Psychological well-being of primates in captivity.
Psychological well-being of primates in captivity.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037//0003-066x.43.10.765
复制
发表时间：
1988-10
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Novak;S. Suomi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Novak;S. Suomi
《动物福利法》（Animal Welfare Act）最近的修正案一旦生效，将要求圈养非人类灵长类动物的研究人员以“促进它们心理健康”的方式饲养动物。不幸的是，目前在如何定义或识别灵长类动物的心理健康方面还没有达成共识。我们提出了一种定义心理健康的策略，包括身体健康的评估，与物种规范行为的比较，痛苦的检测和应对反应的评估。这一组定义随后被用于描述灵长类动物实验室环境（例如，单笼、成对和群体）在培养心理健康方面的特征。在开发圈养灵长类动物心理健康处方时，还强调了除住房之外的其他因素的重要性，如物种特异性特征、饲养历史和表型差异。简单的处方似乎不太可能广泛适用于所有圈养的灵长类动物。相反，研究人员必须对他们的特定对象的需求敏感，以便优化他们的心理健康，无论如何定义。在研究中使用动物再次成为许多科学家和其他一些公众成员之间争论的一个具有挑衅性和争议性的话题。对这一主题的书面和口头讨论中充斥着指控和反指控。研究人员指出了动物研究的好处，并将重点放在“对人类更大的好处”上，而动物权利活动家则一直质疑这种使用动物的不道德行为，并对实验动物的生活质量提出了担忧。后一点，即“生活质量”，对所有科学家来说都很重要，不仅是出于人道的原因，也是出于实际的原因。今天，几乎所有的研究人员都意识到他们有责任为他们的动物提供人道关怀和治疗，并不断改进
Recent amendments to the Animal Welfare Act will, upon taking effect, require that researchers who maintain nonhuman primates in captivity house their animals in such a way as to "promote their psychological well-being." Unfortunately, no consensus presently exists in terms of how to define or identify psychological well-being in primate subjects. We propose a strategy for defining psychological well-being that includes assessment of physical health, comparison with species-normative behavioral repertoires, detection of distress, and evaluation of coping responses. This set of definitions is then used to characterize prototypical primate laboratory environments (e.g., single-cage, pair, and group housing) in terms of fostering psychological well-being. The importance of factors other than housing, such as species-specific characteristics, rearing histories, and phenotypic differences, is also emphasized in developing prescriptions for psychological well-being in captive primates. It seems unlikely that simple prescriptions will be broadly applicable across the whole range of captive primates. Instead, researchers must be sensitive to the needs of their particular subjects in order to optimize their psychological well-being, however defined. The use of animals in research has once again become a provocative and controversial topic of debate be- tween many scientists and some other members of the public. 1 Charges and countercharges permeate both written and oral discussions of this topic. Researchers point to the benefits derived from animal research and focus on the "greater good for humanity," whereas animal rights activists consistently question the mo- rality of such animal use and raise concerns about the quality of life experienced by laboratory animals. This latter point, "quality of life," is important to all scientists for practical as well as humane reasons. Today, virtually all researchers are aware of their responsibility to provide humane care and treatment for their animals and to make improvements contin-