Attitudes of laboratory animal professionals and researchers towards carbon dioxide euthanasia for rodents and perceived barriers to change.
Attitudes of laboratory animal professionals and researchers towards carbon dioxide euthanasia for rodents and perceived barriers to change.
复制标题
实验动物专业人员和研究人员对啮齿动物二氧化碳安乐死的态度和感知的变化障碍。
DOI：
10.1177/00236772211025166
复制
发表时间：
2021-12
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Weary DM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brunt MW;Améndola L;Weary DM
有证据表明，二氧化碳 (CO2) 会导致实验室啮齿类动物产生负面情绪状态（包括焦虑、恐惧和痛苦），但许多国家仍然接受对其实施安乐死。替代方法（例如吸入麻醉剂）可能代表了对二氧化碳的改进，但并未得到广泛采用。我们对加拿大和欧洲实验动物专业人士和研究人员 (n = 592) 进行了在线调查，使用定量 7 点量表（从 1（= 强烈反对）到 7（= 强烈赞成）和定性（开放式文本）响应，评估他们对使用 CO2 和替代啮齿动物安乐死方法的态度。CO2 被确定为杀死啮齿动物的最常用方法，对这种方法的态度各不相同，平均而言是矛盾的（我们的 7 分制的平均 SD 分数为 4.4±1.46）。定性分析揭示了与参与者态度相关的四个主题：（a）动物在气体暴露期间的经验；（c）动物经验和实际考虑之间的妥协；以及（d）程序或政策的技术描述。但对这些改进措施的定性分析揭示了五个主题：(a) 财务限制；(c) 监管限制；(d) 安全问题。
Evidence indicates that carbon dioxide (CO2) induces negative affective states (including anxiety, fear and distress) in laboratory rodents, but many countries still accept it for euthanasia. Alternative methods (e.g. inhalant anaesthetic) may represent a refinement over CO2 but are not widely adopted. We conducted an online survey of Canadian and European laboratory animal professionals and researchers (n = 592) to assess their attitudes towards the use of CO2 and alternative methods for rodent euthanasia using quantitative 7-point scale (from 1 (= strongly oppose) to 7 (= strongly favour) and qualitative (open-ended text) responses. CO2 was identified as the most common method used to kill rodents, and attitudes towards this method were variable and on average ambivalent (mean ± SD score on our 7-point scale was 4.4 ± 1.46). Qualitative analysis revealed four themes relating to participant attitude: (a) the animal’s experience during gas exposure; (b) practical considerations for humans; (c) compromise between the animal’s experience and practical considerations; and (d) technical description of the procedure or policies. Many participants (51%) felt that there were alternatives available that could be considered an improvement over CO2, but perceived barriers to implementing these refinements. Qualitative analysis of these responses revealed five themes: (a) financial constraints; (b) institutional culture; (c) regulatory constraints; (d) research constraints; and (e) safety concerns. In conclusion, concerns regarding the use of CO2 often focused on the animal’s experience, but barriers to alternatives related to operational limitations. New research is now required on to how best to overcome these barriers.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.3390/ani1010007
发表时间：
2010-12-09
期刊：
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
影响因子：
--
作者：
Phillips C;Izmirli S;Aldavood J;Alonso M;Choe B;Hanlon A;Handziska A;Illmann G;Keeling L;Kennedy M;Lee G;Lund V;Mejdell C;Pelagic V;Rehn T
通讯作者：
Rehn T
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Wong, Devina;Makowska, I. Joanna;Weary, Daniel M.
通讯作者：
Weary, Daniel M.
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
BLACKSHAW, JK;FENWICK, DC;ALLAN, DJ
通讯作者：
ALLAN, DJ
影响因子：
1.6
作者：
Walker, Jessica K.;McGrath, Nicky;Phillips, Clive J. C.
通讯作者：
Phillips, Clive J. C.
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Chisholm JM;Pang DS
通讯作者：
Pang DS