The refinement of husbandry and procedures to reduce animal suffering and improve welfare is an essential component of humane science. Successful refinement depends upon the ability to assess animal welfare effectively, and detect any signs of pain or distress as rapidly as possible, so that any suffering can be alleviated. This document provides practical guidance on setting up and operating effective protocols for the welfare assessment of animals used in research and testing. It sets out general principles for more objective observation of animals, recognizing and assessing indicators of pain or distress and tailoring these to individual projects. Systems for recording indicators, including score sheets, are reviewed and guidance is set out on determining practical monitoring regimes that are more likely to detect any signs of suffering. This guidance is intended for all staff required to assess or monitor animal welfare, including animal technologists and care staff, veterinarians and scientists. It will also be of use to members of ethics or animal care and use committees. A longer version of this document, with further background information and extra topics including training and information sharing, is available on the Laboratory Animals website.

No abstract

Simple SummaryWild mice live in territories inhabited by one adult male, several females, and their offspring. This cannot be replicated in the laboratory, so male mice are usually housed in single-sex groups or individually. However, there can be serious animal welfare problems associated with both these approaches, such as lack of social contact when housed individually or aggression between males when kept in groups. Group housing is widely recommended to give male laboratory mice the opportunity to behave as ‘social animals’, but social stress can be detrimental to the welfare of these animals, even without injurious fighting. All of this can also affect the quality of the science, giving rise to ethical concerns. This review discusses whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be housed in groups, or alone. We conclude that it is not possible to give general recommendations for good practice for housing male laboratory mice, as responses to single- and group-housing can be highly context-dependent. The welfare implications of housing protocols should be researched and considered in each case. AbstractIt is widely recommended to group-house male laboratory mice because they are ‘social animals’, but male mice do not naturally share territories and aggression can be a serious welfare problem. Even without aggression, not all animals within a group will be in a state of positive welfare. Rather, many male mice may be negatively affected by the stress of repeated social defeat and subordination, raising concerns about welfare and also research validity. However, individual housing may not be an appropriate solution, given the welfare implications associated with no social contact. An essential question is whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be group- or singly housed. This review explores the likely impacts—positive and negative—of both housing conditions, presents results of a survey of current practice and awareness of mouse behavior, and includes recommendations for good practice and future research. We conclude that whether group- or single-housing is better (or less worse) in any situation is highly context-dependent according to several factors including strain, age, social position, life experiences, and housing and husbandry protocols. It is important to recognise this and evaluate what is preferable from animal welfare and ethical perspectives in each case.

A survey was undertaken to evaluate how animal pain, suffering and distress are recognized and assessed in UK scientific procedure establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. A total of 28 institutions were visited between June 1999 and April 2001, within which 137 people were interviewed including scientists, veterinarians and animal technicians. All 28 establishments use clinical observation sheets to assist the recognition of adverse effects, nine use score sheets and seven use computerized data management systems. Clinical signs used as indicators of potential pain, suffering or distress are largely subjective. The survey also addressed protocols and methods for avoiding and alleviating adverse effects, record keeping, review of policies and protocols and issues relating to team work and training. Respondents use a range of techniques for reducing suffering including analgesia, humane endpoints, ensuring competence and refining husbandry. All establishments review projects regularly but few have the time or resources formally to review adverse effects noted in practice and to compare observations with predictions made in licence applications. Training is very consistent between different establishments and most aim to achieve a 'team approach' for monitoring and assessing animals. Results are summarized in the present, abridged paper and set out in full in a report that can be downloaded at http://www.lal.org.uk/pain/(Hawkins 2002). The present paper and the full report, including its recommendations, are intended to provide a source of information, discussion topics and ideas for all establishments that need to monitor animal well-being.

No abstract