Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:51:00.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Guidelines development and scientific uncertainty: use of previous case studies to promote efficient production of guidelines on the care and use of fish in research, teaching and testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

G Griffin  and
C Gauthier
G Griffin*
Affiliation:
Canadian Council on Animal Care, 315-350 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario KIR IBI, Canada
C Gauthier
Affiliation:
Canadian Council on Animal Care, 315-350 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario KIR IBI, Canada
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) develops guidelines on issues of current and emerging concern in response to the needs of the scientific community, advances in animal care, and the needs of the CCAC Assessment Program. Guidelines are developed by subcommittees of experts, and are based on sound scientific evidence. However, the process of guidelines' development can involve consideration of areas where there is little scientific certainty or where scientific evidence needs to be tempered by other ethical considerations. Often these are areas where recommendations to the community are most needed, to provide assistance to both investigators and animal care committees on how best to balance the well-being of experimental animals and the goals of scientific research. The process for drafting the CCAC guidelines on: the care and use of fish in research, teaching and testing (in preparation) will be used as an example of the development of guidelines in the face of uncertain science, alongside a discussion of the CCAC guidelines on: transgenic animals (1997), as an example of the employment of a precautionary approach. Fish are now one of the most commonly used laboratory animals in Canada. However, what constitutes well-being for fish is an emerging field with often conflicting scientific data, and this presents unique challenges in guidelines' development.

Keywords

animal welfareethicsfishgenetically modified animalspain and distressprecautionary approach
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue S1: Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium, Edinburgh, 2-4 April 2003 , February 2004 , pp. S181 - S186
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Balm, PHM and Pottinger T, G 1995 Corticotrope and melanotrope POMC-derived peptides in relation to interrenal function during stress in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). General and Comparative Endocrinology 98 (3): 279–288CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banner M, C 1995 Report of the Committee to Consider the Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals. Her Majesty's Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Banner, M 1998 Ethics, society and policy: a way forward. In: Holland, A and Johnson, A (eds) Animal Biotechnology and Ethics pp 322–339. Chapman and Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Bateson, P 1992 Assessment of pain in animals. Animal Behaviour 42: 827–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermond, B 1997 The myth of animal suffering. In: Dol, M, Kasanmoentalio, S, Lijmbach, S, Rivas, E and van den Bos, R (eds) Animal Consciousness and Animal Ethics pp 125–143. Van Gorcum: Assen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, V A and Huntingford, F A 2004 Fish and welfare: do fish have the capacity for pain perception and suffering? In: KirkWood J K, Roberts E A and Vickery S (eds) Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Science in the Service of Animal Welfare’, Edinburgh, 2003. Animal Welfare 13: 587–592 (Suppl).Google Scholar
Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999 (c.33). Available at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-15.31/28311.html.Google Scholar
CBAC 2002 Patenting of Higher Life Forms and Related Issues. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee: Ottawa, Canada. Available at: http://www.cbac-cccb.ca (follow links Publications/Project reports)Google Scholar
CCAC 1989 Policy Statement: Ethics of Animal Investigation. Canadian Council on Animal Care: Ottawa, Canada. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/english/gui_pol/policies/ethics.htmGoogle Scholar
CCAC 1991 Policy Statement’ Categories of Invasiveness in Animal Experiments. Canadian Council on Animal Care: Ottawa, Canada. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/english/gui_pol/policies/categ.htmGoogle Scholar
CCAC 1993 Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals, Volume I, Second Edition. Canadian Council on Animal Care: Ottawa, Canada. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/english/gui_pol/guides/english/toc_v1.htmGoogle Scholar
CCAC 1997 Guidelines on: Transgenic Animals. Canadian Council on Animal Care: Ottawa, Canada. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/english/gui_pol/gdlines/transgen/transgeI.htmGoogle Scholar
CCAC 1998 Guidelines on: Choosing an Appropriate Endpoint in Experiments Using Animals for Research, Teaching and Testing. Canadian Council on Animal Care: Ottawa, Canada. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/english/gui_pol/gdlines/endpts/appopen.htmGoogle Scholar
FSBI 2002 Fish Welfare (Briefing Paper 2). Fisheries Society of the British Isles. Granta Information Systems: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Available at: http://www.le.ac.uk/biology/fsbi/welfare.pdf.Google Scholar
Gauthier, C Overview and analysis of animal use in North America. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: in press.Google Scholar
Gauthier, C and Griffin, G 2000 The Use of Animals in Scientific Research and as Sources of Bioengineered Products. Report prepared for the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Project Steering Committee on Intellectual Property and the Patenting of Higher Life Forms. Available at: http://cbac-cccb.ca (follow links Publications/Research).Google Scholar
Griffin, G and Gauthier, C 2000 Alternatives to the Use of Animals for Research, Testing and as Sources of Bioengineered Products. Report prepared for the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Project Steering Committee on Intellectual Property and the Patenting of Higher Life Forms. Available at: http://cbac-cccb.ca (follow links Publications/Research).Google Scholar
Hawkins, P 2002 Recognizing and assessing pain, suffering and distress in laboratory animals: a survey of current practice in the UK with recommendations. Laboratory Animals 36(4): 378–395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IASP (International Association for the Study of Pain) 1979 Pain terms: a list with definitions and notes on usage. Pain 6: 249–252Google Scholar
Jegstrup, I, Thon, R, Hansen, A K and Ritskes-Hoitinga, M 2003 Characterization of transgenic mice — a comparison of protocols for welfare evaluation and phenotype characterization of mice with a suggestion on a future certificate of instruction. Laboratory Animals 37(1): 1–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overmier, J B and Papini M, R 1986 Factors modulating the effects of teleost telencephalon ablation on retention, relearning and extinction of instrumental avoidance behavior. Behavioral Neuroscience 100: 190–199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patent Act 1985 (c.P-4). Available at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/P-4/89718.html.Google Scholar
Rodriguezmoldes, I, Manso M, J, Becerra, M, Molist, P and Anadon, R 1993 Distribution of substance P-like immunoreactivity in the brain of the elasmobranch Scyliorhinus canicula. Journal of Comparative Neurology 335: 228–244CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, J D 2002 The neurobehavioral nature of fishes and the question of awareness and pain. Reviews in Fisheries Science 10(1): 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell W M, S and Burch, R L 1959 The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen: London, UK. (Reissued as a special edition [1992] by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, Herts, UK)Google Scholar
Sneddon v, U, Braithwaite, V A and Gentle, Mj 2003 Do fishes have nociceptors? Evidence for the evolution of a vertebrate sensory system. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 270: 1115–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vecino, E, Piñuela, C, Arévalo, R, Lara, J, Alonso, J R and Aijón, J 1992 Distribution of enkaphalin-like immunoreactivity in the central nervous system of rainbow trout: an immunocyto-chemical study. Journal of Anatomy 180: 425–453Google Scholar
Wilson, P 1998 Legislative Jurisdiction Over Animals Used in Research, Teaching and Testing. Canadian Council on Animal Care commissioned Legal Opinion. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt: Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Zaccone, G, Fasulo, S and Ainis, L 1994 Distribution patterns of the paraneuronal endocrine cells in the skin, gills and the airways of fishes determined by immunohistochemical and histological methods. Histochemical Journal 26: 609–629CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed