与西班牙实验室啮齿动物一起工作:一项关于福利和幸福的调查。

IF 2.7 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Olatz Goñi-Balentziaga, Iván Ortega-Saez, Sergi Vila, Garikoitz Azkona
{"title":"与西班牙实验室啮齿动物一起工作:一项关于福利和幸福的调查。","authors":"Olatz Goñi-Balentziaga,&nbsp;Iván Ortega-Saez,&nbsp;Sergi Vila,&nbsp;Garikoitz Azkona","doi":"10.1186/s42826-021-00098-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Replacement, reduction and refinement, the 3R principles, provide a framework to minimize the use and suffering of animals in science. In this context, we aimed to determine the actual perception that individuals working with laboratory rodents in biomedical research have on animal welfare and on their interaction with the animals, as well as how they perceive its impact on their social relations. To this end, we designed an anonymous on-line survey for people working with rodents, at three responsibility levels, in Spain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 356 participants, 239 were women (67 %); 263 were researchers (74 %), and 93 animal facility staff (26 %), of which 55 were caretakers/technicians (15 %), and 38 welfare officer/veterinarians (11 %). Animal facility staff indicated environmental enrichment to be a universal practice. About half of the participants reported that, in their opinion, animals suffer \"little to none\" or \"minor\" stress and pain. Animal caretakers/technicians and researchers perceived higher levels of stress and pain than welfare officers/veterinarians. Participants judged decapitation the most unpleasant method to kill rodents, whereas anaesthetic overdose was the least one. A sizable proportion - 21 % of animal caretakers/technicians and 11.4 % of researchers - stated that they were never given the choice not to euthanize the rodents they work with. Overall, women reported higher interactions with animals than men. Nevertheless, we could detect a significant correlation between time spent with the animals and interaction scores. Notably, 80 % of animal facility staff and 92 % of researchers rarely talked about their work with laboratory rodents with people outside their inner social circle.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, the participants showed high awareness and sensitivity to rodent wellbeing; animal facility staff reported a similar perception on welfare questions, independently of their category, while researchers, who spent less time with the animals, showed less awareness and manifested lower human-animal interaction and less social support. Regarding the perception on social acceptance of laboratory animal work, all groups were cautious and rarely talked about their job, suggesting that it is considered a sensitive issue in Spain.</p>","PeriodicalId":17993,"journal":{"name":"Laboratory Animal Research","volume":"37 1","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8314439/pdf/","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Working with laboratory rodents in Spain: a survey on welfare and wellbeing.\",\"authors\":\"Olatz Goñi-Balentziaga,&nbsp;Iván Ortega-Saez,&nbsp;Sergi Vila,&nbsp;Garikoitz Azkona\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42826-021-00098-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Replacement, reduction and refinement, the 3R principles, provide a framework to minimize the use and suffering of animals in science. In this context, we aimed to determine the actual perception that individuals working with laboratory rodents in biomedical research have on animal welfare and on their interaction with the animals, as well as how they perceive its impact on their social relations. To this end, we designed an anonymous on-line survey for people working with rodents, at three responsibility levels, in Spain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 356 participants, 239 were women (67 %); 263 were researchers (74 %), and 93 animal facility staff (26 %), of which 55 were caretakers/technicians (15 %), and 38 welfare officer/veterinarians (11 %). Animal facility staff indicated environmental enrichment to be a universal practice. About half of the participants reported that, in their opinion, animals suffer \\\"little to none\\\" or \\\"minor\\\" stress and pain. Animal caretakers/technicians and researchers perceived higher levels of stress and pain than welfare officers/veterinarians. Participants judged decapitation the most unpleasant method to kill rodents, whereas anaesthetic overdose was the least one. A sizable proportion - 21 % of animal caretakers/technicians and 11.4 % of researchers - stated that they were never given the choice not to euthanize the rodents they work with. Overall, women reported higher interactions with animals than men. Nevertheless, we could detect a significant correlation between time spent with the animals and interaction scores. Notably, 80 % of animal facility staff and 92 % of researchers rarely talked about their work with laboratory rodents with people outside their inner social circle.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, the participants showed high awareness and sensitivity to rodent wellbeing; animal facility staff reported a similar perception on welfare questions, independently of their category, while researchers, who spent less time with the animals, showed less awareness and manifested lower human-animal interaction and less social support. Regarding the perception on social acceptance of laboratory animal work, all groups were cautious and rarely talked about their job, suggesting that it is considered a sensitive issue in Spain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laboratory Animal Research\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8314439/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laboratory Animal Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42826-021-00098-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laboratory Animal Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42826-021-00098-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

背景:替换、减少和改进,即3R原则,提供了一个框架,以最大限度地减少科学中动物的使用和痛苦。在这种情况下,我们的目的是确定在生物医学研究中与实验室啮齿动物一起工作的个人对动物福利和他们与动物的互动的实际看法,以及他们如何看待其对社会关系的影响。为此,我们为西班牙从事啮齿动物工作的人设计了一项匿名在线调查,分为三个责任级别。结果:在356名参与者中,239名是女性(67%);263人是研究人员(74%),93人是动物设施工作人员(26%),其中55人是护理人员/技术人员(15%),38人是福利官员/兽医(11%)。动物设施工作人员表示,环境富集是一种普遍做法。大约一半的参与者报告说,在他们看来,动物遭受“很少或没有”或“轻微”的压力和疼痛。动物管理员/技术人员和研究人员感受到的压力和疼痛程度高于福利官员/兽医。参与者认为斩首是最令人不快的杀死啮齿动物的方法,而过量麻醉是最不令人不快的。相当大的比例——21%的动物管理员/技术人员和11.4%的研究人员——表示,他们从未被允许不对他们研究的啮齿动物实施安乐死。总体而言,女性与动物的互动程度高于男性。然而,我们可以发现与动物相处的时间与互动得分之间存在显著的相关性。值得注意的是,80%的动物设施工作人员和92%的研究人员很少与社交圈以外的人谈论他们与实验室啮齿动物的工作。结论:总体而言,参与者对啮齿动物健康表现出较高的意识和敏感性;动物设施的工作人员报告了类似的福利问题的看法,独立于他们的类别,而研究人员,花较少的时间与动物在一起,表现出较少的意识,表现出较少的人与动物的互动和较少的社会支持。关于对实验动物工作的社会接受度的看法,所有群体都很谨慎,很少谈论他们的工作,这表明这在西班牙被认为是一个敏感的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Working with laboratory rodents in Spain: a survey on welfare and wellbeing.

Working with laboratory rodents in Spain: a survey on welfare and wellbeing.

Working with laboratory rodents in Spain: a survey on welfare and wellbeing.

Working with laboratory rodents in Spain: a survey on welfare and wellbeing.

Background: Replacement, reduction and refinement, the 3R principles, provide a framework to minimize the use and suffering of animals in science. In this context, we aimed to determine the actual perception that individuals working with laboratory rodents in biomedical research have on animal welfare and on their interaction with the animals, as well as how they perceive its impact on their social relations. To this end, we designed an anonymous on-line survey for people working with rodents, at three responsibility levels, in Spain.

Results: Of the 356 participants, 239 were women (67 %); 263 were researchers (74 %), and 93 animal facility staff (26 %), of which 55 were caretakers/technicians (15 %), and 38 welfare officer/veterinarians (11 %). Animal facility staff indicated environmental enrichment to be a universal practice. About half of the participants reported that, in their opinion, animals suffer "little to none" or "minor" stress and pain. Animal caretakers/technicians and researchers perceived higher levels of stress and pain than welfare officers/veterinarians. Participants judged decapitation the most unpleasant method to kill rodents, whereas anaesthetic overdose was the least one. A sizable proportion - 21 % of animal caretakers/technicians and 11.4 % of researchers - stated that they were never given the choice not to euthanize the rodents they work with. Overall, women reported higher interactions with animals than men. Nevertheless, we could detect a significant correlation between time spent with the animals and interaction scores. Notably, 80 % of animal facility staff and 92 % of researchers rarely talked about their work with laboratory rodents with people outside their inner social circle.

Conclusions: Overall, the participants showed high awareness and sensitivity to rodent wellbeing; animal facility staff reported a similar perception on welfare questions, independently of their category, while researchers, who spent less time with the animals, showed less awareness and manifested lower human-animal interaction and less social support. Regarding the perception on social acceptance of laboratory animal work, all groups were cautious and rarely talked about their job, suggesting that it is considered a sensitive issue in Spain.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信