Search

Virtual education isn't new. Teaching has been delivered remotely for many years, although it came to prominence with the enforced move to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technologies provide tools that are integral to our everyday lives, and training and assessment are no different. Stepping back from the obligatory remote delivery of practical skills training, now we have the opportunity to review and evaluate our own learning (as educators) about the value of resources for training delivery. Combining sound educational principles with the available technologies, we can use remotely delivered learning to enhance our teaching and to increase access to learning, without hindrance because of distance or the type of facility. Remote connections allow expertise and best practice to become suddenly available to a wider cohort of researchers, rapidly spreading new ideas about refinement of in vivo procedures and supporting colleagues to learn and develop. We currently use only a few of the technological tools available, and there is much to learn from other disciplines where virtual and augmented reality are assisting surgeons, aircraft pilots and others daily. By harnessing remote and assisted technologies in teaching, we can also develop the mindset and ability of the biomedical community to use them to augment, or even to replace, animal studies in future and to democratise training globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Animal Technology & Welfare is the property of Institute of Animal Technology of Great Britain and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Laboratory Animals Limited (LAL) is a charity that promotes education and training in all the aspects related to the care and welfare of these animals. Twenty-first century laboratory animal medicine should be moving, as Steven M Niemi pointed out almost a decade ago,[2] in the direction of treating patients, not reagents with "use by" dates. [Extracted from the article]

Olfaction plays a crucial role in mouse communication, providing information about genetic identity, physiological status of conspecifics and alerting mice to potential predators. Scents of animal origin can trigger physiological and behavioural responses that could affect experimental responses and impact positively or negatively on mouse welfare. Additionally, differing olfactory profiles could help explain variation in results between laboratories. A survey was sent to animal research units in the UK to investigate potential transfer of scents of animal origin during routine husbandry procedures, and responses were obtained from animal care workers and researchers using mice in 51 institutions. The results reveal great diversity between animal units regarding the relevant husbandry routines covered. Most [71%] reported housing non-breeding male and female mice in the same room, with 76% reporting that hands were not washed and gloves not changed between handling male and female mice. The most commonly reported species housed in the same facility as mice was the rat (91%), and 41% of respondents were aware that scents from rats could affect mice. Changing of gloves between handling mice and other species was reported by 79% of respondents. Depending on the aspect considered, between 18 and 33% of respondents believed human and non-human animal odours would strongly affect mouse physiology, behaviour or standardization, while approximately 32–54% believed these effects would be weak. This indicates uncertainty regarding the significance of these factors. Understanding and controlling these practices could reduce unwanted variability in experimental results and maximize welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With their highly sensitive olfactory system, the behaviour and physiology of mice are not only influenced by the scents of conspecifics and other species, but also by many other chemicals in the environment. The constraints of laboratory housing limit a mouse’s capacity to avoid aversive odours that could be present in the environment. Potentially odorous items routinely used for husbandry procedures, such as sanitizing products and gloves, could be perceived by mice as aversive or attractive, and affect their behaviour, physiology and experimental results. A survey was sent to research institutions in the UK to enquire about husbandry practices that could impact on the olfactory environment of the mouse. Responses were obtained from 80 individuals working in 51 institutions. Husbandry practices varied considerably. Seventy percent of respondents reported always wearing gloves for handling mice, with nitrile being the most common glove material (94%) followed by latex (23%) and vinyl (14%). Over six different products were listed for cleaning surfaces, floors, anaesthesia and euthanasia chambers and behavioural apparatus. In all cases Trigene™ (now called Anistel™) was the most common cleaning product used (43, 41, 40 and 49%, respectively). Depending on the attribute considered, between 7 and 19% of respondents thought that cleaning products definitely, or were likely to, have strong effects on standardization, mouse health, physiology or behaviour. Understanding whether and how these odours affect mouse welfare will help to refine mouse husbandry and experimental procedures through practical recommendations, to improve the quality of life of laboratory animals and the experimental data obtained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]