A review of methods used to kill laboratory rodents: issues and opportunities.
A review of methods used to kill laboratory rodents: issues and opportunities.
复制标题
实验室灭鼠方法综述：问题与机遇。
DOI：
10.1177/00236772221097472
复制
发表时间：
2022-10
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
啮齿动物是科学用途最广泛的物种。基于功利主义的道德推理，使用这些武器的一个关键先决条件是，在出于科学或福利原因的必要时，提供人道的死亡。关注当前方法所带来的福利挑战，我们批判性地评估文献，考虑可能具有改进潜力的新兴方法，并强调未来研究的知识差距。证据支持这样的结论，即科学家和实验室工作人员应设法避免将实验室啮齿动物暴露于二氧化碳（CO2）中，除非利用其高通量优势。我们建议利益相关者和政策制定者应该倡导从现有指南中删除二氧化碳，而不是有条件地接受其使用，并为其应用提供额外的理由。至于颈椎脱臼、斩首和脑震荡等物理方法，主要的福利问题是基于应用中的潜在不准确性及其对高失败率的敏感性。有必要制定独立的质量控制培训方案，以促进最佳成功率，并开发专门工具，以改善成果和可靠性。此外，我们强调了围绕国际法规和/或指南中物理方法的纳入标准和可接受性不一致的问题，表明各国之间缺乏凝聚力，缺乏全面的“金标准”方法。我们鼓励更好地审查新数据，支持开放获取科学资源，以倡导最佳实践，并对政策和立法进行重大修改，以改善实验室啮齿动物的福利。
Rodents are the most widely used species for scientific purposes. A critical pre-requisite of their use, based on utilitarian ethical reasoning, is the provision of a humane death when necessary for scientific or welfare grounds. Focussing on the welfare challenges presented by current methods, we critically evaluate the literature, consider emerging methodologies that may have potential for refinement and highlight knowledge gaps for future research. The evidence supports the conclusion that scientists and laboratory personnel should seek to avoid killing laboratory rodents by exposing them to carbon dioxide (CO2), unless exploiting its high-throughput advantage. We suggest that stakeholders and policymakers should advocate for the removal of CO2 from existing guidelines, instead making its use conditionally acceptable with justification for additional rationale for its application. With regards to physical methods such as cervical dislocation, decapitation and concussion, major welfare concerns are based on potential inaccuracy in application and their susceptibility to high failure rates. There is a need for independent quality-controlled training programmes to facilitate optimal success rates and the development of specialist tools to improve outcomes and reliability. Furthermore, we highlight questions surrounding the inconsistent inclusion criteria and acceptability of physical methods in international regulation and/or guidance, demonstrating a lack of cohesion across countries and lack of a comprehensive ‘gold standard’ methodology. We encourage better review of new data and championing of open access scientific resources to advocate for best practice and enable significant changes to policy and legislation to improve the welfare of laboratory rodents at killing.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Bertolus, Julie Boulanger;Nemeth, Geoff;Weary, Daniel M.
通讯作者：
Weary, Daniel M.
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Aydin-Abidin, Selcen;Yildirim, Mehmet;Cansu, Ali
通讯作者：
Cansu, Ali
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Barbaccia, ML;Roscetti, G;Biggio, G
通讯作者：
Biggio, G
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Clarkson JM;McKeegan DEF;Sparrey J;Marchesi F;Leach MC;Martin JE
通讯作者：
Martin JE
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Gent TC;Detotto C;Vyssotski AL;Bettschart-Wolfensberger R
通讯作者：
Bettschart-Wolfensberger R