'Bred, but not used': understandings of avoidable and unavoidable waste in animal research.

Abstract

Since 2018, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has mandated the reporting of research animals that fall into the category ‘bred, but not used’. These are by-products from breeding specific genetically altered animals, bred to maintain a live ‘tick-over’ research animal colony or research-ready but not used in experiments. The qualitative research in this chapter found that within the animal facility these animals were described as surplus or waste. This terminology demonstrates the variable feelings and meanings circulating around these animals. The animal care technicians, facility managers, Named Veterinary Surgeons, and scientific researchers, however, differentiated between ‘avoidable waste’ and ‘unavoidable waste’, aiming to minimise avoidable waste and drive changes in practice. To meet this goal, there is a growing interest in outsourcing breeding, which avoids localised killing of waste animals and is perceived to reduce costs for research facilities. However, this practice can be in conflict with an industry culture that expects research animals to be available on demand. Furthermore, outsourcing can result in these surplus animals, and the emotional burdens on staff responsible for culling them, becoming less visible to end-users, thereby perpetuating the problem. The chapter concludes by recommending more regulatory attention to practices leading to avoidable ‘bred, but not used’, and further transparency around where and how these animals are created. Making these changes would align with the guiding principle of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement), and help to extend ‘cultures of care’ beyond individual institutions to encompass entire supply chains.

More information

Identifiers

ORCID for Sara Peres: orcid.org/0000-0002-9537-144X

ORCID for Emma Roe: orcid.org/0000-0003-4674-2133

Catalogue record

Export record

Altmetrics