IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0234922.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A semi-structured questionnaire survey of laboratory animal rehoming practice across 41 UK animal research facilities

Author

Listed:
  • Tess Skidmore
  • Emma Roe

Abstract

If a laboratory animal survives an experiment without lasting compromised welfare, its future must be negotiated. Rehoming may be a consideration. This paper reports on research findings that provide an indication of the uptake of animal rehoming by UK facilities and the associated moral, ethical, practical and regulatory considerations that inform decisions to rehome or not. This research addresses a widely acknowledged gap in the literature to understand both the numbers, and types of animals rehomed from UK research facilities, as well as the main motivations for engaging in the practice, and the barriers for those facilities not currently rehoming. From the ~160 UK research facilities in the UK, 41 facilities completed the questionnaire, giving a response rate of approximately 25%. Results suggest rehoming occurs routinely, yet the numbers are small; just 2322 animals are known to have been rehomed between 2015–2017. At least 1 in 10 facilities are rehoming. There exists a clear preference for the rehoming of some species (mainly cats, dogs and horses) over others (rodents, agricultural animals and primates). Indeed, although 94.15% of species kept in laboratories are rodents, they make up under a fifth (19.14%) of all animals known to be rehomed between 2015–2017. The primary motivation for rehoming is to boost staff morale and promote a positive ethical profile for the facility. Barriers include concern for the animal’s welfare following rehoming, high scientific demand for animals that leaves few to be rehomed, and, finally, certain animals (mainly those genetically modified) are simply unsuited to rehoming. The findings of this research will support facilities choosing to rehome, as well as those that are not currently engaging in the practice. By promoting the practice, the benefits to rehoming in terms of improving laboratory animal’s quality of life, helping facility staff to overcome the moral stress of killing, and addressing public concern regarding the fate of laboratory animals, can be attained. It is only once an understanding of rehoming from the perspective of UK research facilities has been ascertained, that appropriate policy and support can be provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Tess Skidmore & Emma Roe, 2020. "A semi-structured questionnaire survey of laboratory animal rehoming practice across 41 UK animal research facilities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234922
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234922
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234922
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234922&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0234922?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Carly C Barron & Mathew Bocock & Kristen E Biefer & Sylvain Boet & Stephane L Bourque & Isidora Conic & Kai Chen & Yuan Yi Dong & Grace M Fox & Ronald B George & Neil , 2019. "Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Zhongwei Xu & Bingze Xu & Susanna L. Lundström & Àlex Moreno-Giró & Danxia Zhao & Myriam Martin & Erik Lönnblom & Qixing Li & Alexander Krämer & Changrong Ge & Lei Cheng & Bibo Liang & Dongmei Tong & , 2023. "A subset of type-II collagen-binding antibodies prevents experimental arthritis by inhibiting FCGR3 signaling in neutrophils," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Nathalie Percie du Sert & Viki Hurst & Amrita Ahluwalia & Sabina Alam & Marc T Avey & Monya Baker & William J Browne & Alejandra Clark & Innes C Cuthill & Ulrich Dirnagl & Michael Emerson & Paul Garne, 2020. "The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Vivian Leung & Frédérik Rousseau-Blass & Guy Beauchamp & Daniel S J Pang, 2018. "ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Claudia Kurreck & Esmeralda Castaños-Vélez & Dorette Freyer & Sonja Blumenau & Ingo Przesdzing & Rene Bernard & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2020. "Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Beverly S Muhlhausler & Frank H Bloomfield & Matthew W Gillman, 2013. "Whole Animal Experiments Should Be More Like Human Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-6, February.
    7. Constance Holman & Sophie K Piper & Ulrike Grittner & Andreas Antonios Diamantaras & Jonathan Kimmelman & Bob Siegerink & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2016. "Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    8. Bertha Estrella & Elena N. Naumova & Magda Cepeda & Trudy Voortman & Peter D. Katsikis & Hemmo A. Drexhage, 2019. "Effects of Air Pollution on Lung Innate Lymphoid Cells: Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Experimental Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-15, July.
    9. Emily M Wong & Fern Tablin & Edward S Schelegle, 2020. "Comparison of nonparametric and parametric methods for time-frequency heart rate variability analysis in a rodent model of cardiovascular disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, November.
    10. Jonathan Mauricio Muñoz-Cabrera & Adrián Gabriel Sandoval-Hernández & Andrea Niño & Tatiana Báez & Angie Bustos-Rangel & Gloria Patricia Cardona-Gómez & Alejandro Múnera & Gonzalo Arboleda, 2019. "Bexarotene therapy ameliorates behavioral deficits and induces functional and molecular changes in very-old Triple Transgenic Mice model of Alzheimer´s disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-22, October.
    11. Konstantinos K Tsilidis & Orestis A Panagiotou & Emily S Sena & Eleni Aretouli & Evangelos Evangelou & David W Howells & Rustam Al-Shahi Salman & Malcolm R Macleod & John P A Ioannidis, 2013. "Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-10, July.
    12. Olivia Hogue & Tucker Harvey & Dena Crozier & Claire Sonneborn & Abagail Postle & Hunter Block-Beach & Eashwar Somasundaram & Francis J May & Monica Snyder Braun & Felicia L Pasadyn & Khandi King & Ca, 2022. "Statistical practice and transparent reporting in the neurosciences: Preclinical motor behavioral experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-17, March.
    13. Marta Liliana Musskopf & Amanda Finger Stadler & Ulf ME Wikesjö & Cristiano Susin, 2022. "The minipig intraoral dental implant model: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-17, February.
    14. Stefan Boehme & Bastian Duenges & Klaus U Klein & Volker Hartwich & Beate Mayr & Jolanda Consiglio & James E Baumgardner & Klaus Markstaller & Reto Basciani & Andreas Vogt, 2013. "Multi Frequency Phase Fluorimetry (MFPF) for Oxygen Partial Pressure Measurement: Ex Vivo Validation by Polarographic Clark-Type Electrode," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-8, April.
    15. Hristo Todorov & Emily Searle-White & Susanne Gerber, 2020. "Applying univariate vs. multivariate statistics to investigate therapeutic efficacy in (pre)clinical trials: A Monte Carlo simulation study on the example of a controlled preclinical neurotrauma trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Neves, Kleber & Amaral, Olavo Bohrer, 2019. "Addressing selective reporting of experiments – the case for predefined exclusion criteria," MetaArXiv a8gu5, Center for Open Science.
    17. Willie A Bidot & Aaron C Ericsson & Craig L Franklin, 2018. "Effects of water decontamination methods and bedding material on the gut microbiota," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, October.
    18. Emanuele Rinninella & Marco Cintoni & Pauline Raoul & Vincenzina Mora & Antonio Gasbarrini & Maria Cristina Mele, 2021. "Impact of Food Additive Titanium Dioxide on Gut Microbiota Composition, Microbiota-Associated Functions, and Gut Barrier: A Systematic Review of In Vivo Animal Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-16, February.
    19. Carlijn R Hooijmans & Rob B M de Vries & Maroeska M Rovers & Hein G Gooszen & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, 2012. "The Effects of Probiotic Supplementation on Experimental Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-12, November.
    20. Marije Sloff & Rob de Vries & Paul Geutjes & Joanna IntHout & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga & Egbert Oosterwijk & Wout Feitz, 2014. "Tissue Engineering in Animal Models for Urinary Diversion: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-10, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234922. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.