; the room dimensions; or the efficiency of air distribution both in the macroenvironment and between the macro- and microenvironments. In some situations, the use of such a broad guideline might overventilate a macroenvironment containing few animals, thereby wasting energy, or underventilate a microenvironment containing many animals, allowing heat, moisture, and pollutants to accumulate.

Modern heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (e.g., variable air volume, or VAV, systems) allow ventilation rates to be set in accordance with heat load and other variables. These systems offer considerable advantages with respect to flexibility and energy conservation, but should always provide a minimum amount of air exchange, as recommended for general use laboratories ( Bell 2008 ; DiBerardinis et al. 2009 ).

Individually ventilated cages (IVCs) and other types of specialized primary enclosures, that either directly ventilate the enclosure using filtered room air or are ventilated independently of the room, can effectively address animals’ ventilation requirements without the need to increase macroenvironmental ventilation. However, cautions mentioned above regarding high-velocity air should be considered ( Baumans et al. 2002 ; Krohn et al. 2003 ). Nevertheless, the macroenvironment should be ventilated sufficiently to address heat loads, particulates, odors, and waste gases released from primary enclosures ( Lipman 1993 ).

If ventilated primary enclosures have adequate filtration to address contamination risks, air exhausted from the microenvironment may be returned to the room in which animals are housed, although it is generally preferable to exhaust these systems directly into the building’s exhaust system to reduce heat load and macroenvironmental contamination.

Static isolation caging (without forced ventilation), such as that used in some types of rodent housing, restricts ventilation ( Keller et al. 1989 ). To compensate, it may be necessary to adjust husbandry practices, including sanitation and cage change frequency, selection of contact bedding, placement of cages in a secondary enclosure, animal densities in cages, and/or decrease in macroenvironmental relative humidity to improve the microenvironment and heat dissipation.

The use of recycled air to ventilate animal rooms may save energy but entails risks. Because many animal pathogens can be airborne or travel on fomites (e.g., dust), exhaust air recycled into HVAC systems that serve multiple rooms presents a risk of cross contamination. Recycling air from nonanimal use areas (e.g., some human occupancy areas and food, bedding, and supply storage areas) may require less intensive filtration or conditioning and pose less risk of infection. The risks in some situations, however, might be too great to consider recycling (e.g., in the case of non-human primates and biohazard areas). The exhaust air to be recycled should be filtered, at minimum, with 85–95% ASHRAE efficient filters to remove airborne particles before it is recycled ( NAFA 1996 ). Depending on the air source, composition, and proportion of recycled air used (e.g., ammonia and other gases emitted from excrement in recirculating air from animal rooms), consideration should also be given to filtering volatile substances. In areas that require filtration to ensure personnel and/or animal safety (e.g., hazardous containment holding), filter efficiency, loading, and integrity should be assessed.

The successful operation of any HVAC system requires regular preventive maintenance and evaluation, including measurement of its function at the level of the secondary enclosure. Such measurements should include supply and exhaust air volumes, fluctuation in temperature and relative humidity, and air pressure differentials between spaces as well as critical mechanical operating parameters.

Illumination

Light can affect the physiology, morphology, and behavior of various animals ( Azar et al. 2008 ; Brainard et al. 1986 ; Erkert and Grober 1986 ; Newbold et al. 1991 ; Tucker et al. 1984 ). Potential photostressors include inappropriate photoperiod, photointensity, and spectral quality of the light ( Stoskopf 1983 ).

Numerous factors can affect animals’ needs for light and should be considered when an appropriate illumination level is being established for an animal holding room. These include light intensity and wavelength as well as the duration of the animal’s current and prior exposure to light, and the animal’s pigmentation, circadian rhythm, body temperature, hormonal status, age, species, sex, and stock or strain ( Brainard 1989 ; Duncan and O’Steen 1985 ; O’Steen 1980 ; Saltarelli and Coppola 1979 ; Semple-Row-land and Dawson 1987 ; Wax 1977 ). More recent studies in rodents and primates have shown the importance of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (distinct from rods and cones) for neuroendocrine, circadian, and neurobehavioral regulation ( Berson et al. 2002 ; Hanifin and Brainard 2007 ). These cells can respond to light wavelengths that may differ from other photoreceptors and may influence the type of lighting, light intensity, and wavelength selected for certain types of research.

In general, lighting should be diffused throughout an animal holding area and provide sufficient illumination for the animals’ well-being while permitting good housekeeping practices, adequate animal inspection including for the bottom-most cages in racks, and safe working conditions for personnel. Light in animal holding rooms should provide for both adequate vision and neuroendocrine regulation of diurnal and circadian cycles ( Brainard 1989 ).

Photoperiod is a critical regulator of reproductive behavior in many animal species ( Brainard et al. 1986 ; Cherry 1987 ), so inadvertent light exposure during the dark cycle should be minimized or avoided. Because some species, such as chickens ( Apeldoorn et al. 1999 ), will not eat in low light or darkness, such illumination schedules should be limited to a duration that will not compromise their well-being. A time-controlled lighting system should be used to ensure a regular diurnal cycle, and system performance should be checked regularly to ensure proper cycling.

Most commonly used laboratory rodents are nocturnal. Because albino rodents are more susceptible to phototoxic retinopathy than other animals ( Beaumont 2002 ), they have been used as a basis for establishing room illumination levels ( Lanum 1979 ). Data for room light intensities for other animals, based on scientific studies, are not available. Light levels of about 325 lux (30-ft candles) approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) above the floor appear to be sufficient for animal care and do not cause clinical signs of phototoxic retinopathy in albino rats ( Bellhorn 1980 ). Levels up to 400 lux (37-ft candles) as measured in an empty room 1 m from the floor have been found to be satisfactory for rodents if management practices are used to prevent retinal damage in albinos ( Clough 1982 ). However, the light experience of an individual animal can affect its sensitivity to phototoxicity; light of 130–270 lux above the light intensity under which it was raised has been reported to be near the threshold of retinal damage in some individual albino rats according to histologic, morphometric, and electrophysiologic evidence ( Semple-Rowland and Dawson 1987 ). Some guidelines recommend a light intensity as low as 40 lux at the position of the animal in midcage ( NASA 1988 ). Rats and mice generally prefer cages with low light intensity ( Blom et al. 1996 ), and albino rats prefer areas with a light intensity of less than 25 lux ( Schlingmann et al. 1993a ). Young mice prefer much lower illumination than adults ( Wax 1977 ). For animals that have been shown to be susceptible to phototoxic retinopathy, light should be between 130 and 325 lux in the room at cage level.

Light intensity decreases with the square of the distance from its source. Thus the location of a cage on a rack affects the intensity of light to which the animals within are exposed. Light intensity may differ as much as 80-fold in transparent cages from the top to the bottom of a rack, and differences up to 20-fold have been recorded within a cage ( Schlingmann et al. 1993a , b ). Management practices, such as rotating cage position relative to the light source ( Greenman et al. 1982 ) or providing animals with ways to control their own light exposure by behavioral means (e.g., nesting or bedding material adequate for tunneling), can reduce inappropriate light stimulation. Variable-intensity lights are often used to accommodate the needs of research protocols, certain animal species, and energy conservation. However, such a system should also provide for the observation and care of the animals. Caution should be exercised as increases in daytime room illumination for maintenance purposes have been shown to change photoreceptor physiology and can alter circadian regulation ( NRC 1996 ; Reme et al. 1991 ; Terman et al. 1991 ).

Noise and Vibration

Noise produced by animals and animal care activities is inherent in the operation of an animal facility ( Pfaff and Stecker 1976 ) and noise control should be considered in facility design and operation ( Pekrul 1991 ). Assessment of the potential effects of noise on an animal warrants consideration of the intensity, frequency, rapidity of onset, duration, and vibration potential of the sound and the hearing range, noise exposure history, and sound effect susceptibility of the species, stock, or strain. Similarly, occupational exposure to animal or animal care practices that generate noise may be of concern for personnel and, if of sufficient intensity, may warrant hearing protection.

Separation of human and animal areas minimizes disturbances to both human and animal occupants of the facility. Noisy animals, such as dogs, swine, goats, nonhuman primates, and some birds (e.g., zebra finches), should be housed away from quieter animals, such as rodents, rabbits, and cats. Environments should be designed to accommodate animals that make noise rather than resorting to methods of noise reduction. Exposure to sound louder than 85 dB can have both auditory and nonauditory effects ( Fletcher 1976 ; Peterson 1980 )—for example, eosinopenia, increased adrenal gland weights, and reduced fertility in rodents ( Geber et al. 1966 ; Nayfield and Besch 1981 ; Rasmussen et al. 2009 ), and increased blood pressure in nonhuman primates ( Peterson et al. 1981 )—and may necessitate hearing protection for personnel ( OSHA 1998 ). Many species can hear sound frequencies inaudible to humans ( Brown and Pye 1975 ; Heffner and Heffner 2007 ); rodents, for example, are very sensitive to ultrasound ( Olivier et al. 1994 ). The potential effects of equipment (such as video display terminals; Sales 1991 ; Sales et al. 1999 ) and materials that produce noise in the hearing range of nearby animals can thus become an uncontrolled variable for research experiments and should therefore be carefully considered ( Turner et al. 2007 ; Willott 2007 ). To the greatest extent possible, activities that generate noise should be conducted in rooms or areas separate from those used for animal housing.

Because changes in patterns of sound exposure have different effects on different animals ( Armario et al. 1985 ; Clough 1982 ), personnel should try to minimize the production of unnecessary noise. Excessive and intermittent noise can be minimized by training personnel in alternatives to noisy practices, the use of cushioned casters and bumpers on carts, trucks, and racks, and proper equipment maintenance (e.g., castor lubrication). Radios, alarms, and other sound generators should not be used in animal rooms unless they are part of an approved protocol or enrichment program. Any radios or sound generators used should be switched off at the end of the working day to minimize associated adverse physiologic changes ( Baldwin 2007 ).

While some vibration is inherent to every facility and animal housing condition, excessive vibration has been associated with biochemical and reproductive changes in laboratory animals ( Briese et al. 1984 ; Carman et al. 2007 ) and can become an uncontrolled variable for research experiments. The source of vibrations may be located within or outside the animal facility. In the latter case, groundborne vibration may affect both the structure and its contents, including animal racks and cages. Housing systems with moving components, such as ventilated caging system blowers, may create vibrations that could affect the animals housed within, especially if not functioning properly. Like noise, vibration varies with intensity, frequency, and duration. A variety of techniques may be used to isolate groundborne (see Chapter 5 ) and equipment-generated vibration ( Carman et al. 2007 ). Attempts should be made to minimize the generation of vibration, including from humans, and excessive vibration should be avoided.

Terrestrial Housing

Microenvironment (primary enclosure).

All animals should be housed under conditions that provide sufficient space as well as supplementary structures and resources required to meet physical, physiologic, and behavioral needs. Environments that fail to meet the animals’ needs may result in abnormal brain development, physiologic dysfunction, and behavioral disorders ( Garner 2005 ; van Praag et al. 2000 ; Würbel 2001 ) that may compromise both animal well-being and scientific validity. The primary enclosure or space may need to be enriched to prevent such effects (see also section on Environmental Enrichment).

An appropriate housing space or enclosure should also account for the animals’ social needs. Social animals should be housed in stable pairs or groups of compatible individuals unless they must be housed alone for experimental reasons or because of social incompatibility (see also section on Behavioral and Social Management). Structural adjustments are frequently required for social housing (e.g., perches, visual barriers, refuges), and important resources (e.g., food, water, and shelter) should be provided in such a way that they cannot be monopolized by dominant animals (see also section on Environmental Enrichment).

The primary enclosure should provide a secure environment that does not permit animal escape and should be made of durable, nontoxic materials that resist corrosion, withstand the rigors of cleaning and regular handling, and are not detrimental to the health and research use of the animals. The enclosure should be designed and manufactured to prevent accidental entrapment of animals or their appendages and should be free of sharp edges or projections that could cause injury to the animals or personnel. It should have smooth, impervious surfaces with minimal ledges, angles, corners, and overlapping surfaces so that accumulation of dirt, debris, and moisture is minimized and cleaning and disinfecting are not impaired. All enclosures should be kept in good repair to prevent escape of or injury to animals, promote physical comfort, and facilitate sanitation and servicing. Rusting or oxidized equipment, which threatens the health or safety of animals, needs to be repaired or replaced. Less durable materials, such as wood, may be appropriate in select situations, such as outdoor corrals, perches, climbing structures, resting areas, and perimeter fences for primary enclosures. Wooden items may need to be replaced periodically because of damage or difficulties with sanitation. Painting or sealing wood surfaces with nontoxic materials may improve durability in many instances.

Flooring should be solid, perforated, or slatted with a slip-resistant surface. In the case of perforated or slatted floors, the holes and slats should have smooth edges. Their size and spacing need to be commensurate with the size of the housed animal to minimize injury and the development of foot lesions. If wire-mesh flooring is used, a solid resting area may be beneficial, as this floor type can induce foot lesions in rodents and rabbits ( Drescher 1993 ; Fullerton and Gilliatt 1967 ; Rommers and Meijerhof 1996 ). The size and weight of the animal as well as the duration of housing on wire-mesh floors may also play a role in the development of this condition ( Peace et al. 2001 ). When given the choice, rodents prefer solid floors (with bedding) to grid or wire-mesh flooring ( Blom et al. 1996 ; Manser et al. 1995 , 1996 ).

Animals should have adequate bedding substrate and/or structures for resting and sleeping. For many animals (e.g., rodents) contact bedding expands the opportunities for species-typical behavior such as foraging, digging, burrowing, and nest building ( Armstrong et al. 1998 ; Ivy et al. 2008 ). Moreover, it absorbs urine and feces to facilitate cleaning and sanitation. If provided in sufficient quantity to allow nest building or burrowing, bedding also facilitates thermoregulation ( Gordon 2004 ). Breeding animals should have adequate nesting materials and/or substitute structures based on species-specific requirements (mice: Sherwin 2002 ; rats: Lawlor 2002 ; gerbils: Waiblinger 2002 ).

Specialized housing systems (e.g., isolation-type cages, IVCs, and gnotobiotic 1 isolators) are available for rodents and certain species. These systems, designed to minimize the spread of airborne particles between cages or groups of cages, may require different husbandry practices, such as alterations in the frequency of bedding change, the use of aseptic handling techniques, and specialized cleaning, disinfecting, or sterilization regimens to prevent microbial transmission by other than airborne routes.

Appropriate housing strategies for a particular species should be developed and implemented by the animal care management, in consultation with the animal user and veterinarian, and reviewed by the IACUC. Housing should provide for the animals’ health and well-being while being consistent with the intended objectives of animal use. Expert advice should be sought when new species are housed or when there are special requirements associated with the animals or their intended use (e.g., genetically modified animals, invasive procedures, or hazardous agents). Objective assessments should be made to substantiate the adequacy of the animal’s environment, housing, and management. Whenever possible, routine procedures for maintaining animals should be documented to ensure consistency of management and care.

Environmental Enrichment

The primary aim of environmental enrichment is to enhance animal well-being by providing animals with sensory and motor stimulation, through structures and resources that facilitate the expression of species-typical behaviors and promote psychological well-being through physical exercise, manipulative activities, and cognitive challenges according to species-specific characteristics ( NRC 1998a ; Young 2003 ). Examples of enrichment include structural additions such as perches and visual barriers for nonhuman primates ( Novak et al. 2007 ); elevated shelves for cats ( Overall and Dyer 2005 ; van den Bos and de Cock Buning 1994 ) and rabbits ( Stauffacher 1992 ); and shelters for guinea pigs ( Baumans 2005 ), as well as manipulable resources such as novel objects and foraging devices for nonhuman primates; manipulable toys for nonhuman primates, dogs, cats, and swine; wooden chew sticks for some rodent species; and nesting material for mice ( Gaskill et al. 2009 ; Hess et al. 2008 ; Hubrecht 1993 ; Lutz and Novak 2005 ; Olsson and Dahlborn 2002 ). Novelty of enrichment through rotation or replacement of items should be a consideration; however, changing animals’ environment too frequently may be stressful.

Well-conceived enrichment provides animals with choices and a degree of control over their environment, which allows them to better cope with environmental stressors ( Newberry 1995 ). For example, visual barriers allow nonhuman primates to avoid social conflict; elevated shelves for rabbits and shelters for rodents allow them to retreat in case of disturbances ( Baumans 1997 ; Chmiel and Noonan 1996 ; Stauffacher 1992 ); and nesting material and deep bedding allow mice to control their temperature and avoid cold stress during resting and sleeping ( Gaskill et al. 2009 ; Gordon 1993 , 2004 ).

Not every item added to the animals’ environment benefits their well-being. For example, marbles are used as a stressor in mouse anxiety studies ( De Boer and Koolhaas 2003 ), indicating that some items may be detrimental to well-being. For nonhuman primates, novel objects can increase the risk of disease transmission ( Bayne et al. 1993 ); foraging devices can lead to increased body weight ( Brent 1995 ); shavings can lead to allergies and skin rashes in some individuals; and some objects can result in injury from foreign material in the intestine ( Hahn et al. 2000 ). In some strains of mice, cage dividers and shelters have induced overt aggression in groups of males, resulting in social stress and injury (e.g., Bergmann et al. 1994 ; Haemisch et al. 1994 ). Social stress was most likely to occur when resources were monopolized by dominant animals ( Bergmann et al. 1994 ).

Enrichment programs should be reviewed by the IACUC, researchers, and veterinarian on a regular basis to ensure that they are beneficial to animal well-being and consistent with the goals of animal use. They should be updated as needed to ensure that they reflect current knowledge. Personnel responsible for animal care and husbandry should receive training in the behavioral biology of the species they work with to appropriately monitor the effects of enrichment as well as identify the development of adverse or abnormal behaviors.

Like other environmental factors (such as space, light, noise, temperature, and animal care procedures), enrichment affects animal phenotype and may affect the experimental outcome. It should therefore be considered an independent variable and appropriately controlled.

Some scientists have raised concerns that environmental enrichment may compromise experimental standardization by introducing variability, adding not only diversity to the animals’ behavioral repertoire but also variation to their responses to experimental treatments (e.g., Bayne 2005 ; Eskola et al. 1999 ; Gärtner 1999 ; Tsai et al. 2003 ). A systematic study in mice did not find evidence to support this viewpoint ( Wolfer et al. 2004 ), indicating that housing conditions can be enriched without compromising the precision or reproducibility of experimental results. Further research in other species may be needed to confirm this conclusion. However, it has been shown that conditions resulting in higher-stress reactivity increase variation in experimental data (e.g., Macrì et al. 2007 ). Because adequate environmental enrichment may reduce anxiety and stress reactivity ( Chapillon et al. 1999 ), it may also contribute to higher test sensitivity and reduced animal use ( Baumans 1997 ).

Sheltered or Outdoor Housing

Sheltered or outdoor housing (e.g., barns, corrals, pastures, islands) is a primary housing method for some species and is acceptable in many situations. Animals maintained in outdoor runs, pens, or other large enclosures must have protection from extremes in temperature or other harsh weather conditions and adequate opportunities for retreat (for subordinate animals). These goals can normally be achieved by providing windbreaks, species-appropriate shelters, shaded areas, areas with forced ventilation, heat-radiating structures, and/or means of retreat to conditioned spaces, such as an indoor portion of a run. Shelters should be large enough to accommodate all animals housed in the enclosure, be accessible at all times to all animals, have sufficient ventilation, and be designed to prevent buildup of waste materials and excessive moisture. Houses, dens, boxes, shelves, perches, and other furnishings should be constructed in a manner and made of materials that allow cleaning or replacement in accord with generally accepted husbandry practices.

Floors or ground-level surfaces of outdoor housing facilities may be covered with dirt, absorbent bedding, sand, gravel, grass, or similar material that can be removed or replaced when needed to ensure appropriate sanitation. Excessive buildup of animal waste and stagnant water should be avoided by, for example, using contoured or drained surfaces. Other surfaces should be able to withstand the elements and be easily maintained.

Successful management of outdoor housing relies on stable social groups of compatible animals; sufficient and species-appropriate feeding and resting places; an adequate acclimation period in advance of seasonal changes when animals are first introduced to outdoor housing; training of animals to cooperate with veterinary and investigative personnel (e.g., to enter chutes or cages for restraint or transport); and adequate security via a perimeter fence or other means.

Naturalistic Environments

Areas such as pastures and islands may provide a suitable environment for maintaining or producing animals and for some types of research. Their use results in the loss of some control over nutrition, health care and surveillance, and pedigree management. These limitations should be balanced against the benefits of having the animals live in more natural conditions. Animals should be added to, removed from, and returned to social groups in this setting with appropriate consideration of the effects on the individual animals and on the group. Adequate supplies of food, fresh water, and natural or constructed shelter should be ensured.

General Considerations for All Animals An animal’s space needs are complex and consideration of only the animal’s body weight or surface area may be inadequate. Important considerations for determining space needs include the age and sex of the animal(s), the number of animals to be cohoused and the duration of the accommodation, the use for which the animals are intended (e.g., production vs. experimentation), and any special needs they may have (e.g., vertical space for arboreal species or thermal gradient for poikilotherms). In many cases, for example, adolescent animals, which usually weigh less than adults but are more active, may require more space relative to body weight ( Ikemoto and Panksepp 1992 ). Group-housed, social animals can share space such that the amount of space required per animal may decrease with increasing group size; thus larger groups may be housed at slightly higher stocking densities than smaller groups or individual animals. Socially housed animals should have sufficient space and structural complexity to allow them to escape aggression or hide from other animals in the pair or group. Breeding animals will require more space, particularly if neonatal animals will be raised together with their mother or as a breeding group until weaning age. Space quality also affects its usability. Enclosures that are complex and environmentally enriched may increase activity and facilitate the expression of species-specific behaviors, thereby increasing space needs. Thus there is no ideal formula for calculating an animal’s space needs based only on body size or weight and readers should take the performance indices discussed in this section into consideration when utilizing the species-specific guidelines presented in the following pages.

Consideration of floor area alone may not be sufficient in determining adequate cage size; with some species, cage volume and spatial arrangement may be of greater importance. In this regard, the Guide may differ from the US Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs) or other guidelines. The height of an enclosure can be important to allow for expression of species-specific behaviors and postural adjustments. Cage height should take into account the animal’s typical posture and provide adequate clearance for the animal from cage structures, such as feeders and water devices. Some species—for example, nonhuman primates, cats, and arboreal animals—use the vertical dimensions of the cage to a greater extent than the floor. For these animals, the ability to stand or to perch with adequate vertical space to keep their body, including their tail, above the cage floor can improve their well-being ( Clarence et al. 2006 ; MacLean et al. 2009 ).

Space allocations should be assessed, reviewed, and modified as necessary by the IACUC considering the performance indices (e.g., health, reproduction, growth, behavior, activity, and use of space) and special needs determined by the characteristics of the animal strain or species (e.g., obese, hyperactive, or arboreal animals) and experimental use (e.g., animals in long-term studies may require greater and more complex space). At a minimum, animals must have enough space to express their natural postures and postural adjustments without touching the enclosure walls or ceiling, be able to turn around, and have ready access to food and water. In addition, there must be sufficient space to comfortably rest away from areas soiled by urine and feces. Floor space taken up by food bowls, water containers, litter boxes, and enrichment devices (e.g., novel objects, toys, foraging devices) should not be considered part of the floor space.

The space recommendations presented here are based on professional judgment and experience. They should be considered the minimum for animals housed under conditions commonly found in laboratory animal housing facilities. Adjustments to the amount and arrangement of space recommended in the following tables should be reviewed and approved by the IACUC and should be based on performance indices related to animal well-being and research quality as described in the preceding paragraphs, with due consideration of the AWRs and PHS Policy and other applicable regulations and standards.

It is not within the scope of the Guide to discuss the housing requirements of all species used in research. For species not specifically indicated, advice should be sought from the scientific literature and from species-relevant experts.

Laboratory Rodents Table 3.2 lists recommended minimum space for commonly used laboratory rodents housed in groups. If they are housed singly or in small groups or exceed the weights in the table, more space per animal may be required, while larger groups may be housed at slightly higher densities.

Recommended Minimum Space for Commonly Used Laboratory Rodents Housed in Groups.

Studies have recently evaluated space needs and the effects of social housing, group size, and density ( Andrade and Guimaraes 2003 ; Bartolomucci et al. 2002 , 2003 ; Georgsson et al. 2001 ; Gonder and Laber 2007 ; Perez et al. 1997 ; A.L. Smith et al. 2004 ), age ( Arakawa 2005 ; Davidson et al. 2007 ; Yildiz et al. 2007 ), and housing conditions ( Gordon et al. 1998 ; Van Loo et al. 2004 ) for many different species and strains of rodents, and have reported varying effects on behavior (such as aggression) and experimental outcomes ( Karolewicz and Paul 2001 ; Laber et al. 2008 ; McGlone et al. 2001 ; Rock et al. 1997 ; Smith et al. 2005 ; Van Loo et al. 2001 ). However, it is difficult to compare these studies due to the study design and experimental variables that have been measured. For example, variables that may affect the animals’ response to different cage sizes and housing densities include, but are not limited to, species, strain (and social behavior of the strain), phenotype, age, gender, quality of the space (e.g., vertical access), and structures placed in the cage. These issues remain complex and should be carefully considered when housing rodents.

Other Common Laboratory Animals Tables 3.3 and 3.4 list recommended minimum space for other common laboratory animals and for avian species. These allocations are based, in general, on the needs of pair- or group-housed animals. Space allocations should be reevaluated to provide for enrichment or to accommodate animals that exceed the weights in the tables, and should be based on species characteristics, behavior, compatibility of the animals, number of animals, and goals of the housing situation ( Held et al. 1995 ; Lupo et al. 2000 ; Raje 1997 ; Turner et al. 1997 ). Singly housed animals may require more space per animal than that recommended for group-housed animals, while larger groups may be housed at slightly higher densities. For cats, dogs, and some rabbits, housing enclosures that allow greater freedom of movement and less restricted vertical space are preferred (e.g., kennels, runs, or pens instead of cages). Dogs and cats, especially when housed individually or in smaller enclosures ( Bayne 2002 ), should be allowed to exercise and provided with positive human interaction. Species-specific plans for housing and management should be developed. Such plans should also include strategies for environmental enrichment.

Recommended Minimum Space for Rabbits, Cats, and Dogs Housed in Pairs or Groups.

Recommended Minimum Space for Avian Species Housed in Pairs or Groups.

Nonhuman Primates The recommended minimum space for nonhuman primates detailed in Table 3.5 is based on the needs of pair- or group-housed animals. Like all social animals, nonhuman primates should normally have social housing (i.e., in compatible pairs or in larger groups of compatible animals) ( Hotchkiss and Paule 2003 ; NRC 1998a ; Weed and Watson 1998 ; Wolfensohn 2004 ). Group composition is critical and numerous species-specific factors such as age, behavioral repertoire, sex, natural social organization, breeding requirements, and health status should be taken into consideration when forming a group. In addition, due to conformational differences of animals within groups, more space or height may be required to meet the animals’ physical and behavioral needs. Therefore, determination of the appropriate cage size is not based on body weight alone, and professional judgment is paramount in making such determinations ( Kaufman et al. 2004 ; Williams et al. 2000 ).

Recommended Minimum Space for Nonhuman Primates Housed in Pairs or Groups.

If it is necessary to house animals singly—for example, when justified for experimental purposes, for provision of veterinary care, or for incompatible animals—this arrangement should be for the shortest duration possible. If single animals are housed in small enclosures, an opportunity for periodic release into larger enclosures with additional enrichment items should be considered, particularly for animals housed singly for extended periods of time. Singly housed animals may require more space per animal than recommended for pair- or group-housed animals, while larger groups may be housed at slightly higher densities. Because of the many physical and behavioral characteristics of nonhuman primate species and the many factors to consider when using these animals in a biomedical research setting, species-specific plans for housing and management should be developed. Such plans should include strategies for environmental and psychological enrichment.

Agricultural Animals Table 3.6 lists recommended minimum space for agricultural animals commonly used in a laboratory setting. As social animals, they should be housed in compatible pairs or larger groups of compatible animals. When animals exceed the weights in the table, more space is required. For larger animals (particularly swine) it is important that the configuration of the space allow the animals to turn around and move freely ( Becker et al. 1989 ; Bracke et al. 2002 ). Food troughs and water devices should be provided in sufficient numbers to allow ready access for all animals. Singly housed animals may require more space than recommended in the table to enable them to turn around and move freely without touching food or water troughs, have ready access to food and water, and have sufficient space to comfortably rest away from areas soiled by urine and feces.

Recommended Minimum Space for Agricultural Animals.

Terrestrial Management

Behavioral and social management.

Activity Animal Activity typically implies motor activity but also includes cognitive activity and social interaction. Animals’ natural behavior and activity profile should be considered during evaluation of suitable housing or behavioral assessment.

Animals maintained in a laboratory environment are generally restricted in their activities compared to free-ranging animals. Forced activity for reasons other than attempts to meet therapeutic or approved protocol objectives should be avoided. High levels of repetitive, unvarying behavior (stereotypies, compulsive behaviors) may reflect disruptions of normal behavioral control mechanisms due to housing conditions or management practices ( Garner 2005 ; NRC 1998a ).

Dogs, cats, rabbits, and many other animals benefit from positive human interaction ( Augustsson et al. 2002 ; Bayne et al. 1993 ; McCune 1997 ; Poole 1998 ; Rennie and Buchanan-Smith 2006 ; Rollin 1990 ). Dogs can be given additional opportunities for activity by being walked on a leash, having access to a run, or being moved into areas for social contact, play, or exploration ( Wolff and Rupert 1991 ). Loafing areas, exercise lots, and pastures are suitable for large farm animals, such as sheep, horses, and cattle.

Social Environment Appropriate social interactions among members of the same species (conspecifics) are essential to normal development and well-being ( Bayne et al. 1995 ; Hall 1998 ; Novak et al. 2006 ). When selecting a suitable social environment, attention should be given to whether the animals are naturally territorial or communal and whether they should be housed singly, in pairs, or in groups. An understanding of species-typical natural social behavior (e.g., natural social composition, population density, ability to disperse, familiarity, and social ranking) is key to successful social housing.

Not all members of a social species are necessarily socially compatible. Social housing of incompatible animals can induce chronic stress, injury, and even death. In some species, social incompatibility may be sex biased; for example, male mice are generally more prone to aggression than female mice, and female hamsters are generally more aggressive than male hamsters. Risks of social incompatibility are greatly reduced if the animals to be grouped are raised together from a young age, if group composition remains stable, and if the design of the animals’ enclosure and their environmental enrichment facilitate the avoidance of social conflicts. Social stability should be carefully monitored; in cases of severe or prolonged aggression, incompatible individuals need to be separated.

For some species, developing a stable social hierarchy will entail antagonistic interactions between pair or group members, particularly for animals introduced as adults. Animals may have to be introduced to each other over a period of time and should be monitored closely during this introductory period and thereafter to ensure compatibility.

Single housing of social species should be the exception and justified based on experimental requirements or veterinary-related concerns about animal well-being. In these cases, it should be limited to the minimum period necessary, and where possible, visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile contact with compatible conspecifics should be provided. In the absence of other animals, enrichment should be offered such as positive interaction with the animal care staff and additional enrichment items or addition of a companion animal in the room or housing area. The need for single housing should be reviewed on a regular basis by the IACUC and veterinarian.

Procedural Habituation and Training of Animals Habituating animals to routine husbandry or experimental procedures should be encouraged whenever possible as it may assist the animal to better cope with a captive environment by reducing stress associated with novel procedures or people. The type and duration of habituation needed will be determined by the complexity of the procedure. In most cases, principles of operant conditioning may be employed during training sessions, using progressive behavioral shaping, to induce voluntary cooperation with procedures ( Bloomsmith et al. 1998 ; Laule et al. 2003 ; NRC 2006a ; Reinhardt 1997 ).

Food Animals should be fed palatable, uncontaminated diets that meet their nutritional and behavioral needs at least daily, or according to their particular requirements, unless the protocol in which they are being used requires otherwise. Subcommittees of the National Research Council Committee on Animal Nutrition have prepared comprehensive reports of the nutrient requirements of laboratory animals ( NRC 1977 , 1982 , 1993 , 1994 , 1995a , 1998b , 2000 , 2001 , 2003a , 2006b , 2007 ); these publications consider issues of quality assurance, freedom from chemical or microbial contaminants and natural toxicants in feedstuffs, bioavailability of nutrients in feeds, and palatability.

There are several types of diets classified by the degree of refinement of their ingredients. Natural-ingredient diets are formulated with agricultural products and byproducts and are commercially available for all species commonly used in the laboratory. Although not a significant factor in most instances, the nutrient composition of ingredients varies, and natural ingredients may contain low levels of naturally occurring or artificial contaminants ( Ames et al. 1993 ; Knapka 1983 ; Newberne 1975 ; NRC 1996 ; Thigpen et al. 1999 , 2004 ). Contaminants such as pesticide residues, heavy metals, toxins, carcinogens, and phytoestrogens may be at levels that induce few or no health sequelae yet may have subtle effects on experimental results ( Thigpen et al. 2004 ). Certified diets that have been assayed for contaminants are commercially available for use in select studies, such as preclinical toxicology, conducted in compliance with FDA Good Laboratory Practice standards ( CFR 2009 ). Purified diets are refined such that each ingredient contains a single nutrient or nutrient class; they have less nutrient concentration variability and the potential for chemical contamination is lower. Chemically defined diets contain the most elemental ingredients available, such as individual amino acids and specific sugars ( NRC 1996 ). The latter two types of diet are more likely to be used for specific types of studies in rodents but are not commonly used because of cost, lower palatability, and a reduced shelf life.

Animal colony managers should be judicious when purchasing, transporting, storing, and handling food to minimize the introduction of diseases, parasites, potential disease vectors (e.g., insects and other vermin), and chemical contaminants in animal colonies. Purchasers are encouraged to consider manufacturers’ and suppliers’ procedures and practices (e.g., storage, vermin control, and handling) for protecting and ensuring diet quality. Institutions should urge feed vendors to periodically provide data from laboratory-based feed analyses for critical nutrients. The user should know the date of manufacture and other factors that affect the food’s shelf life. Stale food or food transported and stored inappropriately can become deficient in nutrients. Upon receipt, bags of feed should be examined to ensure that they are intact and unstained to help ensure that their contents have not been potentially exposed to vermin, penetrated by liquids, or contaminated. Careful attention should be paid to quantities received in each shipment, and stock should be rotated so that the oldest food is used first.

Areas in which diets and diet ingredients are processed or stored should be kept clean and enclosed to prevent the entry of pests. Food stocks should be stored off the floor on pallets, racks, or carts in a manner that facilitates sanitation. Opened bags of food should be stored in vermin-proof containers to minimize contamination and to avoid the potential spread of pathogens. Exposure to elevated storage room temperatures, extremes in relative humidity, unsanitary conditions, and insects and other vermin hastens food deterioration. Storage of natural-ingredient diets at less than 21°C (70°F) and below 50% relative humidity is recommended. Precautions should be taken if perishable items—such as meats, fruits, and vegetables and some specialty diets (e.g., select medicated or high-fat diets)—are fed, because storage conditions may lead to variation in food quality.

Most natural-ingredient, dry laboratory animal diets stored properly can be used up to 6 months after manufacture. Nonstabilized vitamin C in manufactured feeds generally has a shelf life of only 3 months, but commonly used stabilized forms can extend the shelf life of feed. Refrigeration preserves nutritional quality and lengthens shelf life, but food storage time should be reduced to the lowest practical period and the manufacturers’ recommendations considered. Purified and chemically defined diets are often less stable than natural-ingredient diets and their shelf life is usually less than 6 months ( Fullerton et al. 1982 ); they should be stored at 4°C (39°F) or lower.

Irradiated and fortified autoclavable diets are commercially available and are commonly used for axenic and microbiologically defined rodents, and immunodeficient animals ( NRC 1996 ). The use of commercially fortified autoclavable diets ensures that labile vitamin content is not compromised by steam and/or heat ( Caulfield et al. 2008 ; NRC 1996 ). But consideration should be given to the impact of autoclaving on pellets as it may affect their hardness and thus palatability and also lead to chemical alteration of ingredients ( Thigpen et al. 2004 ; Twaddle et al. 2004 ). The date of sterilization should be recorded and the diet used quickly.

Feeders should be designed and placed to allow easy access to food and to minimize contamination with urine and feces, and maintained in good condition. When animals are housed in groups, there should be enough space and enough feeding points to minimize competition for food and ensure access to food for all animals, especially if feed is restricted as part of the protocol or management routine. Food storage containers should not be transferred between areas that pose different risks of contamination without appropriate treatment, and they should be cleaned and sanitized regularly.

Management of caloric intake is an accepted practice for long-term housing of some species, such as some rodents, rabbits, and nonhuman primates, and as an adjunct to some clinical, experimental, and surgical procedures (afor more discussion of food and fluid regulation as an experimental tool see Chapter 2 and NRC 2003a ). Benefits of moderate caloric restriction in some species may include increased longevity and reproduction, and decreased obesity, cancer rates, and neurogenerative disorders ( Ames et al. 1993 ; Colman et al. 2009 ; Keenan et al. 1994 , 1996 ; Lawler et al. 2008 ; Weindruch and Walford 1988 ).

Under standard housing conditions, changes in biologic needs commensurate with aging should be taken into consideration. For example, there is good evidence that mice and rats with continuous access to food can become obese, with attendant metabolic and cardiovascular changes such as insulin resistance and higher blood pressure ( Martin et al. 2010 ). These and other changes along with a more sedentary lifestyle and lack of exercise increase the risk of premature death (ibid.). Caloric management, which may affect physiologic adaptations and alter metabolic responses in a species-specific manner ( Leveille and Hanson 1966 ), can be achieved by reducing food intake or by stimulating exercise.

In some species (e.g., nonhuman primates) and on some occasions, varying nutritionally balanced diets and providing “treats,” including fresh fruit and vegetables, can be appropriate and improve well-being. Scattering food in the bedding or presenting part of the diet in ways that require the animals to work for it (e.g., puzzle feeders for nonhuman primates) gives the animals the opportunity to forage, which, in nature, normally accounts for a large proportion of their daily activity. A diet should be nutritionally balanced; it is well documented that many animals offered a choice of unbalanced or balanced foods do not select a balanced diet and become malnourished or obese through selection of high-energy, low-protein foods ( Moore 1987 ). Abrupt changes in diet, which can be difficult to avoid at weaning, should be minimized because they can lead to digestive and metabolic disturbances; these changes occur in omnivores and carnivores, but herbivores ( Eadie and Mann 1970 ) are especially sensitive.

Water Animals should have access to potable, uncontaminated drinking water according to their particular requirements. Water quality and the definition of potable water can vary with locality ( Homberger et al. 1993 ). Periodic monitoring for pH, hardness, and microbial or chemical contamination may be necessary to ensure that water quality is acceptable, particularly for use in studies in which normal components of water in a given locality can influence the results. Water can be treated or purified to minimize or eliminate contamination when protocols require highly purified water. The selection of water treatments should be carefully considered because many forms of water treatment have the potential to cause physiologic alterations, reduction in water consumption, changes in microflora, or effects on experimental results ( Fidler 1977 ; Hall et al. 1980 ; Hermann et al. 1982 ; Homberger et al. 1993 ; NRC 1996 ).

Watering devices, such as drinking tubes and automated water delivery systems, should be checked frequently to ensure appropriate maintenance, cleanliness, and operation. Animals sometimes have to be trained to use automated watering devices and should be observed regularly until regular usage has been established to prevent dehydration. It is better to replace water bottles than to refill them, because of the potential for microbiologic cross contamination; if bottles are refilled, care should be taken to return each bottle to the cage from which it was removed. Automated watering distribution systems should be flushed or disinfected regularly. Animals housed in outdoor facilities may have access to water in addition to that provided in watering devices, such as that available in streams or in puddles after a heavy rainfall. Care should be taken to ensure that such accessory sources of water do not constitute a hazard, but their availability need not routinely be prevented. In cold weather, steps should be taken to prevent freezing of outdoor water sources.

Bedding and Nesting Materials Animal bedding and nesting materials are controllable environmental factors that can influence experimental data and improve animal well-being in most terrestrial species. Bedding is used to absorb moisture, minimize the growth of microorganisms, and dilute and limit animals’ contact with excreta, and specific bedding materials have been shown to reduce the accumulation of intracage ammonia ( Perkins and Lipman 1995 ; E. Smith et al. 2004 ). Various materials are used as both contact and noncontact bedding; the desirable characteristics and methods of evaluating bedding have been described ( Gibson et al. 1987 ; Jones 1977 ; Kraft 1980 ; Thigpen et al. 1989 ; Weichbrod et al. 1986 ). The veterinarian or facility manager, in consultation with investigators, should select the most appropriate bedding and nesting materials. A number of species, most notably rodents, exhibit a clear preference for specific materials ( Blom et al. 1996 ; Manser et al. 1997 , 1998 ; Ras et al. 2002 ), and mice provided with appropriate nesting material build better nests ( Hess et al. 2008 ). Bedding that enables burrowing is encouraged for some species, such as mice and hamsters.

No type of bedding is ideal for all species under all management and experimental conditions. For example, in nude or hairless mice that lack eyelashes, some forms of paper bedding with fines (i.e., very small particles found in certain types of bedding) can result in periorbital abscesses ( White et al. 2008 ), while cotton nestlets may lead to conjunctivitis ( Bazille et al. 2001 ). Bedding can also influence mucosal immunity ( Sanford et al. 2002 ) and endocytosis ( Buddaraju and Van Dyke 2003 ).

Softwood beddings have been used, but the use of untreated softwood shavings and chips is contraindicated for some protocols because they can affect metabolism ( Vesell 1967 ; Vesell et al. 1973 , 1976 ). Cedar shavings are not recommended because they emit aromatic hydrocarbons that induce hepatic microsomal enzymes and cytotoxicity ( Torronen et al. 1989 ; Weichbrod et al. 1986 , 1988 ) and have been reported to increase the incidence of cancer ( Jacobs and Dieter 1978 ; Vlahakis 1977 ). Prior treatment with high heat (kiln drying or autoclaving) may, depending on the material and the concentration of aromatic hydrocarbon constituents, reduce the concentration of volatile organic compounds, but the amounts remaining may be sufficient to affect specific protocols ( Cunliffe-Beamer et al. 1981 ; Nevalainen and Vartiainen 1996 ).

The purchase of bedding products should take into consideration vendors’ manufacturing, monitoring, and storage methods. Bedding may be contaminated with toxins and other substances, bacteria, fungi, and vermin. It should be transported and stored off the floor on pallets, racks, or carts in a fashion consistent with maintenance of quality and avoidance of contamination. Bags should be stored sufficiently away from walls to facilitate cleaning. During autoclaving, bedding can absorb moisture and as a result lose absorbency and support the growth of microorganisms. Therefore, appropriate drying times and storage conditions should be used or, alternatively, gamma-irradiated materials if sterile bedding is indicated.

Bedding should be used in amounts sufficient to keep animals dry between cage changes, and, in the case of small laboratory animals, it should be kept from coming into contact with sipper tubes as such contact could cause leakage of water into the cage.

Sanitation Sanitation —the maintenance of environmental conditions conducive to health and well-being—involves bedding change (as appropriate), cleaning, and disinfection. Cleaning removes excessive amounts of excrement, dirt, and debris, and disinfection reduces or eliminates unacceptable concentrations of microorganisms. The goal of any sanitation program is to maintain sufficiently clean and dry bedding, adequate air quality, and clean cage surfaces and accessories.

The frequency and intensity of cleaning and disinfection should depend on what is necessary to provide a healthy environment for an animal. Methods and frequencies of sanitation will vary with many factors, including the normal physiologic and behavioral characteristics of the animals; the type, physical characteristics, and size of the enclosure; the type, number, size, age, and reproductive status of the animals; the use and type of bedding materials; temperature and relative humidity; the nature of the materials that create the need for sanitation; and the rate of soiling of the surfaces of the enclosure. Some housing systems or experimental protocols may require specific husbandry techniques, such as aseptic handling or modification in the frequency of bedding change.

Agents designed to mask animal odors should not be used in animal housing facilities. They cannot substitute for good sanitation practices or for the provision of adequate ventilation, and they expose animals to volatile compounds that might alter basic physiologic and metabolic processes.

Bedding/Substrate Change Soiled bedding should be removed and replaced with fresh materials as often as necessary to keep the animals clean and dry and to keep pollutants, such as ammonia, at a concentration below levels irritating to mucous membranes. The frequency of bedding change depends on multiple factors, such as species, number, and size of the animals in the primary enclosure; type and size of the enclosure; macro- and microenvironmental temperature, relative humidity, and direct ventilation of the enclosure; urinary and fecal output and the appearance and wetness of bedding; and experimental conditions, such as those of surgery or debilitation, that might limit an animal’s movement or access to clean bedding. There is no absolute minimal frequency of bedding changes; the choice is a matter of professional judgment and consultation between the investigator and animal care personnel. It typically varies from daily to weekly. In some instances frequent bedding changes are contraindicated; examples include portions of the pre- or postpartum period, research objectives that will be affected, and species in which scent marking is critical and successful reproduction is pheromone dependent.

Cleaning and Disinfection of the Microenvironment The frequency of sanitation of cages, cage racks, and associated equipment (e.g., feeders and watering devices) is governed to some extent by the types of caging and husbandry practices used, including the use of regularly changed contact or noncontact bedding, regular flushing of suspended catch pans, and the use of wire-bottom or perforated-bottom cages. In general, enclosures and accessories, such as tops, should be sanitized at least once every 2 weeks. Solid-bottom caging, bottles, and sipper tubes usually require sanitation at least once a week. Some types of cages and housing systems may require less frequent cleaning or disinfection; such housing may include large cages with very low animal density and frequent bedding changes, cages containing animals in gnotobiotic conditions with frequent bedding changes, individually ventilated cages, and cages used for special situations. Other circumstances, such as filter-topped cages without forced-air ventilation, animals that urinate excessively (e.g., diabetic or renal patients), or densely populated enclosures, may require more frequent sanitation.

The increased use of individually ventilated cages (IVCs) for rodents has led to investigations of the maintenance of a suitable microenvironment with extended cage sanitation intervals and/or increased housing densities ( Carissimi et al. 2000 ; Reeb-Whitaker et al. 2001 ; Schondelmeyer et al. 2006 ). By design, ventilated caging systems provide direct continuous exchange of air, compared to static caging systems that depend on passive ventilation from the macroenvironment. As noted above, decreased sanitation frequency may be justified if the microenvironment in the cages, under the conditions of use (e.g., cage type and manufacturer, bedding, species, strain, age, sex, density, and experimental considerations), is not compromised ( Reeb et al. 1998 ). Verification of microenvironmental conditions may include measurement of pollutants such as ammonia and CO 2 , microbiologic load, observation of the animals’ behavior and appearance, and the condition of bedding and cage surfaces.

Primary enclosures can be disinfected with chemicals, hot water, or a combination of both. 2 Washing times and conditions and postwashing processing procedures (e.g., sterilization) should be sufficient to reduce levels or eliminate vegetative forms of opportunistic and pathogenic bacteria, adventitious viruses, and other organisms that are presumed to be controllable by the sanitation program. Disinfection from the use of hot water alone is the result of the combined effect of the temperature and the length of time that a given temperature (cumulative heat factor) is applied to the surface of the item. The same cumulative heat factor can be obtained by exposing organisms either to very high temperatures for short periods or to lower temperatures for longer periods ( Wardrip et al. 1994 , 2000 ). Effective disinfection can be achieved with wash and rinse water at 143–180°F or more. The traditional 82.2°C (180°F) temperature requirement for rinse water refers to the water in the tank or in the sprayer manifold. Detergents and chemical disinfectants enhance the effectiveness of hot water but should be thoroughly rinsed from surfaces before reuse of the equipment. Their use may be contraindicated for some aquatic species, as residue may be highly deleterious. Mechanical washers (e.g., cage and rack, tunnel, and bottle washers) are recommended for cleaning quantities of caging and movable equipment.

Sanitation of cages and equipment by hand with hot water and detergents or disinfectants can also be effective but requires considerable attention to detail. It is particularly important to ensure that surfaces are rinsed free of residual chemicals and that personnel have appropriate equipment to protect themselves from exposure to hot water or chemical agents used in the process.

Water bottles, sipper tubes, stoppers, feeders, and other small pieces of equipment should be washed with detergents and/or hot water and, where appropriate, chemical agents to destroy microorganisms. Cleaning with ultrasound may be a useful method for small pieces of equipment.

If automated watering systems are used, some mechanism to ensure that microorganisms and debris do not build up in the watering devices is recommended ( Meier et al. 2008 ); the mechanism can be periodic flushing with large volumes of water or appropriate chemical agents followed by a thorough rinsing. Constant recirculation loops that use properly maintained filters, ultraviolet lights, or other devices to disinfect recirculated water are also effective. Attention should be given to the routine sanitation of automatic water delivery valves (i.e., lixits) during primary enclosure cleaning.

Conventional methods of cleaning and disinfection are adequate for most animal care equipment. However, it may be necessary to also sterilize caging and associated equipment to ensure that pathogenic or opportunistic microorganisms are not introduced into specific-pathogen-free or immuno-compromised animals, or that experimental biologic hazards are destroyed before cleaning. Sterilizers should be regularly evaluated and monitored to ensure their safety and effectiveness.

For pens or runs, frequent flushing with water and periodic use of detergents or disinfectants are usually appropriate to maintain sufficiently clean surfaces. If animal waste is to be removed by flushing, this will need to be done at least once a day. During flushing, animals should be kept dry. The timing of pen or run cleaning should take into account the normal behavioral and physiologic processes of the animals; for example, the gastrocolic reflex in meal-fed animals results in defecation shortly after food consumption.

Cleaning and Disinfection of the Macroenvironment All components of the animal facility, including animal rooms and support spaces (e.g., storage areas, cage-washing facilities, corridors, and procedure rooms) should be regularly cleaned and disinfected as appropriate to the circumstances and at a frequency based on the use of the area and the nature of likely contamination. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide or chlorine dioxide are effective compounds for room decontamination, particularly following completion of studies with highly infectious agents ( Krause et al. 2001 ) or contamination with adventitious microbial agents.

Cleaning implements should be made of materials that resist corrosion and withstand regular sanitation. They should be assigned to specific areas and should not be transported between areas with different risks of contamination without prior disinfection. Worn items should be replaced regularly. The implements should be stored in a neat, organized fashion that facilitates drying and minimizes contamination or harborage of vermin.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Sanitation Monitoring of sanitation practices should fit the process and materials being cleaned and may include visual inspection and microbiologic and water temperature monitoring ( Compton et al. 2004a , b ; Ednie et al. 1998 ; Parker et al. 2003 ). The intensity of animal odors, particularly that of ammonia, should not be used as the sole means of assessing the effectiveness of the sanitation program. A decision to alter the frequency of cage bedding changes or cage washing should be based on such factors as ammonia concentration, bedding condition, appearance of the cage and animals, and the number and size of animals housed in the cage.

Mechanical washer function should be evaluated regularly and include examination of mechanical components such as spray arms and moving headers as well as spray nozzles to ensure that they are functioning appropriately. If sanitation is temperature dependent, the use of temperature-sensing devices (e.g., thermometers, probes, or temperature-sensitive indicator strips) is recommended to ensure that the equipment being sanitized is exposed to the desired conditions.

Whether the sanitation process is automated or manual, regular evaluation of sanitation effectiveness is recommended. This can be performed by evaluating processed materials by microbiologic culture or the use of organic material detection systems (e.g., adenosine triphosphate [ATP] bioluminescence) and/or by confirming the removal of artificial soil applied to equipment surfaces before washing.

Waste Disposal Conventional, biologic, and hazardous waste should be removed and disposed of regularly and safely ( Hill 1999 ). There are several options for effective waste disposal. Contracts with licensed commercial waste disposal firms usually provide some assurance of regulatory compliance and safety. On-site incineration should comply with all federal, state, and local regulations ( Nadelkov 1996 ).

Adequate numbers of properly labeled waste receptacles should be strategically placed throughout the facility. Waste containers should be leak-proof and equipped with tight-fitting lids. It is good practice to use disposable liners and to wash containers and implements regularly. There should be a dedicated waste storage area that can be kept free of insects and other vermin. If cold storage is used to hold material before disposal, a properly labeled, dedicated refrigerator, freezer, or cold room should be used that is readily sanitized.

Hazardous wastes must be rendered safe by sterilization, containment, or other appropriate means before their removal from the facility ( DHHS 2009 or most recent edition; NRC 1989 , 1995b ). Radioactive wastes should be kept in properly labeled containers and their disposal closely coordinated with radiation safety specialists in accord with federal and state regulations; the federal government and most states and municipalities have regulations controlling disposal of hazardous wastes. Compliance with regulations concerning hazardous-agent use (see Chapter 2 ) and disposal is an institutional responsibility.

Infectious animal carcasses can be incinerated on site or collected by a licensed contractor. Use of chemical digesters (alkaline hydrolysis treatment) may be considered in some situations ( Kaye et al. 1998 ; Murphy et al. 2009 ). Procedures for on-site packaging, labeling, transportation, and storage of these wastes should be integrated into occupational health and safety policies ( Richmond et al. 2003 ).

Hazardous wastes that are toxic, carcinogenic, flammable, corrosive, reactive, or otherwise unstable should be placed in properly labeled containers and disposed of as recommended by occupational health and safety specialists. In some circumstances, these wastes can be consolidated or blended. Sharps and glass should be disposed of in a manner that will prevent injury to waste handlers.

Pest Control Programs designed to prevent, control, or eliminate the presence of or infestation by pests are essential in an animal environment. A regularly scheduled and documented program of control and monitoring should be implemented. The ideal program prevents the entry of vermin and eliminates their harborage in the facility ( Anadon et al. 2009 ; Easterbrook et al. 2008 ). For animals in outdoor facilities, consideration should be given to eliminating or minimizing the potential risk associated with pests and predators.

Pesticides can induce toxic effects on research animals and interfere with experimental procedures ( Gunasekara et al. 2008 ). They should be used in animal areas only when necessary and investigators whose animals may be exposed to them should be consulted beforehand. Use of pesticides should be recorded and coordinated with the animal care management staff and be in compliance with federal, state, or local regulations. Whenever possible, nontoxic means of pest control, such as insect growth regulators ( Donahue et al. 1989 ; Garg and Donahue 1989 ; King and Bennett 1989 ; Verma 2002 ) and nontoxic substances (e.g., amorphous silica gel), should be used. If traps are used, methods should be humane; traps that catch pests alive require frequent observation and humane euthanasia after capture ( Mason and Littin 2003 ; Meerburg et al. 2008 ).

Emergency, Weekend, and Holiday Care Animals should be cared for by qualified personnel every day, including weekends and holidays, both to safeguard their well-being and to satisfy research requirements. Emergency veterinary care must be available after work hours, on weekends, and on holidays.

In the event of an emergency, institutional security personnel and fire or police officials should be able to reach people responsible for the animals. Notification can be enhanced by prominently posting emergency procedures, names, or telephone numbers in animal facilities or by placing them in the security department or telephone center. Emergency procedures for handling special facilities or operations should be prominently posted and personnel trained in emergency procedures for these areas. A disaster plan that takes into account both personnel and animals should be prepared as part of the overall safety plan for the animal facility. The colony manager or veterinarian responsible for the animals should be a member of the appropriate safety committee at the institution, an “official responder” in the institution, and a participant in the response to a disaster ( Vogelweid 1998 ).

Population Management

Identification Animal records are useful and variable, ranging from limited information on identification cards to detailed computerized records for individual animals ( Field et al. 2007 ). Means of animal identification include room, rack, pen, stall, and cage cards with written, bar-coded, or radio frequency identification (RFID) information. Identification cards should include the source of the animal, the strain or stock, names and contact information for the responsible investigator(s), pertinent dates (e.g., arrival date, birth date, etc.), and protocol number when applicable. Genotype information, when applicable, should also be included, and consistent, unambiguous abbreviations should be used when the full genotype nomenclature (see below) is too lengthy.

In addition, the animals may wear collars, bands, plates, or tabs or be marked by colored stains, ear notches/punches and tags, tattoos, subcutaneous transponders, and freeze brands. As a method of identification of small rodents, toe-clipping should be used only when no other individual identification method is feasible. It may be the preferred method for neonatal mice up to 7 days of age as it appears to have few adverse effects on behavior and well-being at this age ( Castelhano-Carlos et al. 2010 ; Schaefer et al. 2010 ), especially if toe clipping and genotyping can be combined. Under all circumstances aseptic practices should be followed. Use of anesthesia or analgesia should be commensurate with the age of the animals ( Hankenson et al. 2008 ).

Recordkeeping Records containing basic descriptive information are essential for management of colonies of large long-lived animals and should be maintained for each animal ( Dyke 1993 ; Field et al. 2007 ; NRC 1979a ). These records often include species, animal identifier, sire and/or dam identifier, sex, birth or acquisition date, source, exit date, and final disposition. Such animal records are essential for genetic management and historical assessments of colonies. Records of rearing and housing histories, mating histories, and behavioral profiles are useful for the management of many species, especially nonhuman primates ( NRC 1979a ). Relevant recorded information should be provided when animals are transferred between institutions.

Medical records for individual animals can also be valuable, especially for dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, and agricultural animals ( Suckow and Doerning 2007 ). They should include pertinent clinical and diagnostic information, date of inoculations, history of surgical procedures and postoperative care, information on experimental use, and necropsy findings where applicable.

Basic demographic information and clinical histories enhance the value of individual animals for both breeding and research and should be readily accessible to investigators, veterinary staff, and animal care staff.

Breeding, Genetics, and Nomenclature Genetic characteristics are important with regard to the selection and management of animals for use in breeding colonies and in biomedical research (see Appendix A ). Pedigree information allows appropriate selection of breeding pairs and of experimental animals that are unrelated or of known relatedness.

Outbred animals are widely used in biomedical research. Founding populations should be large enough to ensure the long-term genetic heterogeneity of breeding colonies. To facilitate direct comparison of research data derived from outbred animals, genetic management techniques should be used to maintain genetic variability and equalize founder representations ( Hartl 2000 ; Lacy 1989 ; Poiley 1960 ; Williams-Blangero 1991 ). Genetic variability can be monitored with computer simulations, biochemical markers, DNA markers and sequencing, immunologic markers, or quantitative genetic analyses of physiologic variables ( MacCluer et al. 1986 ; Williams-Blangero 1993 ).

Inbred strains of various species, especially rodents, have been developed to address specific research needs ( Festing 1979 ; Gill 1980 ). When inbred animals or their F1 progeny are used, it is important to periodically monitor genetic authenticity ( Festing 1982 ; Hedrich 1990 ); several methods of monitoring have been developed that use immunologic, biochemical, and molecular techniques ( Cramer 1983 ; Festing 2002 ; Groen 1977 ; Hoffman et al. 1980 ; Russell et al. 1993 ). Appropriate management systems ( Green 1981 ; Kempthorne 1957 ) should be designed to minimize genetic contamination resulting from mutation and mismating.

Genetically modified animals (GMAs) represent an increasingly large proportion of animals used in research and require special consideration in their population management. Integrated or altered genes can interact with species or strain-specific genes, other genetic manipulations, and environmental factors, in part as a function of site of integration, so each GMA line can be considered a unique resource. Care should be taken to preserve such resources through standard genetic management procedures, including maintenance of detailed pedigree records and genetic monitoring to verify the presence and zygosity of transgenes and other genetic modifications ( Conner 2005 ). Cryopreservation of fertilized embryos, ova, ovaries, or spermatozoa should also be considered as a safeguard against alterations in transgenes over time or accidental loss of GMA lines ( Conner 2002 ; Liu et al. 2009 ).

Generation of animals with multiple genetic alterations often involves crossing different GMA lines and can lead to the production of offspring with genotypes that are not of interest to the researcher (either as experimental or control animals) as well as unexpected phenotypes. Carefully designed breeding strategies and accurate genotype assessment can help to minimize the generation of animals with unwanted genotypes ( Linder 2003 ). Newly generated genotypes should be carefully monitored and new phenotypes that negatively affect well-being should be reported to the IACUC and managed in a manner to ensure the animals’ health and well-being.

Accurate recording, with standardized nomenclature when available, of both the strain and substrain or of the genetic background of animals used in a research project is important ( NRC 1979b ). Several publications provide rules developed by international committees for standardized nomenclature of outbred rodents and rabbits ( Festing et al. 1972 ), inbred rats, inbred mice, and transgenic animals ( FELASA 2007 ; Linder 2003 ). In addition, the International Committee on Standardized Genetic Nomenclature for Mice and the Rat Genome and Nomenclature Committee maintain online guidelines for these species ( MGI 2009 ).

• AQUATIC ANIMALS

The variety of needs for fish and aquatic or semiaquatic reptiles and amphibians is as diverse as the number of species considered. This section is intended to provide facility managers, veterinarians, and IACUCs with basic information related to the management of aquatic animal systems ( Alworth and Harvey 2007 ; Alworth and Vazquez 2009 ; Browne et al. 2007 ; Browne and Zippel 2007 ; Denardo 1995 ; DeTolla et al. 1995 ; Koerber and Kalishman 2009 ; Lawrence 2007 ; Matthews et al. 2002 ; Pough 2007 ). Specific recommendations are available in texts and journal reviews, and it will be necessary to review other literature and consult with experienced caregivers for further detail on caring for aquatic species (see Appendix A ).

Aquatic Environment

As with terrestrial systems, the microenvironment of an aquatic animal is the physical environment immediately surrounding it—the primary enclosure such as the tank, raceway, or pond. It contains all the resources with which the animals are in direct contact and also provides the limits of the animals’ immediate environment. The microenvironment is characterized by many factors, including water quality, illumination, noise, vibration, and temperature. The physical environment of the secondary enclosure, such as a room, constitutes the macroenvironment .

Water Quality

The composition of the water ( water quality ) is essential to aquatic animal well-being, although other factors that affect terrestrial microenvironments are also relevant. Water quality parameters and life support systems for aquatic animals will vary with the species, life stage, the total biomass supported, and the animals’ intended use ( Blaustein et al. 1999 ; Fisher 2000 ; Gresens 2004 ; Overstreet et al. 2000 ; Schultz and Dawson 2003 ). The success and adequacy of the system depend on its ability to match the laboratory habitat to the natural history of the species ( Godfrey and Sanders 2004 ; Green 2002 ; Lawrence 2007 ; Spence et al. 2008 ).

Characteristics of the water that may affect its appropriateness include temperature, pH, alkalinity, nitrogen waste products (ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate), phosphorus, chlorine/bromine, oxidation-reduction potential, conductivity/salinity, hardness (osmolality/dissolved minerals), dissolved oxygen, total gas pressure, ion and metal content, and the established microbial ecology of the tank. Water quality parameters can directly affect animal well-being; different classes, species, and ages in a species may have different water quality needs and sensitivities to changes in water quality parameters.

Routine measurement of various water characteristics (water quality testing) is essential for stable husbandry. Standards for acceptable water quality, appropriate parameters to test, and testing frequency should be identified at the institutional level and/or in individual animal use protocols depending on the size of the aquatic program. Staff managing aquatic systems need to be trained in biologically relevant aspects of water chemistry, how water quality parameters may affect animal health and well-being, how to monitor water quality results, and how water quality may affect life support system function (e.g., biologic filtration).

The specific parameters and frequency of testing vary widely (depending on the species, life stage, system, and other factors), from continuous monitoring to infrequent spot checks. Recently established systems and/or populations, or changes in husbandry procedures, may require more frequent assessment as the system ecology stabilizes; stable environments may require less frequent testing. Toxins from system components, particularly in newly constructed systems, may require special consideration such as leaching of chemicals from construction materials, concrete, joint compounds, and sealants ( DeTolla et al. 1995 ; Nickum et al. 2004 ). Chlorine and chloramines used to disinfect water for human consumption or to disinfect equipment are toxic to fish and amphibians and must be removed or neutralized before use in aquatic systems ( Tompkins and Tsai 1976 ; Wedemeyer 2000 ).

Life Support System

The phrase life support system refers to the physical structure used to contain the water and the animals as well as the ancillary equipment used to move and/or treat the water. Life support systems may be simple (e.g., a container to hold the animal and water) or extremely complex (e.g., a fully automated recirculating system). The type of life support system used depends on several factors including the natural habitat of the species, age/size of the species, number of animals maintained, availability and characteristics of the water required, and the type of research.

Life support systems typically fall into three general categories: recirculating systems where water (all or part) is moved around a system, flow-through systems where water is constantly replaced, or static systems where water is stationary and periodically replenished or replaced. The water may be fresh, brackish, or salt and is maintained at specific temperatures depending on the species’ needs.

The source of water for these systems typically falls into four general categories: treated wastewater (e.g., municipal tap water), surface water (e.g., rivers, lakes, or oceans), protected water (e.g., well or aquifer water), or artificial water (e.g., reverse osmosis or distilled water). Artificial saltwater may be created by adding appropriate salt to freshwater sources. Source water selection should be based on the provision of a consistent or constant supply, incoming biosecurity level requirements, water volumes needed, species selection, and research considerations.

Recirculating systems are common in indoor research settings where high-density housing systems are often needed. Most recirculating systems are designed to exchange a specific volume of water per unit time and periodically introduce fresh water into the system. These systems are the most mechanically advanced, containing biologic filters ( biofilters ) that promote conversion of ammonia to nitrite and nitrate via nitrifying bacteria, protein skimmers (foam fractionators) and particulate filters to remove undissolved and dissolved proteins and particulate matter, carbon filters to remove dissolved chemicals, and ultraviolet or ozone units to disinfect the water. The systems generally contain components to aerate and degas the water (to prevent gas oversaturation) and to heat or cool it, as well as automated dosing systems to maintain appropriate pH and conductivity. Not all elements are present in all systems and some components may accomplish multiple functions. Recirculating systems may be designed so that multiple individual tanks are supplied with treated water from a single source, as is the case with “rack” systems used for zebrafish ( Danio rerio ) and Xenopus laevis and X. tropicalis, as examples ( Fisher 2000 ; Koerber and Kalishman 2009 ; Schultz and Dawson 2003 ).

The development and maintenance of the biofilter is critical for limiting ammonia and nitrite accumulation in recirculating systems. The biofilter must be of sufficient size (i.e., contain a sufficient quantity of bacteria) to be capable of processing the bioload (level of nitrogenous waste) entering the system. The microorganisms supported by the biofilter require certain water quality parameters. Alterations in the aquatic environment (e.g., rapid changes in salinity, temperature, and pH) as well as the addition of chemicals or antimicrobials may significantly affect the microbial ecology of the system and therefore water quality and animal well-being. If damaged, biofilter recovery may take weeks ( Fisher 2000 ). Changes in water quality parameters (e.g., pH, ammonia, and nitrite) may negatively affect animal health and the efficiency of the biofilter, so species sensitive to change in water quality outside of a narrow range require more frequent monitoring.

Continuous or timed flow-through systems can be used where suitable water is available to support the species to be housed (e.g., in aquaculture facilities). These systems may use extremely large volumes of water as it is not reused. The water may be used “as is” or processed before use, for example by removing sediments, excessive dissolved gases, chlorine, or chloramines, and by disinfecting with UV or ozone ( Fisher 2000 ; Overstreet et al. 2000 ). Static systems vary in size from small tanks to large inground ponds, and may use mechanical devices to move and aerate water.

Temperature, Humidity, and Ventilation

The general concepts discussed in the Terrestrial Animals section also apply to the aquatic setting. Most aquatic or semiaquatic species (fish, amphibians, and reptiles) used in research are poikilotherms, which depend, for the most part, on the temperature of their environment to sustain physiologic processes, such as metabolism, reproduction, and feeding behavior ( Browne and Edwards 2003 ; Fraile et al. 1989 ; Maniero and Carey 1997 ; Pough 1991 ). Temperature requirements are based on the natural history of the species and can vary depending on life stage ( Green 2002 ; Pough 1991 ; Schultz and Dawson 2003 ). Water temperature may be controlled at its source, within the life support system, or by controlling the macroenvironment. Some semiopen systems (e.g., raceways by a river) depend on source water temperature and thus enclosure water temperature will vary with that of the source water.

The volume of water contained in a room can affect room temperature, temperature stability, and relative humidity. Likewise the thermal load produced by chiller/heater systems can affect the stability of the macroenvironmental temperature. Air handling systems need to be designed to compensate for these thermal and moisture loads. Macroenvironmental relative humidity levels are generally defined by safety issues and staff comfort, since room humidity is not critical for aquatic species; however, excessive moisture may result in condensation on walls, ceilings, and tank lids, which may support microbial growth and serve as a source of contamination or create a conducive environment for metal corrosion. In a dry environment (e.g., indoor heating during cold weather or outdoor housing in some climates/seasons), evaporation rates may be higher, potentially requiring the addition of large quantities of water to the system and monitoring for increases in salinity/conductivity, contaminants, or other water quality aberrations. Some amphibians and reptiles may need elevated microenvironmental humidity (in excess of 50–70% relative humidity), which may require maintaining elevated macroenvironmental humidity levels ( Pough 1991 ; St. Claire et al. 2005 ).

Room air exchange rates are typically governed by thermal and moisture loads. For fish and some aquatic amphibians, the microenvironmental air quality may affect water quality (i.e., gas exchange), but appropriate life support system design may reduce its importance. Airborne particulates and compounds (e.g., volatile organic compounds and ammonia) may dissolve in tank water and affect animal health ( Koerber and Kalishman 2009 ). As the aerosolization of water can lead to the spread of aquatic animal pathogens (e.g., protozoa, bacteria) within or throughout an aquatic animal facility, this process should be minimized as much as possible ( Roberts-Thomson et al. 2006 ; Wooster and Bowser 2007 ; Yanong 2003 ).

Aquatic and semiaquatic species are often sensitive to changes in photoperiod, light intensity, and wavelength ( Brenner and Brenner 1969 ). Lighting characteristics will vary by species, their natural history, and the research being conducted. Gradual changes in room light intensity are recommended, as rapid changes in light intensity can elicit a startle response in fish and may result in trauma. Some aquatic and semiaquatic species may need full-spectrum lighting and/or heat lamps to provide supplemental heating to facilitate adequate physiological function (e.g., aquatic turtles provided with a basking area; Pough 1991 ).

General concepts discussed in the Terrestrial Animals section apply to aquatic animals. These animals may be sensitive to noise and vibration, which are readily transmitted through water. Species vary in their response and many fish species acclimate to noise and vibration, although these may cause subclinical effects ( Smith et al. 2007 ). Vibration through floors can be reduced by using isolation pads under aquaria racks. Some facilities elect to place major components of the life support system (e.g., filters, pumps, and biofilters) outside the animal rooms to reduce vibration and noise.

Aquatic Housing

The primary enclosure (a tank, raceway, pond, or pen holding water and the animal) defines the limits of an animal’s immediate environment. In research settings, acceptable primary enclosures

• allow for the normal physiological and behavioral needs of the animals, including excretory function, control and maintenance of body temperature, normal movement and postural adjustments, and, where indicated, reproduction. In some poikilothermic reptiles and amphibians, microenvironmental temperature gradients may be needed for certain physiologic functions such as feeding and digestion.
• allow conspecific social interactions (e.g., schooling in fish species).
• provide a balanced, stable environment that supports the animal’s physiologic needs.
• provide the appropriate water quality and characteristics, and permit monitoring, filling, refilling, and changing of water.
• allow access to adequate food and removal of food waste.
• restrict escape or accidental entrapment of animals or their appendages.
• are free of sharp edges and/or projections that could cause injury.
• allow for observation of the animals with minimal disturbance.
• are constructed of nontoxic materials that do not leach toxicants or chemicals into the aquatic environment.
• do not present electrical hazards directly or indirectly.

Environmental Enrichment and Social Housing

Environmental enrichment strategies for many aquatic species are not well established. The implications of a barren versus an enriched environment on well-being, general research, growth, and development are unknown or poorly defined, as is true of individual versus group (social) housing for many species. When used, enrichment should elicit species-appropriate behaviors and be evaluated for safety and utility.

Generally, schooling fish species are housed with conspecifics, and many amphibians, especially anuran species, may be group housed. Aggression in aquatic animals does occur ( van de Nieuwegiessen et al. 2008 ; Speedie and Gerlai 2008 ) and, as for terrestrial animals, appropriate monitoring and intervention may be necessary ( Matthews et al. 2002 ; Torreilles and Green 2007 ). Some species need appropriate substrate (e.g., gravel) to reproduce or need substrate variety to express basic behaviors and maintain health ( Overstreet et al. 2000 ). Improved breeding success in enriched environments has been reported but further research in this area is needed ( Carfagnini et al. 2009 ). For many species (including, e.g., X. laevis ), visual barriers, hides, and shading are appropriate ( Alworth and Vasquez 2009 ; Torreilles and Green 2007 ). Most semiaquatic reptiles spend some time on land (basking, feeding, digesting, and ovipositing) and terrestrial areas should be provided as appropriate.

Sheltered, Outdoor, and Naturalistic Housing

Animals used in aquaculture are often housed in situations that mimic agricultural rearing and may be in outdoor and/or sheltered raceways, ponds, or pens with high population densities. In these settings, where natural predation and mortalities occur, it may be appropriate to measure animal “numbers” by using standard aquaculture techniques such as final production biomass ( Borski and Hodson 2003 ).

Space recommendations and housing density vary extensively with the species, age/size of the animals, life support system, and type of research ( Browne et al. 2003 ; Green 2009 ; Gresens 2004 ; Hilken et al. 1995 ; Matthews et al. 2002 ). In the United States, for example, adult zebrafish ( Danio rerio ) in typical biomedical research settings are generally housed 5 adult fish per liter of water ( Matthews et al. 2002 ), but this housing density varies when breeding and for housing younger animals ( Matthews et al. 2002 ). This guidance is not necessarily relevant for other species of fish, and may change as research advances ( Lawrence 2007 ). X. laevis adults may be housed at 2 liters of water per frog ( NRC 1974 ), but a wide variety of housing systems are currently used in research settings ( Green 2009 ). Institutions, investigators, and IACUC members should evaluate the appropriate needs of each species during program evaluations and facility inspections and continue to review ongoing research in these areas.

Aquatic Management

Behavior and social management.

Visual evaluations of aquatic and semiaquatic animals are typically used for monitoring. To avoid damage to the protective mucus layers of the skin and negative effects on immune function ( De Veer et al. 2007 ; Subramanian et al. 2007 ; Tsutsui et al. 2005 ), handling of these species should be kept to the minimum required ( Bly et al. 1997 ). Appropriate handling techniques vary widely depending on the species, age/size, holding system, and specific research need ( Fisher 2000 ; Matthews et al. 2002 ; Overstreet et al. 2000 ); they should be identified at the facility or individual protocol level.

Latex gloves have been associated with toxicity in some amphibians ( Gutleb et al. 2001 ). The use of appropriate nets by well-trained personnel can reduce skin damage and thus stress. Nets should be cleaned and disinfected appropriately when used in different systems and should be dedicated to animals of similar health status whenever possible.

Exercise and activity levels for aquatic species are minimally described but informed decisions may be extrapolated from studies of behavior of the same or similar species in the wild ( Spence et al. 2008 ). Some aquatic species do not rest and constantly swim; others may rest all or a significant portion of the day. Water flow rates and the provision of hides or terrestrial resting platforms (e.g., for some reptiles and amphibians) need to be appropriate for species and life stage.

Food The general principles relating to feeding of terrestrial animals are applicable to aquatic animals. Food should be stored in a type-appropriate manner to preserve nutritional content, minimize contamination, and prevent entry of pests. Food delivery methods should ensure that all animals are able to access food for a sufficient period of time while minimizing feeding aggression and nutrient loss. Feeding methods and frequency vary widely depending on the species, age/size of species, and type of life support system. Many aquatic or semiaquatic species are not provided with food ad libitum in the tank, and in some cases may not be fed daily.

Commercial diets (e.g., pellets, flakes) are available for certain species and storage time should be based on manufacturer recommendations or follow commonly accepted practices. In aquatic systems, particularly in fish rearing or when maintaining some amphibian and reptile species, the use of live foods (e.g., Artemia sp. larva, crickets, or mealworm beetle larvae) is common. Live food sources need to be maintained and managed to ensure a steady supply and the health and suitability of the organism as a food. Care should be taken to feed a complete diet to avoid nutritional deficiencies.

Water (see also section on Water Quality) Aquatic animals need access to appropriately conditioned water. Fully aquatic animals obtain water in their habitat or absorb it across their gills or skin. Some semiaquatic amphibians and reptiles may need “bowls” of water for soaking and drinking, and water quality should be appropriate (see Terrestrial Animals section). Chlorine or chloramines may be present in tap water at levels that could be toxic to some species.

Substrate Substrates can provide enrichment for aquatic animals by promoting species-appropriate behavior such as burrowing, foraging, or enhanced spawning ( Fisher 2000 ; Matthews et al. 2002 ; Overstreet et al. 2000 ). They may be an integral and essential component of the life support system by providing increased surface area for denitrifying bacteria (e.g., systems with undergravel filtration), and need routine siphoning (i.e., hydrocleaning) to remove organic debris. System design and species needs should be evaluated to determine the amount, type, and presentation of substrate.

Sanitation Sanitation of the aquatic environment in recirculating systems is provided through an appropriately designed and maintained life support system, regular removal of solid waste materials from the enclosure bottom, and periodic water changes. The basic concept of sanitation (i.e., to provide conditions conducive to animal health and welfare) is the same for terrestrial and aquatic systems. However, sanitation measures in aquatic systems differ from those for terrestrial systems because much of the nitrogenous waste (feces and urine) and respiratory output (carbon dioxide) is dissolved in the water.

A properly functioning life support system, designed to process the bioload, will maintain nitrogenous wastes within an acceptable range. Solids may be removed in a variety of ways, depending on the design of the system; generally they are removed by siphoning (hydrocleaning) and/or filtration. Depending on the type, filters need routine cleaning or replacement or, if self-cleaning, proper maintenance; in saltwater systems dissolved proteins may be removed by protein skimmers. Reducing organic solids limits the quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus that need to be removed from the system, both of which can accumulate to levels that are toxic to fish and amphibians. The biologic filter (denitrifying bacteria) typically removes ammonia and nitrite, potential toxins, from aquatic systems. Nitrate, the end product of this process, is less toxic to aquatic animals but at high levels can be problematic; it is generally removed through water changes, although large systems may have a specialized denitrification unit to reduce levels.

Disinfection is usually accomplished through water treatment (e.g., filtration and application of UV light or ozone) and/or water changes. Chlorine and most chemical disinfectants are inappropriate for aquatic systems containing animals as they are toxic at low concentrations; when used to disinfect an entire system or system components, extreme care must be taken to ensure that residual chlorine, chemical, and reactive byproducts are neutralized or removed. The type of monitoring and frequency varies depending on the disinfection method, the system, and the animals.

Algal growth is common in aquatic systems and increases with the presence of nitrogen and phosphorus, particularly in the presence of light. Excessive growth may be an indication of elevated nitrogen or phosphorus levels. Algal species seen with recirculating systems are generally nontoxic, although species capable of producing toxins exist. Algae are typically removed using mechanical methods (i.e., scrubbing or scraping). Limiting algal growth is important to allow viewing of the animals in the enclosure. Cyanobacteria (commonly called blue-green algae) growth is also possible and may be common in freshwater aquaculture. The same factors that promote algae growth also promote cyanobacteria growth. As with algae, while most species are harmless, some species can produce clinically relevant toxic compounds ( Smith et al. 2008 ).

Tank (cage) changing and disinfection are conducted at frequencies using methods that often differ from terrestrial systems. Because waste is dissolved in the water and/or removed as solids by siphoning or filtration, regular changing of tanks is not integral to maintaining adequate hygiene in typical aquatic systems. The frequency of cleaning and disinfection should be determined by water quality, which should permit adequate viewing of the animals, and animal health monitoring. System components such as lids on fish tanks, which may accumulate feed, may require sanitation as often as weekly depending on the frequency and type of feed and the system’s design.

Cleaning and Disinfection of the Macroenvironment As with terrestrial systems, all components of the animal facility, including animal rooms and support spaces (e.g., storage areas, cage-washing facilities, corridors, and procedure rooms), should be regularly cleaned and disinfected as appropriate to the circumstances and at a frequency determined by the use of the area and the nature of likely contamination. Cleaning agents should be chosen and used with care to ensure there is no secondary contamination of the aquatic systems.

Waste Disposal Wastewater treatment and disposal may be necessary in some facilities depending on water volume, quality, and chemical constituents. Local regulations may limit or control the release of wastewater.

Pest Control Terrestrial animal pest control principles apply to aquatic systems but, due to transcutaneous absorption, aquatic and semiaquatic species may be more sensitive to commonly used pest control agents than terrestrial animals. Before use, an appropriate review of chemicals and methods of application is necessary.

Emergency, Weekend, and Holiday Care As with terrestrial species, aquatic animals should receive daily care from qualified personnel who have a sufficient understanding of the housing system to identify malfunctions and, if they are unable to address a system failure of such magnitude that it requires resolution before the next workday, access to staff who can respond to the problem. Automated monitoring systems are available and may be appropriate depending on system size and complexity. Appropriate emergency response plans should be developed to address major system failures.

Identification Identification principles are similar to those for terrestrial animals. Identification criteria are based on the species and housing system. Identification methods available for use in aquatic species include fin clipping, genetic testing ( Matthews et al. 2002 ; Nickum et al. 2004 ), identification tags, subcutaneous injections of elastomeric or other materials ( Nickum et al. 2004 ), individual transponder tags (in animals of sufficient size), and, as applicable, external features such as individual color patterns. Because it can be difficult to individually identify some small aquatic animals throughout their life, group identification may be more appropriate in some situations ( Koerber and Kalishman 2009 ; Matthews et al. 2002 ).

Aquatic Animal Recordkeeping Adequate recordkeeping is necessary in aquatic system management. In general, the same standards used for terrestrial animals apply to aquatic and semiaquatic species, although modifications may be necessary to account for species or system variations ( Koerber and Kalishman 2009 ).

Although many aquatic animals are maintained using group (vs. individual) identification, detailed animal records are still necessary. Animal information that may routinely be captured, particularly in biomedical research with fish, includes species; genetic information (parental stock identification, genetic composition); stock source; stock numbers in system; tank identification; system life support information; breeding; deaths; illnesses; animal transfers within and out of the facility; and fertilization/hatching information ( Koerber and Kalishman 2009 ; Matthews et al. 2002 ). Records should be kept concerning feeding information (e.g., food offered, acceptance), nonexpired food supplies to ensure sustenance of nutritional profile, and any live cultures (e.g., hatch rates and information to ensure suppliers’ recommendations are being met; Matthews et al. 2002 ).

Records of water quality testing for system and source water and maintenance activities of the life support system components are important for tracking and ensuring water quality. The exact water quality parameters tested and testing frequency should be clearly established and will vary with such factors as the type of life support system, animals, and research, as discussed under Water Quality. Detailed tracking of animal numbers in aquatic systems is often possible with accurate records of transfers, breeding, and mortalities ( Matthews et al. 2002 ). In some cases where animals are housed in large groups (e.g., some Xenopus colonies) periodic censuses may be undertaken to obtain an exact count. In large-scale aquaculture research it may be more appropriate to measure biomass of the system versus actual numbers of animals ( Borski and Hodson 2003 ).

• Alworth LC, Harvey SB. IACUC issues associated with amphibian research. ILAR J. 2007; 48 :278–289. [ PubMed : 17592190 ]
• Alworth LC, Vazquez VM. A novel system for individually housing bullfrogs. Lab Anim. 2009; 38 :329–333. [ PubMed : 19773777 ]
• Ames BN, Shigenaga MK, Hagen TM. Review: Oxidants, antioxidants, and the degenerative diseases of aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1993; 90 :7915–7922. [ PMC free article : PMC47258 ] [ PubMed : 8367443 ]
• Anadon A, Martinez-Larranaga MR, Martinez MA. Use and abuse of pyrethrins and synthetic pyrethroids in veterinary medicine. Vet J (UK). 2009; 182 :7–20. [ PubMed : 18539058 ]
• Andrade CS, Guimaraes FS. Anxiolytic-like effect of group housing on stress-induced behavior in rats. Depress Anx. 2003; 18 :149–152. [ PubMed : 14625880 ]
• Apeldoorn EJ, Schrama JW, Mashaly MM, Parmentier HK. Effect of melatonin and lighting schedule on energy metabolism in broiler chickens. Poultry Sci. 1999; 78 :223–229. [ PubMed : 10051035 ]
• Arakawa H. Age dependent effects of space limitation and social tension on open-field behavior in male rats. Physiol Behav. 2005; 84 :429–436. [ PubMed : 15763580 ]
• Armario A, Castellanos JM, Balasch J. Chronic noise stress and insulin secretion in male rats. Physiol Behav. 1985; 34 :359–361. [ PubMed : 3892557 ]
• Armstrong KR, Clark TR, Peterson MR. Use of corn-husk nesting material to reduce aggression in caged mice. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 1998; 37 :64–66. [ PubMed : 12456148 ]
• Augustsson H, Lindberg L, Hoglund AU, Dahlborn K. Human-animal interactions and animal welfare in conventionally and pen-housed rats. Lab Anim. 2002; 36 :271–281. [ PubMed : 12144739 ]
• Azar TA, Sharp JL, Larson DM. Effect of housing rats in dim light or long nights on heart rate. JAALAS. 2008; 47 :25–34. [ PMC free article : PMC2694710 ] [ PubMed : 18702448 ]
• Baer LA, Corbin BJ, Vasques MF, Grindeland RE. Effects of the use of filtered microisolator tops on cage microenvironment and growth rate of mice. 1997. Lab Anim Sci. 1997; 47 :327–329. [ PubMed : 9241640 ]
• Baldwin AL. Effects of noise on rodent physiology. Int J Comp Psychol. 2007; 20 :134–144.
• Barnett SA. Adaptation of mice to cold. Biol Rev. 1965; 40 :5–51. [ PubMed : 14277936 ]
• Barnett SA. Maternal processes in the cold-adaptation of mice. Biol Rev. 1973; 48 :477–508. [ PubMed : 4587819 ]
• Bartolomucci A, Palanza P, Parmigiani S. Group housed mice: Are they really stressed? Ethol Ecol Evol. 2002; 14 :341–350.
• Bartolomucci A, Palanza P, Sacerdote P, Ceresini G, Chirieleison A, Panera AE, Parmigiani S. Individual housing induces altered immuno-endocrine responses to psychological stress in male mice. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2003; 28 :540–558. [ PubMed : 12689611 ]
• Baumans V. Environmental enrichment: Practical applications. Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics. Van Zutphen LFM, Balls M, editors. Elsevier; 1997. pp. 187–197.
• Baumans V. Environmental enrichment for laboratory rodents and rabbits: Requirements of rodents, rabbits, and research. ILAR J. 2005; 46 :162–170. [ PubMed : 15775025 ]
• Baumans V, Schlingmann F, Vonck M, Van Lith HA. Individually ventilated cages: Beneficial for mice and men? Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2002; 41 :13–19. [ PubMed : 11860253 ]
• Bayne KA. Development of the human-research animal bond and its impact on animal well-being. ILAR J. 2002; 43 :4–9. [ PubMed : 11752725 ]
• Bayne KA. Potential for unintended consequences of environmental enrichment for laboratory animals and research results. ILAR J. 2005; 46 :129–139. [ PubMed : 15775022 ]
• Bayne KA, Dexter SL, Hurst JK, Strange GM, Hill EE. Kong Toys for laboratory primates: Are they really an enrichment or just fomites? Lab Anim Sci. 1993; 43 (1):78–85. [ PubMed : 8459682 ]
• Bayne KA, Haines MC, Dexter SL, Woodman D, Evans C. Nonhuman primate wounding prevalence: A retrospective analysis. Lab Anim. 1995; 24 :40–43.
• Bazille PG, Walden SD, Koniar BL, Gunther R. Commercial cotton nesting material as a predisposing factor for conjunctivitis in athymic nude mice. Lab Anim (NY). 2001; 30 :40–42. [ PubMed : 11385733 ]
• Beaumont S. Ocular disorders of pet mice and rats. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract. 2002; 5 :311–324. [ PMC free article : PMC7129127 ] [ PubMed : 12170635 ]
• Becker BA, Christenson RK, Ford JJ, Nienaber JA, DeShazer JA, Hahn GL. Adrenal and behavioral responses of swine restricted to varying degrees of mobility. Physiol Behav. 1989; 45 :1171–1176. [ PubMed : 2554349 ]
• Bell GC. Optimizing laboratory ventilation rates. Labs for the 21st century: Best practice guide. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. [accessed March 30, 2010]. Available at http: ​//labs21century ​.gov/pdf/bp_opt_vent_508.pdf .
• Bellhorn RW. Lighting in the animal environment. Lab Anim Sci. 1980; 30 :440–450. [ PubMed : 7052389 ]
• Bergmann P, Militzer K, Büttner D. Environmental enrichment and aggressive behaviour: influence on body weight and body fat in male inbred HLG mice. J Exp Anim Sci. 1994; 37 :59–78.
• Berson DM, Dunn FA, Takao M. Phototransduction by retinal ganglion cells that set the circadian clock. Science. 2002; 295 :1070–1073. [ PubMed : 11834835 ]
• Besch EL. Environmental quality within animal facilities. Lab Anim Sci. 1980; 30 :385–406. [ PubMed : 6763109 ]
• Blaustein A, Marco A, Quichano C. Sensitivity to nitrate and nitrite in pond-breeding amphibians from the Pacific Northwest, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem J. 1999; 18 :2836–2839.
• Blom HJM, Van Tintelen G, Van Vorstenbosch CJ, Baumans V, Beynen AC. Preferences of mice and rats for types of bedding material. Lab Anim. 1996; 30 :234–244. [ PubMed : 8843048 ]
• Bloomsmith MA, Stone AM, Laule GE. Positive reinforcement training to enhance the voluntary movement of group-housed chimpanzees within their enclosures. Zoo Biol. 1998; 17 :333–341.
• Bly JE, Quiniou SM, Clem LW. Environmental effects on fish immune mechanisms. Dev Biol Stand. 1997; 90 :33–43. [ PubMed : 9270832 ]
• Borski R, Hodson RG. Fish research and the institutional animal care and use committee. ILAR J. 2003; 44 :286–294. [ PubMed : 13130159 ]
• Bracke MBM, Metz JHM, Spruijt BM, Schouten WGP. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows. B: Validation by expert opinion. J Anim Sci. 2002; 80 :1835–1845. [ PubMed : 12162650 ]
• Brainard GC. Illumination of laboratory animal quarters: Participation of light irradiance and wavelength in the regulation of the neuroendocrine system, Science and Animals: Addressing Contemporary Issues. Greenbelt, MD: Scientists Center for Animal Welfare; 1989. pp. 69–74.
• Brainard GC, Vaughan MK, Reiter RJ. Effect of light irradiance and wavelength on the Syrian hamster reproductive system. Endocrinology. 1986; 119 :648–654. [ PubMed : 3732140 ]
• Brenner FJ, Brenner PE. The influence of light and temperature on body fat and reproductive conditions of Rana pipiens . Ohio J Sci. 1969; 69 :305–312.
• Brent L. Feeding enrichment and body weight in captive chimpanzees. J Med Primatol. 1995; 24 (1):12–16. [ PubMed : 7563006 ]
• Briese V, Fanghanel J, Gasow H. Effect of pure sound and vibration on the embryonic development of the mouse. Zentralbl Gynokol. 1984; 106 :378–388. [ PubMed : 6720157 ]
• Broderson JR, Lindsey JR, Crawford JE. The role of environmental ammonia in respiratory mycoplasmosis of rats. Am J Pathol. 1976; 85 :115–127. [ PMC free article : PMC2032551 ] [ PubMed : 970435 ]
• Brown AM, Pye JD. Auditory sensitivity at high frequencies in mammals. Adv Comp Physiol Biochem. 1975; 6 :1–73. [ PubMed : 1092142 ]
• Browne RK, Edwards DL. The effect of temperature on the growth and development of green and golden bell frogs ( Litoria aurea ). J Therm Biol. 2003; 28 :295–299.
• Browne RK, Zippel K. Reproduction and larval rearing of amphibians. ILAR J. 2007; 48 :214–234. [ PubMed : 17592185 ]
• Browne RK, Pomering M, Hamer AJ. High density effects on the growth, development and survival of Litoria aurea tadpoles. Aquaculture. 2003; 215 :109–121.
• Browne RK, Odum RA, Herman T, Zippel K. Facility design and associated services for the study of amphibians. ILAR J. 2007; 48 :188–202. [ PubMed : 17592183 ]
• Buddaraju AKV, Van Dyke RW. Effect of animal bedding on rat liver endosome acidification. Comp Med. 2003; 53 :616–621. [ PubMed : 14727809 ]
• Carfagnini AG, Rodd FH, Jeffers KB, Bruce AEE. The effects of habitat complexity on aggression and fecundity in zebrafish ( Danio rerio ). Environ Biol Fish. 2009; 86 :403–409.
• Carissimi AS, Chaguri LCAA, Teixeira MA, Mori CMC, Macchione M, Sant’Anna ETG, Saldiva PHN, Souza NL, Merusse JBL. Effects of two ventilation systems and bedding change frequency on cage environmental factors in rats ( Rattus norvegicus ). Anim Tech. 2000; 51 :161–170.
• Carman RA, Quimby FW, Glickman GM. The effect of vibration on pregnant laboratory mice. Noise-Con Proc. 2007; 209 :1722–1731.
• Castelhano-Carlos MJ, Sousa N, Ohl F, Baumans V. Identification methods in newborn C57BL/6 mice: A developmental and behavioural evaluation. Lab Anim. 2010; 4 :88–103. [ PubMed : 19854756 ]
• Caulfield CD, Cassidy JP, Kelly JP. Effects of gamma irradiation and pasteurization on the nutritive composition of commercially available animal diets. JAALAS. 2008; 47 :61–66. [ PMC free article : PMC2687132 ] [ PubMed : 19049256 ]
• CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] Title 21, Part 58. Good Laboratory Practice for Non-clinical Laboratory Studies. Washington: Government Printing Office; 2009. [accessed April 1, 2010]. Available at www ​.accessdata.fda.gov ​/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch ​.cfm?CFRPart ​=58andshowFR=1 .
• Chapillon P, Manneche C, Belzung C, Caston J. Rearing environmental enrichment in two inbred strain of mice: 1. Effects on emotional reactivity. Behav Genet. 1999; 29 :41–46. [ PubMed : 10371757 ]
• Cherry JA. The effect of photoperiod on development of sexual behavior and fertility in golden hamsters. Physiol Behav. 1987; 39 :521–526. [ PubMed : 3575500 ]
• Chmiel DJ, Noonan M. Preference of laboratory rats for potentially enriching stimulus objects. Lab Anim. 1996; 30 :97–101. [ PubMed : 8783168 ]
• Clarence WM, Scott JP, Dorris MC, Paré M. Use of enclosures with functional vertical space by captive rhesus monkeys ( Macaca mulatta ) involved in biomedical research. JAALAS. 2006; 45 :31–34. [ PubMed : 16995644 ]
• Clough G. Environmental effects on animals used in biomedical research. Biol Rev. 1982; 57 :487–523. [ PubMed : 6982731 ]
• Colman RJ, Anderson RM, Johnson SC, Kastman EK, Kosmatka KJ, Beasley TM, Allison DB, Cruzen C, Simmons HA, Kemnitz JW, Weindruch R. Caloric restriction delays disease onset and mortality in rhesus monkeys. Science. 2009; 325 :201–204. [ PMC free article : PMC2812811 ] [ PubMed : 19590001 ]
• Compton SR, Homberger FR, MacArthur Clark J. Microbiological monitoring in individually ventilated cage systems. Lab Anim. 2004; 33 :36–41. [ PMC free article : PMC7091582 ] [ PubMed : 15514655 ]
• Compton SR, Homberger FR, Paturzo FX, MacArthur Clark J. Efficacy of three microbiological monitoring methods in a ventilated cage rack. Comp Med. 2004; 54 :382–392. [ PubMed : 15357318 ]
• Conner DA. Mouse colony management. Curr Protoc Mol Biol. 2002;(suppl 57):23.8.1–23.8.11. [ PubMed : 18265310 ]
• Conner DA. Transgenic mouse colony management. Curr Protoc Mol Biol. 2005;(suppl 71):23.10.1–23.10.8. [ PubMed : 18265361 ]
• Corning BF, Lipman NS. A comparison of rodent caging system based on microenvironmental parameters. Lab Anim Sci. 1991; 41 :498–503. [ PubMed : 1666157 ]
• Cramer DV. Genetic monitoring techniques in rats. ILAR News. 1983; 26 :15–19.
• Crippa L, Gobbi A, Ceruti RM. Ringtail in suckling Munich Wistar Frömter rats: A histopathologic study. Comp Med. 2000; 50 :536–539. [ PubMed : 11099138 ]
• Cunliffe-Beamer TL, Freeman LC, Myers DD. Barbiturate sleep time in mice exposed to autoclaved or unautoclaved wood beddings. Lab Anim Sci. 1981; 31 :672–675. [ PubMed : 7343764 ]
• Davidson LP, Chedester AL, Cole MN. Effects of cage density on behavior in young adult mice. Comp Med. 2007; 57 :355–359. [ PubMed : 17803049 ]
• De Boer SF, Koolhaas JM. Defensive burying in rodents: Ethology, neurobiology and psychopharmacology. Eur J Pharmacol. 2003; 463 :145–161. [ PubMed : 12600707 ]
• De Veer MJ, Kemp JM, Meeusen ENT. The innate host defence against nematode parasites. Parasite Immunol. 2007; 29 :1–9. [ PubMed : 17187650 ]
• Denardo D. Amphibians as laboratory animals. ILAR J. 1995; 37 :173–181. [ PubMed : 11528036 ]
• DeTolla LJ, Sriniva S, Whitaker BR, Andrews C, Hecker B, Kane AS, Reimschuessel R. Guidelines for the care and use of fish in research. ILAR J. 1995; 37 :159–172. [ PubMed : 11528035 ]
• DHHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Chosewood LC, Wilson DE, editors. Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. 5th ed. Washington: Government Printing Office; 2009. [accessed July 30, 2010]. Available at http://www ​.cdc.gov/biosafety ​/publications/bmbl5/index.htm .
• DiBerardinis L, Greenley P, Labosky M. Laboratory air changes: What is all the hot air about? J Chem Health Safety. 2009; 16 :7–13.
• Donahue WA, VanGundy DN, Satterfield WC, Coghlan LJ. Solving a tough problem. Pest Control. 1989; 57 :46–50.
• Drescher B. The effects of housing systems for rabbits with special reference to ulcerative pododermatitis. Tierärztl Umschau. 1993; 48 :72–78.
• Duncan TE, O’Steen WK. The diurnal susceptibility of rat retinal photoreceptors to light-induced damage. Exp Eye Res. 1985; 41 :497–507. [ PubMed : 4085578 ]
• Dyke B. Basic data standards for primate colonies. Am J Primatol. 1993; 29 :125–143. [ PubMed : 31941192 ]
• Eadie JM, Mann SO. Development of the rumen microbial population: High starch diets and instability. Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Phillipson AT, Annison EF, Armstrong DG, Balch CC, Comline RS, Hardy RN, Hobson PN, Keynes RD, editors. Newcastle upon Tyne UK: FRS Oriel Press Ltd; 1970. pp. 335–347.
• Easterbrook JD, Kaplan JB, Glass GE, Watson J, Klein SL. A survey of rodent-borne pathogens carried by wild-caught Norway rats: A potential threat to laboratory rodent colonies. Lab Anim. 2008; 42 :92–98. [ PubMed : 18348770 ]
• Ednie DL, Wilson RP, Lang CM. Comparison of two sanitation monitoring methods in an animal research facility. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 1998; 37 :71–74.
• Erkert HG, Grober J. Direct modulation of activity and body temperature of owl monkeys ( Aotus lemurinus griseimembra ) by low light intensities. Folia Primatol. 1986; 47 :171–188. [ PubMed : 3609970 ]
• Eskola S, Lauhikari M, Voipio HM, Laitinen M, Nevalainen T. Environmental enrichment may alter the number of rats needed to achieve statistical significance. Scand J Lab Anim Sci. 1999; 26 :134–144.
• FELASA [Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations] Working Group. FELASA Guidelines for the production and nomenclature of transgenic rodents. Lab Anim. 2007; 41 :301–311. [ PubMed : 17640457 ]
• Festing MFW. Inbred Strains in Biomedical Research. London: Macmillan; 1979.
• Festing MFW. Genetic contamination of laboratory animal colonies: An increasingly serious problem. ILAR News. 1982; 25 :6–10.
• Festing MFW. Laboratory animal genetics and genetic quality control. Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science. Hau J, Van Hoosier GL Jr, editors. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2002. pp. 173–203.
• Festing MFW, Kondo K, Loosli R, Poiley SM, Spiegel A. International standardized nomenclature for outbred stocks of laboratory animals. ICLA Bull. 1972; 30 :4–17. [ PubMed : 5081464 ]
• Fidler IJ. Depression of macrophages in mice drinking hyperchlorinated water. Nature. 1977; 270 :735–736. [ PubMed : 593395 ]
• Field K, Bailey M, Foresman LL, Harris RL, Motzel SL, Rockar RA, Ruble G, Suckow MA. Medical records for animals used in research, teaching and testing: Public statement from the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. ILAR J. 2007; 48 :37–41. [ PubMed : 17170494 ]
• Fisher JP. Facilities and husbandry (large fish model). The Laboratory Fish San Francisco. Ostrander GK, editor. Academic Press; 2000. pp. 13–39.
• Fletcher JL. Influence of noise on animals. Control of the Animal House Environment. Laboratory Animal Handbooks 7. McSheehy T, editor. London: Laboratory Animals Ltd; 1976. pp. 51–62.
• Fraile B, Paniagua R, Rodrigues MC, Saez J. Effects of photoperiod and temperature on spermiogenesis in marbeled newts ( Triturus marmoratus marmoratus ). Copeia. 1989; 1989 :357–363.
• Fullerton FR, Greenman DL, Kendall DC. Effects of storage conditions on nutritional qualities of semipurified (AIN-76) and natural ingredient (NIH-07) diets. J Nutr. 1982; 112 :567–573. [ PubMed : 7062151 ]
• Fullerton PM, Gilliatt RW. Pressure neuropathy in the hind foot of the guinea pig. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat. 1967; 30 :18–25. [ PMC free article : PMC496214 ] [ PubMed : 4294146 ]
• Garg RC, Donahue WA. Pharmacologic profile of methoprene, an insect growth regulator, in cattle, dogs, and cats. JAVMA. 1989; 194 :410–412. [ PubMed : 2645260 ]
• Garner JP. Stereotypies and other abnormal repetitive behaviors: Potential impact on validity, reliability, and replicability of scientific outcomes. ILAR J. 2005; 46 :106–117. [ PubMed : 15775020 ]
• Garrard G, Harrison GA, Weiner JS. Reproduction and survival of mice at 23°C. J Reprod Fert. 1974; 37 :287–298. [ PubMed : 4824696 ]
• Gärtner K. Cage enrichment occasionally increases deviation of quantitative traits. Proc Int Joint Mtg 12th ICLAS General Assembly and Conference and 7th FELASA Symposium; 1999. pp. 207–210.
• Gaskill BN, Rohr SA, Pajor EA, Lucas JR, Garner JP. Some like it hot: Mouse temperature preferences in laboratory housing. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2009; 116 :279–285.
• Geber WF, Anderson TA, Van Dyne B. Physiologic responses of the albino rat to chronic noise stress. Arch Environ Health. 1966; 12 :751–754. [ PubMed : 5938577 ]
• Georgsson L, Barrett J, Gietzen D. The effects of group-housing and relative weight on feeding behaviour in rats. Scand J Lab Anim Sci. 2001; 28 :201–209.
• Gibson SV, Besch-Williford C, Raisbeck MF, Wagner JE, McLaughlin RM. Organophosphate toxicity in rats associated with contaminated bedding. Lab Anim. 1987; 37 :789–791. [ PubMed : 3437757 ]
• Gill TJ. The use of randomly bred and genetically defined animals in biomedical research. Am J Pathol. 1980; 101 (3S):S21–S32. [ PMC free article : PMC1903646 ] [ PubMed : 6779636 ]
• Godfrey EW, Sanders GW. Effect of water hardness on oocyte quality and embryo development in the African clawed frog ( Xenopus laevis ). Comp Med. 2004; 54 :170–175. [ PubMed : 15134362 ]
• Gonder JC, Laber K. A renewed look at laboratory rodent housing and management. ILAR J. 2007; 48 :29–36. [ PubMed : 17170493 ]
• Gonzalez RR, Kiuger MJ, Hardy JD. Partitional calorimetry of the New Zealand white rabbit at temperatures of 5–35°C. J Appl Physiol. 1971; 31 :728. [ PubMed : 5117188 ]
• Gordon AH, Hart PD, Young MR. Ammonia inhibits phagosome-lysosome fusion in macrophages. Nature. 1980; 286 :79–80. [ PubMed : 6993961 ]
• Gordon CJ. Thermal biology of the laboratory rat. Physiol Behav. 1990; 47 :963–991. [ PubMed : 2201986 ]
• Gordon CJ. Temperature Regulation in Laboratory Animals. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
• Gordon CJ. Effect of cage bedding on temperature regulation and metabolism of group-housed female mice. Comp Med. 2004; 54 :63–68. [ PubMed : 15027620 ]
• Gordon CJ. Temperature and Toxicology: An integrative, comparative and environmental approach. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2005.
• Gordon CJ, Becker P, Ali JS. Behavioral thermoregulatory responses of single- and group-housed mice. Physiol Behav. 1998; 65 :255–262. [ PubMed : 9855474 ]
• Green EL. Genetics and Probability in Animal Breeding Experiments. New York: Oxford University Press; 1981.
• Green SL. Factors affecting oogenesis in the South African clawed frog ( Xenopus laevis ). Comp Med. 2002; 52 :307–312. [ PubMed : 12211272 ]
• Green SL. The Laboratory Xenopus sp (Laboratory Animal Pocket Reference). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2009.
• Greenman DL, Bryant P, Kodell RL, Sheldon W. Influence of cage shelf level on retinal atrophy in mice. Lab Anim Sci. 1982; 32 :353–356. [ PubMed : 7144107 ]
• Gresens J. An introduction to the Mexican axolotl ( Ambystoma mexicanum ). Lab Anim. 2004; 33 :41–47. [ PubMed : 15457201 ]
• Groen A. Identification and genetic monitoring of mouse inbred strains using biomedical polymorphisms. Lab Anim (London). 1977; II :209–214. [ PubMed : 926748 ]
• Gunasekara AS, Rubin AL, Goh KS, Spurlock FC, Tjeerdema RS. Environmental fate and toxicology of carbaryl. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 2008; 196 :95–121. [ PubMed : 19025094 ]
• Gutleb AC, Bronkhorst M, van den Berg JHJ, Musrk AJ. Latex laboratory gloves: An unexpected pitfall in amphibian toxicity assays with tadpoles. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2001; 10 :119–121. [ PubMed : 21782566 ]
• Haemisch A, Voss T, Gärtner K. Effects of environmental enrichment on aggressive behaviour, dominance hierarchies and endocrine states in male DBA/2J mice. Physiol Behav. 1994; 56 :1041–1048. [ PubMed : 7824569 ]
• Hahn NE, Lau D, Eckert K, Markowitz H. Environmental enrichment-related injury in a macaque ( Macaca fascicularis ): Intestinal linear foreign body. Comp Med. 2000; 50 :556–558. [ PubMed : 11099142 ]
• Hall FS. Social deprivation of neonatal, adolescent, and adult rats has distinct neuro-chemical and behavioural consequences. Crit Rev Neurobiol. 1998; 12 :129–162. [ PubMed : 9444483 ]
• Hall JE, White WJ, Lang CM. Acidification of drinking water: Its effects on selected biologic phenomena in male mice. Lab Anim Sci. 1980; 30 :643–651. [ PubMed : 7421112 ]
• Hankenson FC, Garzel LM, Fischer DD, Nolan B, Hankenson KD. Evaluation of tail biopsy collection in laboratory mice ( Mus musculus ): Vertebral ossification, DNA quantity, and acute behavioral responses. JAALAS. 2008; 47 (6):10–18. [ PMC free article : PMC2687139 ] [ PubMed : 19049247 ]
• Hanifin JP, Brainard GC. Photoreception for circadian, neuroendocrine, and neurobehavioral regulation. J Physiol Anthropol. 2007; 26 :87–94. [ PubMed : 17435349 ]
• Hartl DL. A Primer of Population Genetics. 3rd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; 2000.
• Hasenau JJ, Baggs RB, Kraus AL. Microenvironments in microisolation cages using BALB/c and CD-1 Mice. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 1993; 32 :11–16. [ PubMed : 16468687 ]
• Hedrich HJ. Genetic Monitoring of Inbred Strains of Rats. New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag; 1990.
• Heffner HE, Heffner RS. Hearing ranges of laboratory animals. JAALAS. 2007; 46 :20–22. [ PubMed : 17203911 ]
• Held SDE, Turner RJ, Wootton RJ. Choices of laboratory rabbits for individual or group-housing. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1995; 46 :81–91.
• Hermann LM, White WJ, Lang CM. Prolonged exposure to acid, chlorine, or tetracycline in drinking water: Effects on delayed-type hypersensitivity, hemagglutination titers, and reticuloendothelial clearance rates in mice. Lab Anim Sci. 1982; 32 :603–608. [ PubMed : 7162128 ]
• Hess SE, Rohr S, Dufour BD, Gaskill BN, Pajor EA, Garner JP. Home improvement: C57BL/6J mice given more naturalistic nesting materials build better nests. JAALAS. 2008; 47 :25–31. [ PMC free article : PMC2687128 ] [ PubMed : 19049249 ]
• Hilken G, Dimigen J, Iglauer F. Growth of Xenopus laevis under different laboratory rearing conditions. Lab Anim. 1995; 29 :152–162. [ PubMed : 7603001 ]
• Hill D. Safe handling and disposal of laboratory animal waste. Occup Med. 1999; 14 :449–468. [ PubMed : 10329914 ]
• Hoffman HA, Smith KT, Crowell JS, Nomura T, Tomita T. Genetic quality control of laboratory animals with emphasis on genetic monitoring. Animal Quality and Models in Biomedical Research. Spiegel A, Erichsen S, Solleveld HA, editors. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag; 1980. pp. 307–317.
• Homberger FR, Pataki Z, Thomann PE. Control of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in mice by chlorine treatment of drinking water. Lab Anim Sci. 1993; 43 :635–637. [ PubMed : 8158997 ]
• Hotchkiss CE, Paule MG. Effect of pair-housing on operant behavior task performance by rhesus monkeys. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2003; 42 :38–41. [ PubMed : 12906400 ]
• Hubrecht RC. A comparison of social and environmental enrichment methods for laboratory housed dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1993; 37 :345–361.
• Hughes HC, Reynolds S. The use of computational fluid dynamics for modeling air flow design in a kennel facility. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 1995; 34 :49–53. [ PubMed : 16457567 ]
• Ikemoto S, Panksepp J. The effect of early social isolation on the motivation for social play in juvenile rats. Dev Psychobiol. 1992; 25 :261–274. [ PubMed : 1624056 ]
• Ivy AS, Brunson KL, Sandman C, Baram TZ. Dysfunctional nurturing behavior in rat dams with limited access to nesting material: A clinically relevant model for early-life stress. Neuroscience. 2008; 154 :1132–1142. [ PMC free article : PMC2517119 ] [ PubMed : 18501521 ]
• Jacobs BB, Dieter DK. Spontaneous hepatomas in mice inbred from Ha:ICR Swiss stock: Effects of sex, cedar shavings in bedding, and immunization with fetal liver or hepatoma cells. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1978; 61 :1531–1534. [ PubMed : 281561 ]
• Jones DM. The occurrence of dieldrin in sawdust used as bedding material. Lab Anim. 1977; 11 :137. [ PubMed : 865073 ]
• Karolewicz B, Paul IA. Group housing of mice increases immobility and antidepressant sensitivity in the forced swim and tail suspension tests. Eur J Pharmacol. 2001; 415 :97–201. [ PubMed : 11274999 ]
• Kaufman BM, Pouliot AL, Tiefenbacher S, Novak MA. Short- and long-term effects of a substantial change in cage size on individually housed, adult male rhesus monkeys ( Macaca mulatta ). Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2004; 88 :319–330.
• Kaye GI, Weber PB, Evans A, Venezia RA. Efficacy of alkaline hydrolysis as an alternative method for treatment and disposal of infectious animal waste. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 1998; 37 :43–46. [ PubMed : 12456159 ]
• Keenan KP, Smith PF, Soper KA. Effect of dietary (caloric) restriction on aging, survival, pathobiology and toxicology. Pathobiology of the Aging Rat. Notter W, Dungworth DL, Capen CC, editors. Vol. 2. Washington: International Life Sciences Institute; 1994. pp. 609–628.
• Keenan KP, Laroque P, Ballam GC, Soper KA, Dixit R, Mattson BA, Adams SP, Coleman JB. The effects of diet, ad libitum overfeeding, and moderate dietary restriction on the rodent bioassay: The uncontrolled variable in safety assessment. Toxicol Pathol. 1996; 24 :757–768. [ PubMed : 8994307 ]
• Keller LSF, White WJ, Snyder MT, Lang CM. An evaluation of intracage ventilation in three animal caging systems. Lab Anim Sci. 1989; 39 :237–242. [ PubMed : 2724925 ]
• Kempthorne O. An Introduction to Genetic Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1957.
• King JE, Bennett GW. Comparative activity of fenoxycarb and hydroprene in sterilizing the German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae). J Econ Entomol. 1989; 82 :833–838. [ PubMed : 2754096 ]
• Knapka JJ. Nutrition. The Mouse in Biomedical Research, vol III: Normative Biology, Immunology and Husbandry. Foster HL, Small JD, Fox JG, editors. New York: Academic Press; 1983. pp. 52–67.
• Koerber AS, Kalishman J. Preparing for a semi-annual IACUC inspection of a satellite zebrafish ( Danio rerio ) facility. JAALAS. 2009; 48 :65–75. [ PMC free article : PMC2694697 ] [ PubMed : 19245754 ]
• Kraft LM. The manufacture, shipping and receiving, and quality control of rodent bedding materials. Lab Anim Sci. 1980; 30 :366–376. [ PubMed : 6763108 ]
• Krause J, McDonnell G, Riedesel H. Biodecontamination of animal rooms and heat-sensitive equipment with vaporized hydrogen peroxide. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2001; 40 :8–21. [ PubMed : 11703051 ]
• Krohn TC, Hansen AK, Dragsted N. The impact of cage ventilation on rats housed in IVC systems. Lab Anim. 2003; 37 :85–93. [ PubMed : 12689418 ]
• Laber K, Veatch L, Lopez M, Lathers D. The impact of housing density on weight gain, immune function, behavior, and plasma corticosterone levels in BALB/c and C57Bl/6 mice. JAALAS. 2008; 47 :6–23. [ PMC free article : PMC2653995 ] [ PubMed : 18351717 ]
• Lacy RC. Analysis of founder representation in pedigrees: Founder equivalents and founder genome equivalents. Zoo Biol. 1989; 8 :111–123.
• Lanum J. The damaging effects of light on the retina: Empirical findings, theoretical and practical implications. Surv Ophthalmol. 1979; 22 :221–249. [ PubMed : 416513 ]
• Laule GE, Bloomsmith MA, Schapiro SJ. The use of positive reinforcement training techniques to enhance the care, management, and welfare of primates in the laboratory. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2003; 6 :163–173. [ PubMed : 14612265 ]
• Lawler DF, Larson BT, Ballam JM, Smith GK, Biery DN, Evan RH, Greeley EH, Segre M, Stowe HD, Kealy RD. Diet restriction and ageing in the dog: Major observations over two decades. Br J Nutr. 2008; 99 :793–805. [ PubMed : 18062831 ]
• Lawlor MM. Comfortable quarters for rats in research institutions. Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals. 9th ed. Reinhardt V, Reinhardt A, editors. Washington: Animal Welfare Institute; 2002. pp. 26–32.
• Lawrence C. The husbandry of zebrafish ( Danio rerio ): A review. Aquaculture. 2007; 269 :1–20.
• Leveille GA, Hanson RW. Adaptive changes in enzyme activity and metabolic pathways in adipose tissue from meal-fed rats. J Lipid Res. 1966; 7 :46. [ PubMed : 5900221 ]
• Linder CC. Mouse nomenclature and maintenance in genetically engineered mice. Comp Med. 2003; 53 :119–125. [ PubMed : 12784845 ]
• Lipman NS. Strategies for architectural integration of ventilated caging systems. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 1993; 32 :7–10. [ PubMed : 16468686 ]
• Liu L, Nutter LMJ, Law N, McKerlie C. Sperm freezing and in vitro fertilization on three substrains of C57BL/6 mice. JAALAS. 2009; 48 :39–43. [ PMC free article : PMC2694707 ] [ PubMed : 19245749 ]
• Lupo C, Fontani G, Girolami L, Lodi L, Muscettola M. Immune and endocrine aspects of physical and social environmental variations in groups of male rabbits in seminatural conditions. Ethol Ecol Evol. 2000; 12 :281–289.
• Lutz CK, Novak MA. Environmental enrichment for nonhuman primates: Theory and application. ILAR J. 2005; 46 :178–191. [ PubMed : 15775027 ]
• MacCluer JW, VandeBerg JL, Read B, Ryder OA. Pedigree analysis by computer simulation. Zoo Biol. 1986; 5 :147–160.
• MacLean EL, Prior RS, Platt ML, Brannon EM. Primate location preference in a double-tier cage: The effects of illumination and cage height. J Anim Welf Sci. 2009; 12 :73–81. [ PMC free article : PMC3666575 ] [ PubMed : 19107666 ]
• Macrì S, Pasquali P, Bonsignore LT, Pieretti S, Cirulli F, Chiarotti F, Laviola G. Moderate neonatal stress decreases within-group variation in behavioral, immune and HPA responses in adult mice. PLoS One. 2007; 2 (10):e1015. [ PMC free article : PMC2000350 ] [ PubMed : 17925863 ]
• Maniero GD, Carey C. Changes in selected aspects of immune function in leopard frog, Rana pipiens , associated with exposure to cold. J Comp Physiol B. 1997; 167 :256–263. [ PubMed : 9203367 ]
• Manninen AS, Antilla S, Savolainen H. Rat metabolic adaptation to ammonia inhalation. Proc Soc Biol Med. 1998; 187 :278–281. [ PubMed : 3347606 ]
• Manser CE, Morris TH, Broom DM. An investigation into the effects of solid or grid cage flooring on the welfare of laboratory rats. Lab Anim. 1995; 29 :353–363. [ PubMed : 8558816 ]
• Manser CE, Elliott H, Morris TH, Broom DM. The use of a novel operant test to determine the strength of preference for flooring in laboratory rats. Lab Anim. 1996; 30 :1–6. [ PubMed : 8709567 ]
• Manser CE, Broom DM, Overend P, Morris TM. Operant studies to determine the strength of preference in laboratory rats for nest boxes and nest materials. Lab Anim. 1997; 32 :36–41. [ PubMed : 9481692 ]
• Manser CE, Broom DM, Overend P, Morris TM. Investigations into the preferences of laboratory rats for nest boxes and nesting materials. Lab Anim. 1998; 32 :23–35. [ PubMed : 9481691 ]
• Martin B, Ji S, Maudsley S, Mattson MP. “Control” laboratory rodents are metabolically morbid: Why it matters” Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2010; 107 :6127–6133. [ PMC free article : PMC2852022 ] [ PubMed : 20194732 ]
• Mason G, Littin KE. The humaneness of rodent pest control. Anim Welf. 2003; 12 :1–37.
• Matthews M, Trevarrow B, Matthews J. A virtual tour of the guide for zebrafish users. Lab Anim. 2002; 31 :34–40. [ PubMed : 11923859 ]
• McCune S. Enriching the environment of the laboratory cat: A review. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Environmental Enrichment; August 21–25, 1995; Copenhagen Zoo, Denmark. 1997. pp. 103–117.
• McGlone JJ, Anderson DL, Norman RL. Floor space needs for laboratory mice: BALB/cJ males or females in solid-bottom cages with bedding. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2001; 40 :21–25. [ PubMed : 11353520 ]
• Meerburg BG, Brom FWA, Kijlstra A. The ethics of rodent control. Pest Manag Sci. 2008; 64 :1205–1211. [ PubMed : 18642329 ]
• Meier TR, Maute CJ, Cadillac JM, Lee JY, Righter DJ, Hugunin KMS, Deininger RA, Dysko RC. Quantification, distribution, and possible source of bacterial biofilm in mouse automated watering systems. JAVMA. 2008; 42 :63–70. [ PMC free article : PMC2653992 ] [ PubMed : 18351724 ]
• Memarzadeh F, Harrison PC, Riskowski GL, Henze T. Comparisons of environment and mice in static and mechanically ventilated isolator cages with different air velocities and ventilation designs. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2004; 43 :14–20. [ PubMed : 14984284 ]
• MGI [Mouse Genome Informatics] Guidelines for Nomenclature of Genes, Genetic Markers, Alleles, and Mutations in Mouse and Rat. International Committee on Standardized Genetic Nomenclature for Mice and Rat Genome and Nomenclature Committee. 2009. [accessed May 10, 2010]. Available at www ​.informatics.jax.org ​/mgihome/nomen/genes.html .
• Moore BJ. The California diet: An inappropriate tool for studies of thermogenesis. J Nutrit. 1987; 117 :227–231. [ PubMed : 3550006 ]
• Murphy RGL, Scanga JA, Powers BE, Pilon JL, VerCauteren KC, Nash PB, Smith GC, Belk KE. Alkaline hydrolysis of mouse-adapted scrapie for inactivation and disposal of prion-positive material. J Anim Sci. 2009; 87 :1787–1793. [ PubMed : 19098230 ]
• Nadelkov M. EPA impact on pathological incineration: What will it take to comply? Lab Anim. 1996; 25 :35–38.
• NAFA [National Air Filtration Association] NAFA Guide to Air Filtration. 2nd ed. Virginia Beach: 1996.
• NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] Summary of conclusions reached in workshop and recommendations for lighting animal housing modules used in microgravity related projects. Lighting Requirements in Microgravity: Rodents and Nonhuman Primates. NASA Technical Memorandum 101077. Holley DC, Winget CM, Leon HA, editors. Moffett Field, CA: Ames Research Center; 1988. pp. 5–8.
• Nayfield KC, Besch EL. Comparative responses of rabbits and rats to elevated noise. Lab Anim Sci. 1981; 31 :386–390. [ PubMed : 7311465 ]
• Nevalainen T, Vartiainen T. Volatile organic compounds in commonly used beddings before and after autoclaving. Scand J Lab Anim Sci. 1996; 23 :101–104.
• Newberne PM. Influence on pharmacological experiments of chemicals and other factors in diets of laboratory animals. Fed Proc. 1975; 34 :209–218. [ PubMed : 803906 ]
• Newberry RC. Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Appl Anim Beh Sci. 1995; 44 :229–243.
• Newbold JA, Chapin LT, Zinn SA, Tucker HA. Effects of photoperiod on mammary development and concentration of hormones in serum of pregnant dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci. 1991; 74 :100–108. [ PubMed : 2030164 ]
• Nickum JG, Bart HL Jr, Bowser PR. Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society; 2004.
• Njaa LR, Utne F, Braekkan OR. Effect of relative humidity on rat breeding and ringtail. Nature. 1957; 180 :290–291. [ PubMed : 13464821 ]
• Novak MA, Meyer JS, Lutz C, Tiefenbacher S. Deprived environments: Developmental insights from primatology. Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare. Mason G, Rushen J, editors. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2006. pp. 153–189.
• Novak MF, Kenney C, Suomi SJ, Ruppenthal GC. Use of animal-operated folding perches by rhesus macaques ( Macaca mulatta ). JAALAS. 2007; 46 :35–43. [ PubMed : 17994671 ]
• NRC [National Research Council] Amphibians: Guidelines for the Breeding, Care and Management of Laboratory Animals. Washington: National Academy of Sciences; 1974. [ PubMed : 25032435 ]
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Rabbits. 2nd rev ed. Washington: National Academy Press; 1977.
• NRC. Laboratory Animal Records. Washington: National Academy Press; 1979.
• NRC. Laboratory animal management: Genetics. ILAR News. 1979; 23 (1):A1–A16.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Mink and Foxes. 2nd rev ed. Washington: National Academy Press; 1982.
• NRC. Biosafety in the Laboratory: Prudent Practices for the Handling and Disposal of Infectious Materials. Washington: National Academy Press; 1989. [ PubMed : 25032323 ]
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Fish. Washington: National Academy Press; 1993.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev ed. Washington: National Academy Press; 1994.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals. 4th rev ed. Washington: National Academy Press; 1995.
• NRC. Prudent Practices in the Laboratory: Handling and Disposal of Chemicals. Washington: National Academy Press; 1995.
• NRC. Laboratory Animal Management: Rodents. Washington: National Academy Press; 1996.
• NRC. Psychological Well-being of Nonhuman Primates. Washington: National Academy Press; 1998.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. 10th rev ed. Washington: National Academy Press; 1998.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 7th rev ed: Update 2000. Washington: National Academy Press; 2000.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th rev ed. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Nonhuman Primates. 2nd rev ed. Washington: National Academies Press; 2003.
• NRC. Guidelines for the Care and Use of Mammals in Neuroscience and Behavioral Research. Washington: National Academies Press; 2003. [ PubMed : 20669478 ]
• NRC. Preparation of Animals for Use in the Laboratory. ILAR J. 2006; 43 :281–375.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats. Washington: National Academies Press; 2006.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Horses. 6th rev ed. Washington: National Academies Press; 2006.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids. Washington: National Academies Press; 2007.
• Olivier B, Molewijk E, van Oorschot R, van der Poel G, Zethof T, van der Heyden J, Mos J. New animal models of anxiety. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 1994; 4 :93–102. [ PubMed : 7919948 ]
• Olson LC, Palotay JL. Epistaxis and bullae in cynomolgus macaques ( Macaca fascicularis ). Lab Anim Sci. 1983; 33 :377–379. [ PubMed : 6620978 ]
• Olsson IA, Dahlborn K. Improving housing conditions for laboratory mice: A review of “environmental enrichment. Lab Anim. 2002; 36 :243–270. [ PubMed : 12144738 ]
• OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] Occupational Safety and Health Standards. Subpart G, Occupational Health and Environmental Controls, Occupational Noise Exposure (29 CFR 1910.95). Washington: Department of Labor; 1998.
• O’Steen WK. Hormonal influences in retinal photodamage. The Effects of Constant Light on Visual Processes. Williams TP, Baker BN, editors. New York: Plenum Press; 1980. pp. 29–49.
• Overall KL, Dyer D. Enrichment strategies for laboratory animals from the viewpoint of clinical behavioural veterinary medicine: Emphasis on cats and dogs. ILAR J. 2005; 46 :202–215. [ PubMed : 15775029 ]
• Overstreet RM, Barnes SS, Manning CS, Hawkins W. Facilities and husbandry (small fish model). The Laboratory Fish. Ostrander GK, editor. San Francisco: Academic Press; 2000. pp. 41–63.
• Parker A, Wilfred A, Hidell T. Environmental monitoring: The key to effective sanitation. Lab Anim. 2003; 32 :26–29. [ PubMed : 19757613 ]
• Peace TA, Singer AW, Niemuth NA, Shaw ME. Effects of caging type and animal source on the development of foot lesions in Sprague-Dawley rats ( Rattus norvegicus ). Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2001; 40 :17–21. [ PubMed : 11560400 ]
• Pekrul D. Noise control. Handbook of Facilities Planning, vol 2: Laboratory Animal Facilities. Ruys T, editor. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1991. pp. 166–173.
• Pennycuik PR. A comparison of the effects of a range of high environmental temperatures and of two different periods of acclimatization on the reproductive performances of male and female mice. Aust J Exp Biol Med Sci. 1967; 45 :527–532. [ PubMed : 5626366 ]
• Perez C, Canal JR, Dominguez E, Campillo JE, Guillen M, Torres MD. Individual housing influences certain biochemical parameters in the rat. Lab Anim. 1997; 31 :357–361. [ PubMed : 9350707 ]
• Perkins SE, Lipman NS. Characterization and qualification of microenvironmental contaminants in isolator cages with a variety of contact bedding. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 1995; 34 :93–98. [ PubMed : 16457563 ]
• Peterson EA. Noise and laboratory animals. Lab Anim Sci. 1980; 30 :422–439. [ PubMed : 7052388 ]
• Peterson EA, Augenstein JS, Tanis DC, Augenstein DG. Noise raises blood pressure without impairing auditory sensitivity. Science. 1981; 211 :1450–1452. [ PubMed : 7466404 ]
• Pfaff J, Stecker M. Loudness levels and frequency content of noise in the animal house. Lab Anim. 1976; 10 :111–117. [ PubMed : 933460 ]
• Poiley SM. A systematic method of breeder rotation for non-inbred laboratory animal colonies. Proc Anim Care Panel. 1960; 10 :159–166.
• Poole T. Meeting a mammal’s psychological needs. Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Shepherdson DJ, Mellen JD, Hutchins M, editors. Washington: Smithsonian; Institute Press: 1998. pp. 83–94.
• Pough FH. Recommendations for the care of amphibians and reptiles in academic institutions. ILAR J. 1991; 33 :1–16.
• Pough FH. Amphibian biology and husbandry. ILAR J. 2007; 48 :203–213. [ PubMed : 17592184 ]
• Raje S. Group housing for male New Zealand white rabbits. Lab Anim. 1997; 26 :36–38.
• Ras T, van de Ven M, Patterson-Kane EG, Nelson K. Rats’ preferences for corn versus wood-based bedding and nesting materials. Lab Anim. 2002; 36 :420–425. [ PubMed : 12396285 ]
• Rasmussen S, Glickman G, Norinsky R, Quimby F, Tolwani RJ. Construction noise decreases reproductive efficiency in mice. JAALAS. 2009; 48 :263–270. [ PMC free article : PMC2715925 ] [ PubMed : 19653943 ]
• Reeb CK, Jones R, Bearg D, Bedigan H, Myers D, Paigen B. Microenvironment in ventilated cages with differing ventilation rates, mice populations and frequency of bedding changes. JAALAS. 1998; 37 :70–74. [ PubMed : 12456167 ]
• Reeb-Whitaker CK, Paigen B, Beamer WG, Bronson RT, Churchill GA, Schweitzer IB, Myers DD. The impact of reduced frequency of cage changes on the health of mice housed in ventilated cages. Lab Anim. 2001; 35 :58–73. [ PubMed : 11201289 ]
• Reinhardt V. Training nonhuman primates to cooperate during handling procedures: A review. Anim Tech. 1997; 48 :55–73.
• Reme CE, Wirz-Justice A, Terman M. The visual input stage of the mammalian circadian pacemaking system. I: Is there a clock in the mammalian eye? J Biol Rhythms. 1991; 6 :5–29. [ PubMed : 1773080 ]
• Rennie AE, Buchanan-Smith HM. Refinement of the use of non-human primates in scientific research. Part I: The influence of humans. Anim Welf. 2006; 15 :203–213.
• Richmond JY, Hill RH, Weyant RS, Nesby-O’Dell SL, Vinson PE. What’s hot in animal biosafety? ILAR J. 2003; 44 :20–27. [ PubMed : 12473828 ]
• Roberts-Thomson A, Barnes A, Filder DS, Lester RJG, Adlard RD. Aerosol dispersal of the fish pathogen Amyloodinium ocellatum . Aquaculture. 2006; 257 :118–123.
• Rock FM, Landi MS, Hughes HC, Gagnon RC. Effects of caging type and group size on selected physiologic variables in rats. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 1997; 36 :69–72. [ PubMed : 16426025 ]
• Rollin BE. Ethics and research animals: Theory and practice. The Experimental Animal in Biomedical Research, vol I: A Survey of Scientific and Ethical Issues for Investigators. Rollin B, Kesel M, editors. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1990. pp. 19–36.
• Rommers J, Meijerhof R. The effect of different floor types on foot pad injuries of rabbit does. Proceedings of the 6th World Rabbit Science Congress 1996; Toulouse. 1996. pp. 431–436.
• Russell RJ, Festing MFW, Deeny AA, Peters AG. DNA fingerprinting for genetic monitoring of inbred laboratory rats and mice. Lab Anim Sci. 1993; 43 :460–465. [ PubMed : 8277727 ]
• Sales GD. The effect of 22 kHz calls and artificial 38 kHz signals on activity in rats. Behav Proc. 1991; 24 :83–93. [ PubMed : 24923696 ]
• Sales GD, Milligan SR, Khirnykh K. Sources of sound in the laboratory animal environment: A survey of the sounds produced by procedures and equipment. Anim Welf. 1999; 8 :97–115.
• Saltarelli DG, Coppola CP. Influence of visible light on organ weights of mice. Lab Anim Sci. 1979; 29 :319–322. [ PubMed : 502457 ]
• Sanford AN, Clark SE, Talham G, Sidelsky MG, Coffin SE. Influence of bedding type on mucosal immune responses. Comp Med. 2002; 52 :429–432. [ PubMed : 12405635 ]
• Schaefer DC, Asner IN, Seifert B, Bürki K, Cinelli P. Analysis of physiological and behavioural parameters in mice after toe clipping as newborns. Lab Anim. 2010; 44 :7–13. [ PubMed : 19535388 ]
• Schlingmann F, De Rijk SHLM, Pereboom WJ, Remie R. Avoidance as a behavioural parameter in the determination of distress amongst albino and pigmented rats at various light intensities. Anim Tech. 1993; 44 :87–107.
• Schlingmann F, Pereboom W, Remie R. The sensitivity of albino and pigmented rats to light. Anim Tech. 1993; 44 :71–85.
• Schoeb TR, Davidson MK, Lindsey JR. Intracage ammonia promotes growth of mycoplasma pulmonis in the respiratory tract of rats. Infect Immun. 1982; 38 :212–217. [ PMC free article : PMC347721 ] [ PubMed : 7141691 ]
• Schondelmeyer CW, Dillehay DL, Webb SK, Huerkamp MJ, Mook DM, Pullium JK. Investigation of appropriate sanitization frequency for rodent caging accessories: Evidence supporting less-frequent cleaning. JAALAS. 2006; 45 :40–43. [ PubMed : 17089990 ]
• Schultz TW, Dawson DA. Housing and husbandry of Xenopus for oocyte production. Lab Anim. 2003; 32 :34–39. [ PubMed : 12545183 ]
• Semple-Rowland SL, Dawson WW. Retinal cyclic light damage threshold for albino rats. Lab Anim Sci. 1987; 37 :289–298. [ PubMed : 3613508 ]
• Sherwin CM. Comfortable quarters for mice in research institutions. Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals. 9th ed. Reinhardt V, Reinhardt A, editors. Washington: Animal Welfare Institute; 2002. pp. 6–17.
• Smith AL, Mabus SL, Stockwell JD, Muir C. Effects of housing density and cage floor space on C57BL/6J mice. Comp Med. 2004; 54 :656–663. [ PubMed : 15679264 ]
• Smith AL, Mabus SL, Muir C, Woo Y. Effect of housing density and cage floor space on three strains of young adult inbred mice. Comp Med. 2005; 55 :368–376. [ PubMed : 16158912 ]
• Smith E, Stockwell JD, Schweitzer I, Langley SH, Smith AL. Evaluation of cage microenvironment of mice housed on various types of bedding materials. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2004; 43 :12–17. [ PubMed : 15264763 ]
• Smith JL, Boyer GL, Zimba PV. A review of cyanobacterial odorous and bioactive metabolites: Impacts and management alternatives in aquaculture. Aquaculture. 2008; 280 :5–20.
• Smith ME, Kane AD, Popper AN. Noise-induced stress responsive and hearing loss in goldfish ( Carassius auratus ). J Exp Biol. 2007; 207 :427–435. [ PubMed : 14691090 ]
• Speedie N, Gerlai R. Alarm substance induced behavioral responses in zebrafish ( Danio rerio ). Behav Brain Res. 2008; 188 :168–177. [ PMC free article : PMC2715551 ] [ PubMed : 18054804 ]
• Spence R, Gerlach G, Lawrence C, Smith C. The behavior and ecology of the zebrafish, Danio rerio . Biol Rev. 2008; 83 :13–34. [ PubMed : 18093234 ]
• St. Claire MB, Kennett MJ, Thomas ML, Daly JW. The husbandry and care of dendrobatid frogs. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2005; 44 :8–14. [ PubMed : 16370573 ]
• Stauffacher M. Group housing and enrichment cages for breeding, fattening and laboratory rabbits. Anim Welf. 1992; 1 :105–125.
• Stoskopf MK. The physiological effects of psychological stress. Zoo Biol. 1983; 2 :179–190.
• Subramanian S, MacKinnon SL, Ross NW. A comparative study on innate immune parameters in the epidermal mucus of various fish species. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2007; 148 :256–263. [ PubMed : 17618153 ]
• Suckow MA, Doerning BJ. Assessment of veterinary care. The IACUC Handbook. 2nd ed. Silverman J, Suckow MA, Murthy S, editors. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007.
• Terman M, Reme CE, Wirz-Justice A. The visual input stage of the mammalian circadian pacemaking sytem II: The effect of light and drugs on retinal function. J Biol Rhythms. 1991; 6 :31–48. [ PubMed : 1773078 ]
• Thigpen JE, Lebetkin EH, Dawes ML, Clark JL, Langley CL, Amy HL, Crawford D. A standard procedure for measuring rodent bedding particle size and dust content. Lab Anim Sci. 1989; 39 :60–62. [ PubMed : 2918687 ]
• Thigpen JE, Setchell KDR, Ahlmark KB, Locklear J, Spahr T, Caviness GF, Goelz MF, Haseman JK, Newbold RR, Forsythe DB. Phytoestrogen content of purified, open-and closed-formula laboratory animal diets. Lab Anim Sci. 1999; 49 :530–539. [ PubMed : 10551455 ]
• Thigpen JE, Setchell KDR, Saunders HE, Haseman JK, Grant MG, Forsythe DB. Selecting the appropriate rodent diet for endocrine disruptor research and testing studies. ILAR J. 2004; 45 :401–416. [ PubMed : 15454679 ]
• Tompkins JA, Tsai C. Survival time and lethal exposure time for the blacknose dace exposed to free chlorine and chloramines. Trans Am Fish Soc. 1976; 105 :313–321.
• Torreilles SL, Green SL. Refuge cover decreases the incidence of bite wounds in laboratory South African clawed frogs ( Xenopus laevis ). JAALAS. 2007; 46 :33–36. [ PubMed : 17877325 ]
• Torronen R, Pelkonen K, Karenlampi S. Enzyme-inducing and cytotoxic effects of wood-based materials used as bedding for laboratory animals: Comparison by a cell culture study. Life Sci. 1989; 45 :559–565. [ PubMed : 2770416 ]
• Totten M. Ringtail in newborn Norway rats: A study of the effect of environmental temperature and humidity on incidence. J Hygiene. 1958; 56 :190–196. [ PMC free article : PMC2218040 ] [ PubMed : 13563862 ]
• Tsai PP, Stelzer HD, Hedrich HJ, Hackbarth H. Are the effects of different enrichment designs on the physiology and behaviour of DBA/2 mice consistent? Lab Anim. 2003; 37 :314–327. [ PubMed : 14599306 ]
• Tsutsui S, Tasumi S, Suetake H, Kikuchi K, Suzuki Y. Demonstration of the mucosal lectins in the epithelial cells of internal and external body surface tissues in pufferfish ( Fugu rubripes ). Dev Comp Immun. 2005; 29 :243–253. [ PubMed : 15572072 ]
• Tucker HA, Petitclerc D, Zinn SA. The influence of photoperiod on body weight gain, body composition, nutrient intake and hormone secretion. J Anim Sci. 1984; 59 :1610–1620. [ PubMed : 6396293 ]
• Turner JG, Bauer CA, Rybak LP. Noise in animal facilities: Why it matters. JAALAS. 2007; 46 :10–13. [ PubMed : 17203909 ]
• Turner RJ, Held SD, Hirst JE, Billinghurst G, Wootton RJ. An immunological assessment of group-housed rabbits. Lab Anim. 1997; 31 :362–372. [ PubMed : 9350708 ]
• Twaddle NC, Churchwell MI, McDaniel LP, Doerge DR. Autoclave sterilization produces acrylamide in rodent diets: Implications for toxicity testing. J Agric Food Chem. 2004; 52 :4344–4349. [ PubMed : 15212490 ]
• USDA [US Department of Agriculture] 9 CFR 1A. (Title 9, Chapter 1, Subchapter A): Animal Welfare. 1985. [accessed January 14, 2010]. Available at http://ecfr ​.gpoaccess ​.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid ​=8314313bd7adf2c9f1964e2d82a88d92andc=ecfrandtpl= ​/ecfrbrowse ​/Title09/9cfrv1_02.tpl .
• van de Nieuwegiessen PG, Boerlage AS, Verreth JAJ, Schrama AW. Assessing the effects of a chronic stressor, stocking density, on welfare indicators of juvenile African catfish, Clarias gariepinus Burchell. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008; 115 :233–243.
• van den Bos R, de Cock Buning T. Social behaviour of domestic cats ( Felis lybica catus L.): A study of dominance in a group of female laboratory cats. Ethology. 1994; 98 :14–37.
• Van Loo PL, Mol JA, Koolhaas JM, Van Zutphen BM, Baumans V. Modulation of aggression in male mice: Influence of group size and cage size. Physiol Behav. 2001; 72 :675–683. [ PubMed : 11336999 ]
• Van Loo PL, Van de Weerd HA, Van Zutphen LF, Baumans V. Preference for social contact versus environmental enrichment in male laboratory mice. Lab Anim. 2004; 38 :178–188. [ PubMed : 15070458 ]
• van Praag H, Kempermann G, Gage FH. Neural consequences of environmental enrichment. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2000; 1 :191–198. [ PubMed : 11257907 ]
• Verma RK. Advances on cockroach control. Asian J Microbiol, Biotech Environ Sci. 2002; 4 :245–249.
• Vesell ES. Induction of drug-metabolizing enzymes in liver microsomes of mice and rats by softwood bedding. Science. 1967; 157 :1057–1058. [ PubMed : 17770428 ]
• Vesell ES, Lang CM, White WJ, Passananti GT, Tripp SL. Hepatic drug metabolism in rats: Impairment in a dirty environment. Science. 1973; 179 :896–897. [ PubMed : 4687785 ]
• Vesell ES, Lang CM, White WJ, Passananti GT, Hill RN, Clemen TL, Liu DL, Johnson WD. Environmental and genetic factors affecting response of laboratory animals to drugs. Fed Proc. 1976; 35 :1125–1132. [ PubMed : 1261707 ]
• Vlahakis G. Possible carcinogenic effects of cedar shavings in bedding of C3H-A vy fB mice. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1977; 58 :149–150. [ PubMed : 189039 ]
• Vogelweid CM. Developing emergency management plans for university laboratory animal programs and facilities. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 1998; 37 :52–56. [ PubMed : 12456133 ]
• Waiblinger E. Comfortable quarters for gerbils in research institutions. Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals. 9th ed. Reinhardt V, Reinhardt A, editors. Washington: Animal Welfare Institute; 2002. pp. 18–25.
• Wardrip CL, Artwohl JE, Bennett BT. A review of the role of temperature versus time in an effective cage sanitation program. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 1994; 33 :66–68. [ PubMed : 16466230 ]
• Wardrip CL, Artwohl JE, Oswald J, Bennett BT. Verification of bacterial killing effects of cage wash time and temperature combinations using standard penicylinder methods. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2000; 39 :9–12. [ PubMed : 11487222 ]
• Wax TM. Effects of age, strain, and illumination intensity on activity and self-selection of light-dark schedules in mice. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1977; 91 :51–62. [ PubMed : 838917 ]
• Wedemeyer GA. Chlorination/dechlorination. Encyclopaedia of Aquaculture. Stickney RR, editor. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2000. pp. 172–174.
• Weed JL, Watson LM. Pair housing adult owl monkeys ( Aotus sp.) for environmental enrichment. Am J Primatol. 1998; 45 :212.
• Weichbrod RH, Hall JE, Simmonds RC, Cisar CF. Selecting bedding material. Lab Anim. 1986; 15 :25–29.
• Weichbrod RH, Cisar CF, Miller JG, Simmonds RC, Alvares AP, Ueng TH. Effects of cage beddings on microsomal oxidative enzymes in rat liver. Lab Anim Sci. 1988; 38 :296–298. [ PubMed : 3411916 ]
• Weihe WH. Behavioural thermoregulation in mice with change of cooling power of the air. Int J Biometeorol. 1971; 15 :356–361. [ PubMed : 5146834 ]
• Weindruch R, Walford RL. The Retardation of Aging and Disease by Dietary Restriction. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas; 1988.
• White WJ, Hawk CT, Vasbinder MA. The use of laboratory animals in toxicology research. Principles and Methods in Toxicology. 5th ed. Hays AW, editor. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2008. pp. 1055–1101.
• Williams LE, Steadman A, Kyser B. Increased cage size affects Aotus time budgets and partner distances. Am J Primatol. 2000; 51 (Suppl 1):98.
• Williams-Blangero S. Recent trends in genetic research on captive and wild nonhuman primate populations. Yearb Phys Anthropol. 1991; 34 :69–96.
• Williams-Blangero S. Research-oriented genetic management of nonhuman primate colonies. Lab Anim Sci. 1993; 43 :535–540. [ PubMed : 8158976 ]
• Willott JF. Factors affecting hearing in mice, rats, and other laboratory animals. JAALAS. 2007; 46 :23–27. [ PubMed : 17203912 ]
• Wolfensohn S. Social housing of large primates: Methodology for refinement of husbandry and management. Altern Lab Anim. 2004; 32 (Suppl 1A):149–151. [ PubMed : 23577450 ]
• Wolfer DP, Litvin O, Morf S, Nitsch RM, Lipp HP, Würbel H. Laboratory animal welfare: Cage enrichment and mouse behaviour. Nature. 2004; 432 :821–822. [ PubMed : 15602544 ]
• Wolff A, Rupert G. A practical assessment of a nonhuman primate exercise program. Lab Anim. 1991; 20 :36–39.
• Wooster GA, Bowser PR. The aerobiological pathway of a fish pathogen: Survival and disseminaton of Aeromonas salmonicida in aerosols and its implications in fish health management. J World Aquacul Soc. 2007; 27 :7–14.
• Würbel H. Ideal homes? Housing effects on rodent brain and behaviour. Trends Neurosci. 2001; 24 :207–211. [ PubMed : 11250003 ]
• Yanong RPE. Fish health management considerations in recirculating aquaculture systems, part 2: Pathogens. IFAS, University of Florida. 2003. [accessed April 15, 2010]. Available at www ​.aces.edu/dept/fisheries ​/aquaculture/documents ​/fishhealth2.pdf .
• Yildiz A, Hayirli A, Okumus Z, Kaynar O, Kisa F. Physiological profile of juvenile rats: Effects of cage size and cage density. Lab Anim. 2007; 36 :28–38. [ PubMed : 17245386 ]
• Young RJ. Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals, UFAW Animal Welfare Series. London: Blackwell Science; 2003.

Gnotobiotic: germ-free animals or formerly germ-free animals in which the composition of any associated microbial flora, if present, is fully defined (Stedman’s Electronic Medical Dictionary 2006. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins).

Rabbits and some rodents, such as guinea pigs and hamsters, produce urine with high concentrations of proteins and minerals. These compounds often adhere to cage surfaces and necessitate treatment with acid solutions before and/or during washing.

• Cite this Page National Research Council (US) Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th edition. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011. 3, Environment, Housing, and Management.
• PDF version of this title (1.1M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Environment, Housing, and Management - Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory ... Environment, Housing, and Management - Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Paul Krugman

Meat, Freedom and Ron DeSantis

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

It’s possible to grow meat in a lab — to cultivate animal cells without an animal and turn them into something people can eat. However, that process is difficult and expensive. And at the moment, lab-grown meat isn’t commercially available and probably won’t be for a long time, if ever.

Still, if and when lab-grown meat, also sometimes referred to as cultured meat, makes it onto the market at less than outrageous prices, a significant number of people will probably buy it. Some will do so on ethical grounds, preferring not to have animals killed to grace their dinner plates. Others will do so in the belief that growing meat in labs does less damage to the environment than devoting acres and acres to animal grazing. And it’s at least possible that lab-grown meat will eventually be cheaper than meat from animals.

And if some people choose to consume lab-grown meat, why not? It’s a free country, right?

Not if the likes of Ron DeSantis have their way. Recently DeSantis, back to work as governor of Florida after the spectacular failure of his presidential campaign, signed a bill banning the production or sale of lab-grown meat in his state. Similar legislation is under consideration in several states.

On one level, this could be seen as a trivial story — a crackdown on an industry that doesn’t even exist yet. But the new Florida law is a perfect illustration of how crony capitalism, culture war, conspiracy theorizing and rejection of science have been merged — ground together, you might say — in a way that largely defines American conservatism today.

First, it puts the lie to any claim that the right is the side standing firm for limited government; government doesn’t get much more intrusive than having politicians tell you what you can and can’t eat.

Who’s behind the ban? Remember when a group of Texas ranchers sued Oprah Winfrey over a show warning about the risks of mad cow disease that they said cost them millions? It’s hard to imagine that today, meat industry fears about losing market share to lab meat aren’t playing a role. And such concerns about market share aren’t necessarily silly. Look at the rise of plant-based milk, which in 2020 accounted for 15 percent of the milk market.

But politicians who claim to worship free markets should be vehemently opposed to any attempt to suppress innovation when it might hurt established interests, which is what this amounts to. Why aren’t they?

Part of the answer, of course, is that many never truly believed in freedom — only freedom for some. Beyond that, however, meat consumption, like almost everything else, has been caught up in the culture wars.

You saw this coming years ago if you were following the most trenchant source of social observation in our times: episodes of “The Simpsons.” Way back in 1995, Lisa Simpson, having decided to become a vegetarian, was forced to sit through a classroom video titled “Meat and You: Partners in Freedom.”

Sure enough, eating or claiming to eat lots of meat has become a badge of allegiance on the right, especially among the MAGA crowd. Donald Trump Jr. once tweeted , “I’m pretty sure I ate 4 pounds of red meat yesterday,” improbable for someone who isn’t a sumo wrestler .

But even if you’re someone who insists that “real” Americans eat lots of meat, why must the meat be supplied by killing animals if an alternative becomes available? Opponents of lab-grown meat like to talk about the industrial look of cultured meat production, but what do they imagine many modern meat processing facilities look like?

And then there are the conspiracy theories. It’s a fact that getting protein from beef involves a lot more greenhouse gas emissions than getting it from other sources. It’s also a fact that under President Biden, the United States has finally been taking serious action on climate change. But in the fever swamp of the right, which these days is a pretty sizable bloc of Republican commentators and politicians, opposition to Biden’s eminently reasonable climate policy has resulted in an assortment of wild claims, including one that Biden was going to put limits on Americans’ burger consumption.

And have you heard about how global elites are going to force us to start eating insects ?

By the way, I’m not a vegetarian and have no intention of eating bugs. But I respect other people’s choices — which right-wing politicians increasingly don’t.

And aside from demonstrating that many right-wingers are actually enemies, not defenders, of freedom, the lab-meat story is yet another indicator of the decline of American conservatism as a principled movement.

Look, I’m not an admirer of Ronald Reagan, who I believe did a lot of harm as president, but at least Reaganism was about real policy issues like tax rates and regulation. The people who cast themselves as Reagan’s successors, however, seem uninterested in serious policymaking. For a lot of them, politics is a form of live-action role play. It’s not even about “owning” those they term the elites; it’s about perpetually jousting with a fantasy version of what elites supposedly want.

But while they may not care about reality, reality cares about them. Their deep unseriousness can do — and is already doing — a great deal of damage to America and the world.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @ PaulKrugman

Florida bans lab-grown meat as other states weigh it: What's their beef with cultured meat?

Florida gov. ron desantis says the ban on lab-grown meat not only protects the state's cattle farmers, but also thwarts the 'authoritarian goals' of the global elite to make us eat 'fake meat.'.

Florida has become the first state to outlaw the manufacture and distribution of lab-grown meat. But other states including Alabama, Arizona and Tennessee have similar measures cooking.

Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday, May 1, signed into law the bill, which would ban lab-grown meat, also called “cultivated” meat because it's grown from animal stem cells. "Take your fake lab-grown meat elsewhere," he said. "We're not doing that in the state of Florida."

The ban – it does not include Impossible meat , which is made from plant-based ingredients – is meant to protect cattle ranchers and the "integrity of American agriculture," DeSantis said.

But critics call the move misguided for several reasons. For starters, the first cultivated meat regulatory approvals in the U.S. came through less than a year ago.

“No one in the field has yet scaled up to the levels you need to produce food for supermarkets,” David Kaplan, a biomolecular engineer focusing on cellular agriculture at Tufts University, told Scientific American . “There’s not even an industry yet. It’s just fledgling!”

Many meat-alternative companies and supporters consider lab-grown meat as a way to address the environmental and ethical concerns tied to traditional mass-production of meat. Initially, lab-grown meat will cost more than three times as much to produce as natural beef, a 2021 analysis found .

Cinco de Mayo 2024: Food and drink specials include deals at Taco Bell, Chipotle, TGI Fridays, more

However, non-profit think tank Good Food Institute has cited research published in  The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment  forecasting cultivated meat to eventually be nearly three times more efficient than conventional beef production, with the potential to reduce the carbon footprint by 92%, land use by 90%, and water use by 66%. 

Why did Gov. DeSantis ban lab-grown meat?

With the ban, Florida “is fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals,”  DeSantis said in a statement. “Our administration will continue to focus on investing in our local farmers and ranchers, and we will save our beef.”

Beef is pretty big business in Florida. In 2024, the state ranked ninth for beef cattle production with 862,000.  Beef cattle sales and sales of breeding stock generate a total economic impact of more than $900 million annually, according to the  Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

DeSantis made fun of liberals advocating for "fake meat" as a way to combat climate change – and chided global leaders such as those at The World Economic Forum, which has advocated for  insects as an alternative edible protein source  (they are considered delicacies in certain cultures).

Not all lawmakers were on board. When the bill was being debated in the Florida House in March, Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, D-Parkland, said the “food fight” part of the bill “sends a bad message” to researchers and investors about cultivated meat, according to the News Service of Florida.

“I think it will deter future manufacturers from coming to Florida because they don't know what day of the week that the Legislature will be OK with them being in the state of Florida,” Hunschofsky said.

What states have banned lab-grown meat?

So far only Florida. But Alabama , Arizona and Tennessee have recently considered bills banning lab-grown meat .

The Alabama bill, which originated in the state Senate, would “prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution of food products made from cultured animal cells.” The state House passed it April 30, but an amendment requires it goes back to the Senate before being sent to Gov. Kay Ivy, Food Safety magazine reported .

The approved bill, similar to the Florida law, removed a research ban that could affect NASA and the space industry, which is looking at cultivated meat for long-term space missions.

In the Arizona legislature, two different bills passed the House – one banning lab-grown meat and another for tougher meat labeling – but neither made it out of the Senate, Food Safety News reported .

The Tennessee bill, which would ban the sale of cultured meat and impose fines of up to $1 million, was not considered by either house before the General Assembly session ended. But the bill "would be the death knell for (cultured meat)," said its sponsor state senator Frank Niceley, a farmer, The Daily Mail reported . "And in the long run, we'd be a lot better off."

Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell disagrees, arguing that the industry's prospects "offer huge potential benefits."

"To be clear, this is not about a left-wing nanny state forcing the sale or consumption of lab-grown meats," she wrote recently. "It’s about a conservative nanny state prohibiting the voluntary consumption and sale of these products (which again, mostly don’t yet exist). … These bans are partly about, well, throwing red meat to the base."

Why shouldn't we eat lab-grown meat? Is it safe?

Even though the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 said it is safe to eat lab-grown meat and the  U.S. Department of Agriculture gave its approval in 2023, there remain questions about the health effects of lab-grown meat.

Among the rumors that have been debunked:

• Lab-grown chicken being sold in grocery stores (it is only available in select restaurants).
• Aldi-brand Appleton Farms making cultured bacon (the unrelated Appleton Meats focuses on lab-grown meat).
• Lab-grown meat is made from human cells (FDA regulators have confirmed it is made from animal cells).
• Lab-grown meat will be sold without being labeled as such (the Department of Agriculture requires the meat alternatives to be labeled "cell-cultivated").
• Lab-grown meat is cultivated from cancer cells (they are made from stem cells).

Are animals killed for lab-grown meat?

No animals are slaughtered to make cultured meat. However, scientists can take cells from slaughtered livestock to make the meat. A  CNN article from 2023  suggests those with religious or ethical reasons for not eating meat look deeper into where their lab-grown burger came from before trying it out.

Can vegans eat lab-grown meat?

Cultured meat is still taken from animal cells, so it's not considered vegan. But  an article from VegNews  said a poll from the dating app Veggly found 24% of vegans surveyed would be open to eating lab-grown meat since it does not involve slaughter.

Does lab-grown meat taste like real meat?

Reviews for cultured chicken from Upside Foods , which was among the first two companies approved, have been largely positive, with  one reviewer from the MIT Technology Review  saying, "while the bites I slowly chewed and considered were still softer than a chicken breast, they were definitely more chicken-like than other alternatives I’ve tried." An  Associated Press review  said it, well, "tastes like chicken." 

Contributing: Mary Walrath-Holdridge .

Follow Mike Snider on X and Threads:  @mikesnider  & mikegsnider .

What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day

Animal/Laboratory Assistant II - 129212

Job description, #129212 animal/laboratory assistant ii.

This position will remain open until a successful candidate has been identified.

UCSD Layoff from Career Appointment : Apply by 04/15/2024 for consideration with preference for rehire. All layoff applicants should contact their Employment Advisor.

Special Selection Applicants : Apply by 04/24/2024. Eligible Special Selection clients should contact their Disability Counselor for assistance.

DESCRIPTION

UCSD Department of Psychiatry is one of the most innovative and productive academic departments in the country, offering challenging career opportunities in the diverse areas of advanced educational programs, cutting-edge research, and state-of-the art clinical services. The department is committed to offering a dynamic learning environment and growing opportunities to its talented and dedicated employees.

Under supervision, the incumbent will work as a laboratory assistant to assist in studies of rodent models and laboratory rodent colonies within the Department of Psychiatry. Duties include: lab animal husbandry, rat colony maintenance, genotyping, injections, record keeping using established scripts and protocols. Organize a schedule of tasks needed on a in order to maintain breeding lines of rats and mice. Create and maintain detailed breeding records based on instructions from the supervisor and the lab manager; use established scripts for to maintain pedigree records. Set up all necessary caging and cage labeling in the animal facility. Pair and separate appropriate breeders. Check for pups and wean pups. Identify rodents by ear tagging. Work with supervisor to create schedule for animal transfers to collaborators. Set necessary MTA with collaborators in advance. Work with supervisor to resolve issues. Follow all IACUC procedures as described in the protocol. Update lab IACUC protocol as directed by the principal investigator. Assist with other project and miscellaneous duties as required.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

Graduation from high school or a General Education Diploma and two years of laboratory experience or two years of college including courses in Biology, organic/inorganic Chemistry and one year of laboratory experience, or an equivalent combination of education and experience.

Experience handling mice and rats (restraining, ear tagging, injections, etc.).

Demonstrated experience in maintaining rodent breeding colony.

Demonstrated ability to use word processing, spreadsheet, etc., with the willingness and ability to update and increase skills and knowledge as needed.

Working knowledge of the Animal Care Program's required husbandry practices.

General laboratory experience.

Ability to recognize, report and troubleshoot technical problems.

Good communication skills.

Demonstrated ability to create and maintain detailed breeding records (including genetics and lineage of all animals) based on instructions from the supervisor and the lab manager.

Extreme attention to details, high standards for accuracy and documentation.

Must have the ability to work under own initiative as well as to work meticulously under close direction.

Excellent time management skills.

Demonstrated experience with high-pace high-throughput laboratory work

Excellent organizational and record-keeping skills.

Must be able to maintain confidentiality.

Working knowledge of laws and regulations that govern the housing and management of laboratory animals as applied to the University of California. Sensitivity to the needs of laboratory animals in compliance to AAALAC standards.

PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS

Bachelor's degree in related area and coursework in biology or related disciplines.

Academic courses in relevant subjects, such as genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, and organic chemistry.

Experience with laboratory computers and specialized data collection software (Med Associates, San Diego Instruments, Noldus, DSI).

Knowledge of stereotaxic surgery.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Employment is subject to a criminal background check.

Must be willing to handle mice and rats.

Must be willing to euthanize mice and rats according to IACUC protocol.

Must be able to work overtime, weekends, and evenings if required.

Pay Transparency Act

Annual Full Pay Range: $44,662 - $52,513 (will be prorated if the appointment percentage is less than 100%)

Hourly Equivalent: $21.39 - $25.15

Factors in determining the appropriate compensation for a role include experience, skills, knowledge, abilities, education, licensure and certifications, and other business and organizational needs. The Hiring Pay Scale referenced in the job posting is the budgeted salary or hourly range that the University reasonably expects to pay for this position. The Annual Full Pay Range may be broader than what the University anticipates to pay for this position, based on internal equity, budget, and collective bargaining agreements (when applicable).

If employed by the University of California, you will be required to comply with our Policy on Vaccination Programs, which may be amended or revised from time to time. Federal, state, or local public health directives may impose additional requirements. If applicable, life-support certifications (BLS, NRP, ACLS, etc.) must include hands-on practice and in-person skills assessment; online-only certification is not acceptable.

UC San Diego Health Sciences is comprised of our School of Medicine, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, and our Student Health and Well-Being Department. We have long been at the forefront of translational - or "bench-to-bedside" - research, transforming patient care through discovery and innovation leading to new drugs and technologies. Translational research is carried out every day in the hundreds of clinical trials of promising new therapies offered through UC San Diego Health, and in the drive of our researchers and clinician-scientists who are committed to having a significant impact on patient care. We invite you to join our team!

Applications/Resumes are accepted for current job openings only. For full consideration on any job, applications must be received prior to the initial closing date. If a job has an extended deadline, applications/resumes will be considered during the extension period; however, a job may be filled before the extended date is reached.

To foster the best possible working and learning environment, UC San Diego strives to cultivate a rich and diverse environment, inclusive and supportive of all students, faculty, staff and visitors. For more information, please visit UC San Diego Principles of Community .

UC San Diego is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, age or protected veteran status.

For the University of California’s Affirmative Action Policy please visit: https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4010393/PPSM-20 For the University of California’s Anti-Discrimination Policy, please visit: https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1001004/Anti-Discrimination

UC San Diego is a smoke and tobacco free environment. Please visit smokefree.ucsd.edu for more information.

UC San Diego Health maintains a marijuana and drug free environment. Employees may be subject to drug screening.

Application Instructions

Please click on the link below to apply for this position. A new window will open and direct you to apply at our corporate careers page. We look forward to hearing from you!

Share This Page

Posted : 5/16/2024

Job Reference # : 129212

JOIN OUR TALENT COMMUNITY

Interested in working at UC San Diego and UC San Diego Health but can't find a position that's right for you? Submit your resume to our Talent Community to be considered for future opportunities that may align with your expertise. Please note, by joining our Talent Community, you are not applying for a position with UC San Diego Campus and Health. Rather, this is an additional way for our Talent Acquisition team to find candidates with specific credentials, if an opportunity arises. You are still encouraged to regularly check back on our career site or sign up for Job Alerts to apply for openings that are a match for your background.

• Career Sites by Recruiting.com