Overview and Analysis of Animal Use in North America

Abstract

The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) publishes data on over 25 species of animals used in science, and the US Department of Agriculture publishes data on six of those species. Between 1980 and 1999, the reduction in animal use was found to be correlated between Canada and the USA for dogs (r = 0.944, p < 0.001), cats (r = 0.839, p < 0.001), rabbits (r = 0.852, p < 0.001) and hamsters (r = 0.716, p < 0.01), with no significant correlation found for non-human primates and guinea-pigs. On the basis of the four species where correlation between the two countries was found for reduction in use, the mean ratio of the number of animals used in the USA compared to the number used in Canada was 17.0 ± 7.5. The CCAC data for these six US-regulated species were used in an analysis of regression with multiple predictors to test whether they could be used to predict the total number of animals used. No significant correlation was found. However, using the same analysis, rats, mice, fish and birds were found to be highly correlated with the total number of animals used (r² = 0.9835, p < 0.005). The regression equation developed by using Canadian data was validated using UK animal use numbers. An almost perfect fit between the estimated values provided the evidence that total animal use in Canada and the UK decreased at about the same pace during the 1990s. Animal use data can be a useful tool to monitor the implementation of reduction measures. However, their use for the monitoring of refinement measures requires care and analysis. For example, the sustained downward trend in the number of experiments causing severe pain in unanaesthetised animals (category of invasiveness [CI] E) observed in Canada and the USA between 1996 and 1999 is indicative of effective refinement, but it would be misleading to interpret the increase in the number of animals used in Canada under CI D in 1997 as an indication of greater pain and distress. In fact, the larger number of animals in CI D resulted at least in part from the implementation of new CCAC guidelines designed to ensure better monitoring of transgenic animal care and use.

Keywords

animal use reduction refinement Three Rs trends

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Russell

W.M.S.

, & Burch

(1959). Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238 pp. Potters, Bar, Herts, UK: Methuen. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) Special edition (1992).

National Center for Research Resources, NIH (1997). The National Survey of Laboratory Animal Use, Facilities, and Resources, 55 pp. Durham, NC, USA: Analytical Sciences Inc.

Canadian Council on Animal Care (2001). Resource 25 (1). Ottawa ON, Canada: CCAC.

United States Department of Agriculture (2000). Animal Welfare Report, Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 39 pp. Washington, DC, USA: USDA.

Rowan

A.N.

(1994). Laboratory animal use trends revisited. The Animal Policy Report 8. North Grafton, MA, USA: Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy.

Roscoe

J.T.

(1969). Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 329 pp. Holt, New York, USA: Pinehart and Winston, Inc.

Anon. (1988). Summary of statistics on experiments on living animals in Great Britain in 1987. ATLA 16, 122–123.

Rowan

A.N.

, Loew

F.M.

, & Weer

J.C.

(1995). The Animal Research Controversy: Protest, Process & Public Policy — An Analysis of Strategic Issues. North Grafton, MA, USA: Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy.

Canadian Council on Animal Care (1977). Animal Use Survey. Ottawa ON, Canada: CCAC.

10.

Canadian Council on Animal Care (1997). Guidelines on: Transgenic Animals. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CCAC.

11.

Gauthier

, & Griffin

(2001). The Use of Animals in Scientific Research and as Sources of Bioengineered Products, a report commissioned by the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, Industry Canada. http://www.cbac-cccb.ca.

12.

Canadian Council on Animal Care (1998). Guidelines on: Choosing an Appropriate Endpoint in Experiments Using Animals for Research, Teaching and Testing. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CCAC.

13.

Richmond

, Fletch

, & Van Tongerloo

(2002). Recommendations on best scientific practices for animal care committees and animal use oversight. In Regulatory Testing and Animal Welfare — Proceedings of the ICLAS/CCAC International Symposium, Québec City, Canada, June 21–23, 2001. ILAR Journal 43, S129.