Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
transportation periods from the trapping area to the export
facility were common, and primates were held in crowded
conditions for extended periods before they arrived at the
research laboratory. Upon arrival at the quarantine facili-
ties of the importer, shipments of animals from different
countries sometimes were mixed together further facili-
tating disease transmission.
With the increased use of nonhuman primates in
biomedical research, exporters and importers began
designing and constructing quarantine facilities to limit the
transmission of communicable diseases. The cages origi-
nally used for individually housing monkeys were modified
chicken or turkey cages constructed of galvanized wire, and
groups of monkeys were housed in modified dog runs.
When Congress established the Regional Primate Research
Centers Program in 1963, a national nonhuman primate
health program began to emerge (
Fridman, 2002
). As
veterinarians became more involved in primate care and
research in the mid-1960s, new primate cage designs were
developed. Cages that were too small and did not provide
for the needs of the animals became the focus of discus-
sions at primate veterinary meetings. Standards for cage
sizes began to evolve. In 1968, the National Academy of
Sciences, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources (now
Institute for Laboratory Animal Research), appointed
a subcommittee to develop standards and guidelines for the
management of nonhuman primates. These guidelines were
revised in 1980 (
Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources,
1980
) to include three categories of primate cages, based on
the three taxonomic groups commonly used in biomedical
research: New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, and
great apes.
In the early 1960s, facilities utilized various sizes and
designs of cages to house the Macaca species. Many cages
were a stainless steel hanging design supported on the back
wall with an underlying waste collection pan. Most primate
research facilities developed prototype housing configura-
tions for various types of primates. The California and
Oregon Primate Centers developed and improved outdoor
enclosures such as field cages (
University of California-
Davis, 1979
), corrals (
Alexander et al., 1969
), and agri-
cultural corn cribs modified for macaque breeding. The
Caribbean Primate Center instigated the island and the
corral breeding programs for macaques (
Kessler and
Berard, 1989
). The Yerkes Primate Center developed
a great ape caging program that was later enhanced by the
University of Texas at Bastrop, Texas (
Riddle et al., 1982
).
Baboon caging and systems for breeding baboons were
developed and evaluated at the Southwest Foundation for
Biomedical Research (
Eichberg et al., 1991
). The
Washington Primate Center's Primate Field Station housed
breeding groups of M. nemestrina indoors in compounds
renovated from a former mental institution (
Blakley et al.,
1972
).
Various pharmaceutical companies, contract research
laboratories, universities, primate centers, cage manufac-
turers, importers, and exporters all contributed to the
development of the current primate caging systems. In
addition, exporters and importers improved the cages used
for shipping animals (
IATA, 2009
). More recently, behav-
ioral scientists have contributed to laboratory caging
innovations for social contact and enrichment (
Erwin and
Landon, 1992; Weed et al., 1995; Seier and de Lange, 1996;
Crockett et al., 1997
). Recent caging innovations are driven
by the recognition that socialization, environmental
enrichment, and training are important for nonhuman
primate well-being and research quality (
National Research
Council (Institute for Laboratory Animal Research), 1998
,
2011;
Jennings et al., 2009)
.
The search for the ideal caging system for primates that
began in the late 1960s continues today. In this chapter, we
summarize the factors that need to be taken into consider-
ation when selecting appropriate primate housing. This
chapter builds on the original chapter (
Kelley and Hall,
1995
), expanding on the regulatory mandates, guidelines,
and professional consensus regarding the need to provide
nonhuman primates with social contact and environmental
enrichment.
Regulations and Guidelines Pertaining to
Primate Housing
US federal regulations and guidelines have established
minimum standards for housing nonhuman primates
(
AWA, 1985
;
US Department of Agriculture, 1991
;
National Research Council (Institute of Laboratory Animal
Resources), 1996
;
National Research Council (Institute for
Laboratory Animal Research), 1998, 2011
). The 1985
amendments to the Animal Welfare Act included
a requirement for institutions to develop, document, and
follow an appropriate plan for environmental enhancement
to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman
primates (
Animal Welfare Act, 1985
). The resulting regu-
lations were finalized in 1991 and included requirements to
address social grouping and environmental enrichment (
US
Department of Agriculture, 1991
). These regulatory
requirements and an increasing emphasis on psychological
well-being have resulted in a variety of novel housing
strategies, cage designs, and housing systems to accom-
modate socialization and enrichment (
Bayne, 1989;
Bielitzki et al., 1990; Coelho and Carey, 1990; Weed et al.,
1995; Crockett et al., 1997
).
Regulations (laws) and guidelines (recommendations)
with respect to laboratory animal research vary from country
to country, and sometimes include specifications about
housing (
Bayne and deGreeve, 2003
;
International Prima-
tological Society, 2007
) (see Chapter 2). These regulations
