Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
physiological and behavioral adaptation to their environ-
ment ( Weed and Raber, 2005 ), including species-normal
reproductive and appetitive behaviors ( Novak and Suomi,
1988; Crockett et al., 1995 ).
The fourth term, welfare, is typically discussed in ways
that are very similar to psychological well-being, although
welfare often encompasses considerations of the subject's
health and biological function in addition to behavior
(American College of Animal Welfare (ACAW), 2010) .
Welfare includes elements that contribute to the animal's
quality of life, including those known as the “Five Free-
doms” ( Brambrell, 1965 ): freedom from hunger, thirst, and
malnutrition; freedom from fear and distress; freedom from
physical and thermal discomfort; freedom from pain,
injury, and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns
of behavior ( World Organisation for Animal Health, 2010 ).
Welfare is often considered to be related to the long-term
status of the animal, including how it is coping with its
living conditions ( American Veterinary Medical Associa-
tion, 2011 ), whereas psychological well-being may be
considered to relate to the current behavioral or mental
status of the animal ( Morton and Hau, 2010 ). As an
example, giving a captive NHP an injection of a vaccine
can decrease the animal's psychological well-being due to
the stress associated with the injection while enhancing its
welfare by providing immunity to a particular pathogen.
In general, behavioral management programs, which
include the use of environmental enrichment, have the goal
of promoting the psychological well-being and welfare of
NHPs.
USA. For nations within the European Union, providing
for the welfare of laboratory animals is mandated in
Directive 2010/63/EU, protection of animals used for
scientific purposes ( European Parliament, 2010 ), and the
United Kingdom provides such protection under the
British Animal Welfare Act ( British Parliament, 2006 ;see
Chapter 2 for more information on international regula-
tions about animal protection). Those facilities choosing
to become accredited by the Association for the Assess-
ment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care,
International (AAALACi), must also supply their primates
with suitable enrichment as detailed in the Guide
( National Research Council, 1996 , 2011). We discuss
these regulations in greater detail below.
The 1985 Animal Welfare Act Amendment led to draft
regulations published in 1989 for comment ( USDA, 1989 ).
The final rule ( USDA, 1991 ) was criticized by animal rights
advocates as being too performance based rather than
emphasizing rigid engineering standards ( Crockett, 1993 ).
The basic distinction between these two types of approaches
is that engineering standards dictate specific minimum
requirements that would violate the law if not met, whereas
performance standards focus on end results, such as
normalized behavioral repertoires. Unlike engineering
standards, performance standards allow for flexibility and
depend upon “professional input, sound judgment, and
a team approach” to achieving specific outcome goals
( National Research Council, 2011 ). Animal welfare regu-
lations for NHPs in the USA and Europe are a mix of both
engineering and performance standards, with minimum cage
sizes being the primary example of the application of engi-
neering standards. An example of a performance standard is
the specification that the social needs of NHPs that normally
live in social groups in nature must be met in captivity (US
Animal Welfare Regulations, Section 3.81; USDA, 1991 )
instead of a defined specification of exactly how this should
be accomplished. Today's behavioral management
approaches emphasize implementing enrichment and other
strategies that have positive impacts on psychological well-
being. Further, there is a strong emphasis on utilizing
approaches that have been evaluated quantitatively. The
effectiveness of enrichment is assessed by usage, the
normalization of behavioral repertoires, and the prevention
or reduction of abnormal behaviors ( Lutz and Novak, 2005 ).
Specific recommendations on how to evaluate behavioral
management programs are detailed below. In addition to
engineering and performance standards, practice standards
(i.e. the application of professional judgment by experienced
and qualified individuals) may also be acceptable in the
realm of animal care ( National Research Council, 2011 ).
However, in this chapter, we will emphasize performance
standards based on empirical data. Performance standards
can and should change as data accumulate within the field of
behavioral management.
WHY PERFORM BEHAVIORAL
MANAGEMENT?
Regulatory Issues
There are several reasons for the dramatic increase in the
amount of enrichment and other behavioral management
strategies provided to laboratory primates over the past
few decades. First, in some countries, including the USA,
the UK, the European Union, and Japan, providing
research animals with enrichment is required by various
regulatory agencies ( Bayne and deGreeve, 2003 ;alsosee
Chapter 2). In the USA, the Animal Welfare Act regula-
tions mandate that research institutions must “develop,
document, and follow an appropriate plan for environment
enhancement adequate to promote psychological well-
being of nonhuman primates” (9CFR3.81; USDA, 1991 ).
Furthermore, scientists receiving federal funding from
most US funding agencies must be compliant with the
Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the
“Guide”; National Research Council, 1996 ;2011),which
specifies that enrichment be provided for laboratory
animals. Other nations have similar laws to those in the
Search WWH ::




Custom Search