Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
animals (
Coleman et al., 2005
). Further, proper training
requires a great deal of practice, patience, and skill on the
part of the trainer. Consistency among all who are working
with the animal is also important in training. If two trainers
use different methodologies when trying to train a subject,
that will send mixed signals to the subject, making it
difficult for the subject to learn the task.
Animal training is becoming a more prominent
component of behavioral management programs at
biomedical facilities and is encouraged in the 2011 revi-
sion to the Guide (
National Research Council, 2011
);
however, formal training programs are still far from
universal. In their 2007 survey of 22 primate facilities,
Baker and colleagues (
Baker et al., 2007
)foundthat
whereas 55% of facilities reported utilizing PRT, only 9%
had dedicated trainers. Further, training in the USA is
often focused on chimpanzees and rhesus macaques. A
recent study of training in the UK showed that the
majority of training in research or breeding facilities in the
UK also involved rhesus macaques (
Prescott and
Buchanan-Smith, 2007
). However, training can benefit
many other laboratory-housed primates and should be
extended to other species. Several resources for training
are available (
Table 6.1
).
to implementing social housing (
Baker et al., 2007
).
Providing captive primates with the opportunity to interact
with compatible conspecific(s) is one of the most beneficial
components of an effective behavioral management
program (
Schapiro et al., 1996a,b
). Therefore, it is imper-
ative that any research project that could be accomplished
with socially housed primate subjects, should be. Even if
subjects cannot be housed in full contact at all times,
socialization options still exist. For example, the use of
grooming-contact caging (see the section “Social enrich-
ment” above) allows some social interaction for primates
assigned to research protocols that preclude full social
contact (
Crockett et al., 1997
). Intermittent full social
contact is another option for studies that cannot be
accomplished with full-time, full-contact social housing.
There are many different intermittent contact options,
including continuous social contact for a specific portion of
each day or night or continuous social contact during some
phases of the study but not others (e.g. after inoculation or
challenge). Even though these strategies involve repeated
separations and reunions, Baker and colleagues (
Baker
et al., 2008
) have found them to be beneficial for adult
rhesus macaques. These options may be especially valuable
when primates are participating in protocols that require the
regular collection of biological samples (e.g. urine)
(
Crockett et al., 1994
). Intermittent social housing may also
be beneficial for nursery-reared infant NHPs (
Ruppenthal
et al., 1991
; although see
Rommeck et al., 2011
for draw-
backs). While more work needs to be done to determine
how much contact time is necessary to benefit the monkeys
in ways similar to continuous social housing, it is likely that
being together with a partner for part of the time is better
than not having a partner at all (e.g.
Baker et al., 2008
).
However, intermittent pair housing should only be used if
continuous full contact social housing options are not
available.
The housing of infant and juvenile primates is another
situation in which the requirements related to psychological
well-being and welfare must be carefully balanced with
requirements related to research projects. It is well estab-
lished that social deprivation of young primates contributes
to severe, lifelong behavioral problems for these animals.
These behavioral problems include, but are not limited to
the performance of, stereotyped, self-injurious, and socially
inappropriate behaviors (
Novak and Sackett, 2006
; see
Chapter 7). For this reason, studies that purport to require
single housing for young, developing NHPs should be
closely scrutinized during the protocol review process that
in the USA is typically conducted by the Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The scientific
justification must be exceptionally strong for any protocols
to be approved that involve young, singly housed NHPs.
This is consistent with the USDA requirement for special
attention to young primates (
USDA, 1991
).
BALANCING PSYCHOLOGICAL
WELL-BEING AND RESEARCH NEEDS
An important goal of behavioral management programs in
primate laboratories is to balance the psychological well-
being and welfare needs of the research subjects with the
needs of hypothesis-driven research studies. Although
behavioral management techniques generally improve the
psychological well-being of primates and thereby enhance
the value of the animals as research models, there are times
when research protocols may preclude the provision of
certain types of behavioral management enhancements. For
example, it may be difficult to provide some types of
feeding enrichment to NHPs participating in studies in
which food consumption or caloric intake is measured
precisely. However, it may be possible to use noncaloric
items as part of the feeding enrichment program (e.g. ice
cubes, commercially available no calorie treats) and/or to
provide all of the animal's daily food ration in foraging
devices. In addition, for nonhuman primates that may be
participating in research projects conducted under the
guidelines of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), all
enhancements, and especially food items, must be “certi-
fied” to meet the quality control requirements of such
research projects.
Many biomedical research studies are completed while
their primate subjects are socially housed, but most primate
laboratories report that research protocols are a constraint
