Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

German

Spanish

French

The involvement of non-scientific staff in discussions about animal welfare and scientific quality is essential for biomedical research progress. In this study, we developed a survey to collect the self-perception of animal care staff (ACS) and laboratory technicians about their involvement in scientific planning and conduct. Participants were contacted to complete an anonymous online questionnaire. We obtained 850 responses, mainly from Europe: 564 from ACS and 286 from laboratory technicians. Job satisfaction was assessed as positive by ACS and laboratory technicians despite the low frequency of culture of care activities and mental health meetings. Both groups expressed their desire to be trained in research planning and conduct; however, regular training was not reported. In addition, the inability to act on animal welfare concerns owing to experimental reasons was reported by both groups. Over half of the participants felt valued and appreciated by the lead scientists or animal facility manager; however, it is not clear how they are acknowledged, as their names on the authors list or in the manuscript acknowledgments are barely included. Our results indicated that involvement of ACS and laboratory technicians in planning and conducting studies would improve their understanding of how experiments are done, and therefore communication processes, work satisfaction, animal welfare, and scientific quality. Finally, we provided recommendations to improve the engagement of ACS and laboratory technicians in discussions about animal research planning and conduct.

Keywords

Job satisfaction culture of care animal care staff animal research animal welfare experimental design 3Rs compassion fatigue

Introduction

Animal research has significantly advanced human and animal health, generating valuable scientific insights across various disciplines.^1,2 However, like other scientific fields, the use of animals for scientific purposes faces challenges related to its scientific validity, replicability, reproducibility, and translational value.^3,4 The ethical justification for animal research depends on the production of robust, high-quality scientific output that meaningfully contributes to the knowledge base.⁵ To address these concerns, various initiatives and guidelines—such as PREPARE⁶ and ARRIVE^7,8—have been introduced to enhance research rigor and standards. Many of these initiatives primarily focus on improving the planning and reporting of scientific projects by researchers. Still, other factors also play a crucial role in ensuring high-quality animal-based research. For this reason, the PREPARE guidelines include a large section on the importance of communication between researchers and facility staff, from the earliest stages. Topics to be considered include facility evaluation, any needs for education and training, special health risks, division of labor, and distribution of costs (https://norecopa.no/PREPARE). Within research facilities, elements such as housing conditions, handling techniques, and experimental procedures directly influence both animal welfare and the reliability of scientific outcomes.^9,10 Poor welfare conditions, for instance, can lead to physiological and behavioral changes that introduce variability and compromise experimental reproducibility.¹¹ A key strategy for mitigating these issues is maintaining high standards of animal care, which relies not only on researchers and veterinary staff but also on the expertise, competence, and attentiveness of animal care staff (ACS) and laboratory technicians.¹²

In general, researchers typically engage with laboratory animals only during specific experimental procedures or when assessing the actual severity of procedures, whereas ACS members often interact with animals daily. Their expert knowledge of the animals’ biology, behavior, and housing needs uniquely positions them to identify practical challenges in study protocols, including feasibility issues that might get overlooked by researchers. Laboratory technicians are frequently involved in the conduct of animal experiments and often take on a large part of data collection or sampling. All of these professionals play a vital role in monitoring animal well-being, recognizing behavioral problems, identifying and responding to unexpected incidents, and assessing signs of stress, skills that are essential for minimizing confounding factors in research and providing an adequate level of animal welfare.^10,13 Additionally, they are the closest to identifying shortcomings in experimental planning or deviations (either accidental or deliberate) from the planned experiment. Either way, changes in the original protocol can hamper the interpretation of research outcomes if they are not reported transparently. In these cases, ACS and laboratory technicians can be an interface to scientists to draw their attention to these changes. Indeed, that makes them the de facto “eyes and ears of research.”

Effective collaboration and dialogue among researchers, veterinary personnel, laboratory technicians and ACS are therefore essential for improving research reliability and safeguarding animal welfare, which applies both during the planning phase of experiments and throughout their conduct. However, in our experience as scientists, veterinarians, animal welfare officers, animal advocates, and 3Rs specialists working in European research institutions, the expertise of ACS and laboratory technicians is not always fully utilized, particularly in the context of experimental planning. Despite their central role in maintaining animal welfare and supporting experimental procedures, their contributions to animal experiments are often underappreciated.¹⁴ Failing to integrate their perspectives might introduce unnecessary variability and inconsistencies in experiments, ultimately compromising research reliability. Furthermore, fostering a culture that values the contributions of ACS and laboratory technicians is likely to improve job satisfaction and strengthen the overall culture of care within research institutions.^14,15

Within the framework of the COST Action IMPROVE, “3Rs concepts to improve the quality of biomedical science,” this study sought to contribute to the ongoing discussion on establishing an effective culture of care by examining the role of ACS and laboratory technicians in the planning and conduct of animal research. The COST Action IMPROVE aims to enhance the quality of biomedical research with 3Rs concepts by bringing together experts working in the fields of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement of animal use in research. To our knowledge, this issue has received little attention in previous studies. We aimed to assess the extent to which ACS and laboratory technicians are involved in planning and conducting experiments, explore their perspectives on their roles, and evaluate how they perceive their institutional training and recognition.

To achieve this, an international, anonymous online survey was distributed among ACS and LT across several European countries to identify their perceived involvement in planning and conducting research, and to identify opportunities for improvement. Furthermore, strategies to optimize collaboration, research outcomes, overall scientific rigor, and animal welfare were proposed. As communication is central in this process, we also inquired about challenges and communication gaps in this context; then, a discussion on how to improve job satisfaction and the well-being of staff involved in animal experiments was provided.

The survey aimed to:

Evaluate the involvement and influence of ACS and laboratory technicians in the planning and conduct of animal studies.

Identify the perspectives of ACS and laboratory technicians on their roles in the research process.

Identify gaps in communication between ACS, laboratory technicians and researchers regarding animal experiments.

Propose recommendations to improve collaboration and communication between the different stakeholders involved in research projects and to enhance workers’ satisfaction.

Materials and methods

Study design

This exploratory study gauged the perceptions of ACS and laboratory technicians regarding science discussions through the implementation of the survey “Framing the role of animal care staff and lab technicians in the discussion about experimental planning and conduct of animal studies: Enhancing science reproducibility and workers’ satisfaction.” The survey was translated from the initial language (English) into seven languages (Croatian, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish) and a pilot study was performed with at least two people from the field in every country, to ensure the accuracy of the language and the terminology, which might vary between countries. After this, the survey was distributed to participants across various European and pan-European countries, targeting research institutions and organizations involved in laboratory animal research. Owing to the scarcity of data, no sample size calculation was done. The survey was designed to enable a general analysis of the European perspective and was conducted within the framework of the COST Action IMPROVE (https://cost-improve.eu), financed by European funds and coordinated by the Translational Animal Research Center at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. This survey is part of a wider study where we asked researchers about similar topics (data being prepared for a subsequent report).

Definitions

To ensure clarity during data collection, key terms were defined as follows:

ACS. People responsible for regularly caring for animals used, bred, or supplied for scientific purposes;

Laboratory technicians. People working in laboratories performing experiments with animal samples, maintaining laboratory equipment, and conducting experimental procedures;

Experimental planning. The process of creating a detailed experimental plan, including duration of experiments, animal housing, sampling methods, and data collection, aimed at maximizing information to project objectives;

Experimental conduct. The systematic approach to accurately perform experiments and collect information while minimizing sources of variation (e.g. compliance with protocols).

Survey structure

The survey was designed to enable a comprehensive analysis of individual perspectives and experiences of ACS and laboratory technicians (Supplemental material File 1 online). The present paper does not include the responses to the open questions, as this is a matter of further analysis. The thematic sections of the survey included:

Demographic data and professional background;

Current situation;

Involvement in experimental planning;

Involvement in experimental conduct;

Challenges and contributions.

Data collection

The survey was launched electronically via the LimeSurvey platform (www.limesurvey.de), licensed by the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. Participation was voluntary, with informed consent obtained before the beginning of the survey. Recruitment included dissemination through professional networks, social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, and X), mailing lists, and the COST Action IMPROVE community, and aimed to ensure a diversity of perspectives from different European countries. The survey was open between January 26th, 2024 and May 27th, 2024, and completion took approximately 15 min. After the end of this period, the raw and the summary data were exported using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, 2025) for subsequent analysis and visualization.

Data extraction and analysis

Only data from those with all mandatory questions answered were considered. Data were extracted from the Statistics Panel of the LimeSurvey platform. No further data were excluded. We retrieved datasets representing the total number of responses as well as disaggregated data for ACS and laboratory technicians groups. These datasets were subsequently consolidated into a Microsoft Excel file to facilitate further analysis. Quantitative data visualization was conducted using R Studio (R Core and Posit Team, 2025). Percentages were rounded using the largest remainder method to total 100%. Percentage labels smaller than 1% are not shown.

Ethical considerations

The survey was reviewed by the Commission on Ethics and Scientific Integrity of the Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria (https://www.kl.ac.at/en/research/ethics-committee). The Commission issued a statement (Waiver) stating that there were no ethical concerns about the conduct of the project (application number 1019/2024). Data collection complied with the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Results

Demographics

A total of 850 responses, representing participants from 27 different countries, were collected. Of these, 836 responses (98.4%) came from European countries. Around 96% came from: Germany (33.10%), France (14.84%), Switzerland (8.72%), Austria (6.60%), the UK (5.42%), Sweden (4.83%), Belgium (4.59%), Portugal (4.59%), Denmark (3.65%), the Netherlands (2.71%), and Finland, Italy, and Spain (2.24% each). All other participant countries (i.e. Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Spain, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey, and the USA) represented between 0.12% and 0.94% of the total responses each (see Supplemental File 4 for original data). The sample comprised 564 ACS and 286 laboratory technicians, and demographic data are shown in Supplemental File 2. Most respondents were between 31 and 49 years old (57.4%). In terms of gender distribution, nearly three-fourths of participants identified as female (74.1%). Respondents reported a high level of professional experience, with over 40% having more than 10 years of work experience. More than 50% of the participants were public employees working at universities, and most (70%) were employed in the field of biomedical science.

Current situation on work satisfaction

When asked about how “happy and fulfilled” ACS and laboratory technicians are in their current job position, more than 50% agreed that they were happy (ACS: 59%; laboratory technicians: 73%). Over 50% of laboratory technicians agreed they had “the opportunity to grow and develop” in their current positions, whereas only 44% of ACS agreed with this statement. More than 50% (both groups) answered that they felt “supported if they raise concerns about experimental planning and conduct” of animal experiments. The item “opportunity to offer suggestions about experimental planning and conduct” was answered similarly. A difference in positive answers (“agree” and “strongly agree”) between the two groups (ACS: 47%; laboratory technicians: 78%), which matches the answers to the previous question, could be shown (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Personal perception of animal care staff (ACS) and laboratory technicians (LT) regarding their current job position in the field of animal experiments.

Staff communication and training

To evaluate communication levels within an animal facility, the frequencies of different training strategies were asked. “Scientific training for animal care staff” was provided “often” or “very often” to 30% of ACS and 38% laboratory technicians. “3Rs and Animal Care training” was provided “often” and “very often” to 38% of ACS and 42% of laboratory technicians. “Culture of care meetings” occurred less frequently, with 23% of ACS and 24% of laboratory technicians answering “often” or “very often.” The laboratory technicians group responded that they have more “space to share ideas about experiment planning and conduct” than the ACS. Most of the participants of both groups reported “discussions on policy or guidelines regarding burnout and compassion fatigue” as nonexistent or rare (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Current situation regarding communication and training strategies within an animal facility from the perspectives of animal care staff (ACS) and laboratory technicians (LT).

Protocol deviations (“I have seen scientists using procedures that are not approved”) were observed “never” or “rarely” by 70% of ACS and 76% of laboratory technicians. In this question, we did not specify the reasons for the deviations. Moreover, both groups (ACS: 64%; laboratory technicians: 65%) stated that they had experienced “restrictions on the possibility to treat animals during an experiment” (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Observed issues in animal research experimental practices reported by animal care staff (ACS) and laboratory technicians (LT).

Recognition of staff

Laboratory technicians felt more “valued and appreciated by the research leaders and animal facility managers” than did ACS. The ACS strongly disagreed that they were considered as “authors of scientific papers” (82%) or “in the acknowledgements of scientific papers” (72%). The percentage of laboratory technicians in this regard was lower, with 51% never appearing in the authorship and 46% never appearing in the acknowledgements of the paper (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Personal perceptions of animal care staff (ACS) and laboratory technicians (LT) about feeling valued and recognized by different stakeholders.

Involvement of ACS and laboratory technicians in the planning and conduct of animal experiments

More laboratory technicians than ACS agreed with all of the statements on positive involvement in the research process (Figure 5). Only 35% of the ACS agreed with the item “the lead researcher provides me with instruction regarding experimental planning,” contrasting with a 73% of laboratory technicians agreeing with the same statement. A similar pattern was observed with the item “I am involved in the discussion about the experimental planning,” which had a level of agreement of 25% from ACS and 58% from laboratory technicians. Interestingly, 60% of ACS and 85% of laboratory technicians believe that their involvement helps them to understand how research is done. In the same direction, 49% ACS and 60% laboratory technicians believe that their involvement helps them to cope with stress and mental issues. Around 70% of ACS and laboratory technicians wanted to be trained in experimental planning. Interestingly, 73% of laboratory technicians believe their involvement in scientific discussions about experimental planning can improve study quality.

Figure 5.

Current perception of the involvement of animal care staff (ACS) and laboratory technicians (LT) in planning of the experiments in which they are involved.

More laboratory technicians than ACS agreed that they are “provided with instruction regarding experimental conduct” (75% laboratory technicians, 39% ACS), “understand the explanation provided by the lead researcher” (85% laboratory technicians, 52% ACS), “receive kind and patient support from research leader” (66% laboratory technicians, 39% ACS), are “involved in the discussions about the experimental conduct” (59% laboratory technicians, 24% ACS), and that their “opinions and expertise are valued (or at least acknowledged) when conducting the experiments” (67% laboratory technicians, 36% ACS). Both groups agreed that “being involved in the discussion about experimental conduct helps to understand why and how each experiment is conducted” (85% laboratory technicians, 61% ACS), with a similar perception when asked about the positive influence of their involvement in scientific discussions on stress management and mental health (58% laboratory technicians, 48% ACS). Around 70% of ACS and laboratory technicians wanted to be trained in experimental conduct. Interestingly, 74% of laboratory technicians believe their involvement in scientific discussions about experimental conduct can improve study quality. More than 50% of laboratory technicians agreed with all of the statements (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Current perception of the involvement of animal care staff (ACS) and laboratory technicians (LT) in the conduct of the experiments in which they are involved.

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the perceptions of ACS and laboratory technicians on their roles in the research process, including their work satisfaction, as well as their experiences in planning and conducting animal experiments. The majority of responses were received from participants from France and Germany, likely owing to the survey’s dissemination through the professional networks of the research team. This might introduce a regional bias, as differences in culture of care activities, responsibilities for animal experiments, or training and education regarding experimental design and procedures may limit generalizability. Similar to other studies, there were more female respondents.^16–18 Organizational scale may impact communication, resource allocation, and staff autonomy. Anecdotally, we observed that staff working in small facilities tended to report better communication with facility managers. However, further evidence-based research is needed to fully understand how facility size affects ACS’s and laboratory technicians’ performance and satisfaction, as well as professional development and training and communication with the facility manager. This could inform organizational strategies aimed at improving both animal welfare and scientific outcomes.

Work satisfaction

Most professionals were happy and fulfilled with their work. However, in the group of laboratory technicians the trend is more positive compared with the ACS group. One explanation could be that laboratory technicians have more opportunities to offer suggestions about experimental planning and conduct than do ACS and are more supported when concerns are raised, which might result in being slightly more satisfied with their work. Moreover, laboratory technicians, by training, might have greater knowledge of the benefits of animal studies or can better understand the purpose of animal experiments. Understanding the purpose of experiments creates meaning, which boosts satisfaction and protects mental health.¹⁹ For example, the cases where ACS are asked to perform euthanasia without previous discussion of the reasons (topic out of scope of this survey), may be linked to mental health problems such as compassion fatigue syndrome.²⁰ Efforts on communicating the reasons for experimental decisions can empower animal care staff and improve job satisfaction.

While unreported changes to the original protocol have the potential to negatively impact both animal welfare and work satisfaction of those involved in animal care and experimentation, our survey indicated that such incidents, reported as “never” or “rare,” do not have a significant impact. It remains important to maintain effective measures, such as the possibility to report concerns about the procedures or treatment of animals anonymously and ensuring support from supervisors, to foster staff well-being and ensure high standards of animal welfare.

Work satisfaction among people working with animals is closely related to experimental practices and animal welfare. O’Connor and Gouveia (2024)²¹ found that incidents where animal welfare was compromised had the potential to impact well-being and job satisfaction. Restrictions on the veterinary treatment of experimental animals, reported by over 60% of ACS and laboratory technicians, can negatively influence their job satisfaction, as they are often emotionally connected to the animals and wish to provide care.²¹ In some cases, the possibility of relieving an animal from evident suffering or pain is limited by the research question and the experimental design. Often, the mismatch between the staff values and the research requirements, resulting in an ethical dilemma, eventually can lead to moral injury. If experienced, empathetic staff leave their jobs because of compassion fatigue or animal welfare incidents, this will lead to reduced quality of animal care and impaired research quality. Although the formal responsibility for animal health and welfare decisions lies with the veterinary staff and researchers, it is often the ACS or laboratory technicians who must carry them out. The burden of procedure and humane endpoints is often assessed by using score sheets, which must be accessible to all personnel included in the experiment. Involving ACS and laboratory technicians in discussions about the design of score sheets, particularly regarding treatment and euthanasia decisions, might help to improve their job satisfaction by giving them a greater sense of involvement and responsibility and a broader picture of the study. The decision regarding how to involve ACS and laboratory technicians in these discussions should lie with the study leader, who is best positioned to assess the overall context and scientific requirements. Other aspects influencing job satisfaction (salary, family situation, promotion opportunities, etc.) were not evaluated in our study.

Communication and knowledge transfer

The frequency of training reported in the study suggests that laboratory technicians are more involved in the planning and conduct of experiments compared with ACS. This aligns with the finding that ACS members feel less valued and appreciated by research leaders or animal facility managers. Such disparity might place ACS at a disadvantage, potentially diminishing the perceived importance of their role in animal experimentation, which could negatively affect their sense of job impact. One possible reason for this could be that ACS have less direct interaction with these decision-makers. Moreover, the fact that ACS role descriptions are not directly related to science planning may make them disengage from the whole scientific process. Nevertheless, literature shows that caregivers are interested in education opportunities that provide them with the knowledge to work through a variety of problems on animal health and treatment, by which they can improve in decision-making skills.²² Further evidence indicated that discussing protocols and options with coworkers, supervisors, and veterinarians, but also having access to continuing education and training, is an integral aspect of the decision-making and learning process of ACS.²³

Decision makers are required to create more continuing education options to adapt ACS and laboratory technicians to the needs of the ACS population and the technology development.^24–26 In this regard, it would be valuable to explore who is responsible for organizing training opportunities about animal studies, as well as the content, frequency, and accessibility of such training. A course once a year or biannually might be considered enough to discuss or learn new rules, laws, or policies, but anyway might be answered as “rare.” The frequency of updates might also depend on content and population²⁵ and could be evaluated in further studies. Notably, discussions around policy and guidelines appear to occur infrequently for both groups, suggesting that the perspectives of ACS and laboratory technicians are often overlooked in formal decision-making processes.¹⁴ Moreover, it does not comply with the legal demands, namely 2010/63/EU Directive’s article 23 (3), which requires that staff shall maintain competence through a process of continuing education (Continuing Professional Development (CPD)). Ensuring that ACS and laboratory technicians voices are heard in the development of institutional policies and national guidelines would be a significant step toward improving workplace inclusion and recognition.²⁷

Another way to better integrate ACS’s and laboratory technicians’ knowledge and experience into the scientific process is to establish good inter-professional teamwork practices. It has long been recognized that different professional backgrounds, cultures, individual qualities (e.g. management and communication skills), and team characteristics (e.g. meeting frequency, team size) can entail negative health outcomes and medical errors in human and veterinary health care systems. A way to overcome this problem is to implement inter-professional training programs, good, free and complete communication, respectful interaction, and clearly defined roles. In addition, the composition of the inter-professional team and its organization should be taken into account.²⁸ In Europe, there is already an instrument available that could provide ACS and laboratory technicians with a platform to communicate their views on the research process: The animal welfare bodies (AWBs). These bodies are composed of researchers, ACS, veterinarians, and persons responsible for animal welfare. The focus of the AWB is on animal welfare. They also address shortcomings of the planning and conduct of animal experiments, as these, in the end, have an impact on animal welfare.

The answers regarding recognition in scientific papers reflect a similar matter (or are maybe a consequence): when it comes to publications, neither ACS nor laboratory technicians are generally included in the list of co-authors, nor in the acknowledgements. Laboratory technicians and ACS should do their work regardless of whether they are co-authors because they are paid for doing the job at an appropriate level. In addition, being an author is irrelevant for most of the laboratory technicians’ or ACS’s professional career. But anyhow, some of the staff really appreciate the acknowledgement of being listed as an author, and this can be crucial for motivation, although they do not need it for their job/development per se. In addition, publishers are called upon to allow ACS and laboratory technicians the opportunity to express their views on the scientific process in journals, for example, via a facility staff corner or perspectives from laboratory technicians or ACS.

Involvement

Laboratory technicians seem to be slightly more involved in the planning and conduct. This could be because most of them have an academic degree. After all, they are better trained in their job, or conduct experiments on their own. Additionally, their roles are different: ACS focus more on caring for the animals in the facility, while laboratory technicians are primarily assisting with the research. In either case, it emerged that it may be necessary to provide training to ACS as they report missing instructions and involvement in the discussion about planning and conducting experiments, and agree that being involved in such discussions helps to understand why and how each experiment is done. If ACS have a good understanding of the experiments at hand, they will be able to suggest available and feasible refinement strategies, with likely improvements to the scientific outcome.²⁹ ACS and laboratory technicians strongly agree that they want to be trained on experimental planning as well as execution. Although the benefit of such measures is known, the implementation is still poor. Therefore, shared concepts for training as well as training material should be provided. Our results show that while ACS consider their expertise to be valued (or at least acknowledged) when conducting experiments, this is not reflected during the planning stage of said experiments, which might lead to issues being detected when the studies are already advanced. Considering the advice of ACS at this earlier stage (planning) could prevent the failure of experiments, and thus prevent animal suffering, the waste of animals’ lives, and costs.^13,17

A possible explanation for the lack of involvement of ACS or laboratory technicians in the planning of animal experiments could indeed be that not enough time and attention are dedicated to their involvement. Although a great deal of time is invested to ensure that animal experiments are properly planned, and there is extensive communication between animal welfare officers, regulatory authorities, and researchers before a study is planned in a way that satisfies all parties involved, often, ACS and LT are missing. ACS usually do not have the capacity to engage with all the research projects in detail, as their working day is already fully occupied with their respective tasks.³⁰ If we want to involve ACS more in the planning process, then capacities would need to be created specifically for this purpose. However, this is not a trivial issue. It must be carefully considered where and to what extent they should be involved. Attempting to explain the full details of every project to every ACS member would likely not be productive. Clear agreements would be needed to define how and where these groups can be meaningfully included in planning, without overwhelming them.

For the laboratory technicians the situation usually differs, because they are closer to the researcher and directly participate in studies. However, it is important to emphasize the importance of investing time and effort in making sure the experimental plan is well-designed, carefully laid out, and that all contingencies are reflected upon and addressed beforehand, for the success of the experiment, the welfare of the animals, and indeed the ethical justification for the experiments. All the conditions must be set to ensure that animal care and technical staff can be well-trained in identifying and avoiding confounding factors that can influence the quality of animal experiments.

This survey did not address the nature and timing of ACS’s and laboratory technicians’ involvement in the experimental process. Specifically, it is important to distinguish whether their participation is planned, that is, they are intentionally included in specific experimental phases from the outset, or whether their contributions occur more spontaneously during the course of the study, prompted by arising issues. Both forms of involvement are likely to be beneficial and should be encouraged, as they promote collaborative refinement of experimental procedures. It is of note that laboratory technicians were more likely than ACS to agree that recognition of the experience in the planning and conducting animal experiments had a positive impact. This raises the question of whether laboratory technicians possess greater self-confidence in their professional roles or whether structural and organizational factors contribute to this perception, or whether it is intrinsically related to their job roles.

Study limitations

The authors aimed for as many answers as possible within the given timeframe. The sample size per country was unknown, and not all countries were equally represented in the survey. Therefore, it was only possible to compare results within countries from which the necessary representative number of participants were obtained. Most of the answers came from public employees and are self-reported. Thus, the results may not be representative of all institutions. This could be achieved in future research by determining sample size not only per country but also by type of institution. Participants were asked about their general opinion on animal experiments. No differentiation between species or the severity of procedures was made. A follow-up study to acquire further information on what type of animal experiment the ACS or laboratory technicians worked in could offer further insight into how satisfied people are in their jobs, as well as into how much people are trained and involved in different species or procedures.

Recommendations to improve ACS and laboratory technician staff involvement in research planning and conduct

We offer a set of eight recommendations to proactively improve the quality of animal research and worker satisfaction:

1. Discuss and implement the PREPARE guidelines, which promote active participation of ACS and laboratory technicians in the planning of experiments.

2. Improve CPD to leverage job satisfaction. We endorse that modules for staff carrying out procedures on animals, and/or designing procedures and projects, include appropriate focus on the expertise of laboratory technicians and ACS, and the importance of seeking their advice and input when designing and carrying out procedures. Number 2 of Supplemental File 3 states the challenges and recommendations for regulators, laboratory animal science staff and management, senior organizational management, and AWBs, suggesting that good practice should be shared between different countries.

3. Hold regular meetings with ACS and laboratory technicians together to discuss ongoing and planned research, and therefore, foster collaborations.

4. Promote “Culture of Care” institutional concepts (see number 4 of Supplemental File 3).

5. Create internal guidelines where all stakeholders involved, including ACS and laboratory technicians are given opportunities and encouraged to provide voluntary inputs about planning and conducting experiments.

6. Establish Scientific Service Units (SSUs) to help scientists in developing ethically sound protocols and conducting experiments using animals according to the 3Rs. SSUs can advise on study design, animal models, calculation of animal numbers, and current guidelines on anesthesia and analgesia, as well as state-of-the-art procedures.

7. Involve ACS and laboratory technicians in project review, ethical review and AWBs, identifying adverse effects, refinement, and welfare assessment. For example, staff can participate in pre-procedure meetings and post-procedure debriefs (see number 7 of Supplemental File 3).

8. Ensure that resources are available to support ACS and laboratory technicians who are experiencing emotional labor or “compassion fatigue.” This can include providing institutional “Mental Health First-Aiders” as well as connecting staff with available assistance from professional societies (e.g. the UK Institute of Animal Technology) or bodies such as the 3Rs Collaborative. Some institutions can set up a tangible space for staff to reflect on their relationship with animals and support one another.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-lan-10.1177_00236772251400976 – Supplemental material for Building bridges: Involvement of animal care staff and laboratory technicians in experimental planning and conduct of animal studies for better job satisfaction and science

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-lan-10.1177_00236772251400976 for Building bridges: Involvement of animal care staff and laboratory technicians in experimental planning and conduct of animal studies for better job satisfaction and science by Fernando Gonzalez-Uarquin, Paulin Jirkof, Bettina Bert, Penny Hawkins, Ljupco Angelovski, Jan Baumgart, Nadine Baumgart, Özge S. Cevik, Nuno H. Franco, Erdal Horata, Rohish Kaura, Winfried Neuhaus, Brigida Riso, Adrian J. Smith, Athanassia Sotiropoulos, Augusto Vitale and Sophie Schober in Laboratory Animals

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-lan-10.1177_00236772251400976 – Supplemental material for Building bridges: Involvement of animal care staff and laboratory technicians in experimental planning and conduct of animal studies for better job satisfaction and science

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-lan-10.1177_00236772251400976 for Building bridges: Involvement of animal care staff and laboratory technicians in experimental planning and conduct of animal studies for better job satisfaction and science by Fernando Gonzalez-Uarquin, Paulin Jirkof, Bettina Bert, Penny Hawkins, Ljupco Angelovski, Jan Baumgart, Nadine Baumgart, Özge S. Cevik, Nuno H. Franco, Erdal Horata, Rohish Kaura, Winfried Neuhaus, Brigida Riso, Adrian J. Smith, Athanassia Sotiropoulos, Augusto Vitale and Sophie Schober in Laboratory Animals

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-lan-10.1177_00236772251400976 – Supplemental material for Building bridges: Involvement of animal care staff and laboratory technicians in experimental planning and conduct of animal studies for better job satisfaction and science

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-lan-10.1177_00236772251400976 for Building bridges: Involvement of animal care staff and laboratory technicians in experimental planning and conduct of animal studies for better job satisfaction and science by Fernando Gonzalez-Uarquin, Paulin Jirkof, Bettina Bert, Penny Hawkins, Ljupco Angelovski, Jan Baumgart, Nadine Baumgart, Özge S. Cevik, Nuno H. Franco, Erdal Horata, Rohish Kaura, Winfried Neuhaus, Brigida Riso, Adrian J. Smith, Athanassia Sotiropoulos, Augusto Vitale and Sophie Schober in Laboratory Animals

Supplemental Material

sj-xlsx-4-lan-10.1177_00236772251400976 – Supplemental material for Building bridges: Involvement of animal care staff and laboratory technicians in experimental planning and conduct of animal studies for better job satisfaction and science

Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-4-lan-10.1177_00236772251400976 for Building bridges: Involvement of animal care staff and laboratory technicians in experimental planning and conduct of animal studies for better job satisfaction and science by Fernando Gonzalez-Uarquin, Paulin Jirkof, Bettina Bert, Penny Hawkins, Ljupco Angelovski, Jan Baumgart, Nadine Baumgart, Özge S. Cevik, Nuno H. Franco, Erdal Horata, Rohish Kaura, Winfried Neuhaus, Brigida Riso, Adrian J. Smith, Athanassia Sotiropoulos, Augusto Vitale and Sophie Schober in Laboratory Animals

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We deeply acknowledge all the animal care staff and laboratory technicians who participated in this study! We acknowledge Working Groups 1 and 4 from COST Action IMPROVE (“3Rs concepts to improve the quality of biomedical science”), CA21139, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) for their feedback and support. We also acknowledge Aoife Milford for her comments and contributions to the final draft of the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

Adrian J. Smith is the lead author of the PREPARE guidelines, which we refer to throughout the manuscript. All other authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and /or publication of this article.

Funding

This publication was based on work from the COST Action IMPROVE (“3Rs concepts to improve the quality of biomedical science”), CA21139, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).

ORCID iDs

Fernando Gonzalez-Uarquin

Paulin Jirkof

Bettina Bert

Ljupco Angelovski

Nadine Baumgart

Nuno Henrique Franco

Adrian John Smith

Data availability statement

Data are available and can be found in .

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Chang

MCJ

Grieder

. The continued importance of animals in biomedical research. Lab Anim (NY) 2024; 53: 295-297. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41684-024-01458-4

Franco

NH.

Animal experiments in biomedical research: A historical perspective. Animals (Basel) 2013; 3: 238-273. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3010238

Baker

1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 2016; 533: 452-454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a

Freedman

Cockburn

Simcoe

TS.

The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol 2015; 13: e1002165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165

Kiani

Pheby

Henehan

, et al Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation. J Prev Med Hyg 2022; 63: E255-E266. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2768

Smith

Clutton

Lilley

, et al PREPARE: Guidelines for planning animal research and testing. Lab Anim 2018; 52: 135-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677217724823

Kilkenny

Browne

Cuthill

, et al Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010; 8: e1000412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412

Percie du Sert

Ahluwalia

Alam

, et al Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol 2020; 18: e3000411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411

Olsson

Dahlborn

Improving housing conditions for laboratory mice: A review of “environmental enrichment”. Lab Anim 2002; 36: 243-270. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367702320162379

10.

von der Beck

Wissmann

Tolba

, et al What can laboratory animal facility managers do to improve the welfare of laboratory animals and laboratory animal facility staff? A German perspective. Animals (Basel) 2024; 14: 1136. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14071136

11.

Emmer

Russart

KLG

Walker

, et al Effects of light at night on laboratory animals and research outcomes. Behav Neurosci 2018; 132: 302-314. https://doi.org/10.1037/bne0000252

12.

Weichbrod

Thompson

Norton

(eds) Management of animal care and use programs in research, education, and testing. 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL), 2018.

13.

Abelson

Chambers

De La Cueva

, et al Harmonisation of education, training and continuing professional development for laboratory animal caretakers, technicians and technologists: Report of the FELASA-EFAT Working Group. Lab Anim 2023; 57: 599-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772231175550

14.

Ferrara

Hiebl

Kunzmann

, et al Culture of care in animal research – expanding the 3Rs to include people. Lab Anim 2022; 56: 511-518. https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772221102238

15.

Norton

Reynolds

Chan

, et al Assessing the satisfaction and burden within an academic animal care and use program. FASEB J 2017; 31: 3913-3921. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201700072RR

16.

Goni-Balentziaga

Ortega-Saez

Vila

, et al Working with laboratory rodents in Spain: A survey on welfare and wellbeing. Lab Anim Res 2021; 37: 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42826-021-00098-w

17.

Morahan

Cohen

Bero

, et al The culture of care to enhance laboratory animal personnel well-being: A scoping review. Lab Anim 2024; 58: 515-529. https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772241259089

18.

Thurston

Chan

Burlingame

, et al Compassion fatigue in laboratory animal personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2021; 60: 646-654. https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-21-000030

19.

Brooks

Greenberg

The well-being of companion animal caregivers and their companion animals during the COVID-19 pandemic: Scoping review. Animals (Basel) 2023; 13: 3294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13203294

20.

Newsome

Clemmons

Fitzhugh

, et al Compassion fatigue, euthanasia stress, and their management in laboratory animal research. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2019; 58: 289-292. https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-18-000092

21.

O’Connor

Gouveia

Job satisfaction and animal welfare at slaughter: A survey of Official Veterinarians in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Anim Welf 2025; 34: e7. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.43

22.

Edwards-Callaway

Simpson

Roman-Muniz

, et al Preliminary exploration of weekly peer group discussions as a strategy for coping with feelings associated with euthanasia in dairy caretakers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19: 2177. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042177

23.

Edwards-Callaway

Mijares

Okoren

, et al Developing a model to promote caretaker confidence and communication in treatment decisions for dairy cattle through case studies. J Dairy Sci 2024; 107: 2321-2331. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2023-23698

24.

Arcury

Estrada

Quandt

SA.

Overcoming language and literacy barriers in safety and health training of agricultural workers. J Agromedicine 2010; 15: 236-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2010.486958

25.

Henze

Allison

Criley

, et al Cross-training laboratory animal care personnel in physically separate animal facilities at a land-grant institution. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2016; 55: 601-605.

26.

Pritt

Duffee

Training strategies for animal care technicians and veterinary technical staff. ILAR J 2007; 48: 109-119. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.48.2.109

27.

Murray

Bauer

Vilminot

, et al Strengthening workplace well-being in research animal facilities. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7: 573106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.573106

28.

Hustoft

Hetlevik

Assmus

, et al Communication and relational ties in inter-professional teams in Norwegian specialized health care: A multicentre study of relational coordination. Int J Integr Care 2018; 18: 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.3432

29.

Redding

Oberhardt

Teaching technicians about animal research. Lab Anim (NY) 2014; 43: 33. https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.436

30.

Van Hooser

Pekow

Nguyen

, et al Caring for the animal caregiver – occupational health, human–animal bond and compassion fatigue. Front Vet Sci 2021; 8: 731003. D https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.731003