ATW December 2020

Vol 19 No 3 December 2020

IAT Journal

Animal Technology

and Welfare

ISSN 1742-0385

Ofﬁ cial Journal of the Institute of Animal Technology

and European Federation of Animal Technologists

●

Level 6 Diploma projects

●

AWERB Lessons from Covid-19

●

Celebrating Making a Difference

●

New posters – part two

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

Editorial

Jas Barley, Chair of the Editorial Board

The relationship between employee

participation and job satisfaction

Cheryl Yalden

Improving animal welfare at Newcastle

University by introducing the low stress

handling of mice

Emma Hamilton

PAPER SUMMARY TRANSLATIONS

French, German, Italian, Spanish

AWERB review of lessons learned from COVID-19 experience

Laboratory Animal Science Association, Laboraory Animal Veterinary Association,

Institute of Animal Technology, Royal Society of Biology, National Centre for the

Replacement Reduction and Reﬁnement of Animals in Research, Royal Society for the

protection of Animals, European Federation of Animal technologists, European Society

of Laboratory Animal Veterinarians, Understanding Animal Research

TECH-2-TECH

A picture paints a thousand words

Joanna Malton

LOOKING BACK – Celebrating making a difference

Animal Technology at the National Institute for Medical Research:

A Century of Innovation

Alan Palmer

Optimising mouse production – good practice for efﬁcient colony management

and implementation of the 3Rs

Hannah Easter

Time’s up for tick-over colonies … Do we now need to maintain so many GA

mouse lines?

Stuart Newman and Stephen Woodley

203

195

205

221

217

209

169

Vol 19 No 3 December 2020

Editorial

Jas Barley, Chair of the Editorial Board

Report of the 2019 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent

Welfare Group meeting

Chloe Stevens, Emily Finnegan, Jasmine Clarkson,

Charlotte Burns, Sonia Bains, Colin Gilbert,

Caroline Chadwick, Samantha Izzard, Charlotte Inman,

Penny Hawkins (Secretary) and Huw Golledge

Reduction of the negative effects of

methionine on bone parameters in broilers’

embryos by intra-egg injection of Vitamin B

Mohammad Naser Nazem, Shima Tasharofi,

Negin Amiri and Sepideh Sabzekar

The care of the Children’s Python

(Antaresia children)

Alexander Hosking and Gary Martinic

Feline-assisted therapy: a promising part of animal assisted therapy (AAT)

Eliska Mi

ková and Krityna Machova

The care of Central and Pygmy Bearded Dragons

Alexander Hosking and Gary Martinic

PAPER SUMMARY TRANSLATIONS

French, German, Italian, Spanish

LOOKING BACK

Physical hazards in the laboratory animal house

R.T. Charles

The incidence of a pathogenic strain of pseudomonas in a rabbit colony

G.R. Alpen and K. Maerz

TECH-2-TECH

Development of a sifting cage change method for rats to improve welfar e

Seonagh Henderson

Vol 1 9 No 2 August 2020

CONTENTS

August20:Animal Technology and Welfare 4/8/20 10:48 Page i

185

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

POSTER PRESENTATIONS

Assessing pain in models of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Samuel Singleton, Meriam Nefla, Ngaire Dennison, Simon Arthur and Tim Hales

Refinements to health monitoring

Hannah Jones and Rebecca King

Biosecurity risks and the pre-implantation embryo; lessons from the mouse

Jean Cozzi, Mendy Verrier and Jimmy Mancip

Environmental enrichment for a small colony of rats

Nick Blackburn, Gemma Cronshaw and Mike Mitchell

Oestr us checking – increasing productivity and embracing the 3Rs

Samantha Hoskins and Jack Brown

Using habituation to reduce stress for rats being transported short distances

Sarah Taylor

Shining a light on rearing pigmentless Zebrafish

Jacqueline Glover, Thom Berriman, Dimitra Mantzor ou, William Havelange,

Sam Berry and Bruno Correia da Silva

The jacket with pulling power – a novel approach to early stage evaluation

of magnetic nanoparticles

Alison Ritchie, James Dixon, Phil Clarke and Anna Grabowska

CONTENTS

Index to Advertisers

ABPI ..................................................................x,xi LBS ..................................................................ii

AS-ET ...............................................................OBC Somni Scientific ................................................iv

Datesand Ltd......................................................IFC Special Diets Services .....................................viii

Institute of Animal Technology ...............................vii Tecniplast UK Ltd .............................................xii

IPS Product Supplies Ltd.....................................IBC

August20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page ii

224

238

234

241

249

245

243

Time for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for

handling mice

John Waters

Rat litters in trouble – can they be helped?

Joanna Malton

Food trials conducted to improve the survival and development of Zebraﬁ sh

Nicola Goodwin, Elisabeth Busch-Nentwich, Ross Kettlebourgh, David MacDonald,

Robert Mottram, Peter Thompson, Diane Hazlehurst, James Bussell and Derek Stemple

Covance animal environmental enrichment program – In-house enrichment

items, their beneﬁ ts and the process of implementation

Michael Emmott

POSTERS

Mouse to Man: an overview of the impact that mouse model research has had

on the development of gene and stem cell therapies and the increasing use of

personalised medicine

Steven Cubitt

Do Buccal swabs from Zebraﬁ sh give enough of a sample of DNA to be used as a

viable non-invasive method of genotyping?

Sarah Lawton

Alternative training method using a mouse simulator in intravenous lateral tail

vein procedures

Carmen Abela

Surgery reﬁ nements improve success rates in rat bile collection

Hans van Wijk, Dawn Haida, Christina Duncan, Michael Bainbridge, Thomas Visockis and

J. Kendrick

iMAD Award – Recognition to those that have made a difference

Index to Advertisers

251z

Avid plc ..............................................................vii

College of Laboratory Animal Science and

Technology (CLAST) ............................................x,xi

Datesand Ltd ....................................................IFC

Institute of Animal Technology ...................208, OBC

IPS Product Supplies Ltd ...................................IBC

LBS Serving Biotechnology Ltd .............................iv

Somni Scientiﬁ c ..................................................iii

Special Diets Services .......................................viii

Tecniplast UK Ltd ................................................xii

Vet-Tech Solutions Ltd ......................................248

iii

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

INHALATION ANAESTHESIA EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE

SOMNI Scientific is centered on the animal welfare and

research community with a focus on clinical accuracy,

clinician/technician safety, economic performance and

intuitive functionality.

SOMNI PROVIDES UNPARALLELED CUSTOMER SERVICE, CLINICAL AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT.

(T) 0800 0129101 (D) 01872 248890 (M) 07798 969805

enquiries@somniscientific.com www.somniscientific.co.uk

SCHEDULE SERVICE TODAY

0800 0129101

Inspection of the carrier gas system (O2,

Air, N2O, etc.) including flow meters, flow

control, seals, regulators, quick disconnects,

and hoses

Inspection of fresh gas delivery system

(rebreathing system, non-rebreathing

system, induction chamber, etc.)

Cleaning and lubrication where appropriate:

• Inspection of all tubing, conduit, stopcocks,

valves, O2 flush, etc.

• Inspection of the waste anaesthetic gas

management system(s)

• Provide a detailed report for each system

Specialising in anaesthesia systems specific to

Animal Health and Welfare.

• ISO 13485:2003 standards.

• Clinical and technical support.

Vaporisers are life critical, precision instruments

When manufactured and serviced properly, they will

deliver accurate concentrations of anaesthetic agent.

Veterinary Service and

Vaporiser Calibration

Your Health is Important

Machine Service

Your Health is Important

Machine Service

(T) 0800 0129101 (D) 01872 248890 (M) 07798 969805

enquiries@somniscientific.com www.somniscientific.co.uk

Tony Davidge and Nimesh Joseph

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

Developed to look like natural nesting materials such

as thin grass stems, Nesting Cups are made from high

quality, food approved ne kraft paper in preformed

portions, available in 4g, 6g, 8g, 10g & 12g sizes.

•

Low dust product.

•

Ready for use straight out of the box, without

additional actions.

•

Easy to dose per cage.

•

You know the xed costs per cage with each use.

•

Helps mice with their thermoregulation and

reduces stress.

•

Analysis available.

•

Autoclavable.

Tel: +44 (0)1293 827940

Email: sales@lbs-biotech.com

Contact LBS - your trusted supplier, serving

the needs of the Biotechnology Industry

www.lbs-biotech.com

Nesting Cups

Dose controlled nesting material enabling mice

to full their natural instincts. Supplied

exclusively in the UK by LBS.

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

OFFICERS

President

Dr Robin Lovell-Badge CBE FRS

Immediate Past President

Professor Sir Richard Gardner MA PhD FRSB

FIAT (Hon) FRS

Vice-Presidents

Senga Allan MIAT RAnTech, David Anderson MRCVS,

Stephen Barnett BA MSc FIAT (Hon) CBiol FRSB

RAnTech, Miles Carroll PhD, Brian Cass CBE,

Paul Flecknell MA Vet MB PhD DLAS DipLECVA

MRCVS, FIAT (Hon), Penny Hawkins PhD BSc, Wendy

Jarrett MA, Judy MacArthur-Clark CBE BVMS DLAS

FRSB DVMS (h.c.), DipECLAM FRAgS DipACLAM

MRCVS, Fiona M

cEwen BSc BVM&S MSc MRCVS,

Tim Morris BVetMed PhD DipACLAM DipECLAM CBiol

FRSB CertLAS MRCVS, Clive Page OBE PhD BSc,

Jan-Bas Prins PhD MSc, Vicky Robinson CBE BSc PhD,

Paul Sanders MIAT RAnTech, David Spillane FIAT,

Gail Thompson RLATG, Robert Weichbrod PhD RLATG

Life Members

Ken Applebee OBE FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech,

Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech, Roger Francis MSc

FIAT RAnTech, Pete Gerson MSc FIAT RAnTech,

Cathy Godfrey FIAT RAnTech, John Gregory BSc (Hons)

FIAT CBiol F

RSB RAnTech, Patrick Hayes FIAT DipBA

RAnTech, Robert Kemp FIAT (Hon) RAnTech,

Phil Ruddock MIAT RAnTech, Ted Wills FIAT (Hon)

RAnTech

Honorary Members

Mark Gardiner MIAT RAnTech, Sarah Lane MSc FIAT,

Sue McHugh BSc FIAT, Norman Mortell BA (Hons)

MIAT RAnTech, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIAT

Members of Council

Matthew Bilton, Kally Booth, Steven Cubitt,

Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher,

Nicky Gent, Alan Graham, Nathan Hill, Linda Horan,

Sam Jameson, Elaine Kirkum, Adele Kitching,

Theresa Langford, Sylvie Mehigan, Steve Owen,

Alan Palmer, Allan Thornhill, John Waters,

Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson, Adrian Woodhouse

Council Officers

Chair: Linda Horan BSc (Hons) MIAT RAnTech

Vice Chair: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTech

Honorary Secretary:

Simon Cumming BSc FIAT RAnTech

Treasurer: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTech

Chair of Board of Educational Policy:

Steven Cubitt MSc FIAT RAnTech

Chair Registration & Accreditation Board:

Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTech

ATW Editor: Jas Barley MSc FIAT RAnTech

Bulletin Editor: Carole Wilson BSc MIAT

ATW/Bulletin Editorial Board:

Jas Barley (Chair), Matthew Bilton, Nicky Gent,

Patrick Hayes, Elaine Kirkum, Carole Wilson,

Lynda Westall

Branch Liaison Officer:

Kally Booth MIAT RAnTech

EFAT Representatives:

Glyn Fisher, Alan Palmer

Website Coordinator:

Allan Thornhill FIAT RAnTech

Animal Welfare Officers and LABA

Representatives:

Matthew Bilton (Chair), Kally Booth, Lois Byrom,

Simon Cumming, Nicky Gent, Sylvie Mehigan,

John Waters

Board of Educational Policy:

Steven Cubitt (Chair), Adele Kitching (Secretary)

Communications Group:

Adrian Woodhouse (Chair), Nathan Hill,

Elaine Kirkum, Teresa Langford, Sylvie Mehigan,

Allan Thornhill, Lynda Westall

IAT REPRESENTATIVES

August20:Animal Technology and Welfare 26/8/20 12:39 Page v

Developed to look like natural nesting materials such

as thin grass stems, Nesting Cups are made from high

quality, food approved ne kraft paper in preformed

portions, available in 4g, 6g, 8g, 10g & 12g sizes.

•

Low dust product.

•

Ready for use straight out of the box, without

additional actions.

•

Easy to dose per cage.

•

You know the xed costs per cage with each use.

•

Helps mice with their thermoregulation and

reduces stress.

•

Analysis available.

•

Autoclavable.

Tel: +44 (0)1293 827940

Email: sales@lbs-biotech.com

Contact LBS - your trusted supplier, serving

the needs of the Biotechnology Industry

www.lbs-biotech.com

Nesting Cups

Dose controlled nesting material enabling mice

to full their natural instincts. Supplied

exclusively in the UK by LBS.

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

BRANCH SECRETARIES 2 020

Cambridge: Tony Davidge cambridgebranch@iat.org.uk

Edinburgh: Kery-Anne Lavin-Thomson edinburghbranch@iat.org.uk

Huntingdon, Suffolk & Norfolk: Jo Martin hssbranch@iat.org.uk

Ireland: Lisa Watson irelandbranch@iat.org.uk

London: Rebecca Towns londonbranch@iat.org.uk

Midlands: Ian Fielding midlandsbranch@iat.org.uk

North East England: Zoe Smith and John Bland northeastbranch@iat.org.uk

North West: Nicky Windows cheshirebranch@iat.org.uk

Oxford: Adam Truby oxfordbranch@iat.org.uk

Surrey, Hampshire & Sussex: Francesca Whitmore shsbranch@iat.org.uk

West Middlesex: Josefine Woodley westmiddxbranch@iat.org.uk

Wales & West: Rhys Perry waleswestbranch@iat.org.uk

West of Scotland: Joanne King westscotlandbranch@iat.org.uk

IAT OFFICERS MAY BE

CONTACTED VIA:

IAT Administrator:

admin@iat.org.uk

OR VIA THE IAT WEBSITE AT:

www.iat.org.uk

OR THE REGISTERED OFFICE:

5 South Parade, Summertown,

Oxford OX2 7JL

Advertisement Managers:

PRC Associates Ltd

Email: mail@prcassoc.co.uk

Although every effort is made to ensure that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement appear in the

journal, the Institute of Animal Technology wish to expound that the data and opinions appearing in the articles,

poster presentations and advertisements in ATW are the responsibility of the contributor and advertiser concerned.

Accordingly the IAT, Editor and their agents, accept no liability whatsoever for the consequences of any such

inaccurate or misleading data, opinion, statement or advertisement being published. Furthermore the opinions

expressed in the journal do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor or the Institute of Animal Technology.

All rights reser ved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission from the publisher.

CPD Officer: Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTech

Registration and Accreditation Board:

Glyn Fisher (Chair), John Gregory,

Cathy Godfrey, Kathy Ryder (Home Office),

Stuart Stevenson

Observer: Ngaire Dennison (LAVA)

Congress Committee:

Alan Graham (Chair), Haley Daniels, Adele Kitching,

Allan Thornhill, John Waters

Diversity Officer:

Haley Daniels MBA MSc MIAT RAnTech CIPD

UK Biosciences ASG Representative/

Home Office:

Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTech

August20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page vi

vii

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

viii

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

Expert in the world

of research diets

www.sdsdiets.com

the essential resource for quality research diets

Special Diets Services

PO Box 705, Witham, Essex,

England CM8 3AD

Telephone: +44 (0) 1376 511260

Fax: +44 (0) 1376 511247

Email: info@sdsdiets.com

Special Diets Services is the

largest supplier of Laboratory

Animal diets in Europe and the

only dedicated manufacturer

in the UK.

Special Diets Services has a

global reputation for the quality

of its diets and manufacturing

and storage facilities.

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

Expert in the world

of research diets

www.sdsdiets.com

the essential resource for quality research diets

Special Diets Services

PO Box 705, Witham, Essex,

England CM8 3AD

Telephone: +44 (0) 1376 511260

Fax: +44 (0) 1376 511247

Email: info@sdsdiets.com

Special Diets Services is the

largest supplier of Laboratory

Animal diets in Europe and the

only dedicated manufacturer

in the UK.

Special Diets Services has a

global reputation for the quality

of its diets and manufacturing

and storage facilities.

August 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

Editorial

Jas Barley

Chair of the Editorial Board

Looking back over issues of the Journal through its various identities, one thing is appar ent and that is the contribution that

overseas authors have made to the content. Topics have varied from dealing with exotic species, lack of sophisticated equipment,

different attitudes to everyday problems, staff training and education and disease outbreaks. However, the resolute that has b

een

constant throughout, despite the differences across the world, is the love and concern for the animals being cared for.

Many include interesting photographs but I unfortunately am unable to use them as the quality of images is so poor when

repr oduced, to the extent in some cases, they become worthless.

Obviously, things have changed over seven decades and the technology described in contributions from overseas is less different

from what we use in the UK. This issue w

elcomes contributions from Australia, the Czech Republic and Iran as well, of course

from the UK. Since ATW became an Open Access publication and is being published electronically, it is enjoying a wider audience

and is attracting mor e contributions than usual. Not all are relevant to our profession, but knowledge is transferable so what

seems ‘off beat’ today may become useful in the future. However, as Editor I will always strive to maintain the quality of our

publications a

nd the usefulness to our readers.

In this issue we include the RSPCA 2019 Rodent and Rabbit Welfare group meeting repor t. The 26th meeting that the RSPCA have

organised focussed on ‘sentience, positive welfare and psychological well being’. The repor t contains contributions from 11

presenters as well as notes on the interactive discussion session on sentience that closed the meeting.

A paper from Iran, a first as far as I can see for the Journal, on reducing the negative e

ffects of methionine on bone parameters

in broilers’ embryos may seem of little relevance but it offers a better understanding of how methionine affects bone structure

which is important to most species. Similarly, Feline Assisted Therapy as described by the team at the University of Life Sciences

Prague does not appear to fall into the realms of Animal Technology but it gives us a better understanding of how animals can have

a positive effect on some people, which in the current situation may be of significant benefit to a wider population. Our final paper

from the team at Western Sydney University, details the care of the Children’ Python and two species of Bearded Dragons. Not

perhaps the run of the mill laboratory animals but just as important to many Animal Technologists globally as mice and rats. If you

keep reptiles at home or know of someone who is contemplating one as a pet these papers make useful reference documents. We

also offer two papers from previous issues of the Journal which were very different in appearance and content than today’s Journal

of Animal Technology and Welfare and not only because of the change of title. Issues were printed in black and white and in the very

early days were produced by hand. The paper from France on Physical Hazards in the laboratory animal house will bring back many

memories for some of the older technicians, myself included, but not necessarily good ones. The use of ether as an anaesthetic

which I know is still used in some countries where resources are limited, for human sur gery, presented a very real danger to both

animals and staff. Disease in laboratory animal units was often a recurring problem, bacterial infections such as Pseudomonas as

described in the reprint of the article were still presenting Animal Technologists with problems as late as the end of the 1980s. When

importing animals and tissues from overseas it is important to realise that they may be carrying disease not seen in the UK for

several decades. In recent times, Ectromelia was introduced into a unit in the USA via antibodies produced overseas. Precautions

must be taken until such time as you are sure that the animals and tissues are clear of any underlying infections.

We a

re also able to offer in this issue an interesting Tech-2-Tech article by Seonagh Henderson of the University of Glasgow, on

a novel technique of cage cleaning which has

a p

ositive effect on the welfare of laboratory rats. Finally, we included several posters

prepared for AST2020 but sadly at the moment remain unpresented.

Thanks again to all of our authors, past and present, both internationally and here in the UK. There would not have been 70 years

of the Journal without you. Here is to the next seven decades and beyond.

THE INSTITUTE OF ANIMAL TECHNOLOGY

ETHICAL STATEMENT

“In the conduct of their Professional duties, Animal Technologists have a moral and legal

obligation, at all times, to promote and safeguard the welfare of animals in their care,

recognising that good laboratory animal welfare is an essential component of good

laboratory animal technology and science.

The Institute recognises and supports the application of the principles of the 3Rs

(Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) in all areas of animal research.”

August20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page ix

December 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

This issue marks the close of the 70

anniversary year of the foundation of what became the Institute of Animal Technology. The

IAT had planned to celebrate this achievement with a series of events but unfortunately thanks to a nasty little coronavirus it has

not been possible. However we still have cause to celebrate, albeit in a somewhat muted style.

Firstly, we should be celebrating the fact that Animal Technologists in all our many guises have shown repeatedly, that despite the

problems the world has experienced during this year, that nothing stops them placing welfare as their ﬁrst priority. To all of you I offer

my heartfelt congratulations for carrying on against the odds and I am proud of every one of you.

We can also look back over the past 7 decades and celebrate the difference we have made to the animals in our care. As you know

we have been using the theme of ‘Making a Difference’ throughout the year and this issue continues the look at our achievements.

Although I was not around in 1950, I am old enough to have witnessed many of the changes our members have made to the lives of animals

used in scientiﬁc research. Some of these may not have been huge leaps forward but cumulatively they have transformed the way we care

for animals for the better as well as our own working lives. In the ﬁrst issue of this year we looked at education and how we have developed

our qualiﬁcations and the status we enjoy within the scientiﬁc world. Over the years we have made improvements to animal welfare,

due to a better understanding gained through education of the requirements for animals to be not only physically and microbiologically

healthy but also not to be stressed/distressed and to be able to express natural behaviours. This issue looks at some of the changes

the Journal in its many guises has reported on and which have been adopted by our professions and the researchers we work with.

I asked members of Council which developments in their opinion have made the greatest impact and the responses showed that in

most cases it was the changes to basic husbandry that have improved animals lives the most. I think all of us understand that the

work of Jane Hurst and the team at Liverpool University on non-aversive handling has made the most basic task we undertake less

stressful to a huge number of mice in our care. Some of us will remember with discomfort, the days when rats were restrained by

the base of their tails. Thankfully, that is no longer a general practice and now the handling of mice is also changing for the better.

Emma Hamilton’s project for her Level 6 Diploma course reports on a project to change the culture at the University of Newcastle

and introduce non-aversive handling of mice to the researchers there. Emma mentions John Waters’ presentation at Newcastle on

the tunnel handling and cupping methods as being a seminal point in changing attitudes and we reprint John’s paper in this issue.

John received the Andrew Blake Tribute Award (ABTA) for his work spreading the word on how a relatively simple change, mainly in

technologists and researchers attitudes to handling, could improve animal welfare.

Other ABTA papers are also printed in this issue including Joanna Malton’s: Rat litters in trouble – can they be helped? Joanna’s

study showed that more complicated efforts to reduce pre-weaning losses were less effective than stopping post-partum mating

by removing the male just before a litter was due so that the dam’s lactation was not impaired by trying to produce milk whilst also

carrying a developing litter. Time’s up for tick-over colonies ….Do we now need to maintain so many GA mouse lines? from Stuart

Newman and Stephen Woodley discusses how the need to maintain colonies of Genetically Altered (GA) mice can be eliminated by

cryopreservation, thereby dramatically reducing the numbers of mice bred unnecessarily.

Other developments in reﬁnement may have also won a ABTA if only they had entered the competition. One of the major achievements

of the last 70 years is how Branch meetings, Congress and the Journal has enabled technologists to learn about changes in how

we can improve an animal’s life.

We have also included a retrospective look by Alan Palmer at the way Animal Technology changed by innovation at the National Institute

for Medical Research (NIMR) during its century of existence. The review is a fascinating look into the past and illustrates how far we have

developed since those early days. Now part of The Francis Crick Institute, Alan and the team are still innovating and improving animal welfare.

We will be continuing a look back into the past in future issues of ATW and hopefully compare with modern methods of improved welfare.

Obviously, the loss of AST2020 due to its non-viability in the face of the pandemic greatly reduced the number of posters available for

publication. My thanks go to the authors who have kindly allowed the poster they had prepared for the meeting to be published in the Journal.

Although I am writing this in September, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you all and your families a healthy and happy

Christmas and New Year.

Editorial

Jas Barley

Chair of the Editorial Board

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

College of Laboratory

Animal Science & Technology

Animal Law &

Welfare

Explore the legislation and

ethical principles governing

the use of animals in science,

essential knowledge for all

existing and prospective

NACWOs.

Biological

Science

Explore the principles

of animal anatomy and

physiology, and learn how

to apply this knowledge to

improve animal welfare and

scientic research.

Disease Recognition

& Control

Discover how the mammalian

body defends itself against

disease and how to

utilise those defences for

experimental and husbandry

purposes.

Genetic Alteration

Technologies

All you need to know about

breeding. Maintaining and

using GA animals, including

the maintenance and

development of specic

animal models.

Physiology of

Pain & Stress

Consider the biological

basis of pathological change

and animal behaviour with

particular reference to pain

and stress.

Toxicology

An introduction to the theory,

methods and regulations

governing the assessment of

biochemical toxicology and the

role of the study director.

CONTINUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT UNITS

CLAST oers 11 dierent subjects to tailor your education to meet your specic needs

Animal Facility

Management & Design

Learn about the process

of animal facility design,

construction and modication,

and develop your ability

to reect on management

theories and strategies.

Supervisory

Management Skills

An introduction to supervisory

management within an

animal facility, focusing on

the legislative responsibilities

and management principles

needed in the workplace.

Experimental

Design

An introduction to

the principles of good

experimental design and

reporting. Develop your skills

in eective research, review

and analysis.

Applied Learning

& Development

Develop your skills in

reection, research and the

creation of eective plans.

Particularly useful for existing

or prospective NACWOs,

NTCOs and NIOs.

Project Planning

& Project

Research, review, analyse

and debate current scientic

theories, and learn how to

manage a project eectively

through your chosen research

topic.

ACADEMIC SKILLS

MANAGEMENT SKILLS

ANIMAL HEALTH & WELFARE

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

College of Laboratory

Animal Science & Technology

Animal Law &

Welfare

Explore the legislation and

ethical principles governing

the use of animals in science,

essential knowledge for all

existing and prospective

NACWOs.

Biological

Science

Explore the principles

of animal anatomy and

physiology, and learn how

to apply this knowledge to

improve animal welfare and

scientic research.

Disease Recognition

& Control

Discover how the mammalian

body defends itself against

disease and how to

utilise those defences for

experimental and husbandry

purposes.

Genetic Alteration

Technologies

All you need to know about

breeding. Maintaining and

using GA animals, including

the maintenance and

development of specic

animal models.

Physiology of

Pain & Stress

Consider the biological

basis of pathological change

and animal behaviour with

particular reference to pain

and stress.

Toxicology

An introduction to the theory,

methods and regulations

governing the assessment of

biochemical toxicology and the

role of the study director.

CONTINUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT UNITS

CLAST oers 11 dierent subjects to tailor your education to meet your specic needs

Animal Facility

Management & Design

Learn about the process

of animal facility design,

construction and modication,

and develop your ability

to reect on management

theories and strategies.

Supervisory

Management Skills

An introduction to supervisory

management within an

animal facility, focusing on

the legislative responsibilities

and management principles

needed in the workplace.

Experimental

Design

An introduction to

the principles of good

experimental design and

reporting. Develop your skills

in eective research, review

and analysis.

Applied Learning

& Development

Develop your skills in

reection, research and the

creation of eective plans.

Particularly useful for existing

or prospective NACWOs,

NTCOs and NIOs.

Project Planning

& Project

Research, review, analyse

and debate current scientic

theories, and learn how to

manage a project eectively

through your chosen research

topic.

ACADEMIC SKILLS

MANAGEMENT SKILLS

ANIMAL HEALTH & WELFARE

xii

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

169

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

Background

The aim of the project was to explore the relationship

between employee participation and job satisfaction

by carrying out four workshops relating to the

implementation of the 3Rs and working towards a

Culture of Care with clearly deﬁned shared values. The

participants were members of the Biological Services

Unit at King’s College London Guy’s Campus involved in

the care of animals used for medical research.

The 3Rs are a set of principles that provide a framework

for more ethical and humane animal research.

They

stand for Replacement, Reduction and Reﬁnement.

Where possible, the use of animals should be replaced

by another method when they can provide the same

quality of research e.g. computer models. If it is not

possible to replace animals, then all efforts should

be made to reduce the number of animals used.

Reﬁnement methods should be utilised to reduce the

amount of pain, suffering or lasting harm experienced

by the animals, this can be obtained for example, by

improving housing, procedure methods and pain relief.

Institutions that work with research animals are highly

regulated by legislation and guidelines. However, such

institutions should endeavour to go beyond the legal

obligations and treat the animals with compassion and

empathy by establishing a Culture of Care. Improved

animal welfare has continually been shown to increase

the reproducibility of research and promote good

science. This culture should be extended to the people

that work with the animals where “Institutional culture

inﬂuences the productivity and performance of many

enterprises”.

2,3

Low morale and motivation in staff can

be linked to low job satisfaction, increased sickness and

bad public perception of an organisation. According to

the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

(CIPD) 2018 report, absences due to stress-related

illness and mental health issues including anxiety and

depression had increased in nearly 40% and 55% of

organisations, respectively.

Organisational culture is generally accepted, as deﬁned

by Schein (1990), as “a set of beliefs and values shared

by members of the same organisation that inﬂuences

their behaviours”.

A research report by the CIPD

(2016) further found that culture ‘impacts the trust,

engagement, wellbeing and productivity of employees’

and ‘plays out in employees through how they behave

and the values they apply to the work they do…’ .

To obtain a Culture of Care around the animals, a

culture of care is required for those who care for the

animals. There are many motivational theories alluding

to the factors that inﬂuence and drive employees

and their work ethic. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is

a ﬁve-tier model of needs whereby needs lower down

in the hierarchy need to be met before higher needs

can be addressed.

The ﬁrst four tiers are deﬁciency

needs whereby motivation is driven when these are not

met. The last tier is growth needs whereby motivation

increases as these needs are met. To get the most from

employees and keep them motivated, it is important to

identify what needs are currently fulﬁlled, what needs

need fulﬁlling and how these can be met to achieve

the stage of self-actualisation whereby individuals are

motivated to become the best that they can be. The

physiological and safety needs of employees should be

met already by the job. The use of workshops to allow

discussion and participation between staff should allow

for the belonging and esteem needs to be met if they

are not already being met. For example, Charles River

utilises monthly webinars where discussions regarding

animal welfare and strategies for implementing the 3Rs

can take place as part of their institutional framework

to promote a culture of care.

A study conducted by Bhatti and Qureshi (2007) across

34 organisations in the telecommunications, banking

and the oil and gas sectors of Pakistan, found that

employee participation had a positive and signiﬁcant

effect on the job satisfaction of the employee. The study

also found that it was important that staff knew what

The relationship between employee

participation and job satisfaction

CHERYL YALDEN

Biological Services, Hodgkin Building, King’s College London, Guy’s Campus, London SE1 1UL UK

Correspondence: cheryl.yalden@kcl.ac.uk

Based on an IAT Level 6 Diploma in Laboratory Animal Science and Technology Project

170

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

was going on in the organisation so that they could

use the knowledge and concluded that information-

sharing programmes are integral to organisational

success.

Legislation regarding staff is also a factor that has

been considered so that no bias should be shown

with the intention that all staff members have equal

opportunities to beneﬁ t from the project.

The project was feasible, as at least 4 workshops

were possible to implement within the timeframe with

little or no extra ﬁ nancial cost. The time to carry out

the workshops was factored into the normal working

week and was agreed by senior management.

Improved staff welfare could lead to improved animal

welfare, increased productivity and reduced sickness.

These secondary factors were not assessed in

the current project due to time constraints and a

sample group that did not reﬂ ect the whole company.

However, there is potential for future development of

the project.

Another limitation of the project is that there are many

factors both inside and outside of work that inﬂ uence

motivation, morale and job satisfaction in staff.

Objectives

Scoping

1. Identify stakeholders (high inﬂ uence: high interest)

1.1 How: Stakeholder mapping

1.2 Completion: End December 2019

2. Identify potential risks and mitigating factors

2.1 How: Risk Register

2.2 Completion: End December 2019

3. Create a budget overview including time costs

3.1 How: Estimated costs spreadsheet

3.2 Completion: End December 2019

Planning

1. Communicate with primary stakeholders (High

inﬂ uence: High interest) by meeting in person to

discuss the remit of project and identify concerns

1.1 How: In person

1.2 Completion: Mid-January 2020

2. Communicate with secondary stakeholders (High

inﬂ uence: Low interest or Low inﬂ uence: High interest)

2.1 How: Email

2.2 Completion: End January 2020

3. Communicate with tertiary stakeholders (Low

inﬂ uence: Low interest)

3.1 How: Organisation’s website

3.2 Completion: End January 2020

4. Design a job satisfaction survey that can be put

online to allow for anonymous and honest answering

4.1 Completion: End-January 2020

5. Conﬁ rm content of workshops by talking to the

Named Information Ofﬁ cer (NIO) and Named Training

and Competency Ofﬁ cer (NTCO)

5.1 How: Meeting in person

5.2 Completion: Mid-January 2020

6. Communicate with suitable industry members to

lead workshops

6.1 How: Email or phone

6.2 Completion: Mid-January 2020

Book suitable space to efﬁ ciently carry out

workshops

7.1 How: Email or phone

7.2 Completion: Mid-January

Implementation

1. Design workshop questionnaires

1.1 How: paper questionnaire consisting of

approximately 10 questions

1.2 Completion: End January 2020

2. Inform staff of the workshops

2.1 How: In person

2.2 Completion: End January 2020

Figure 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

171

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

3. Carry out workshops twice a month on Thursday

afternoon taking a maximum of 1hr 30mins

3.1 How: Active participation

3.2 Completion: 4 workshops by Mid-March 2020

4. Obtain workshop feedback

4.1 How: anonymous paper questionnaire

4.2 Completion: after every workshop

5. Obtain results of job satisfaction as result of

workshops survey

5.1 How: anonymous online questionnaire through

survey monkey

5.2 Completion: Mid-March

Evaluation

1. Compare and analyse results

2. Meet with senior management to discuss results

and positives and negatives of the project and where

the project can move

3. Create report

3.1 Completion: Early March 2020

4. Report to stakeholders

4.1 How: Presentation

4.2 Completion: Mid-March 2020

5. Gain feedback

5.1 How: staff survey and open discussion

5.2 Completion: End March 2020

Primary Stakeholders

The primary stakeholders are the key players in the

project that have a high level of inﬂ uence and high level

of interest in the project. It was important to ensure

that these stakeholders remained satisﬁ ed throughout

the project.

Secondary Stakeholders

The secondary stakeholders were those with either a

high inﬂ uence and low interest (potential change agents)

or high interest and low inﬂ uence (Back-Yarders). It was

important to identify how they may be affected by the

project and to keep them informed.

Tertiary Stakeholders

Tertiary stakeholders have low interest and low inﬂ uence

in the project and minimal effort was required to keep

them informed but they were considered.

Figure 2. Categories of Stakeholders

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

POTENTIAL CHANGE AGENTS

172

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

Risk

Identified

Category

Risk

The risk is

caused by

Effects of Risk

Mitigating

Action

In Place

End Date

Results of

mitigation action

Final

Impact

Level

21.11.19

DISHONEST

FEEDBACK

Participants

feeling

pressured to

respond in a

certain way in

order to

please

employer and

avoid

negative

retaliation.

Non-

reproducible

outcomes that

are not

representative

to the project.

All

questionnaires

will be

anonymously

answered.

03.03.20

The responses

obtained

throughout the

project will more

accurately reflect

the true feelings of

the participants.

Low

21.11./19

LACK

OF TIME

Time for day-

to-day tasks

allows no

time for the

project.

Project gets

overlooked and

is unable to be

completed in

time frame.

Time allocation

for the project

will be agreed

with the

director and

line manager

ahead of time

and protected

in writing. Staff

will be

motivated to

finish their work

in time in order

to attend

sessions.

13.03.20

Time to implement

the project will be

protected so that it

can be effectively

carried out to

completion, whilst

still providing

enough time to do

the normal day

day work.

Medium

21.11./19

LACK OF

INDIVIDUAL

PARTICIPATION

Absence due

to sickness,

annual leave

or part-time

working hours.

Equal

opportunities

affected if not

all can take part

and reduced

statistically

significant

results with a

smaller sample

size.

Sessions to be

carried out on a

Thursday when

annual leave is

lower and part-

time working

hours coincide.

13.03.20

More people being

able to attend will

promote equal

opportunities and

give more

statistically

significant results.

Low

5.01.2020

LACK OF

OVERALL

PARTICIPATION

Lack of

interest or

motivation as

a whole to

attend

sessions.

A small or non-

existent sample

group would

prevent the

project from

being carried

out.

Sessions will be

mandatory and

positively

promoted.

Senior staff will

also be

encouraged to

be absent from

the sessions to

aid interaction

from the staff.

13.03.20

Workshops will be

more successfully

attended with more

interaction and

contribution from

the staff.

Medium

5.01.2020

LACK OF

SUPPORT

Line managers W

not wanting

to free up

time or to

receive

feedback that

may reflect

negatively on

their

management

style.

make it

harder for the

project to be

carried out

successfully and

could

negatively

affect morale.

The positives of

the project will

be promoted,

and the

sessions will

take place at a

point in the

week when the

workload is

lower. 13.03.20

Workshops are

more likely to be

attended and

professional

relationships will be

improved.

Low

21.11.19

LACK OF

CONTENT

Not deciding

on the

content or

organising

someone to

present it in

time.

Will delay the

implementation

of the project

and may

completely

hinder its

success.

Regular

meetings from

early on with

the NTCO to

determine

content and

arrange for a

presenter and

book for

definite time.

13.03.20

Workshops will be

structured providing

the staff with a

informative and

enjoyable session.

Medium

Will

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

5.01.2020

LACK OF SPACE

Not booking a

suitable area

in adequate

time or the

space

becoming

unexpectedly

unavailable.

May delay the

project and

reduce morale.

Determine early

on how much

space is needed

and book

specific areas

for specific

dates. Reserve a

backup space in

case of

unforeseen

problems.

24.01.20

Successful

workshops will be

carried out in

adequate spaces to

facilitate the

experience.

Low

176

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

Project programme of work

Kings College London,

Guys Campus Biological Services

PROMOTING A CULTURE OF CARE

Workshop Costing

Workshop 1

Planning

Time 140

Materials 10

Implementing

Time 600

Space 150

Materials 20

TOTAL 920

Workshop 2

Planning

Time 140

Materials 10

Implementing

Time 620

Space 150

Materials 20

TOTAL 930

Workshop 3

Planning

Time 140

Materials 10

Implementing

Time 600

Space 150

Materials 20

TOTAL 910

Workshop 4

Planning

Time 140

Materials 10

Implementing

Time 600

Space 150

Materials 20

TOTAL 930

Analysing and Evaluating

Time 150

TOTAL 150

TOTAL 3,840

Chart 1. Project programme of work.

Project Implementation document

Delivery Methodology

Control

Element

What is

likely to go

wrong?

How and

when will

know?

What will be

done about

it?

Quality Workshops

may not

inspire

participation

or improve

job

satisfaction

Results

obtained from

end of session

questionnaires

and end

of project

questionnaire.

Use feedback

after each

workshop

to make

improvements

Cost Costs

including

time may

exceed

budget.

Employ

a budget

analysis

after each

workshop.

Reduce costs

of latter

workshops

if projected

expenditure

is likely

to exceed

budget.

Time Workshops

may not be

completed

within the

project

timeline.

When

structuring

and

planning the

workshops.

Workshops

will be

altered to

ﬁt around

schedule.

Quantity The number

of planned

workshops

may not be

possible in

timeframe

or space not

available.

When

booking

room for

workshops.

Information

will have to

be structured

so that it can

be delivered

in fewer

hours.

Table 1. Control point identiﬁcation

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

177

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

Problems

Due to work commitments and holidays, staff could not

attend the original proposed dates for the workshops

and so the dates had to be changed. Suitable locations

to hold the workshops were only available for 3 of the

new dates in the afternoon, therefore the content of the

4 workshops had to be restructured to be presented in

3 workshops.

Workshop 1 Format

Ice breaker activity - employees were randomly put into

groups. The groups were each given a different item

and were to come up with an argument as to why their

item would be the best to have on a desert island. The

aim of the ice breakers in each workshop was to relax

the staff and create a clear division between the normal

workday and the workshops.

The information – presented as a slideshow and

focussed

on the theory of culture and the 3Rs and a

tour of the NC3Rs website.

Discussion – open on how the 3Rs could be implemented

in the workplace.

Workshop 2 Format

Ice breaker activity – staff put into teams and stand

in a queue. The person at the back gets an image and

draws it on the back of the person in front with their

ﬁnger. This person then does the same to the person in

front of them without seeing the image. The person at

the front draws the image on a piece of paper based on

the image drawn on their back.

Information – a quiz based on the previous workshop

and on some welfare issues in the workplace. A brief

talk on enrichment for toads and then in groups design

toad enrichment.

Discussion – presentation on the enrichment designed

and how it incorporates the 3Rs.

Workshop 3 Format

Ice breaker – the same as in Workshop 2 as it went

down well.

Information – a guest presenter on a project that had

incorporated the 3Rs to improve animal husbandry. An

example of a bad protocol was given to the staff. In

groups they analysed the proposed protocol to make

suggestions on how it could be improved by utilising

the 3Rs.

Discussion – each person was given a chance to report

back on the different aspects of the proposal, on what

they would improve or where they would need more

information to determine whether it was ethical.

Revised programme of work

Description Start

Date

End

Date

Duration

(Days)

Overall

programme

1/12/19 18/3/20 109

Communicate

with primary

stakeholders

8/12/19 15/12/19 8

Agree content of

workshops

6/1/20 24/1/20 19

Communicate

with secondary

stakeholders

6/1/20 31/1/20 26

Communicate

with tertiary

stakeholders

24/1/20 31/1/20 8

Arrange content

and presenters

18/1/20 13/3/20 56

Design evaluation

questionnaire

17/1/20 26/1/20 10

Book times and

rooms

18/1/20 31/1/20 14

Design workshop

1 content

17/1/20 11/2/20 26

Design workshop

1 questionnaire

17/1/20 11/2/20 26

Workshop 1

questionnaire

12/2/20 13/2/20 2

Mid- point review 21/2/20 28/2/20 8

First workshop 12/2/20 12/2/20 1

Design workshop

2 questionnaire

13/2/20 3/3/20 20

Design workshop

2 content

13/2/20 3/3/20 20

Workshop 2

questionnaire

4/3/20 5/3/20 2

Second workshop 4/3/20 4/3/20 1

Design workshop

3 content

5/3/20 10/3/20 6

Design workshop

3 questionnaire

5/3/20 10/3/20 6

Workshop 3

questionnaire

11/3/20 12/3/20 2

Third workshop 11/3/20 11/3/20 1

Give out overall

questionnaire

12/3/20 13/3/20 2

Analyse results 14/3/20 17/3/20 4

Evaluate 14/3/20 17/3/20 4

Present project 18/3/20 18/3/20 1

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

178

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

Budget – Earned Value Analysis

Chart 2. Revised Project programme of work.

Earned Value Analysis (EVA). Performed 22nd

February 2020

Cost Baseline

A 4 month, £2910

project

Actual

Cost

Planned Value (PV)

£595

Dec Jan Feb Mar

Planned

Value

(PV)

completed

Earned

Value (EV)

Workshop 1 planning

150

100%

150

Workshop 1

implementing 770 770 100% 770

Workshop 2 planning 150 150 30% 45

Workshop 2

implementing 780 780 0% 0

Workshop 3 planning

150

Workshop 3

implementing 760 760 0% 0

Analysis and Evaluation

150

PV= 13 98 1825 974 2910 965

Earned Value (EV)

965

Actual Cost (AC)

595

Earned Value Analysis (EVA). Performed 22nd February 2020

Earned Value (EV) 965 Cost variance (CV) 370 Schedule Performance Index (SPI) 0.49845

Actual Cost (AC) 595 Schedule Variance (SV) -971 Estimated Cost at Completion E[C] 1794.249

Planned Value (PV) 1936 Cost Performance Index (CPI) 1.621849 Estimated Time at Completion E [T] 8.02487

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

179

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

Earned Value Analysis (EVA). Performed 5th

March 2020

Cost Baseline

A 4 month, £2910

project

Actual

Cost

Planned Value (PV)

£1,025

Dec Jan Feb Mar

Planned

Value (PV)

completed

Earned

Value (EV)

Workshop 1 planning

150

100%

150

Workshop 1 implementing

770

100%

770

Workshop 2 planning

150

100%

150

Workshop 2 implementing

780

100%

780

Workshop 3 planning

150

Workshop 3 implementing

760

Analysis and Evaluation

150

PV=

1825

974

2910

1850

Earned Value (EV)

1850

Actual Cost (AC)

1025

Planned Value (PV)

1936

Cost variance (CV)

825

Schedule Variance (SV)

-86

Earned Value Analysis (EVA). Performed 5th March 2020

Earned Value (EV) 1850 Cost variance (CV) 825 Schedule Performance Index (SPI) 0.955579

Actual Cost (AC) 1025 Schedule Variance (SV) -86 Estimated Cost at Completion E[C] 1612.297

Planned Value (PV) 1936 Cost Performance Index (CPI) 1.804878 Estimated Time at Completion E [T] 4.185946

Earned Value Analysis (EVA). – Performed 13th

March 2020

Cost Baseline

A 4 month, £2910

project

Actual

Cost

Planned Value (PV)

£1,585

Dec Jan Feb Mar

Planned Value

(PV)

completed

Earned

Value (EV)

Workshop 1 planning

100%

150

Workshop 1 implementing

770

100%

770

Workshop 2 planning

150

100%

150

Workshop 2 implementing

780

100%

780

Workshop 3 planning

150

100%

150

Workshop 3 implementing

760

100%

760

Analysis and Evaluation

150

PV=

1825

974

2910

2760

Earned Value (EV)

2760

Actual Cost (AC)

1585

Planned Value (PV)

1936

Cost variance (CV)

1175

Schedule Variance (SV)

824

Cost Performance Index (CPI)

1.741325

Earned Value Analysis (EVA). Performed 13th March 2020

Earned Value (EV) 2760 Cost variance (CV) 1175 Schedule Performance Index (SPI) 1.42562

Actual Cost (AC) 1585 Schedule Variance (SV) 824 Estimated Cost at Completion E[C] 1671.141

Planned Value (PV) 1936 Cost Performance Index (CPI) 1.741325 Estimated Time at Completion E [T] 2.805797

Actual cost at completion = £1735 and time of completion = 3.5 months

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

180

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

Results

Participants comments:

What aspects of the workshops were good?

“...Interactions...”

“Well structured with Ice Breaker activities to

improve the chances of attendees feeling that they

can listen and be listened to. Topic was relevant

to the job and that it helps challenge you to think

beyond the conﬁnes of just carrying out the tasks

that are expected of you which could help promote

making the workplace better for both employees and

the animals that are in their care.”

“I felt the group activities and ability to express

ideas whilst also demonstrating the principles of the

3Rs were the best bits.”

“Lots of team-based activities.”

“Social interactions with other units, discussing new

ideas.”

“I enjoyed the ability to approach new topics and

consider the issues from different perspectives.”

“Fun activities allowed socialising with colleagues

Informative Educational.”

“The interactive element, being able to voice your

views/answers without fear of being judged.”

“Teamwork parts were fun, having time to talk about

important welfare aspects out of work.”

“The “out of the box” thinking.”

Results

Chart 3. Response to Workshop 1.

Chart 4. Response to Workshop 2.

30.8%

53.8%

38.5%

23.1%

38.5%

23.1%

46.2%

53.8%

61.5%

46.2%

30.8%

38.5%

30.8%

23.1%

15.4%

7.7%

15.4%

38.5%

15.4%

30.8%

23.1%

1. I understand the principles of the

3Rs more

2. I understand the link between

the 3Rs, good animal welfare, and …

3. I am more confident to apply the

principles of the 3Rs

4. I understand what a culture of

care is more than I did before

5. I have thought about the 3Rs and

how to implement them more …

6. I feel I am more able to

contribute my ideas and be…

7. I feel more motivated to look for

new ways to apply the 3Rs

8. I will be able to get more

satisfaction from my job by …

9. I feel I know more of what is

expected of me in my job role

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

44.4%

55.6%

44.4%

77.8%

44.4%

55.6%

66.7%

22.2%

33.3%

1. I understand the principles of the 3Rs

2. I am more confident to carry out my job

efficiently

3. I am more confident to apply the

principles of the 3Rs

4. I have thought about the 3Rs and how

to implement them more than I normally …

5. I feel I am more able to contribute my

ideas and be listened to

6. I feel more motivated to look for new

ways to apply the 3Rs

7. I feel part of a team more

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

44 4%

22.2%

Results

Chart 3. Response to Workshop 1.

Chart 4. Response to Workshop 2.

30.8%

53.8%

38.5%

23.1%

38.5%

23.1%

46.2%

53.8%

61.5%

46.2%

30.8%

38.5%

30.8%

23.1%

15.4%

7.7%

15.4%

38.5%

15.4%

30.8%

23.1%

1. I understand the principles of the

3Rs more

2. I understand the link between

the 3Rs, good animal welfare, and …

3. I am more confident to apply the

principles of the 3Rs

4. I understand what a culture of

care is more than I did before

5. I have thought about the 3Rs and

how to implement them more …

6. I feel I am more able to

contribute my ideas and be…

7. I feel more motivated to look for

new ways to apply the 3Rs

8. I will be able to get more

satisfaction from my job by …

9. I feel I know more of what is

expected of me in my job role

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

44.4%

55.6%

44.4%

77.8%

44.4%

55.6%

66.7%

22.2%

33.3%

1. I understand the principles of the 3Rs

2. I am more confident to carry out my job

efficiently

3. I am more confident to apply the

principles of the 3Rs

4. I have thought about the 3Rs and how

to implement them more than I normally …

5. I feel I am more able to contribute my

ideas and be listened to

6. I feel more motivated to look for new

ways to apply the 3Rs

7. I feel part of a team more

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

44 4%

22.2%

Results

Chart 3. Response to Workshop 1.

Chart 4. Response to Workshop 2.

30.8%

53.8%

38.46153846%

23.07692308%

15.38461538%

38.46153846%

38.5%

23.1%

46.2%

53.8%

61.5%

46.2%

30.8%

38.5%

30.8%

23.1%

15.4%

7.7%

15.4%

38.5%

15.4%

30.8%

23.1%

1. I understand the principles of the

3R’s more

2. I understand the link between

the 3R’s, good animal welfare, and …

3. I am more confident to apply the

principles of the 3R’s

4. I understand what a culture of

care is more than I did before

5. I have thought about the 3R’s and

how to implement them more …

6. I feel I am more able to

contribute my ideas and be…

7. I feel more motivated to look for

new ways to apply the 3R’s

8. I will be able to get more

satisfaction from my job by …

9. I feel I know more of what is

expected of me in my job role

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

44.4%

55.6%

44.4%

77.8%

44.4%

55.6%

66.7%

22.2%

33.3%

1. I understand the principles of the 3R’s

2. I am more confident to carry out my job

efficiently

3. I am more confident to apply the

principles of the 3R’s

4. I have thought about the 3R’s and how

to implement them more than I normally …

5. I feel I am more able to contribute my

ideas and be listened to

6. I feel more motivated to look for new

ways to apply the 3R’s

7. I feel part of a team more

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Chart 3. Response to Workshop 1.

Chart 4. Response to Workshop 2.

Chart 5. Response to Workshop 3.

Chart 6. Overall workshop feedback

23.1%

38.5%

30.8%

38.5%

23.1%

30.8%

53.8%

61.5%

46.2%

53.8%

38.5%

61.5%

53.8%

30.8%

7.7%

1. I have a better understanding of how

the 3Rs are used when reviewing a…

2. I am more aware of the role of the

AWERB

3. I understand what good practices

and bad practices are

4. I have thought about the 3Rs and

how to implement them more than I …

5. I feel I am more able to contribute

my ideas and be listened to

6. I feel more motivated to look for

new ways to apply the 3Rs

7. I feel I have discussed the 3Rs with

other technologists more than I…

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

11.1%

22.2%

66.7%

44.4%

11.1%

55.6%

66.7%

33.3%

77.8%

55.6%

66.7%

22.2%

11.1%

22.2%

1. I feel more able to influence how things are done in my

team

2. I am better informed and trained to do my job well

3. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways

of doing things

4. I have a greater feeling of personal accomplishment

5. I am invested in the shared values of the company

6. I am more satisifed overall in my job

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Chart 5. Response to Workshop 3.

Chart 6. Overall workshop feedback

23.1%

38.5%

30.8%

38.5%

23.1%

30.8%

53.8%

61.5%

46.2%

53.8%

38.5%

61.5%

53.8%

30.8%

7.7%

1. I have a better understanding of how

the 3Rs are used when reviewing a…

2. I am more aware of the role of the

AWERB

3. I understand what good practices

and bad practices are

4. I have thought about the 3Rs and

how to implement them more than I …

5. I feel I am more able to contribute

my ideas and be listened to

6. I feel more motivated to look for

new ways to apply the 3Rs

7. I feel I have discussed the 3Rs with

other technologists more than I…

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

11.1%

22.2%

66.7%

44.4%

11.1%

55.6%

66.7%

33.3%

77.8%

55.6%

66.7%

22.2%

11.1%

22.2%

1. I feel more able to influence how things are done in my

team

2. I am better informed and trained to do my job well

3. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways

of doing things

4. I have a greater feeling of personal accomplishment

5. I am invested in the shared values of the company

6. I am more satisifed overall in my job

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Chart 6. Overall workshop feedback

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

181

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

What would you change about the workshops?

“The length or frequencies at which the workshops

are carried out so that: (A) more in depth discussion

and understanding can be gained from them (B)

more chances to actually attend them given the fact

that it may not be possible to attend due to work

constraints. (C) Another thing to consider would be

similar to the poster ‘homework’, is that research

could be advised to be done so that we are better

prepared for discussion sessions or so we feel that

we can contribute more without being put on the

spot as much.”

“Not much I would change, content was interesting,

perhaps a little more detail about the concept of

care and how best we can train ourselves to apply it

in our everyday work.”

“Longer lecture focussed segments.”

“Have them every 4-6 weeks.”

“As someone with social anxiety I did not enjoy the

Ice Breakers. I can appreciate their intended purpose

but it distracted from valuable time focusing on the

main aims of the workshop.”

“Nothing.”

“The length, some parts felt a bit rushed as there

simply wasn’t enough time.”

“It would have been good to have a research paper,

book chapter, etc., to read and questions to answer

prior to the session. We could then discuss the

answers. The use of animals in research is a very

controversial and complex topic so I think it might be

interesting to look at it from different viewpoints.”

“Better online tools.”

Stakeholder Engagement

Animal Technologists as key stakeholders and the

subjects of the project were highly engaged in the

process. They were kept well informed of the details

of the project and how change was to be managed.

Communication took the form of participation and

taking on an aspect of ownership of the project.

The line manager had a high interest and high inﬂuence of

the project and its outcomes but had a lower expectancy

of the merits of the project. Therefore, it was important

to communicate the outcomes and feedback of each of

the workshops to them and keep them involved in the

information delivered to the technicians throughout the

project.

The director had a high level of inﬂuence and a high

interest in the merits of the project but was less directly

affected by the project and the changes that it brought.

It was therefore important to get the information to the

director but not as often or in as much detail throughout

the project.

Project Evaluation

Methodology Analysis

The initial method had to be altered since available

space and technologist time was not enough to support

the original plan for 4 workshops with 2 weeks between.

Therefore, the plan was changed to 3 workshops given

at irregular intervals.

Stakeholder feedback

Animal Technologists – feedback has been gained from

these key players in the feedback forms after each

workshop and the overall survey at the end of the project.

These players have been very involved in the project and

their feedback makes up the results section of the project.

The director had a high level of influence and a high interest

in the merits of the project but was less directly affected by

the project and the changes that it brought. It was therefore

important to get the information to the director but not as

often or in as much detail throughout the project.

Figure 5. Stakeholder engagement.

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

Animal Technologists

182

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

Director feedback will be obtained via the following

questionnaire.

1. The project has been successful in promoting a

Culture of Care

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

2. The goals of the project were communicated clearly

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

3. Project was executed effectively

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

4. The change process was managed effectively

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

5. Information was communicated in a timely manner

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

7. The beneﬁts of the project were clearly expressed

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

6. The project closed at an appropriate time

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Figure 6. Line Manager Feedback questionnaire Figure 7. Director feedback questionnaire

Line manager feedback was be obtained via the

following questionnaire.

1. The project has been successful in promoting a

Culture of Care

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

2. The goals of the project were communicated clearly

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

3. Project was executed effectively

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

4. The project closed at an appropriate time

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

5. The beneﬁts of the project were clearly expressed

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

7. I was involved in the aims of the project

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

6. There is scope to extend the project

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

183

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

Conclusions

Each of the individual workshop feedback forms and

the overall survey indicated at improvements in some

respects that could give higher overall job satisfaction.

Results of Workshop 1 show that staff felt that they

knew

more of what was expected of them in their jobs

(77%

agree) and they felt more motivated to look for new

ways to apply the 3Rs (84.7% agree).

Feedback from Workshop

2 indicated that staff felt more

conﬁdent to carry out their jobs efﬁciently (77.8% agree)

and that they felt part of a team more (77.8% agree).

Results from Workshop 3 state that the employees felt

more able to contribute their ideas and to be listened to

(100% agree).

The overall feedback survey utilised 6 statements

from the NHS Culture of Care Barometer (2015) that

relate to aspects that indicate job satisfaction or

dissatisfaction.

Each of the statements also link to

fulﬁlment of the belongingness and esteem needs in

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Feedback shows that the

staff felt invested in the shared values of the company

(100%) improving their sense of belonging with each

other and in the organisation.

Staff also felt more able

to inﬂuence how things are done in their team because

of participating in the workshops (66.7%) which

improves their sense of belonging and their esteem.

Results also showed that staff felt better informed and

trained to do their jobs well (88.9%) and that they have

a greater feeling of personal accomplishment (77.8%).

Both statements indicate that the employees esteem

needs are being more fulﬁlled. As belongingness and

esteem needs are met, staff can be more motivated to

reach self-actualisation and perform to the best of their

abilities. This motivation is shown as the staff felt more

encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing

things (100%). These needs and motivational factors

being met should lead to increased job satisfaction and

staff felt they were more satisﬁed overall in their jobs

as a result of the workshops (77.8%).

Some aspects of the workshops that were well received

were the Ice Breaker activities. Participation in the

workshops increased with each workshop even with the

more reserved and reluctant members of staff.

A restriction to the project is that there was not

sufﬁcient space available to carry out the workshops at

the original desired dates and times. To improve this, I

would plan the workshops and their content 2 months

in advance and reserve the space then. Availability for

staff to attend was also restricted due to sickness

absence, annual leave and work commitments. In

future I would therefore introduce 2 dates in the same

month for the same workshop to allow ﬂexibility for

staff to attend.

Due to the restrictions in place, only a small sample size

of approximately 12 employees from 2 units attended

from a possible 50 employees across 7 units. For future

extension of the project I would offer the workshop

to all technologists across all facilities within the

establishment. I would also aim to work with the director

and line managers of all the units to make workshop

attendance compulsory and by having 2 sessions of the

same workshop, staff can be split into two groups allowing

for half the workforce to continue the normal workload,

thus making compulsory attendance more attainable.

Having more sessions of the same workshop also allows

for smaller groups instead of all 50 employees, meaning

that individual participation is more likely.

The staff that did not attend the workshops may have

been the people that were less invested in the culture

of the organisation and could be the ones to beneﬁt the

most from the workshops. Therefore, the project could

be improved, and its aims more thoroughly tested by

making attendance to the workshops mandatory.

Feedback on the aspects of the workshop that could be

improved consistently suggested that workshops were

not long enough to go through the material in sufﬁcient

depth and allow for more qualitative and quantitative

discussion. Spreading staff across workshops makes it

possible to have longer sessions of up to 3 hrs.

Some feedback also suggested that those with social

anxiety did not enjoy the Ice Breaker tasks. However,

the Ice Breakers are not just for fun but perform a

crucial role in preparing the staff to become more

relaxed and able to participate in the workshops without

feeling judged. Therefore, it is important to keep the

ice-breaker activities in place but reassess the types of

activity that are utilised.

Other changes I would make would be to involve staff in

choosing the topics for workshops and give them time

to research the topic ahead of the workshop so that

they are more comfortable to contribute.

The way that I have learnt through carrying out this project

is through Kolb’s experiential learning cycle whereby the

“Concrete Experience” of doing a workshop is followed

by “Reﬂective Observation” through feedback. “Abstract

Conceptualisation” whereby positives and negatives of

the experience are concluded, and changes made.

These changes are then planned and tried out based

on what I learnt through “Active Experimentation”. This

is again followed by “Concrete Experience”.

Justiﬁcation

As explained in the scoping document, an individuals’

motivation, morale and overall satisfaction in their job

can be affected by many factors including inﬂuences

outside of the organisation and this project looks at

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

184

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

just a small area. As explained by Maslow’s Hierarchy

of Needs’, higher levels will not be obtained when the

lower levels are not fulﬁlled e.g. if a person has debt at

home it will be hard to motivate them with self-esteem

factors to encourage them to perform to the best of

their abilities.

In such situations, the workshops may

appear to offer no improvement to job satisfaction.

Although there were limitations to this project including

time and space availability as well as a small sample

size, some positive conclusions can be drawn from

the results of the project. Although these conclusions

cannot directly prove that job satisfaction can be

improved and a culture of care promoted solely by

implementing participatory workshops, aspects alluding

to motivation and satisfaction at work were improved.

Feedback directly showed a link between participation

and an increased sense of belonging and increased

self-esteem. Simone (2009) states “Institutional culture

inﬂuences the productivity and performance of many

enterprises” and so the Culture of Care that animal

research organisations are aiming for should be extended

to the people who work with the animals.

The Chartered

Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) reported

that absences due to anxiety had increased in nearly

40% of organisations and absences due to depression

had increased in nearly 55% of organisations in 2018.

It could therefore be argued that increased morale,

which relates to improved mental health could reduce

such sickness absence although it would need to be

more thoroughly explored to prove whether participatory

workshops could help reduce sickness absence.

A more direct outcome from having more engaged and

informed staff through workshops is that they will be

more invested in the shared values of the organisation

and be more motivated to promote a culture of care.

This in turn leads to staff wanting to implement the 3Rs

where possible and use better practices. Utilising better

practices whenever and wherever possible improves

animal welfare. Animals that have better welfare make

better research models as they are otherwise healthier

and there is less variation, so results obtained are

better correlated to the experimental research being

conducted. Less variation also means that the science

is more reproducible. Good science means more ethical

science and results in better treatments. Better human

and animal welfare, and more ethical science, improves

public perception of the organisation and the ﬁeld of

animal research in medical science. This is increasingly

important as more organisations seek to offer a level of

transparency to the general public, and therefore further

extension of the current project would be beneﬁcial.

References

Russell, W.M.S. and Burch, R.L., (1959). The

Principles of Humane Experimental Technique,

Methuen, London. ISBN 0900767782.

Simone, J.V. (2009) Simone, J.V. (2009). Institutional

culture. Oncol Times 31(5): 5–6.

Brown, M. et al (2018). Culture of Care: Organizational

Responsibilities. Management of Animal Care and

Use Programs in Research, Education and Testing.

2nd Edition. Available online from: https://www.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK500402/

CIPD (2018) Health and Well-being at work- Public

Sector. Issued: May 2018 Reference: 7669 © CIPD

2018.

Schein (1990) Organizational Culture. American

Psychologist Vol. 45, No. 2, 109--119.

CIPD (2016). A duty to care? Evidence of the

importance of organisational culture to effective

governance and leadership. Available online

from: https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/a-duty-

to-care_2016-evidence-of-the-importance-of-

organisational-culture-to-effective-governance-and-

leadership_tcm18-14220.pdf [Accessed 25/1/20]

McLeod, S. (2018). Maslow’s Hierarchy of

Needs. Available online from: https://www.

simplypsychology.org/maslow.html [Accessed

25/1/20].

Brown, M. (2014). Creating a culture of care.

Available online from: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/

news/creating-culture-care [Accessed 28/11/19]

Bhatti, K.K. and Qureshi, T.M. (2007). Impact

of Employee Participation On Job Satisfaction,

Employee Commitment And Employee Productivity.

International Review of Business Research Papers.

Vol.3.

Rafferty, A. M., Philippou, J., Fitzpatrick, J. M., &

Ball, J. (2015). Culture of Care Barometer: Report

to NHSEngland on the development and validation of

an instrument to measure ‘Culture of Care’ in NHS

Trusts. London: King’s College, London.

UNUM (2019). Sickness absence management: a

simple guide. Available online from: https://www.

unum.co.uk/sickness-absence-management-simple-

guide#section2 [Accessed 2/12/19].

Kolb. D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied

theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.),

Theories of Group Process. London: John Wiley.

The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

185

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

Improving animal welfare at Newcastle

University by introducing the low stress

handling of mice

EMMA HAMILTON

Newcastle University, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH UK

Correspondence: emma.hamilton@newcastle.ac.uk

Based on an IAT Level 6 Diploma in Laboratory Animal Science and Technology Project

Abstract

The aim of this project was to implement a change of

handling method for laboratory mice to reduce stress

and improve animal welfare. Using a Low Stress

handling

Project scoping document

Introduction

The primary focus of this project was to introduce the

low stress handling of mice to Newcastle University

and resulting in all researchers and technicians using

this method. The focus of the project was for research

staff to adopt this method. Technicians began using

this method in 2019 following the guidance from

Kathy Murphy the director of the department. Tunnel

handling method was ﬁrst investigated by Hurst JL,

Figure 1. Traditional handling method using the tail.

taming anxiety in laboratory mice.

This information

had not been widespread which suggests why some

animal facilities had been slow to adopt the method. It

was not until a scientist at Newcastle University began

investigating this method that a strong movement for

change at Newcastle began.

This idea of the project arose when an esteemed scientist

Dr J Roughan from Newcastle University received funding

from the National Centre for Replacement, Reﬁnement

and reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) to conduct

experiments on ‘implementation of non-aversive use

handling for welfare reﬁnement and reduction of mouse

numbers.

It was concluded in these experiments that

anxious animals may provide inconsistent data as they

cope poorly during scientiﬁc testing thus increasing

statistical noise. The evidence suggested that this

results in an increased number of animals being

needed for the results to become reliable. At this point

in 2019 there was compelling evidence that using the

tunnel rather than the tail lowers anxiety, enhancing

welfare and also increasing the chances of obtaining

more precise results in the experiments.

Since 2017, Dr Roughan has been presenting lectures

to Animal Technologists and researchers throughout

Newcastle University in order to promote non-aversive

handling and to explain the beneﬁts. The attitude

of several technicians particularly between 2017 to

2019 were somewhat negative regarding this method.

The feedback and consensus within the department

from a large majority of technicians was that, ‘it takes

too long’ and ‘we’ve always done it this way, so why

change?’. This negative attitude could account for the

delayed implementation of the handling technique. The

senior management team were very supportive and

approved of the idea of the new method however there

were delays with implementing as a proactive team was

needed to champion and direct the change.

December 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

186

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

One of the turning points regarding a change of attitude

from a number of Animal Technologists, including

myself, was when John Waters from the University of

Liverpool, came to present at Newcastle University on

the beneﬁts to animal welfare that he has seen as an

Animal Technologist since adopting the new method of

handling.

The Animal Technologists at Newcastle University could

relate to this and it sparked a reaction, animal welfare

being the top priority for Animal Technologists who are

always looking for ways to improve practices. A team of

line managers and technicians was then brought together

in October 2019 to steer and champion the change.

The Home Ofﬁce was also very keen for Newcastle to

begin using this method and this became one of the

drivers for change. The Director of the department then

proposed that all Animal Technologists should use this

method and agreed that we could create a plan to help

the researchers to change to the new method.

The focus was to encourage the team to develop ideas

on how we could help improve the Culture of Care at the

university and to get the researchers to use this method

of low stress handling. Throughout this scoping and

planning document I have carried out smart objectives,

swot analysis, pestle analysis, compiled risk registers

and Gantt charts. This helped with preparation to make

the project attainable by preparing and troubleshooting

potential setbacks that may have arisen. The main

threat to the project is that researchers will not willingly

adopt the method; strategies were therefore put in

place to mitigate this.

I also focussed on Motivational Theory by Elton Mayo

to persuade the researchers and assist with motivation

within the team.

This theory developed in the 1920s

where productivity was the focus of business. Professor

Elton Mayo began his experiments (the Hawthorne

Studies), to prove the importance of people for

productivity. Communication is crucial as it has been

shown in the Hawthorn Studies that regular feedback

increases productivity.

The management system that would beneﬁt this project

would be based on Human Relations Theory, which

allows people to act autonomously.

It is very important

that this is a team effort and that everyone contributes.

This theory suggests that people desire to be part

of a supportive team that facilitates development

and growth. We hypothesised that if technicians and

researchers receive special attention they could be

encouraged to participate. Less aversive handling or

tunnel handling as it is often called, can therefore be

seen as important, having signiﬁcance which hopefully

motivates individuals.

A stakeholder grid has been produced which indicates

who has low and who has high interest. Communication

techniques were planned with regards to timings and

how information would be delivered, particularly to

researchers with communication being analysed and

planned beforehand. The result of the project was

planned for March 2019, which was attainable due

to the in- depth plan and the support from the highly

skilled team.

It was also important for this proposal to be presented

at the Animal Welfare Ethical Review Body (AWERB).

One of our objectives being to introduce a policy for

the University whereby people adopt this method. This

project had a professional team on board that were

already motivated to change, ultimately this project

demonstrated how Newcastle University have complete

dedication when it comes to maximising animal welfare.

Synopsis

Tunnel handling of mice is a relatively new method

that was ﬁrst introduced when a scientist Jane L Hurst

carried out a study called Taming Anxiety in Laboratory

Mice.

This presented scientiﬁc evidence of the beneﬁts

to animal welfare and science from tunnel handling.

The NC3Rs is a national organisation which helps

advance the principles of Replacement, Reduction

and Reﬁnement for humane animal research.

The

NC3Rs’ website is an excellent resource for up to

date information on best practices to maximise animal

welfare and advise on their website that it is important

when handling mice to use appropriate techniques in

a skilful way and advise tunnel handling as a result of

evidence gained from experiments.

The original research carried out by Jane Hurst showed

that signs of high anxiety levels are; greater urinating,

avoidance of human gloved hand, defecation during

handling, higher frequency of protected stretch attend

postures, fewer arm entries and less time spent on

the open arms of elevated plus maze.

Based on

this evidence, the NC3Rs advises that this method

should be used to help ensure that the mouse will

accept human contact thus enabling procedures to be

carried out efﬁciently and safely and not causing harm

Figure 2. Low Stress handling of mice.

Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

187

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

or hinderance to animal welfare. If routine handling

procedures are aversive animals are likely to develop

anxiety and show exaggerated stress response when

approached.

The stress caused by handling has also been shown

to cause unwanted variable within experiments. The

NC3Rs now recognises and promotes that non-aversive

handling not only beneﬁts the animal but also the

handler and leads to reliability of the data gained in

experiments (NC3Rs). This was demonstrated where

mice handled by a tunnel showed substantially improved

performance in a simple behavioural test (habituation-

dishabituation paradigm) compared to picking up by the

tail.

Roughan and Sevenoaks (2018) investigated if handling

methods affected anxiety in mice before restraint and

when being tattooed or having ear tags.

This study

showed that the mice that were tunnel handled were

less fearful as they had more interaction with the

handler. Anxiety was shown in the tail handled mice as

they had higher score on the grimace scale after they

had been acclimatised to handling and testing.

These experiments show compelling evidence and

this is inﬂuencing the positive changes in handling

techniques throughout the Animal Technology world.

The Home Ofﬁce is also encouraging our industry to

adopt this method which provided great support for the

completion of the project successfully.

Project objectives

Throughout the project I applied SMART values when

establishing my objectives. The mnemonic/acronym

are commonly taken to mean S-speciﬁc, M-measurable,

A-achievable, R-realistic, T-time-bound.

Communicate the proposal

S – Communication with the researchers via an email

sent from senior management team.

M – Success criteria, 80% of cages tunnel handled by

March 2020.

A – Must be achievable by March 2020, refer to

stakeholder grid.

R – This is realistic as we have tunnels however

communication was delayed to researchers etc., due to

Managers workload during Christmas period.

T – this stage will ﬁnish by 5

January 2020.

Communicate method to AWERB

S – Presentation of the proposal to AWERB in order to

make this policy for the department.

M – 1 technician/manager will do the presentation at

the meeting.

A – Achievable by March 2020.

R – Realistic target as AWERB meetings held every 2

weeks.

T – Presentation must be delivered at the latest by

beginning of January 2020.

Implementing

S – Put clear handling tunnels in the cages of mice.

M – Must conﬁrm how many tunnels available contact

to conﬁrm.

A – Already have tunnels for half of the unit and more

on order, hopefully no delay.

R – Yes, as on order however may be a delay until

February.

T – Could have delays with resource of tunnels will do

risk assessment.

Produce harmonised researcher checklist

S – This form will create a record for the Animal

Technologists as to which researchers have received

verbal information and training regarding low stress

handling.

M – This can be produced on excel by January 2020.

A – This is not a large task and will beneﬁt the

organisation.

R – This can be done at work.

T – This does not require substantial time resource as

estimated computer time is 30 minutes.

Training researchers how to tunnel handle

S – Contact all researchers and arrange the 1 to 1

training = 15 minutes.

M – Produce list of research teams in the unit and tick

off, line manager of the unit will arrange meeting with

each research team.

A – Yes as we have time to train.

R – This could be challenging due to researcher time

resource at minimum.

T – To be done by March 2020.

Demonstrating the 3RS

S – This will show that Newcastle University have

animal welfare as a priority.

M – A publication can be made on the departments,

University website and possibly on NC3RS.

A – The Named Information Ofﬁcer (NIO) is responsible

for the department’s newsletter and could keep staff

and researchers up to date.

R – Currently there is already approximately 17% of

animal’s tunnel handled therefore a larger percentage

is needed.

T – by March 2020.

Complete user guide to low stress handling mice

S – Provide researchers with a fact sheet on tunnel

handling.

M – When completed send to researchers.

A – One person can perform this task which may be

challenging due to time resource.

R – This is achievable as we have the technology to

produce this.

T – This can be delivered to researchers when they

have the individual 1 to 1 meeting training.

Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

188

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

Organisational context

Stakeholders:

• researchers

• technicians

• line management

• senior management

Researchers

These were the priority in terms of inﬂuencing and

creating maximum interest. For new researchers to the

unit it was not a challenge as during the induction process

the persons will be shown the tunnel handling method

only. Researchers who have been at the University for

long time could be the most challenging to inﬂuence

and they will require more interest and dedication.

Animal Technologists

Many Animals Technologists at Newcastle University

were already champions of this method and were

involved in the team to help implementation. They

needed to be kept satisﬁed to maintain motivation and

momentum of the project as they will be the leaders

of the change and major inﬂuencers. There are some

Animal Technologists who were less interested and

required more inﬂuence. This is where Motivational

Theory became useful.

I consider that it is also

important to mention that line mangers and senior

managers need to ensure that all Animal Technologists

were using the new handling method as it would be

easy to revert back to tail handling out of habit.

Line managers and Senior management

The managers are providing full support as they are

providing time resource and providing the clear tunnels,

these persons therefore need less interest and did not

need inﬂuencing.

Stakeholder grid

PESTLE Analysis

Political: Home Ofﬁce support can assist in encouraging

adopting this method.

Economic: There will be a period at the start of

introducing this method that tasks such as cleaning out

may take longer than at the present. Time will also be lost

through

technicians taking time to train researchers and

do other tasks to help. The ﬁnancial cost of the clear

tunnels is also a small factor of the budget to consider.

Social: This proposal will help work on the attitudes of

staff in the department and hopefully as a result, create

a shared belief that this is increasing the welfare of the

mice therefore everyone should be using this method.

Technological: We can use technology to make the

posters, send emails and create training records.

Legislative: Working practices can be produced for

the department on this new method; AWERB will also

be involved in the implementation. We all have a legal

responsibility to enhance the welfare of animals in our

care and this supports the 3Rs.

Environmental: Plastic resource not environmentally

friendly however reusable making this sustainable.

Budget

High

level

inﬂuence

Low

Keep satisﬁed

• Research staff

• Senior

management

• Animal care

technicians

• Named Training

Compliance ofﬁcer

•

Named Animal care

and welfare ofﬁcer

Manage closely

• Research staff

• Animal

Technicians

Monitor (Minimal Effort

)

• Establishment

licence holder

• Human resources

Keep informed

• Research staff

• Animal

Technicians

• Management

• Named Training

Compliance ofﬁcer

•

Named Animal care

and welfare ofﬁcer

Low INTEREST Level High

Newcastle University Low Stress handling Project

Implementation Costs

1. Technical time for meetings to organise tasks =

11 technicians x 3 hours = 33 hours

(Animal Technician hourly rate = £10 per hour)

33 x 10 = £330

2. Tunnels @ £5 each x 700 = £3500

3. Presentations to researchers by FGU staff =

4 technicians for 15 minutes x 11 = 11 hours

Animal Technician hourly rate = £10 per hour) =

11 x 10 = £110

Labour of training = 4 technical 30 minutes x 11 =

22 hours

(Animal Technician hourly rate = £10 per hour) =

22 x 10 = £220

Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

189

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

Project planning document

Method statement

The project was to introduce low stress handling of mice

to Newcastle University Comparative Biology Centre and

Centre for Life, Genetics Unit. It aimed to bring a team

together, working to promote and communicate the

commitment to utilising low stress handling methods

for mice. This project involved a team of technologists

who created ideas and contributed to successful

implementation. The project also involved establishing

University policies for future use. Meetings with

research teams to promote this method and change

culture, booklets, induction processed was also part

of this.

The plan was to create a team and meet to discuss

ideas on how low stress handling implementation could

be achieved. Time is a valuable resource therefore the

App called Microsoft Planner was be used in order to

reduce time taken in face to face meetings. This should

be an effective method to communicate each person’s

progress with task.

Stakeholder engagement

Senior Management

This liaison was to be less frequent with just updates

when major breakthroughs were achieved. Permission

to implement actions possibly needed. However,

communication with these stakeholders is important and

they must keep informed as they are major inﬂuencers.

Line Managers

Should be fully supportive as they are NACWOS and

leaders of the team and are high inﬂuencers. Line

mangers should have weekly team meetings which will

involve face to face communication. Theses were ‘in-

house’ and informal and Animal Technologists were

able to report information regarding progress in the

animal unit.

Project team for implementing the change

Momentum must be maintained. Face to face meeting

for discussion as a team on how the project team would

move forward and to agree the main objectives was held

late December. A project tracker board was established

in Microsoft that listed the task assigned to each team

member. Updates from each member of the team on

progress, persons notiﬁed, etc., were uploaded. A face

to face meeting planned for the end of February 2020;

this would provide team members with more autonomy

over this project which would increase motivation.

Researchers

Many researchers mostly new to the University, have

already started using tunnel handling. Forms of

communication used were face to face meetings and

email. An email was sent out to each researcher and

a meeting arranged for that group. This meeting was

Technical time for meetings to organise tasks

(Animal Technician hourly rate = £10 per hour)

11 Technicians x 3 hours = 33 hours

December 11 hours x 10 = £110

January 11 hours x 10 = £110

February 11 hours x 10 = £110

Tunnels £5 each x 700 = £3500

Labour of training 4 Technical 30 minutes x 11 =

22 hours

December 5.5 hours x 10 = £55

January 5.5 hours x 10 = £55

February 5.5 hours x 10 = £55

March 5.5 hours x 10 = £55

organised by the line manager at the Genetics Unit

and there was a presentation on how to use the new

method and to assist researchers in using the method

themselves. Preparation needed to be done beforehand

as we anticipated some negative feedback of not

wanting to change. The documentation provided helped

with concerns and face to face communication helped

inﬂuence. It was very important to support and create a

good rapport to gain trust and also help inﬂuence.

Budget

Animal Welfare and Ethics Review

Board (AWERB)

It was important that this proposal was taken to an

AWERB meeting as they will help support the change

and assist in deﬁning the University’s expectations with

regards to the Culture of Care. The AWERB is a panel of

individuals who are there to share good practice within

the University, promoting animal welfare and the 3Rs.

A Named Animal Care and Welfare Ofﬁcer (NACWO) and

Animal Technologist presented at the meeting as to

what the beneﬁts were of introducing this new practice

and this was then opened for discussion.

This meeting had the NACWO for the area concerned

and the Named Veterinary Surgeon (NVS) present. A

layperson, an Animal Technologists and a scientist who

used mice in experiments was also present.

The aim was for a policy document to be produced for

the department that Animal Technologists and research

staff could refer too. This was produced by the Head of

Department and was sent to the Establishment Licence

Holder (ELH) for permission to be granted. The time

frame for this was completion by March 2020. A copy

of the draft policy document was also planned to be

available March 2020.

Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

190

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

Project Implementation

The implementation of the project began when a team

meeting was held; all members of the team from each

mouse unit throughout the department were present.

Objectives were established at this meeting and each

team member was set a task that they had volunteered

for. Several of the planning objectives had been met but

others had been delayed, these were as follows:

Communicating proposal of introducing the low stress

method – Completed 20.02.2020

It was decided by senior management that they wanted

to delay this email being sent until after the presentation

at AWERB.

Present to AWERB – Completed

Senior management decided to present this at the

earliest opportunity and this was communicated by a line

manager who is a NACWO and an Animal Technologist.

Implementing: Put tunnels used for low stress handling

in the mouse cages – Delayed and ongoing

This process began in December where we were able

to put 400 clear tunnels in mouse cages; to complete

this project in the Genetics Unit requires an additional

300 tunnels. I was informed on the 6th January that

more tunnels were on order however delayed. On the

26th February I contacted the person responsible for

ordering and was informed that the tunnels had arrived

some weeks previously however no communication had

been sent to the Genetics Unit.

Training researchers to tunnel handle – Ongoing

A tick sheet is being currently used and this details

which researchers have been trained, this is currently

at 70%. Each technician has researchers to help

train, particularly new staff; the Named Training and

Competency Ofﬁcer (NTCO) is signing off a number of

individuals as competent.

The 3Rs, showing Newcastle University has welfare at

the forefront – Ongoing

This project has demonstrated that Newcastle University

has animal welfare at the forefront of their agenda by

actively contributing to the 3Rs. This has reﬁned the

technique and could also have the potential to replace

and reduce mice being used in experiments.

Check list of researchers within the department,

conﬁrming communication – Completed

This has been completed for all the units of the CBC

and sheets are available live on Excel to enable Animal

Technologists to update if researchers have had training

and or been spoken to.

Results:

The ﬁrst milestone was reached when people

volunteered to join the project, in total there were 10

Animal Technologists and 1 line manager. After the ﬁrst

team meeting the Genetics Unit’s line manger arranged

informal face to face meetings with each research team

in order to discuss the introduction of tunnel handling.

11 researchers were noted at the Genetics Unit

however, when reviewed again this was 20 as new staff

had started. Those that required training usually took

an average of 15 minutes. 14 persons were trained

and signed off as competent, leaving 6 remaining.

This organisational project brought about important

positive changes with regard to improvements of animal

welfare. The results of this project show that Newcastle

University is actively participating in ﬁnding ways to

introduce the 3Rs. Implementation of the project has

reﬁned the handling technique and reduced potential

anxiety and stress in mice.

Clear tunnels have not been placed in all cages,

only approximately 400. However this has not been

detrimental as all of the cages are provided with a

cardboard tunnel, which can be used as a substitute.

An additional success is that this method of mouse

handling is departmental policy due to the recognition

and advice from the AWERB committee.

Stakeholder engagement:

John Waters’ Presentation:

John Waters is a NACWO from the University of Liverpool

who provided a presentation to the Director, managers

and Animal Technologists. John described his experiences

as an Animal Technologist whilst being involved in the

studies regarding tunnel handling. He talked about the

bond an Animal Technologist has with an animal and

explained his experiences on how the low stress handling

method increases this bond. A poignant observation John

used was ‘you wouldn’t pick a rat up by the tail, so why a

mouse?’. Following this presentation Animal Technologists

were put into groups and showed by John Waters and

Johnny Roughan how to perform the handling technique.

Researchers

They received regular feedback and daily reports from

individuals, our focus being to communicate as much

as possible to the researchers through varied methods.

This came with less challenges than expected which

was important as during the Hawthorne studies the

workers were consulted and allowed to give feedback

which improved productivity.

Both the team and I have liaised with researchers in the

unit on a daily basis. There was already a good working

relationship with researchers which may have contributed

to there being less difﬁculty in inﬂuencing the researchers.

During training, there were a several researchers who

needed to increase their conﬁdence with the technique,

nevertheless interactions have been positive so far.

Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

191

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

Showing patience and support have helped enable this

transition. This, at times, interrupted normal husbandry

duties as technologists were asked to aid a small

number of researchers requiring encouragement. As a

team we tried to offer full support to the researchers as

this was a new learning experience for them.

AWERB:

A NACWO and Animal Technologist presented at the

meeting what the welfare beneﬁts of introducing this new

practice would be and then followed an open discussion.

This meeting also included the NACWO and the NVS. A

layperson, Animal Technologist and scientists who use

mice for experiments were also present. A Policy was

then presented to the establishment licence holder for

ﬁnal approval.

Policy Document

(distributed 20.2.2020)

This policy was sent out to all the staff and researchers

of the department please see below:

To support our University’s policy on the use of

animals in research, The Animal Welfare and Ethical

Review Body (AWERB) ensures that all animals are

housed and cared for in a way that promotes their

wellbeing and that all research work is carried out in

a manner that minimises any adverse effects on the

animals. To assist with this commitment the AWERB

develops Newcastle University animal care and

welfare standards for all staff involved in working

with research animals. Together we strive to be

sector leaders in laboratory animal care and welfare.

In all routine circumstances where mice and rats

have to be handled, low-stress methods (cupping,

tunnel handling) should be used. Tail capture

(suspending the animal by the tail) should not be used

in routine circumstances. Tail handling (holding the

tail to stabilise the animal) is permitted for restraint

purposes, as this may be necessary for examination

of the animal or conduct of a procedure. A series of

video tutorials for all methods is available via the

NC3Rs’ website (www.nc3rs.org.uk/how-to-pick-up-

a-mouse). This standard applies to all staff (animal

care staff and researchers). Routine circumstances

are deﬁned as all handling required for husbandry or

procedural purposes, excluding work where AWERB

has granted an exemption from this standard or in

the event of an emergency such as the escape of

an animal. This standard applies in all Newcastle

University rodent units. Exemptions may be sought

from AWERB for speciﬁc scientiﬁc purposes. Such

applications will normally be considered by the

AWERB fast-track process meaning an applicant can

usually expect a decision within 2 weeks. Please

complete the online Exemption Application Form

to apply for exemption from Newcastle University’s

Rodent Low Stress Handling Standard, Newcastle

University, AWERB, (2020).

Researcher group meeting held

March 2020

The senior management team held a meeting to explain

the implementation of the policy and they also asked

if there were any questions or concerns, no response

occurred at the meeting and there was no opposition.

Animal Technologists

In each animal unit, daily feedback was introduced to

increase motivation and plan for the daily tasks, this

only took 5 minutes. Feedback was important as the

Hawthorne studies suggested that if workers received

increased attention it could increase job satisfaction

and productivity.

Providing Animal Technologists with

autonomy through arranging training, project tasks

and helping others proved successful as tasks were

completed.

Line managers and senior

management

An informal team weekly meeting with line manager

where we discussed weekly objectives and no face to face

communication was needed with senior management.

Project team meeting/workshop

This was where the team proposed ideas and people

could volunteer on how they would like to contribute.

A brainstorming session was completed on “blockers-

why has this project not been successful in the past?”

and “closing the gap – what could be done to make

this project successful?”. A forum on Microsoft Planner

was established so that we could communicate

progress. Members of this team had voluntarily joined

and consisted of 10 Animal Technologists and 1 line

manager.

Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

BLOCKERS CLOSING THE GAP

❖ Different priorities ✓ Training records

❖ Change ✓ Order more clear tunnels

❖ Lack of conﬁdence ✓ Research meetings

❖ Affecting data ✓ Posters and user guide

❖ Old school attitude ✓ Opt out rule

❖ Time resource ✓

Build personal relationships

❖ Indecision ✓ External collaborators

❖ Lack of tunnels ✓ Assertiveness training

❖ Technician engagement

192

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

Summary of project tasks to be

completed

1. Low stress handling methods to be included in

Personal licence technique section with anaesthetic

code A/B and at induction – speak to NTCO and

conﬁrm. NTCO will update induction form to include

demonstration of Low Stress Handling.

2. Redeﬁne tail handling as a combination of Tunnel

Capture and Tail Restraint - run this new terminology

change via Johnny Roughan.

3. All units to identify number of tunnels required – will

order 2000 more.

4. Devise publicity email to include information and

links to Low Stress Handling demonstrations –

personnel identiﬁed to follow up.

5. Check if mice are still to be examined in the plastic

tubes and discuss whether two tubes still to be

supplied (one plastic, one cardboard).

6. Poster for ﬂow-hoods and information boards are

now placed in at least one unit. Other units require

checking - contact Estates for wall mounting. NC3Rs’

poster link has been sent to relevant parties and

a further 5 posters have been ordered. These will

be placed in suitable positions to maximise their

exposure throughout the CBC.

7. Researchers require active encouragement to use

Low Stress Handling and arrange training where

needed. All technicians to actively participate in

talking to researchers about Low Stress Handling. A

harmonised researcher checklist will be created and

email follow-up method of recording that research

personnel have been spoken to about Low Stress

Handling.

8. Working practice to follow. All working practices

will then also form the basis for a CBC Low Stress

Handling current best practice guide.

9. The budget did alter throughout the project although

tunnel price did not change. Presentations and

training only took an average of 15 minutes; half

the time anticipated. This was difﬁcult to monitor

as often more time was taken due to the ad hoc

approach. A budget for the increased time it took

Animal Technologists to change the mouse cages

and time taken to put tunnels in the cages could

also have been included. This increase of time only

occurred in January as technologists adapted to the

new handling method and increased in conﬁdence.

Project evaluation

Methodology analysis

The smart objectives involved using differing methods

of communication and these were delivered quite

successfully. Challenges however did occur which were

evaluated and observations made included:

–

This unit is a satellite building therefore communication

was difﬁcult at times. Tunnels were delivered to main

campus which is 2 miles away and arrangements

had to be made for delivery. When the tunnels did

not arrive on time, we should have investigated the

delay sooner.

– Scheduling training with researchers posed

challenges at times when animal care duties took

priority.

–

Fewer researchers required training; new staff in

particular were already using this method as they had

been shown the method during their induction, although

previously this method had not been mandatory.

– This project did constitute a success, it was a

team effort and members had responsibility for

and assisted progress. This could assist with

the progress. This could suggest that the Human

Relations Theory had an inﬂuencing part.

– The project team mostly consisted of newer members

of staff who were still being trained. They showed

high levels of motivation to contribute, possibly

due to detailed review of performance. More senior

members have been doing the job for several years

which could account for them being more resistant

to change.

– High inﬂuence of leadership could have contributed

to success. Clear goals were set to achieve a change

of culture at the University.

–

John Waters’ presentation was a huge motivator; this

could be because Animal Technologists may have

needed to understand beneﬁts to pursue a goal.

– When Animal Technologists were trained how to do

this technique they had increased conﬁdence and

motivation.

– Microsoft Planner proved to be a valuable

management tool as it created a system where

persons in the team could be accountable for tasks.

This also supports the Hawthorne effect with regards

to being monitored thus improving performance.

Research Technicians’ questionnaire

1. Do you prefer using the tunnel handling method or

the tail handling of mice?

2. Have you seen any animal behaviour differences

since using this method?

3. Do you feel more of a team and supported since this

project was introduced?

Animal Technologists’ questionnaire

1. Have you seen any positive difference with regards

to animal behaviour whilst using this method, if so

are you able to describe?

2. Did you feel that you were able to fully contribute to

this project?

Do you feel more as a team since this project started?

4. Has this project improved your job satisfaction and if

so why?

Conclusion

This project came with challenges, however overall

signiﬁcant positive changes were made to improve

animal welfare. The risks that were anticipated were not

Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

193

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

as signiﬁcant as ﬁrst imagined and could be dealt with

effectively. Experiential learning has taken place and

throughout this conclusion Kolb’s experiential learning

cycle is appropriate and has been used.

Throughout

this project we have had sufﬁcient resources of money,

people and high inﬂuence which could suggest a

contribution to the success.

One aspect that was observed was that people appeared

to become motivated when they had meaning and

objectives. One of the main reasons for this goal one

could argue was the vast improvements to animal welfare.

There was strong leadership and vision which could have

been a motivating factor, clear smart objectives were set

for people which allowed for team members autonomy.

Communication occurred regularly and this supports

Mayo’s theory that suggested that regular attention

can improve job satisfaction and support and allowing

autonomy can increase productivity.

This group could

have gained a sense of value due to increasing animal

welfare; this also supports the conclusions drawn from

the Hawthorn studies regarding a person’s needs are

based on sentiment.

There were high norms in the

team, a norm is an ofﬁcial level that organisations are

expected to reach. The persons who volunteered already

had an interest in participating, no one was forced to join

the team.

Each person’s contribution and commitment

demonstrated high cohesiveness and supports Mayo’s

motivational theory.

Being at a satellite animal unit did create small

communication challenges as there was a short delay

putting tunnels in all cages. Learning from this, the

risk should have been closely monitored, it would be

advised for future projects to schedule a calendar

reminder to prompt an action to chase up. This however

was not detrimental to implementation as we were

able to improvise and handle the mice in cardboard

tunnels rather than ones that were transparent. The

clear tunnels are however better for welfare standards

as technologists can do animal health checks more

effectively. John Waters conﬁrms this on the NC3Rs’

website by explaining that “Clear tunnels have a real

advantage as animals can be seen inside them”.

Some smart objectives were dependant on senior

management. Due to this being a signiﬁcant change

of normal working practices, careful consideration

had to

be made on how to approach this. Senior

management sent the email out to the researchers

about the proposed policy. This was appropriate as it

came from a high inﬂuencer with authority. I contributed

as being part of the team in one unit and followed the

Human Relations theory when making decisions on

how to communicate with both Animal Technologists

and staff.

Following on from the ﬁrst large meeting,

written communications played an important part and

contributed to the organisation of the project immensely,

this was via emails, through user guides, Excel and

Microsoft Planner programmes.

The AWERB meeting occurred before the timeline in

January. This was a positive decision as one could

suggest it strengthened the inﬂuence of the project as

this supported the validation of the project with regards to

animal welfare. Upon reﬂection if this had been left until

the end of January it may have delayed progress. Following

this meeting the unit’s line manger decided to take the

step of introducing clear tunnels into cages in the unit.

Researchers did not need as much motivation as

had ﬁrst been thought. In the scoping document it

was expressed that researchers would be most likely

a threat to the project. The view of this was due to

past experiences of hearing verbal comments from

researchers and their views of how difﬁcult and how it

takes too long to use Low Stress Handling. This could

have been inﬂuenced by some Animal Technologists as

a number had expressed negative preconceptions of

this method. As a team we believed in the vision, were

positive and had enthusiasm, this could have been

an important inﬂuencer. Marie Dalton discusses that

research has shown persons with a positive attitude are

more successful than those with a negative viewpoint.

Trainee Animal Technologists appeared to have the most

enthusiasm for this project compared to the more senior

members of staff. The main personal motivator showed

to be the improvement to animal welfare. However the

fact that the technique was made mandatory by higher

authority may have been an inﬂuencer. The objectives

set could also be a factor in increasing motivation, as

we had a direction that had to be met. One could argue

that new Animal Technologists could have increased

motivation and were easier to inﬂuence due to wanting

to gain recognition and show their dedication when being

performance managed. This could support the theory of

the Hawthorn effect where it was found if workers were

being watched they improved performance.

However

Elton Mayo also analysed the ﬁndings of the experiment

and found that persons were not motivated through

environmental or pay factors.

Social and relational

factors played a bigger role in productivity.

This success should be celebrated due to a widespread

implementation of the 3Rs at Newcastle University. It

would be interesting to evaluate the reduction of animals

used in future experiments, as this has been shown in

comparable experiments due to there being less

variability. This project has however not only resulted in

vast improvements to animal welfare but it has created a

valuable social opportunity for the department, where the

whole team could come together to make a positive

change.

References

Jane L Hurst and Rebecca S West (2010) Taming

Anxiety in Laboratory Mice. Available at:

https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/

mammalianbehaviour/ Taming, anxiety, in,

laboratory, mice.pdf [Accessed 6.1.2020].

Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

194

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

Hurst, J.L. and West, R.S. (2010). Taming anxiety in

laboratory mice. Nature Methods 7:825-826.

Johnny Roughan and Tatum Sevenoaks (2018)

elfare and scientiﬁc considerations of tattooing and

ear tagging for mouse identiﬁcation. Available at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/

PMC6433351/

[Accessed 29.1.2020]

Expert management .com Mayo’s motivational

theory/hawthorn effect (2020) available from:

https://expertprogrammanagement.com/2018

/05/

mayos-motivation-theory-hawthorn-effect/

[Accessed 30.1.2020].

Business/human relations management theory basics

(2011) understand the basic premise behind the

human relations management theory. Available from:

https://www.business.com/articles/human-

relations-

management-theory-basics/ [Accessed 7.1.2020].

https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/

NC3Rs.org.uk (2020) mouse handling research.

Available at: papershttps://nc3rs.org.uk/sites/

default/files/documents/NC3Rs%20-%20

mouse%20handling%20research%20papers%20

table.pdf [Accessed 6.1.2020].

Gouveia K, Hurst Jl (2017) Optimising reliability

of mouse performance in behavioural testing: the

major role of non-aversive handling. Available from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28322308

[Accessed 29.1.2020)

Johnny V Rouhan and Tatum Sevenoaks (2018)

welfare and scientiﬁc considerations of tattooing

and ear tagging for mouse identiﬁcation. Available

at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/

PMC6433351/ [Accessed 29.1.2020]

Langford DJ, Bailey AL, Chanda ML, Clarke SE,

Drummond TE, Echols S, et al (2010). Coding of facial

expressions of pain in the laboratory mouse. Nature

Methods 7(6): 447-449. doi:10.1038/nmeth.1455

Mayos Motivation theory/hawthorn Effect.

Available from: https://expertprogrammanagement.

com/2018/05/mayos-motivation-theory-hawthorn-

effect/ [Accessed 13th of February 2020].

Elton Mayo and his key theories: The

Hawthorne effect. Available from: https://www.

managementstudyhq.com/elton-mayo-theories.html

[Accessed 25th of March 2020].

Kolb’s learning styles and the experiential

learning cycle. Available from: https://www.

simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html [Accessed

30th March 2020].

Human relations theory by Elton mayo/Personal

attention. Available from: https://www.toolshero.com/

management/human-relations-theory-elton-mayo/

[Accessed 30th of March 2020].

Collins dictionary, Deﬁnition of norm (2020)

available from: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/

dictionary/english/norm

Management study HQ/ Elton Mayo and his

key theories. Available from: https://www.

managementstudyhq.com/elton-mayo-theories.html

[Accessed 26th of February 2020].

Dalton, M. Hoyle, D.G, Watts, M.W (2010)

Working towards goals: positive attitude. Available

from: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ees7

AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA412&lpg=PA412&

dq=meaning+in+order+to+pursue+a+goal+hu

man+relationship&source=bl&ots=cmtQSWw

N4c&sig=ACfU3U0X5oBjVvup0dXuc-MDUexe

f8SIag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRna_-p8-

LoAhXXMMAKHedAAVMQ6AEwC3oECAoQAQ#v=

onepage&q=meaning%20in%20order%20

to%20pursue%20a%20goal%20human%20

relationship&f=false [Accessed 15th March 2020].

Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

195

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

PAPER SUMMARY

TRANSLATIONS

December 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

CONTENU DE LA REVUE

Relation entre la participation des employés et la

satisfaction professionnelle

CHERYL YALDEN

Biological Services, Hodgkin Building, King’s College London, Guy’s Campus, London SE1 1UL UK

Correspondance: cheryl.yalden@kcl.ac.uk

Résumé

Il s’agit d’un projet entrepris dans le cadre du programme d’études de niveau 6 du diplôme de l’IAT en science et

technologie animales de laboratoire. Le projet avait pour but d’explorer la relation entre la participation des salariés

et la satisfaction professionnelle en réalisant quatre ateliers relatifs à la mise en œuvre des 3R et en travaillant à

une « culture des soins » comprenant des valeurs partagées clairement déﬁnies. Les participants étaient membres

de l’unité des services biologiques du campus Guy au King’s College de Londres, qui s’occupe des animaux utilisés

pour la recherche médicale.

Les 3R sont un ensemble de principes qui fournissent le cadre d’une recherche animale plus éthique et plus humaine.

Les institutions qui travaillent avec des animaux de recherche sont fortement réglementées par la législation et les

lignes directrices. Ces institutions doivent toutefois s’efforcer d’aller au-delà de leurs obligations légales et traiter les

animaux avec compassion et empathie en établissant une « culture de soins ». Il a constamment été démontré que

l’amélioration du bien-être des animaux permettait d’accroître la reproductibilité de la recherche et de promouvoir une

bonne science. Cette culture devrait être étendue aux personnes qui travaillent avec les animaux là où « la culture

institutionnelle inﬂuence la productivité et la performance de nombreuses entreprises ».

2,3

Un mauvais moral et une

faible motivation du personnel peuvent être liés à un manque de satisfaction professionnelle, à une augmentation

de la maladie et à une mauvaise perception publique de l’organisation. Selon le rapport du Chartered Institute of

Personnel and Development (CIPD) de 2018, les absences dues à des maladies liées au stress et à des problèmes

de santé mentale, notamment l’anxiété et la dépression, ont augmenté dans près de 40 % et 55 % des organisations,

respectivement.

L’enquête globale ainsi que chacun des formulaires de rétroaction de l’atelier ont indiqué des améliorations qui, à

certains égards, pourraient permettre d’augmenter la satisfaction professionnelle dans son ensemble. Les rétroactions

montrent que le personnel s’est senti investi dans les valeurs communes de l’entreprise, ce qui améliorait son

sentiment d’appartenance au sein du personnel de l’entreprise et à l’entreprise elle-même.

Mots-clés. Satisfaction professionnelle, culture des soins, participation des employés

196

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary Translations

Améliorer le bien-être des animaux à l’Université de

Newcastle en introduisant une manipulation moins

stressante pour les souris

EMMA HAMILTON

Newcastle University, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH UK

Correspondance: emma.hamilton@newcastle.ac.uk

Résumé

Cet article est basé sur un projet entrepris dans le cadre du programme d’études de niveau 6 du diplôme de l’IAT en

science et technologie animales de laboratoire.

Le principal objectif de ce projet était d’introduire une manipulation moins stressante des souris à l’Université de

Newcastle et, par conséquent, tous les chercheurs et techniciens utiliseront cette méthode. Le projet sera axé sur

l’adoption de cette méthode par le personnel de recherche. La méthode de manipulation des souris de laboratoire à

l’aide d’un tunnel aﬁn de soulager leur anxiété a d’abord été examinée par JL Hurst (2010). Cette information n’était

pas très répandue, ce qui pourrait indiquer pourquoi de nombreuses installations de recherche sur les animaux n’ont

pas adopté cette méthode. Ce n’est que lorsqu’un scientiﬁque de l’Université de Newcastle a commencé à étudier

cette méthode qu’un mouvement fort en faveur du changement a commencé.

Cette idée du projet est née à la suite d’expériences sur la mise en œuvre d’une manipulation non-aversive des

souris pour améliorer leur bien-être et réduire le nombre de souris utilisées. Ces expériences ont conclu que les

animaux anxieux pouvaient fournir des données incohérentes car ils n’étaient pas en mesure de faire face à la

situation pendant les tests scientiﬁques, ce qui augmentait le bruit statistique. Il a été suggéré que cela entraînait la

nécessité d’utiliser un nombre accru d’animaux pour que les résultats soient ﬁables. À ce stade, en 2019, il existait

des preuves convaincantes indiquant que l’utilisation du tunnel plutôt que de la queue diminuait l’anxiété des souris,

améliorait leur bien-être et augmentait également les chances d’obtenir des résultats d’expérience plus précis.

L’attitude, en particulier de 2017 à 2019, était quelque peu négative à l’égard de cette méthode. La rétroaction et

le consensus culturel au sein du département étaient que « cela prenait trop de temps » et « nous avons toujours

procédé de cette façon, pourquoi changer ? ». Cette attitude négative pourrait expliquer le retard de mise en œuvre

de la nouvelle méthode.

L’objectif était d’amener l’équipe à développer des idées sur la façon dont nous pourrions aider à améliorer la culture

des soins à l’université aﬁn d’amener les chercheurs à utiliser cette méthode de traitement réduisant le stress. Tout

au long de ce document de portée et de planiﬁcation, les objectifs SMART, l’analyse SWOT, l’analyse de pilon, un

registre des risques et des diagrammes de Gantt ont été utilisés. Cela a aidé à préparer ce projet en prévoyant et

en palliant les éventuels revers qui pourraient survenir. La réticence des chercheurs constituait la principale menace

à l’introduction de la nouvelle méthode de manipulation. Des stratégies ont donc été mises en place pour atténuer

cette menace.

Un aspect observé était que la motivation du personnel semblait augmenter lorsque les choses étaient comprises et

que des objectifs étaient ﬁxés. L’amélioration considérable du bien-être des animaux constitue l’une des principales

raisons que l’on pouvait avancer en faveur de cet objectif.

Ce projet s’est accompagné de déﬁs, mais globalement des changements positifs importants ont été mis en place

pour améliorer le bien-être des animaux, ce qui a créé une occasion sociale de valeur pour le département, l’équipe

entière pouvant collaborer aﬁn d’apporter un changement positif.

Mots-clés. Souris, manipulation moins stressante, bruit statistique, amélioration du bien-être, réduction du nombre

de souris.

197

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

INHALTVERZEICHNIS

Zusammenhang zwischen Mitarbeiterbeteiligung und

Zufriedenheit am Arbeitsplatz

CHERYL YALDEN

Biological Services, Hodgkin Building, King’s College London, Guy’s Campus, London SE1 1UL UK

Korrespondenz: cheryl.yalden@kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

Dieser Artikel basiert auf einem Projekt, das im Rahmen des IAT-Studienprogramms Versuchstierkunde und

-technik, Diplomstufe 6, durchgeführt wurde. Ziel des Projekts war die Untersuchung des Zusammenhangs zwischen

Mitarbeiterbeteiligung und Zufriedenheit am Arbeitsplatz. Dazu wurden vier Workshops durchgeführt, deren

Schwerpunkt die Umsetzung des 3R-Prinzips und einer Kultur der Sorgfalt mit klar deﬁnierten gemeinsamen Werten

war. Die Teilnehmer waren Mitglieder der Biological Services Unit am King’s College London Guy’s Campus, die mit

der Betreuung von für die medizinische Forschung verwendeten Tieren befasst sind.

Das 3R-Prinzip bietet einen Rahmen für eine verbesserte ethische und humane Tierforschung.

Einrichtungen, die

mit Versuchstieren arbeiten, sind durch Gesetzgebung und Richtlinien stark reguliert. Dennoch sollten sich solche

Einrichtungen bemühen, über die gesetzlichen Verpﬂichtungen hinauszugehen und die Tiere mit Mitgefühl und Einfühlung

zu behandeln, indem sie eine Kultur der Sorgfalt etablieren. Es hat sich gezeigt, dass ein verbesserter Tierschutz

die Reproduzierbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Ergebnisse erhöht und gute wissenschaftliche Praxis fördert. Diese Kultur

sollte auf Personen ausgedehnt werden, die mit Tieren dort arbeiten, wo “die institutionelle Kultur die Produktivität und

Leistung vieler Unternehmen beeinﬂusst”.

2,3

Eine niedrige Arbeitsmoral und Motivation der Mitarbeiter kann mit geringer

Arbeitszufriedenheit, erhöhtem Krankenstand und einer schlechten öffentlichen Wahrnehmung einer Organisation in

Zusammenhang gebracht werden. Einem Bericht des Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) von

2018 zufolge hat Abwesenheit aufgrund von stressbedingten Krankheiten und psychischen Gesundheitsproblemen

einschließlich Angst und Depressionen in fast 40 % bzw. 55 % der Organisationen zugenommen.

Die einzelnen Workshop-Feedback-Fragebögen und die Gesamtumfrage wiesen auf Verbesserungen in einigen Punkten

hin, die zu einer höheren allgemeinen Zufriedenheit am Arbeitsplatz führen könnten. Die Rückmeldungen haben

ergeben, dass sich die Mitarbeiter mit den gemeinsamen Werten des Unternehmens identiﬁzieren, wodurch sich ihr

Gefühl der Zugehörigkeit untereinander und zur Organisation verbessert hat.

Schlagwörter: Zufriedenheit am Arbeitsplatz, Kultur der Sorgfalt, Mitarbeiterbeteiligung

198

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary Translations

Verbesserung des tierschutzes an der

Newcastle University durch Einführung

eines schonenden Umgangs mit Mäusen

EMMA HAMILTON

Newcastle University, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH UK

Korrespondenz: emma.hamilton@newcastle.ac.uk

Abstract

Dieser Artikel basiert auf einem Projekt, das im Rahmen des IAT-Studienprogramms Versuchstierkunde und -technik,

Diplomstufe 6, durchgeführt wurde.

Schwerpunkt dieses Projekts war die Einführung eines schonenden Umgangs mit Mäusen an der Newcastle University

und die künftige Anwendung dieser Methode durch alle Wissenschaftler und Techniker. Die Tunnel-Handling-Methode

wurde ursprünglich von Hurst JL untersucht, um Angstzustände bei Labormäusen zu überwinden (2010). Diese

Informationen waren nicht weit verbreitet, was erklären könnte, warum nur wenige Tierversuchseinrichtungen diese

Methode anwendeten. Erst als ein Wissenschaftler an der Newcastle University begann, diese Methode zu untersuchen,

wurde eine starke Dynamik für diesbezügliche Veränderungen in Gang gesetzt.

Diese Projektidee entstand im Anschluss an Experimente zum Thema “Implementierung nicht-aversiven Maus-

Handlings zur Verbesserung des Tierwohls und zur Reduzierung der Mauszahlen”. Fazit dieser Experimente war,

dass ängstliche Tiere u. U. inkonsistente Daten liefern, da sie wissenschaftliche Versuche schlecht bewältigen und

so statistisches Rauschen erhöhen. Es wurde vermutet, dass dies dazu führt, dass eine größere Anzahl von Tieren

benötigt wird, um Ergebniszuverlässigkeit zu erzielen. Es gab zu diesem Zeitpunkt im Jahr 2019 stichhaltige Beweise

dafür, dass Tunnel- statt Schwanz-Handling Angst verringert, das Wohlbeﬁnden verbessert und auch die Chancen

erhöht, präzisere Versuchsergebnisse zu erhalten.

Insbesondere zwischen 2017 und 2019 herrschte eine bestimmte negative Einstellung gegenüber dieser Methode.

Feedback und Konsens innerhalb der Abteilung lauteten: “Es dauert zu lange” und “Wir haben es immer so gemacht,

warum jetzt ändern?” Diese negative Einstellung könnte der Grund für die zögerliche Einführung der neuen Methode sein.

Es ging darum, das Team zur Entwicklung von Ideen anzuregen, wie wir zu einer besseren Kultur der Sorgfalt an

der Universität beitragen könnten, und die Forscher zu überzeugen, diese Methode des schonenden Umgangs zu

nutzen. Für das gesamte Scoping- und Planungsdokument wurden intelligente Zielsetzungen, SWOT-Analysen, Pestel-

Analysen, ein Risikoregister und Gantt-Diagramme verwendet. Dies trug bei der Vorbereitung dazu bei, dieses Projekt

realisierbar zu machen, indem potenzielle Rückschläge antizipiert und entsprechende Lösungen erarbeitet wurden.

Das größte Risiko für die Einführung der neuen Handling-Methode bestand darin, dass die Forscher nicht hinter ihr

stehen würden, und daher wurden Strategien zur Abschwächung dieses Risikos ergriffen.

Ein Aspekt, der beobachtet wurde, war, dass sich Mitarbeiter offenbar motiviert fühlen, wenn sie Sinn und Ziele

erkennen. Als ein wesentlicher Zweck dieser Zielsetzung kann die enorme Verbesserung des Tierschutzes ins Treffen

geführt werden.

Dieses Projekt war nicht frei von Herausforderungen, doch insgesamt wurden bedeutende positive Veränderungen zur

Verbesserung des Tierschutzes vorgenommen, und es bot der Abteilung einen wichtigen sozialen Rahmen, in dem das

gesamte Team gemeinsam eine positive Veränderung bewirken konnte.

Schlagwörter: Maus, schonender Umgang, statistisches Rauschen, Verbesserungen des Tierschutzes, Reduzierung

der Mauszahlen

199

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

INDICE DELLA REVISTA

Il rapporto fra partecipazione del dipendente e

soddisfazione sul lavoro

CHERYL YALDEN

Biological Services, Hodgkin Building, King’s College London, Guy’s Campus, London SE1 1UL UK

Corrispondenza: cheryl.yalden@kcl.ac.uk

Estratto

Il presente progetto è stato svolto nell’ambito del programma di studi per il Diploma IAT di Livello 6 in Scienza e

Tecnologia degli Animali da Laboratorio. Scopo del progetto era quello di esplorare il rapporto fra partecipazione del

dipendente e soddisfazione sul lavoro tramite lo svolgimento di quattro workshop relativi all’attuazione delle 3R e il

lavorare a una “cultura della cura” con obiettivi condivisi e chiaramente deﬁniti. I partecipanti erano membri dell’Unità

Servizi Biologici presso il Guy’s Campus del King’s College di Londra, coinvolti nella cura degli animali usati per la

ricerca medica.

Le 3R sono una serie di princìpi che forniscono un quadro di riferimento per una ricerca sugli animali che sia più etica

e umana.

Le istituzioni che lavorano con gli animali da ricerca sono molto regolamentate da legislazione e linee guida.

Tuttavia, esse dovrebbero impegnarsi ad andare oltre gli obblighi di legge e a trattare gli animali con compassione

ed empatia, creando una “cultura della cura”. È stato continuamente dimostrato che il miglioramento del benessere

degli animali aumenta la riproducibilità della ricerca e promuove una buona scienza. Questa cultura dovrebbe essere

estesa alle persone che lavorano con gli animali laddove “La cultura istituzionale inﬂuenza la produttività e i risultati di

molte imprese”.

2,3

Livelli bassi di morale e di motivazione nel personale sono riconducibili a una scarsa soddisfazione

sul lavoro, a periodi di malattia più lunghi e a una cattiva percezione di un’organizzazione da parte del pubblico.

Secondo il rapporto del Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) del 2018, le assenze per malattie

legate allo stress e problemi di salute mentale, fra cui ansia e depressione, sono aumentate rispettivamente in quasi

il 40% e il 55% delle organizzazioni.

Ciascuno dei moduli di commento individuale sui workshop e i sondaggi generali hanno indicato miglioramenti che,

per alcuni aspetti, potrebbero offrire una maggiore soddisfazione complessiva sul lavoro. I commenti mostrano che il

personale si è sentito investito dei valori condivisi dell’azienda, con il risultato di un maggiore senso di appartenenza

reciproca e nei confronti dell’organizzazione.

Parole chiave: soddisfazione sul lavoro, cultura della cura, partecipazione dei dipendenti

200

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary Translations

Il miglioramento del benessere animale

nell’Università di Newcastle con l’introduzione di

tecniche di manipolazione dei topi a basso stress

EMMA HAMILTON

Newcastle University, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH UK

Corrispondenza: emma.hamilton@newcastle.ac.uk

Estratto

Il presente articolo si basa su un progetto svolto nell’ambito del programma di studi per il Diploma IAT di Livello 6 in

Scienza e Tecnologia degli Animali da Laboratorio.

Scopo principale del progetto era quello di introdurre nell’Università di Newcastle tecniche di manipolazione dei topi

a basso stress e di conseguenza l’utilizzo di questo metodo da parte di tutti i ricercatori e i tecnici. L’obiettivo del

progetto era l’adozione del metodo da parte di tutto il personale di ricerca. Il metodo di manipolazione con tunnel è

stato studiato inizialmente da Hurst J.L., “Taming anxiety in laboratory mice” (2010). Queste informazioni non hanno

avuto ampia diffusione, il che potrebbe spiegare perché non molte strutture di ricerca hanno adottato questo metodo.

Una forte spinta al cambiamento è partita solo quando uno scienziato dell’Università di Newcastle a cominciato a

studiare il metodo.

L’idea di questo progetto è nata in seguito agli esperimenti sull’“attuazione di tecniche di manipolazione dei topi

non repulsive per il miglioramento del benessere e la riduzione del numero degli animali.” La conclusione di questi

esperimenti è stata che animali ansiosi possono fornire dati incoerenti, in quanto mal sopportano i test scientiﬁci,

incrementando così il rumore statistico. L’indicazione è che ciò conduce alla necessità di un maggior numero di

animali perché i risultati siano attendibili. A questo punto, nel 2019 ci sono state prove convincenti del fatto che

l’utilizzo del tunnel anziché della coda abbassa l’ansia, migliora il benessere e aumenta inoltre le probabilità di

ottenere risultati più precisi durante gli esperimenti.

L’atteggiamento nei confronti di questo metodo è stato alquanto negativo, soprattutto dal 2017 al 2019. I commenti

e il consenso nella cultura dipartimentale erano: “richiede troppo tempo” e “abbiamo sempre fatto così, perché

cambiare?”. Tale atteggiamento negativo potrebbe essere stato il motivo per la ritardata adozione del nuovo metodo.

L’obiettivo era quello di far sì che il personale sviluppasse idee su come contribuire a migliorare la cultura della

cura nell’Università e convincere i ricercatori a usare questo metodo di manipolazione a basso stress. Durante la

delimitazione della portata e pianiﬁcazione degli obiettivi SMART del documento, si sono utilizzati l’analisi SWOT,

l’analisi PESTLE, un registro dei rischi e i diagrammi di Gantt. Ciò ha agevolato la preparazione di un progetto

realizzabile, deﬁnendo e risolvendo le potenziali problematiche che sarebbero potute insorgere. La principale minaccia

all’introduzione del nuovo metodo di manipolazione consisteva nella non accettazione da parte dei ricercatori, pertanto

sono state messe in atto delle strategie per la mitigazione di tale problema.

Un aspetto osservato è che le persone sono sembrate motivate quando hanno avuto un signiﬁcato e degli obiettivi.

A tale scopo, una delle principali ragioni che si potevano addurre era il notevole miglioramento del benessere degli

animali.

Il progetto ha comportato delle sﬁde, tuttavia il benessere degli animali ha avuto nel complesso dei signiﬁcativi

cambiamenti in positivo. Nel dipartimento si è anche creata una preziosa opportunità sociale, in quanto tutto il

personale si è unito per apportare un cambiamento positivo.

Parole chiave: topo, manipolazione a basso stress, rumore statistico, miglioramenti del benessere, riduzione del

numero di topi.

201

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

INDICE DE LA REVISTA

La relación entre la participación de los empleados

y la satisfacción laboral

CHERYL YALDEN

Biological Services, Hodgkin Building, King’s College London, Guy’s Campus, London SE1 1UL UK

Correspondencia: cheryl.yalden@kcl.ac.uk

Résumé

Este es un proyecto realizado como parte del programa de estudio del Diploma en Tecnología y Ciencia de Animales de

Laboratorio de Nivel 6 del IAT. El objetivo del proyecto era explorar la relación entre la participación de los empleados

y la satisfacción laboral llevando a cabo cuatro talleres en relación a la implementación de las 3 R y trabajando para

conseguir una «cultura de cuidado» con valores compartidos bien deﬁnidos. Los participantes eran miembros de

la Unidad de Servicios Biológicos del Guy´s Campus del King´s College London que participaban en el cuidado de

animales utilizados para la investigación médica.

Las 3 R son un conjunto de principios que ofrecen un marco para una investigación con animales que sea más

humana y ética.

Las instituciones que trabajan con animales de investigación están muy reguladas por leyes y

directrices. Sin embargo, dichas instituciones deberían comprometerse a ir más allá de las obligaciones legales

y tratar a los animales con compasión y empatía estableciendo una «cultura de cuidado». La mejora del bienestar

animal siempre ha demostrado que aumenta la reproducibilidad de la investigación y que fomenta la buena ciencia.

Esta cultura también debería llegar a las personas que trabajan con los animales cuando «la cultura institucional

inﬂuye en la productividad y rendimiento de muchas empresas».

2,3

Una moral y motivación bajas del personal puede

relacionarse con una baja satisfacción laboral, un mayor número de bajas por enfermedad y una mala percepción

pública de una organización. Según el informe del Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) 2018 las

ausencias debidas a enfermedades relacionadas con el estrés y problemas de salud mental, como la ansiedad y la

depresión, han aumentado en las organizaciones casi un 40 % y un 55 %, respectivamente.

Todos los comentarios individuales del taller y la encuesta general indicaron que las mejoras de algunos aspectos

podrían crear una mayor satisfacción laboral. Los comentarios muestran que el personal sentía que compartía los

valores de la empresa mejorando así su sentimiento de pertenencia a la organización.

Palabras clave. Satisfacción laboral, cultura de cuidado, participación de empleados

202

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary Translations

Mejora del bienestar animal en la Universidad

de Newcastle mediante la introducción de una

manipulación de bajo estrés para roedores

EMMA HAMILTON

Newcastle University, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH UK

Correspondencia: emma.hamilton@newcastle.ac.uk

Résumé

Este artículo se basa en un proyecto realizado como parte del programa de estudio del Diploma en Tecnología y

Ciencia de Animales de Laboratorio de nivel 6 del IAT.

El foco principal de este proyecto fue introducir una manipulación de bajo estrés para roedores en la Universidad

de Newcastle para que como resultado, todos los investigadores y técnicos podrán utilizar este método. El foco

del proyecto será que el personal de investigación adopte este método. El método de manipulación con tubo fue

investigado por primera vez por Hurst JL, Mejora de la ansiedad de los roedores de laboratorio (2010), sin embargo,

esta información no estaba muy difundida, por lo que se podría deducir el motivo por el que no muchas instalaciones

de investigación con animales adoptaban este método. Realmente no hubo un cambio signiﬁ cativo en el sector hasta

que un cientíﬁ co de la Universidad de Newcastle empezara a investigar este método.

Esta idea del proyecto surgió tras varios experimentos sobre la implementación de una manipulación de ratones no

invasiva para reﬁ nar el bienestar y reducir el número de ratones utilizado. La conclusión de estos experimentos fue

que animales con ansiedad podían ofrecer datos inconsistentes al no rendir bien durante las pruebas cientíﬁ cas,

aumentando así los errores estadísticos. Se dedujo que esto llevaba a un aumento del número de ratones necesarios

para que los resultados fuesen ﬁ ables. En este momento en 2019, hubo pruebas concluyentes que indicaban que

usar un tubo en lugar de la cola del ratón reducía la ansiedad del animal, mejoraba el bienestar y aumentaba la

posibilidad de obtener resultados más precisos durante los experimentos.

La percepción de este método, en particular de 2017 a 2019, fue algo negativa. Los comentarios y el consenso

general dentro del departamento fue que «se pierde demasiado tiempo» y «siempre lo hemos hecho así, ¿por qué

cambiar ahora?». Esta recepción negativa podría ser el motivo por el que hubo una demora en la implementación de

este nuevo método.

El foco era hacer que el equipo desarrollase ideas sobre cómo podíamos ayudar a mejorar la cultura de cuidado en

la Universidad y hacer que los investigadores usasen este método de manipulación menos estresante. Durante todo

este documento de planiﬁ cación y alcance se utilizaron objetivos inteligentes, análisis DAFO, análisis PESTLE, un

registro de riesgos y gráﬁ cos Gantt. Esto ayudó a que este proyecto fuera factible al preparar el terreno y resolver

posibles contratiempos. El principal riesgo en cuanto a la introducción de este nuevo método de manipulación fue que

los investigadores no estuvieran convencidos; por tanto se llevó a cabo una estrategia para resolver esta situación.

Un aspecto que se observó fue que la gente parecía estar más motivada al tener unos objetivos y encontrar una

relevancia. Uno de los principales motivos para este objetivo se podría decir que era las mejoras del bienestar animal.

Este proyecto llegó con problemas, sin embargo, se realizaron cambios positivos signiﬁ cativos para mejorar el

bienestar animal y creó una oportunidad social valiosa para el departamento, al que todo el equipo podía unirse para

llevar realizar un cambio positivo.

Palabras clave. Ratón, manipulación de bajo estrés, errores estadísticos, reﬁ namientos del bienestar, reducción del

número de ratones.

203

August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

AWERB review of lessons learned from

COVID-19 experience

Laboratory Animal Science Association, Laboraory Animal Veterinary Association,

Institute of Animal Technology, Royal Society of Biology, National Centre for the

Replacement Reduction and Reﬁ nement of Animals in Research, Royal Society for

the Protection of Animals, European Federation of Animal Technologists, European

Society of Laboratory Animal Veterinarians, Understanding Animal Research

Supported by:

The COVID-19 crisis resulted in many establishments

having to rapidly curtail, stop work or drastically alter

their working practices. It is essential that the AWERB

reviews the processes that were in place during the

crisis, and their outcomes, not only in the event of similar

future episodes, but also in reference to more general

disaster management plans so that improvements can

be made. This will support future business continuity,

as well as helping in the delivery of the AWERB task;

Establishment licence standard condition 6.3 https://

www.gov.uk/government/publications/establishment-

licence-standard-conditions/establishment-licence-

standard-conditions and Directive 2010/63 EU article

27.1 (c) to “Establish and review management and

operational processes for monitoring, reporting and

follow-up in relation to the welfare of animals housed or

used in the licensed establishment”.

Whilst what and how should be reviewed will need to

take local circumstances into account, it is suggested

that three phases are considered, as the actions taken

and likely issues raised in each phase will be different.

The impact on staff, and difﬁ culties they experienced

are also worthy of discussion, as well as considering

whether any changes have led to improvements in

processes.

Some suggested starting questions are offered here;

the focus should be on what can be learnt in order to help

in future decision making, rather than simply responding

to these (or other) speciﬁ c questions. In reviewing the

issues and possible resolutions for the future, AWERBs

should consider sharing the experiences of their

establishments more widely, including looking at how

others dealt with the situation via mechanisms such as

the AWERB Hubs and industry related organisations.

The initial response to the outbreak

– Were business continuity plans and/or emergency

plans in place?

– If yes, were business continuity plans and/or

emergency preparations successful?

– Have any gaps been identiﬁ ed in these plans and

how were these remedied?

– Where facilities were partially or fully shutdown, how

were decisions made regarding whether, and which,

animals to kill? What were the processes involved?

– Who was involved in the decision making? Do these

people feel others should have been involved and

that they had enough support?

– What criteria were considered for decisions to kill

animals, shut facilities or limit work? In hindsight

were these the right ones? Should any be added/

removed?

– Could any of the studies that were stopped have

been completed or some of all of the animals used

in some other way or rehomed rather than killed?

– How were the decisions and actions above

communicated and documented?

December 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

1 | Page

Supported by:

DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AID

AWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS

LEARNED FROM COVID19

EXPERIENCE

1 | Page

Supported by:

DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AID

AWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS

LEARNED FROM COVID19

EXPERIENCE

1 | Page

Supported by:

DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AID

AWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS

LEARNED FROM COVID19

EXPERIENCE

1 | Page

Supported by:

DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AID

AWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS

LEARNED FROM COVID19

EXPERIENCE

1 | Page

Supported by:

DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AID

AWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS

LEARNED FROM COVID19

EXPERIENCE

1 | Page

Supported by:

DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AID

AWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS

LEARNED FROM COVID19

EXPERIENCE

Institute of

Animal

Technology

204

Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

– Did actions include planning for the administrative

processes necessary to continue PIL and PPL

processing and the AWERB?

During lockdown itself

– How was animal work prioritised?

– Were deliveries cancelled or delayed? Were there

any difﬁculties in getting supplies of food/bedding,

etc., or with getting vital equipment serviced or

mended?

– Were there any process or communications failures

such that animals were delivered that were not

required or could not be accommodated?

– Were any decisions on breeding management

correct (tick-over versus shutdown of breeding)?

Was optimum use made of cryopreservation?

– Were the patterns of work for personnel (shifts,

teams, etc.) effective or could there have been

better options?

– Is there anything that could, or should have been

done to allow the use (or rehoming) of animals so

that killing of animals could have been avoided?

– Were there any unique challenges presented

regarding animal husbandry and/or welfare of

animals?

– Were records kept of all decisions taken?

– Did AWERB continue to operate? If so how, and was

AWERB able to function successfully? If not, why,

and what could have been done to keep the AWERB

operational?

– Does the AWERB consider the correct balance was

achieved between protecting staff from the risks of

COVID-19 whilst maximising the possible outcomes

that could be achieved from the animals who had

already been bred, delivered or had started on

study?

Re-commencement of work and

ongoing preparedness

– Was the timing with respect to sourcing animals/

recommencing and/or expansion of any breeding

correct in terms of allowing commencement of work

but without creating additional wastage? If not, how

could things have been done differently?

– What period did it take to return to (near) or “new”

normal levels of activity? Were there actions that

could have speeded this up without causing issues

for personnel or wastage of animals?

– What were the main barriers to returning to work?

Can any of these be reduced or removed for the

future?

– Did planning include consideration of a further wave

of infection?

– Are there contingency plans for further waves of

infection (e.g. for stafﬁng, staff support, use or

rehoming of animals, supply of consumables, etc.)?

– How will a culture of preparedness be maintained?

Staff Care and Concerns

– What was the experience of Animal Technicians? Do

they feel that their safety, wellbeing and their own

concern for the animals were taken into account? Do

they feel that their work during the COVID outbreak is

appreciated? Did they get enough support in respect

of their role if they needed it?

– If the ofﬁce-based managers worked remotely did

the technicians feel communication was adequate?

Have there been issues with training for new staff?

– What was the experience of the veterinarians,

researchers, administrators and other members

of staff involved in decision making around animal

studies and/or ongoing care (or killing) of the

animals? Speciﬁcally, were decisions transparent,

timely and clearly communicated? Were researchers

properly engaged in the decisions about their own

work?

– Have differences in working patterns created

concerns or difﬁculties (for example the need for

some people to work longer hours or more days than

others), particularly with respect to relationships

between staff?

– Were there particular challenges related to animal

studies from changes to “virtual” operating

environments?

– Have staff had an opportunity to debrief? Were

relevant support systems available and accessible to

staff, for example to address possible compassion

fatigue?

– How can you best canvass opinions from staff as to

any of the above (e.g. via an anonymous survey) to

ensure the Culture of Care is maintained? Consider

utilising questions to probe whether conversations

were open and honest. Do people feel they were

listened to?

We have all had to adapt to new ways of working

through the COVID crisis. In addition to reviewing what

was less successful in your approaches to dealing

with the situation caused by COVID, it is important

to consider if there have been any positive outcomes

and whether any of the challenges may present

opportunities for improved processes.

Looking Forward

– Which, if any of your new processes/ways of working

do you consider worth keeping post COVID?

– Which, if any, existing processes have you found to

be unnecessary?

–

Are there ongoing issues preventing recommencement

of work? What ethical, animal welfare, 3Rs or

regulatory consequences might result from these?

AWERB review of lessons learned from COVID19 experience

Haven’t the time to write a paper but want to have something published? Then read on!

This section offers readers the opportunity to submit informal contributions about any

aspects of Animal Technology. Comments, observations, descriptions of new or refined

techniques, new products or equipment, old products or equipment adapted to new use,

any subject that may be useful to technicians in other institutions. Submissions can be

presented as technical notes and do not need to be structured and can be as short or as

long as is necessary. Accompanying illustrations and/or photos should be high resolution.

NB. Descriptions of new products or equipment submitted by manufacturers are welcome

but should be a factual account of the product. However, the Editorial Board gives no

warranty as to the accuracy or fitness for purpose of the product.

What 3Rs idea have you developed?

EMMA FILBY

Mira Building, University of Cambridge, University Biomedical Services,

Charles Babbage Road, Cambridge CB3 0FS

Correspondence: emma.filby@admin.cam.ac.uk

Based on an article written for the National Centre for the 3Rs

April 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

TECH-2-TECH

Background

Emma was invited to write an article as a 3Rs

champion in NC3Rs ‘Tech 3Rs’ Issue 5, November

2019.

Here is her response describing how she has used an

automated system to reduce how frequently mouse

cage bedding is

changed without compr

omising

cleanliness.

Introduction

Our unit opened in 2017, during the procurement of

new equipment we had the opportunity to purchase a

digital ventilated rack system from Tecniplast UK. The

cages are referred to as the Digitally Ventilated Cage or

DVC. This system uses the data collected by sensors

below the cage to flag when to clean out based on the

change in an electromagnetic signal. To have this

functionality we first needed to create an algorithm

during a learning phase.

The learning phase: devising an

algorithm

We held a meeting to agree what warranted a cage base

change based on pictures to avoid being subjective. We

referred to the Home Office Codes of Practice for the

housing and care of animals bred, supplied or used for

scientific purposes (HOCoP) for advice on husbandry

practices to set our criteria, balancing hygiene and the

importance of olfactory cues to rodents and their need

for control over their environment.

We started the trial, noting when the cage reached the

point it required a base change. We a

ssessed air

quality, what proportion of the cage base was wet and

whether the animals still had choice over their

environment and their ability to show spatial separation

of different behaviours such as nesting and excretion,

for example their nest was free of faeces. During the

‘learning phase’ we as ke d our Name d Veterinary

Surgeon (NVS) and Home Office inspector (HOI) to

check that they agreed with our assessment.

APRIL_1-628207435_4-628196990.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 06:51 Page 49