Subject: AW and EE and a clash of cultures From: Anna Olsson Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:46:56 +0000 To: APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca Dear all, This is a long and philosophical post, possibly of mainly academic interest, and it will be more about animal welfare than about ethology, so those of you who don’t feel attracted by that better stop reading here. I’m also not even sure if I should post this, as I’m not absolutely sure that I’ve got my own thoughts sorted out all the way – but I still consider Applied Ethology a friendly and open forum where one can try out thoughts that may still need some thinking, so here we go. I got my initial training in an environment that was generally positive to ethology and animal welfare but have professionally and geographically moved into areas where there is much more scepticism, and it’s this cultural difference I would like to focus on. And the professional rather than the geographical. And more specifically environmental enrichment (EE for short, which stands for both Environmental Enrichment and Enriched Environment) in laboratory rodents. EE has a long history (>50 years) in experimental psychology / neurobiology research and derives from the casual observation that rats kept as pets behaved very differently from rats kept in the research laboratory. This gave rise to a line of research where animals are kept in strongly contrasting environment (small cage with only bedding versus large cages with objects that are replaced regularly and running wheels), with the aim to study how the increased stimulation from an EE affects the animals. It does, in a number of ways that can be summarized into improving learning, enhancing the structural complexity of the CNS, delaying the development of degenerative diseases and improving recovery after experimentally induced CNS injury. The interest in EE to improve the welfare of lab rodents is much more recent, less than 20 years. The idea is to supplement the cages with items that can improve the welfare of the animals. And when these two EE cultures meet an interesting tension appears, involving a third and a fourth aspect: ‘scientific integrity’ (which here means the possible impact of EE on the results from the scientific research the animals are used in) and standardization (the more identical animals are the better for the standard animal user). The aim with the neuro-EE is to produce animals that ARE different, the aim with the AW-EE is to produce animals that have a better welfare but which differ as little as possible from their non-EE peers so to not interfere with scientific integrity and standardization. (There is a more sophisticated take on that but to develop it here would lead too far, those interested should read Joe Garner’s and Hanno Wuerbel’s excellent paper at http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/news.asp?id=16) It would be fair to say that as far as policy-making goes in Europe, the animal welfare take is definitely predominant: AW-EE is considered in the recent European recommendations (see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:197:SOM:EN:HTML), on a sound theoretical and empirical basis in animal welfare science. But there is also a reasonable amount of scepticism towards AW-EE among scientists using laboratory animals and laboratory animal scientists alike. There are three main aspects: in addition to the standardization and scientific integrity issues referred to above, there is a strange / poor / mis understanding of how to measure animal welfare. The following quote by Benefiel and coworkers from the 2005 ILAR journal special issue on environmental enrichment (http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/46_2/html/ illustrates it quite well: “Perhaps more disconcerting than the implication that group housing is essential for all laboratory rodents is the existing assumption that cage supplementation is always better for animals, despite the paucity of data to support this assumption. It appears that animals' preferences are being allowed to drive if not dictate the issue of what constitutes enrichment. Patterson-Kane (2003), Van Loo and Baumans (2004), and Van Loo et al. (2002, 2004a) rely on preference testing in an attempt to demonstrate rodent needs for social contact and nesting material. Certainly it is believable that captive mice and rats prefer a cage mate or an opportunity to build nests to a standard cage with little opportunity for activity. When it is possible to provide these attributes and clear that neither experimental results nor animal welfare are compromised in doing so, few researchers would object. The key is in knowing whether experimental results could be compromised, and we propose that in many cases, neither laboratory animal science experts nor researchers can be certain. Regarding preference testing to determine whether cage supplementation is beneficial to rodents, it is of value to note that animals' preferences may not be the ideal guideline to what is of most value to their well-being. In earlier research on addiction, which might not be permitted today, it was found that rats and monkeys given unrestricted or nearly unrestricted access to drugs of abuse (cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and alcohol) would, within 1 mo, self-administer these drugs to the point of cessation of eating, refusal of hand-fed treats, and in many cases until death, or so near death that researchers removed them from the experiment to provide life-saving measures (e.g., Johanson et al. 1976; Pickens and Thompson 1971). Less dangerous but also of questionable value to animal welfare are the preferences for chocolate and high-sugar, high-fat food common among rodents as well as many humans. This preference and similar findings in other self-selection domains suggest that an animal's judgment is not always in synchrony with what appears optimal to its health (e.g., Curtis 1985; Galef and Beck 1990)." http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/46_2/html/v4602benefiel.shtml I’m baffled when I see this argumentation. Firstly, applied ethology has seen 20 years of history of critically developing methods of preference and operant testing and it’s OK for a neuroscientist to walk in and discard it all? Secondly, this scepticism seems to lay a trap: either AW-EE has no measurable effect on any variables of scientific interest (and then how could it be argued that it improves welfare?) or AW-EE has measurable effects (and then it will interfere with the research for which the animals are used). I imagine that there is an element of behaviourism and an overall scepticism towards whether animal welfare can be measured at all involved. I also acknowledge that there are situations when what seems generally to be an AW-EE isn’t one (but I really can only think of the typical example of male mice which seem to be more territorial and more aggressive and fight more if there are solid objects in the cage), and that there has been a reasonable amount of naïve and unscientific attempts to do AW-EE in animal facilities (“not anything thrown into a cage is EE” to quote Joe Garner) and that it would be good if the many items marketed for EE had actually been tested and data from these tests made available. But does this justify the continued questioning of whether AW-EE is beneficial? If you’ve read all the way to here and you’re a lab animal ethologist, it would be great to know if you think I’ve given a reasonable picture and what you think about this. If you’ve read all the way to here and you’re not a lab animal ethologist, it would be great to know what you think when seeing this from the outside. If you’ve read all the way to here and you’re Stan Curtis, hello! and I’m sure you will let me know what you think ;-) Best regards, Anna Olsson ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. Subject: suckling and sucking From: Anna Olsson Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:36:03 +0000 To: APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca Dear all, Please help me to sort out a terminology issue: In my understanding, a lactating female SUCKLES her offspring (or somebody else) who SUCKS at her udder / breast / teat. But then the word "SUCK" doesn't tell us whether there is any milk involved, does it? Is there a specific word for what the offspring does when s/he gets milk? My native Swedish has a specific word for the action of each part, yet people confuse them, so imagine how confusing English seems as I'm attempting to review congress reviews... Regards, Anna -- Dr Anna Olsson Researcher Laboratory Animal Science Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. Subject: Re: suckling and sucking From: Anna Olsson Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:41:39 +0000 To: Anna Olsson CC: APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca And why didn't I consult the dictionary BEFORE posting? My apologies! Quick Definition suckle verb [with obj.] feed (a baby or young animal) from the breast or teat: a mother pig was suckling a huge litter. • [no obj.] (of a baby or young animal) feed by sucking the breast or teat: the infant's biological need to suckle. Oxford Dictionary of English Quoting Anna Olsson : > > Dear all, > > > > Please help me to sort out a terminology issue: > > > > In my understanding, a lactating female SUCKLES her offspring (or somebody > > else) > > who SUCKS at her udder / breast / teat. > > > > But then the word "SUCK" doesn't tell us whether there is any milk involved, > > does it? Is there a specific word for what the offspring does when s/he gets > > milk? My native Swedish has a specific word for the action of each part, yet > > people confuse them, so imagine how confusing English seems as I'm attempting > > to review congress reviews... > > > > Regards, > > Anna > > > > > > -- > > Dr Anna Olsson > > Researcher > > > > Laboratory Animal Science > > Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology > > Rua Campo Alegre 823 > > 4150-180 Porto, Portugal > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > -- Dr Anna Olsson Researcher Laboratory Animal Science Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. Subject: Re: suckling and sucking From: Donald Broom Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:24:33 +0000 To: Anna Olsson CC: APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca Dear Anna I (and many others) use: the mother nurses and the offspring suckle, suck is an action, it need not involve milk. See D.M.Broom and A.F.Fraser (2007). Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 4th edn., pp 438.Wallingford: CABI. Paperback 9781845932879, http://www.cabi.org/bk_BookDisplay.asp?SubjectArea=Ani&Subject=Veterinary+Science&PID=2049 Best wishes Don > Dear all, > > Please help me to sort out a terminology issue: > > In my understanding, a lactating female SUCKLES her offspring (or somebody else) > who SUCKS at her udder / breast / teat. > > But then the word "SUCK" doesn't tell us whether there is any milk involved, > does it? Is there a specific word for what the offspring does when s/he gets > milk? My native Swedish has a specific word for the action of each part, yet > people confuse them, so imagine how confusing English seems as I'm attempting > to review congress reviews... > > Regards, > Anna > > > -- > Dr Anna Olsson > Researcher > > Laboratory Animal Science > Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology > Rua Campo Alegre 823 > 4150-180 Porto, Portugal > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Professor Donald M. Broom Colleen Macleod Professor of Animal Welfare Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge Madingley Road CAMBRIDGE CB3 0ES U.K. Telephone 0044 (0)1223 337697 Fax 0044 (0)1223 337610 and St Catharine's College Cambridge CB2 1RL U.K. 0044 (0)1223 338344 e-mail dmb16@cam.ac.uk