Worldwide trends in the use of animals in research: The contribution of genetically-modified animal models

Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 63-68

  Ormandy, Elisabeth H ^a   Schuppli, Catherine A ^a   Weary, Daniel M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Genetic modification; Reduction; Refinement; Replacement; Research animal use; Trends

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; ANIMAL USE; ARTICLE; DNA MODIFICATION; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; TRANSGENIC ORGANISM;

ANIMALIA; MUS;

ANIMAL USE ALTERNATIVES; ANIMALS; ANIMALS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; ANIMALS, LABORATORY; BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 64849097447     PISSN: 02611929     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/026119290903700109     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Russell, W.M.S. & Burch, R.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238pp. London, UK: Meuthen.
2. Home Office (2000). Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain, Cm 5244, 112pp. London, UK: HMSO.
3. FELASA (2007). Statement on a Proposal from the Laboratory Animal Science Association (LASA) for the European Community to Adopt Retrospective Reporting of Scientific Procedures on Animals. Tamworth, Staffs., UK: Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations. Available at: http://www.felasa.eu/Documents/Policy-statements/ FELASA%20statement%20on%20retrospective% 20reporting-20071113.doc (Accessed 24.03.08).
4. USDA (2006). AWA Inspections, 11pp. Washington, DC, USA: United States Department of Agricult-
5. ure. Available at: http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/ARI/a wreport2006-l.pdf (Accessed 24.03.08).
6. CCAC (2005). Facts and Figures: Trends in Animal Use. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Council on Animal Care. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/en/ Pubhcations/New-Facts-Figures/trends/trends-intro.htm (Accessed 21.03.08).
7. AAHR (2004). Statistics - Animal Use in Research and Testing, Australia. Malvern, Victoria, Australia: Australian Association for Humane Research Inc. Available at: http://www.aahr.asn.au/statistics.html (Accessed 15.10.08).
8. NARA (FDU) (2005). Annual Report. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Annual Research Authority (Forsøks- dyrutvalget). Available at: http://oslovet.veths.no/dokument.aspx?dokument=99 (Accessed 17.10.08).
9. Narin, F., Olivastro, D. & Stevens, K.A. (1994). Bibliometrics/ theory, practice and problems. Evaluation Review 18, 65-76.
10. Lewison, G. (1996). The definition of biomedical research subfields with title keywords and application to the analysis of research outputs. Research Evaluation 6, 25-36.
11. ISI Web of Knowledge: Journal Citation Reports. Available at: http://admin-apps.isiknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?SID=3ACmeBEaKDlebKjilAA (Accessed 25.03.08).
12. Gordon, J.W., Scangos, G.A., Plotkin, D.J., Barbosa, J.A. & Ruddle, F.H. (1980). Genetic transformation of mouse embryos by microinjection of purified DNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 77, 7380-7384.
13. FELASA (1995). Transgenic Animals - Derivation, Welfare, Use and Protection, September 1992, revised February, pp. 3-6. Tamworth, Staffs., UK: Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations.
14. CCAC (1997). CCAC Guidelines on: Transgenic Animals. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Council on Animal Care. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/en/ CCAC-Programs/Guidelines-Policies/GDLINES/TRANSGEN/TRANSGE1.HTM (Accessed 20.01.09).
15. Olson, I.A.S. & Sandoe, P. (2004). Ethical decisions concerning animal biotechnology: what is the role of animal welfare science? Animal Welfare 13, S139-144.
16. Anon. (1986). Council Directive of 24 November 1986 on the Approximation of Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States Regarding the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes (86/ 609 EEC), 7pp. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/aw/aw- legislation/scientific/86-609-eec-en.pdf (Accessed 15.10.08).
17. Taylor, K, Gordon, N., Langley, G. & Higgins, W. (2008). Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. ATLA 36, 327-342.
18. Macnaghten, P. (2004). Animal in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and 'nature'. Sociology 38, 533-551.
19. Buehr, M., Hjorth, P.J., Hansen, A.K. & Sandae, P. (2003). Genetically modified laboratory animals - what welfare problems do they face? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6, 319-338.
20. Schuppli, C.A., Fraser, D. & McDonald, M. (2004). Expanding the Three Rs to meet new challenges in humane animal experimentation. ATLA 32, 525- 532.
21. Robinson, V., Morton, D.B., Anderson, D., Carver, J.F.A., Francis, R.J., Hubrecht, R., Jenkins, E., Mathers, K.E., Raymond, R., Rosewell, I., Wallace, J. & Wells, D.J. (2003). Refinement and reduction in production of genetically modified mice. Sixth report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement. Laboratory Animals 37, S1-S51.
22. Dennis Jr, M.B. (2002). Welfare issues of genetically modified animals. ILAR Journal 43, 100-109.
23. Wells, D. (2002). Production of chimeras derived from murine embryonic stem cells. In Transgenesis Techniques: Principles and Protocols (ed. A.R. Clarke), pp. 127-149. Totowa, NJ, USA: Humana Press.
24. Brown, G.A.J. & Corbin, T.J. (2002). Oocyte injection in the mouse. In Transgenesis Techniques: Principles and Protocols (ed. A.R. Clarke), pp. 39-70. Totowa, NJ, USA: Humana Press.
25. Yoshiki, A. & Moriwaki, K. (2006). Mouse phenome research: Implications of genetic background. ILAR Journal 47, 94-102.
26. Barthold, S.W. (2002). "Muromics": Genomics from the perspective of the laboratory mouse. Comparative Medicine 52, 206-223.
27. Sanford, L.P., Kallapur, S., Ormsby, I. & Doet- schman, T. (2001). Influence of genetic background on knockout mouse phenotypes. In Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 158: Gene Knock-out Protocols (ed. M.J. Tymms & I. Kola), pp. 217-226. Totowa, NJ, USA: Humana Press.
28. Orwig, K.E., Avarbock, M.R. & Brinster, R.L. (2002). Retrovirus-mediated modification of male germ-line stem cells in rats. Biology of Reproduction 67, 874-879.
29. Sedivy, J.M. & Startup, P. (1989). Positive genetic selection for gene disruption in mammalian cells by homologous recombination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 86, 227- 231.
30. Van der Meer, M., Rolls, A., Baumans, V., Olivier, B. & van Zutphen, L.F.M. (2001). Use of score sheets for welfare assessment of transgenic mice. Laboratory Animals 35, 379-389.
31. Verbeek, J.S. (1997). Introduction of defined mutations into the mouse germline. In Welfare Aspects of Transgenic Animals - Proceedings EC Workshop (ed. L.F.M. Van Zutphen & M. Van Der Meer), pp. 1-17. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
32. Costa, P. (1997). Use of transgenic animals and welfare implications. In Welfare Aspects of Transgenic Animals - Proceedings EC Workshop (ed. L.F.M. Van Zutphen & M. Van Der Meer), pp. 68-77. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
33. Gauthier, C. & Griffin, G. (2005). Using animals in research, testing and teaching. Revue Scientifique et Technique - Office International Epizooties 24, 735-745.
34. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005). The Ethics of Research Involving Animals, 376pp. London, UK: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
35. Schuppli, C.A. & Fraser, D. (2004). The interpretation and application of the Three Rs by Animals Ethics Committee members. ATLA 33, 487-500.