Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T12:00:40.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Classifying the severity of scientific animal use: a review of international systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

N Fenwick ,
E Ormandy ,
C Gauthier  and
G Griffin
N Fenwick
Affiliation:
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), Suite 1510-130 Albert St, Ottawa ON, K1P 5G4, Canada
E Ormandy
Affiliation:
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), Suite 1510-130 Albert St, Ottawa ON, K1P 5G4, Canada University of British Columbia, Animal Welfare Program, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
C Gauthier
Affiliation:
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), Suite 1510-130 Albert St, Ottawa ON, K1P 5G4, Canada
G Griffin*
Affiliation:
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), Suite 1510-130 Albert St, Ottawa ON, K1P 5G4, Canada
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: ggriffin@ccac.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Severity classification systems (ie pain scales, categories of invasiveness, degrees of severity etc) are used to classify the adverse effects experienced by animals used for scientific purposes. Currently, eleven countries use severity classification systems. These systems have developed in various ways, depending on each country's process for overseeing the use of animals in science, as well as the particular aspects emphasised by those individuals who have championed their implementation. Severity classification serves four main purposes: as a tool to assist animal ethics committees in ethical review; education of animal users about concepts for humane animal experimentation; provision of data to inform the public about scientific animal use; and provision of data to inform national policies. At a time when the newly accepted European Union Directive will make the reporting of severity data mandatory, we review the characteristics of international severity classification systems and how they have evolved; analyse the effectiveness of some systems; and identify emerging challenges for severity classification.

Keywords

animal ethics committeesanimal use statisticsanimal welfareethical reviewseverity classificationThree Rs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 281 - 301
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Animal Procedures Committee (APC) 2003 Report of the Cost-Benefit Working Group of the Animal Procedures Committee. http://apc.homeoffice.gov.uk/reference/costbenefit.pdfGoogle Scholar
Animal Procedures Committee (APC) 2008 Final Report of a LASA/APA Working Group to Examine the Feasibility of Reporting Data on the Severity of Scientific Procedures on Animals. http://www.lasa.co.uk/synopsis_LASA_APC_severity%20project.htmlGoogle Scholar
Animal Procedures Committee (APC) 2009 Report of the Suffering and Severity Working Group on the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current System of Severity Limits as a way of Prospectively Assessing Suffering and Severity. http://apc.homeoffice.gov.uk/reference/Suffering%20and%20Severity%20paper.pdfGoogle Scholar
Animal Welfare Directorate 2008 Animal Use Statistics. http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/animal-welfare/pubs/naeac/animal-use-statistics.pdfGoogle Scholar
Baumans, V, Clausing, P, Hubrecht, R, Reber, A, Vitale, A, Wyffels, E and Gyger, M 2006 FELASA Working Group Standardization of Enrichment: Working Group Report. Laboratory Animals Ltd: London, UK. http://www.lal.org.uk/pdffiles/FELASA_Enrichment_2006.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bayvel, ACD, Carsons, LA and Littin, KE 2007 Severity assessment — The New Zealand experience and perspective. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress on Alternatives. Alternatives to Animal Testing and Experimentation 14: 711–714. http://altweb.jhsph.edu/bin/q/t/paper711.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bowd, AD 1997 The educative role of an animal care committee in Canada: a case study. Animal Welfare 6: 309–315Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 1987 Confidential memo to Dr H Rowsell. CCAC: Ottowa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 1991 CCAC Policy on: Categories of Invasiveness in Animal Experiments. http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/Guidelines_Policies/POLICIES/CATEG.HTMGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 1997a CCAC Guidelines on: Animal Use Protocol Review. http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/Guidelines_Policies/GDLINES/PROTOCOL/g_protocol.pdfGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 1997b CCAC Guidelines on: Transgenic Animals. http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/Guidelines_Policies/GDLINES/TRANSGEN/g_transgenic.pdfGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 1998 CCAC Guidelines on: Choosing an Appropriate Endpoint in Experiments Using Animals for Research, Teaching and Testing. http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/Guidelines_Policies/GDLINES/ENDPTS/g_endpoints.pdfGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 1999 CCAC Guidelines on: Institutional Animal User Training. http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/Guidelines_Policies/GDLINES/NIAUT/g_niaut.pdfGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 2003 CCAC Guidelines on: the Care and Use of Wildife. CACC: Ottowa, Canada http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/Guidelines_Policies/GDLINES/Wildlife/Wildlife.pdfGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 2008 Trends in Animal Use. http://www.ccac.ca/en/Publications/New_Facts_Figures/trends/figure6.htmGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 2009 Three Rs Microsite. http://www.ccac.ca/en/alternatives/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) (in preparation) CCAC Guidelines on: Genetically Engineered Animals. CACC: Ottowa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Department of Health and Children 2006 Application For A License. http://www.dohc.ie/other_health_issues/uaeosp/Application%20Form.pdf?direct=1Google Scholar
European Union (EC) 2010 Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:276:0033:0079:EN:PDFGoogle Scholar
Federation of European Laboratory Animal Scientists (FELASA) 2007 FELASA Statement on a Proposal from the Laboratory Animal Science Association (LASA) for the European Community to Adopt Retrospective Reporting of Scientific Procedures on Animals. http://www.felasa.eu/docs/Statement_RetrospectiveReporting_2007-11-13.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, C 2004 Overview and analysis of animal use in North America. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 32(1A): 275–285CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gauthier, C and Griffin, G 2005 Using animals in research, teaching and testing. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 24: 735–745Google Scholar
Griffin, G, Dansereau, M and Gauthier, C 2007 Categories of invasiveness: a precautionary approach. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress on Alternatives. Alternatives to Animal Testing and Experimentation 14: 715–720. http://altweb.jhsph.edu/wc6/paper715.pdfGoogle Scholar
Guy, A and Griffin, G 2009 Adopting alternatives for the regulatory monitoring of shellfish for paralytic shellfish poisoning in Canada: interface between federal regulators, science and ethics. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 54: 256–263CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Home Office 2000 Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hoc/321/321-05.htm#gen113Google Scholar
Kuhara, T 2008 Attitudes to severity assessment in Japan. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress on Alternatives. Alternatives to Animal Testing and Experimentation 14: 721–722. http://altweb.jhsph.edu/wc6/paper721.pdfGoogle Scholar
Laboratory Animal Scientists Association (LASA) 1990 LASA Working Party Report: The assessment and control of the severity of scientific procedures on laboratory animals. Laboratory Animals 24: 97–130. http://la.rsmjournals.com/cgi/reprint/24/2/97.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ and Reid, CSW 1994 Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. In: Jenkin, G, Mellor, DJ and Baker, RM (eds) Improving the Well-being of Animals in the Research Environment pp 3–18. Glen Osmond: SA, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ, Patterson-Kane, E and Stafford, KJ 2009 The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Science and Higher Education 2006 Skala inwazyjności doświadczeń przeprowadzania na zwierzętach. http://www.nauka.gov.pl/nauka/krajowa-komisja-etyczna-ds-doswiadczen-na-zwierzetach/zwierzeta-labolatoryjne/zwierzeta-labolatoryjne/artykul/skala-inwazyjnosci-badan-na-zywych-kre-gowcach/. [Title translation: Scale of invasiveness of experiments conducted on animals]Google Scholar
Morton, DB and Griffiths, PHM 1985 Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and a hypothesis for assessment. The Veterinary Record 116(16): 431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) 2009 Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Dairy Cattle. Dairy Farmers of Canada and National Farm Animal Care Council: Ottawa, Canada. http://www.dairyfarmers.ca/what-we-do/animal-health-and-welfare/code-of-practice-for-the-care-and-handling-of-dairy-cattleGoogle Scholar
New South Wales 2009 Form L: Animal Use Statistics 2009 Explanatory Notes. http://www.animalethics.org.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0009/249993/form-12009.docGoogle Scholar
New Zealand Government 2009 NAEAC Annual Reports 2002-2008. http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/regs/animal-welfare/naeac/annual-reportsGoogle Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2005 The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: London, UK. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/RIA_Report_FINAL-opt.pdfGoogle Scholar
Obrink, KJ 1982 Swedish law on laboratory animals. In: Dodds, WJ and Orlans, FB (eds) Scientific Perspectives on Animal Welfare. Academic Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Orlans, FB 1980 Animal welfare. BioScience 30: 144–145Google Scholar
Orlans, FB 1987 Research protocol review for animal welfare. Investigative Radiology 22: 253–258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orlans, FB 1990 Animal pain scales in public policy. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 18: 41–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orlans, FB 1993 Animal pain scales in public policy: An international perspective. In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Orlans, FB 2000 Public policies on assessing and reporting degrees of animal harm; international perspectives. In: Balls, M, van Zeller, A-M and Halder, ME (eds) Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Elsevier Science: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Porter, DG 1992 Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 356: 101–102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purves, KE 2000 Global harmonization of pain and distress classification systems: current analysis and opportunity for change. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 3: 49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 1998 The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science, Iowa State University Press: Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
Rony Kalman, I, Olsson, AS, Bernardi, C, van den Broek, F, Bronstad, A, Gyertyan, I, Lang, A, Marinou, KA and Zeller, W 2010 Ethical evaluation of procedures for experiments involving animals: Recommendations for ethics committees. In: Howard, B, Nevalainen, T and Perretta, G (eds) COST Manual of Laboratory Animal Care and Use: Refinement, Reduction, and Research. CRC Press: USAGoogle Scholar
Ross, MW 1981 The ethics of experiments on higher animals. Social Science & Medicine 15F: 51–60Google ScholarPubMed
Russell, WMS and Burch, RL 1959 The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen & Co Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Schuppli, CA 2004 The role of the animal ethics committee in achieving humane animal experimentation. PhD Thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. http://www.landfood.ubc.ca/animalwelfare/publications/pdfs/theses/phdthesisSchuppli.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D 2005 The interpretation and application of the Three Rs by AEC members. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 33: 487–500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, KJ and Field, PB 1988 A new invasiveness scale: its role in reducing animal distress. PsyETA Bulletin 2: 43–46Google Scholar
Silla, VCB, Marthos, SM and Molento, CFM 2009 Two years description of the Animal Use Ethic Committee of the Agrarian Science Sector of the Federal University of Paraná. Ciência Rural 39: 2093–2098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, JA and Jennings, M 2004 Categorising the severity of scientific procedures on animals: Summary and reports from three roundtable discussions on the use of severity limits and bands in the UK. RSPCA Research Animals Department: Horsham, UK. http://www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk/severity_report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Smith, JA, van den Broek, FAR, Martorell, JC, Hackbarth, H, Ruksenas, O and Zeller, W 2005 Principles and practice in ethical review of animals experiments across Europe. A report prepared by the FELASA working group on ethical evaluation of animal experiments. http://www.felasa.eu/docs/WG_ethical_review_final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Smyth, DH 1978 Alternatives to Animal Experiments. Scolar Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Stephens, ML, Mendoza, P, Weaver, A and Hamilton, T 1998 Unrelieved pain and distress in animals: An analysis of USDA data on experimental procedures. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 1: 15–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office 2006 Interim and final reports on animal experiments: Explanatory notes for Form C (800.116-1.03). http://www.bvet.admin.ch/themen/tierschutz/00777/00779/index.html?lang=enGoogle Scholar
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office (undated). Retrospective classification of animal experiments according to degrees of severity prior to the experiment (stress categories). http://www.tierversuch.ch/?show=AWLaw&nav_id=4105&lang=enGoogle Scholar
United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2000 Information resources for institutional animal care and use committees [online database]. Animal Welfare Information Center Resource Series No 7. http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/IACUC/iacuc.htmGoogle Scholar
Williams, VM, Mellor, DJ and Marbrook, J 2006 Revision of a scale for assessing the severity of live animal manipulations. Alternatives to Animal Testing and Experimentation 23: 163–169Google Scholar
Williamson, A and Hoggart, B 2005 Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. Journal of Clinical Nursing 14: 798–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar