Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Previous studies have shown that Eastern grey squirrels modify their behaviour while foraging to offset risks of social and predatory costs, but none have simultaneously compared whether such modifications are performed at a cost to foraging. The present study directly compares how grey squirrels respond to cues of these risks while foraging. We simulated social risk and predatory risk using acoustic playbacks of stimuli that grey squirrels might be exposed to at a foraging patch: calls of conspecifics, heterospecifics (competitor and non-competitor) and predators. We found that grey squirrels responded to predator, heterospecific competitor and conspecific playbacks by altering their foraging and vigilance behaviours. Foraging was most disrupted by increased vigilance when we played calls of predators. Squirrels' response to calls of heterospecific competitors did not differ from their response to conspecific calls, and they resumed foraging more quickly after both compared to predator calls: whereas they showed little response to calls of non-competitor heterospecifics and a white noise control. We conclude that squirrels respond differentially to calls made by conspecifics, heterospecific competitors and predators, with the most pronounced response being to calls of predators. We suggest that squirrels may view conspecific and corvid vocalisations as cues of potential conflict while foraging, necessitating increased vigilance. I look forward to receiving your correspondence in due course. Yours sincerelyKimberley Jayne (Corresponding author). Cover Letter Revisions based on reviewers commentsManuscript: Behavioural responses of Eastern grey squirrels, Sciurus carolinensis, to cues of risk while foraging. Reviewers commentRevision note On line 328, a p<0.05 is considered nonsignificant. I assume this is because the authors used an adjusted alpha level due to the Bonferroni correction they applied. It would be good to know what this new alpha level was OR alternatively, if they did the Bonferroni correction the other way around (by multiplying the p-value by the number of tests, so the alpha remains 0.05). I have now inserted the level of the Bonferroni correction applied.Line 357: no time by condition interaction with p=0.051. Given that there are only 5 white noise playbacks in that analysis, the power of the analysis may be a bit low to detect a significant pattern. Given that such an interaction would make interpretation clearer, I wonder if it would make sense to analyse this again with just the corvids and other passerines...The data was re-analysed in the manner the reviewer suggested (with just the corvid and the passerine data). However, little difference was made to the outcome of the tests upon the interpretation of the results. Thus we have opted to keep the white noise control condition in our analysis for consistency when compared to the data from season 1. Line 286: "analysis" instead of "analyses".Corrected. *Detailed Response to ReviewersHighlights  We compare behavioural responses ...

No abstract

This study examined the impact of rearing environment on the behavioural responses of wild European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) to standard laboratory husbandry procedures. We compared birds that had been caught from the wild as independent juveniles with birds taken from the nest and hand-reared in the laboratory from approximately ten days post-hatch. Although hand-rearing can increase habituation to humans and hence reduce fearfulness in laboratory birds, in other species maternal deprivation is also associated with increased stress-sensitivity in later life. Thus, the welfare benefits of hand-rearing are unclear. We investigated the interaction between rearing environment (12 hand-reared versus 12 wild-caught birds) and current laboratory housing conditions (enriched versus non-enriched cages and top-level cages versus bottom-level cages) on measures of behaviour before, during and after husbandry. Both wild-caught and hand-reared birds reacted to focal husbandry by moving to the periphery of their cages, indicative of high escape motivation during a stressful procedure. Wild-caught birds were overall less active than hand-reared birds. We found no difference in the response of the wild-caught and hand-reared birds to focal husbandry, but hand-reared birds were faster to resume normal behaviour following husbandry than wild-caught birds when housed in the top cages. We interpret our results as showing evidence for chronic depressive apathy (lower overall activity) coupled with greater fear (longer latencies to resume normal behaviour following husbandry) in the wild-caught birds in some environments. Our data support the conclusion that hand-rearing is associated with some welfare benefits for birds involved in laboratory research.

No abstract