Abstract
Working party reports are essential for updating current practices in animal welfare, research and experimentation. A recent Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) report published in Laboratory Animals, by Dahlborn and colleagues, 1 summarized reliable identification and tagging methods. In many domains of animal research it is essential to identify individual animals and keep track of their development. However, the new EU directive (2010/63/EU) does not apply to animal identification practices and, hence, it is left to the national authorities to decide what methods are acceptable. Unfortunately, there is no gold standard. Not every method is equally accepted across Europe, which must have led to some interesting discussions among the party members during the establishment of this report. But how important are such reports? For one, it is essential to have consensus on the importance of the different methods. This provides a guide to the best choice, dependent on experimental conditions and whether identification can be combined with a need for tissue sampling. Such reports certainly help to improve experimentation and planning of experiments and to avoid mistakes and unnecessary repetitions of experiments when individual animals cannot be correctly identified.
In the July issue of Laboratory Animals, another FELASA working party report was published by Bonaparte and colleagues, 2 which provides guidelines for the refinement of methods used to genotype genetically-modified rodents. This working party report was felt to be necessary, since data on genetically-altered animals are fast growing and therefore need regular review. One objective of the report was to summarize currently available methods in genotyping and to provide methods for DNA sampling, genotyping and identification. A survey among 25 countries showed that procedures are far from harmonized between countries or between institutions within a country. Given the wealth of information collected, some of it has been included in an appendix, given that Laboratory Animals has strict guidelines regarding word counts. It is certainly worth consulting the supplementary information, such as the various protocols in the survey, or on valuable information on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) troubleshooting, in order to avoid common mistakes.
In the same issue of Laboratory Animals, the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published a working party report on genetically-altered animals. Rose and colleagues 3 discuss harmonization in the production, care and use of genetically-altered animals and place a strong focus on the ‘Three Rs’. In particular, issues such as the appropriateness of animal models, the generation of new animal lines, their care and maintenance, welfare and humane endpoints, information capture or data sharing are discussed. Unfortunately, such guidelines have no legal impact, but eventually may find their way into general use and may provide the basic elements to constitute a fundamental framework of a global concept of animal welfare.
When guidelines are applied, such as those included in the three working party reports discussed here, it seems essential to give credit to the working party reports with an appropriate citation in any publication of results. On the one hand, this signals that experiments have been done according to defined and accepted criteria, and underlines that animal welfare is a major priority in animal experimentation. On the other hand, this is important information for the public, who expect responsibility, and the strict application and respect of animal welfare in applied and basic research.