< Back Animal Ethics in New Zealand Schools Applying for Animal Ethics Approval Previous Next

Applying for Animal Ethics Approval This page contains information about why you need to apply for ethics approval and how you can apply. When do you need to consider applying for animal ethics approval? You need to consider applying for animal ethics approval when using animals in teaching or in an investigation or experiment when the animal is being ‘manipulated’. This means that you are changing the animal’s normal needs, like what it eats and drinks, where it lives/sleeps or things it does (like its type of toys) in some way. This type of change (manipulation) is when ethics approval is needed and is required under New Zealand’s law called the Animal Welfare Act. Ethics approval means that a special group of people, such as science teachers and animal welfare experts have reviewed the way that your scientific experiment or investigation with animal(s) is being carried out. When they review it, they check that what is planned will not harm the animal(s) and its good health is maintained. If this group thinks that what is planned will not harm the animal(s), they will grant ethics approval. Who might need to apply for animal ethics approval? Any teacher and/or science technician using or caring for animals (e.g. for a Science Fair) in a learning or class situation should check with the New Zealand Schools Animal Ethics Committee if they need approval. Any student carrying out an investigation or experiment that involves animals should check if they need approval. In New Zealand , this includes any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, octopus, squid, crab, lobster, or crayfish, including any mammalian foetus, or any avian or reptilian pre-hatched young, that is in the last half of its period of gestation or development, but excludes any animal in the pre-natal, pre-hatched, larval, or other such developmental stage (other than those indicated previously). Marsupial pouch young are also considered animals. The Application Process If you do need to apply for animal ethics approval for a teaching activity or for your science fair project, you need to complete a form and submit it to an Animal Ethics Committee (AEC). The New Zealand Association for Science Education has their own AEC for teachers, science technicians and students who can approve your application. For more information, visit the New Zealand Schools Animal Ethics website . In general, the AEC wants to ensure that the animals that you use will be well treated and subjected to the minimal amount of harm or disruption. All manipulations must be carried out under the umbrella of the animal welfare principles of the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement). When you are writing your animal ethics application, make sure you outline the benefits of carrying out the experiment or investigation and also fully consider the harm to the animal(s). The AEC will make a risk-benefit assessment. This means that if the risk of harm to the animals high (for example, the experiment is quite invasive) then the benefits must also be high (for example, the potential of a new medicine). However, if the risk is low (for example, playing music to your fish) then the potential benefit does not need to be very high (for example, it might help you and your class better understand how well fish hear). You also need to meet the normal husbandry requirements for the animal including providing food, shelter, warmth, safety and room to behave normally. Lastly, you need to show that you have considered the Three Rs animal welfare principles in the design of your experiment or investigation. Links: Ethical guidelines for secondary school students_final .pdf Download PDF • 134KB NZ Association of Science Educators (NZASE) website on animal ethics

< Back Use of Animals in NZ Use of Animals in New Zealand Previous Next

< Back ANZCCART Conference 2001 ANZCCART Conference 2001 Previous Next

< Back Information for New Zealand Teachers Resources Previous Next

Conversations to Improve Animal Welfare in Research and Teaching (by Katherine Reid) Society is composed of individuals and personal ethics are a choice made on an individual basis. These individual choices coalesce to form the societal ethic. The societal ethic becomes the basis of the acceptance or rejection by society of a practice such as the use of animals in research and teaching. It is by influence on the individual that science gains its approval. These opinions of the individual are formed from numerous and nebulous factors. Because the knowledge and experience of the individual is the basis for their decisions, the influence of science must be to affect that knowledge and experience. That influence is exerted in conversation. Through literal and figurative conversations ideas are exchanged and the reasons for decisions are considered. These conversations take place among the members of society, some of whom are themselves scientists. Many of the most important conversations are commonplace and mundane. Other conversations are dramatic taking place in print and media. Conferences, seminars and meetings are the venues for more conversations. But always conversations occur between individuals who are members of society. In some conversations the individuals are scientists. Sometimes scientists talk to non-scientists. And non-scientists will converse among themselves. All of these conversations form the basis for the personal decisions on ethics which provide continued acceptance of the use of animals in research and teaching. From individual knowledge and personal experience conclusions are drawn and this is the basis for personal ethics. The knowledge and experience of individuals is extraordinarily diverse. For scientists, the training and experience of the discipline is a strong influence on their personal decisions about animal use. Part of scientific training regarding the basis for animal use includes the principle wherein cost to animal health and welfare is squared against the benefit derived from the use. Reduction, refinement and replacement are equally important principles which seek to maximise this equation and gain the greatest benefit for animal cost. These are good principles and their application is an important ethical justification for continued use of animals in research and teaching. But these principles must not be employed without careful consideration and understanding of the meaning behind them. Unconsidered reliance upon conventional principles is not sufficient to ensure continued acceptance by society. In application such principles must be vibrant and living practices and not be allowed to stagnate and harden into unconsidered dogma. Scientists are also individuals within society and not a separate or opposed entity. Scientists embrace scientific values and these values become part of the basis for societal acceptance. But not all scientists share identical background and variance occurs among the opinions of scientists as to the ethics and acceptance of animal use. Acceptance of animal use by scientists is a part of societal acceptance and a significant influence but not the entirety. By thought and discussion, these concepts will be kept alive in the minds of scientists. These principles will serve as some of the topics for conversation. As with scientists, acceptance by non-scientists within society is based on the particular knowledge and experience of the person. There is also a factor of visceral reaction and emotional perception of the question. The particular acceptance or rejection by an individual is generally not based on direct experience of the realities of animal use and welfare of animals. It is also highly unlikely that the individual decision about acceptability of animal use is based on understanding of the benefits gained. Essentially, non-scientists do not apply the same principles that scientists are trained to use. So upon what does the average individual base their decision? The cynic will say that non-scientific opinions are based on emotional and irrational reactions. They will contend that the emotional reaction is due to lack of scientific education or direct experience. They will further put forth that the average member of society is unwilling and uninterested in education or a greater appreciation of the realities of animal use. This same cynic will likely conclude that the acceptance or rejection of animal use by society should be based on strict application of scientific rationale and valueless science. This, in their opinion, is the only way to derive the single correct conclusion in a given situation. The fallacy of this argument is that even scientists cannot agree on correct application of the scientific method and rational evaluation by multiple parties does not always reach the same conclusion in any given case. Furthermore, science is not without emotion. Scientists too have an emotional response but training reduces the influence of this. The response is reduced but not eliminated. Scientists are human and, however logical and calculating, they still feel emotions about the work in which they engage and the animals which are used in that work. Misuse of animals in any context will affect scientists as human beings. That reason alone is sufficient to motivate scientists to carefully consider the welfare of animals used in their work. An emotional reaction is also not entirely irrational. Human emotions have evolved for survival. Emotions in favor of improving animal welfare can be argued to be self-protective. Humanity existed as an agrarian society for millennia and depended upon hunting since before the advent of agriculture. Before humans ate animals and kept warm in their skins they depended upon an ecosystem which relied upon healthy and vibrant animal populations. The inherent desire to protect animal species is not entirely irrational and can be thought to be based upon the human symbiosis with the other animal species. Conversation is the tool by which each party comes to appreciate the emotional reaction of the others. The pragmatist will say that animal use is a strictly mathematical cost versus benefit equation where the pain or damage inflicted on animals must be weighed strictly and mathematically against the benefit derived. The evidence of benefits to society gained by the use of animals in research and teaching is undeniable and exhaustive. The average individual, a critical decision maker about the acceptance of animal use is largely unaware of the extent to which animal use has benefited them. Even scientists are not completely informed about the extent to which their lives have benefited from animal based research. Scientists are also insufficiently informed of the negative aspects of animal use. The apparent equation becomes imbalanced and does not reflect the reality which it attempts to judge. The ability to solve the equation accurately is further impaired by the lack of understanding on both sides of the equation; cost and benefit. The effects on society for good or ill will not be determined except in the context of history. It is impossible to know how the benefit from animal use will weigh ultimately. In practicality, lack of understanding of animal physiology and management makes accurate evaluation of animal welfare precarious. Knowledge of animal pain and the experience of suffering is changing and improving continually. Judgment can only be based on the most recent understanding and the future will undoubtedly show that understanding to be deficient. Conversations among individuals will weigh this balance in a way that accounts for, evaluates and incorporates the grey areas. One current conversation puts forth that greater transparency in animal based research would benefit public understanding and thus promote acceptance. The thought is that if society were more clearly aware of the realities of animal use then they would be able to make informed decisions. Decisions would be based on logical evaluation and understanding of animal welfare. It is unlikely that greater awareness by non-scientists of the realities of research for animals will improve the welfare of animals. Society is generally not prepared to learn how the sausage is made. There are harsh techniques and uncomfortable realities of animal use of which non-scientists are not aware. Showing society the harm that is done without sufficient realization of the benefit derived is likely to create a strong and justified negative reaction to the techniques employed in research. This negative reaction by some members of society would not support the continued use of animals, even research for the benefit of animals. Lack of continued veterinary research would impact animal welfare negatively. Veterinary research is absolutely necessary for better understanding of the needs and physiology of animals. If improvements in the welfare of animals used in research and teaching are to be made, veterinary research is a necessity. By the fact that the superficial appearance of animal use would likely be uncomfortable to the uninitiated it can be concluded that there are important improvements which must be made in animal welfare. This reinforces the importance of societal acceptance of animal use and motivates the need to engage in conversations. To reprise the three R’s principles of animal use, conversation represents an important tool in refinement of animal use in teaching and research. The purist will put forth that the acceptance of society is based upon the quality of research and that only from high quality research can relevant results be obtained. They will further add that any benefit to society is only derived from research that is applicable and relevant to society. These individuals will contend that both sides of the cost-benefit equation are dependent on quality of work done and analysis performed. The purist forgets that conclusions derived from data are subject to interpretation. These conclusions are in turn based on analysis of raw data and that analysis is subject to the style and influence of the primary investigator. It can be startling to realize how science is not, in actuality, fact. Society believes that an observed phenomena, measurable and recordable, must be real. Society and science both accept that once something is published in peer reviewed literature, it becomes practical fact. Better scientists see the influence of analysis and interpretation and understand the process of scientific investigation in elucidation but not proof. Science contends that this method is the best available representation of reality. This is a leap of faith, though oddly logical. By faith, science becomes religion and subject to dogma. But any observation, measurement and recording is still only subjective. Scientific investigation into cognitive neurosciences and the mechanisms of consciousness reveal that reality is perception. An observed phenomena is subject to perception and is an individual experience. Observation therefore is a personal experience, different for every individual. Measurement and recording equally are interpretations which require analysis. Science itself undermines its own essential tenants and the dogmatic are forced to resolve the discrepancy. As science develops and progresses human knowledge of consciousness, the faith in science as fact will be challenged. Acceptance by society will change to accommodate. Conversation will benefit all parties as understanding of the mechanisms of human cognition change. There are direct implications to the ethics of animal use for human purposes. These will come forward as science reveals more about the nature of human and animal consciousness. New understanding will change how all view animal welfare and the relationship between humans and animals. It will be a radical change in thought for all parties and continued conversation will be essential for all to resolve the issues that will surround the new understanding. Understanding of the subjectivity of perception promotes humility. The intent here is to demonstrate the variety of perspectives and opinions in order to appreciate the reasoning behind individual decisions. It is also to show that no single perspective is the correct approach. The acceptance of society is a synthesis of varied perspectives with the advantages and disadvantages of all. The function of conversation is to express, develop and share positions, examine fallacies and failures as well as the strengths and to organically create a community and society opinion from the mosaic of individual perspectives. Engaging in conversation has several important functions. It is necessary to learn and experience the opinions and perspectives of others as well as learn important knowledge from the experiences of others. It is also necessary to debate and be coerced into articulation of logical arguments. Arguments require support with reasons and rationale and communication of these forces their examination. By explaining opinions to others, insight is gained on both sides as to the reasons for decisions. This practice moves decisions away from dogmatic authoritarianism to insightful, and carefully considered choices based in reason with due respect given to emotion. Conversation also induces self-analysis and promotes a critical evaluation of personal practices and beliefs. Most will have to examine their own practices if they are to confidently argue for those practices to others. As an example, a scientist who cannot comfortably discuss the animal techniques used in their lab with others including non-scientists will be forced to begin to examine those techniques. They will have to critically evaluate if they are in fact based on ethical decisions about animal use. The mutual exchange aspect of conversation also serves to communicate ideas between parties with different experience. Participants in the conversations gain empathy for others’ point of view and in return allow empathy from others. These benefits will ultimately be crucial to ensure the continued use of animals in research and teaching. Conversation and debate with non-scientists is important for the scientist as a member of both society and of the scientific community to which they belong. It is all too easy for any person to only engage with those who share their ideas and values, such as scientists discussing animal use only among other scientists. Such conversations in isolation are unlikely to produce fruitful progress and will not serve to improve the acceptance of animal use by society. Because science is an integral part of society and functions within society, scientists cannot remain isolated and removed from that society. Conversations with the broader group will promote a greater understanding of society’s values by members of the scientific cohort. If science is to continue to function as a valued part of society, scientific values will need to incorporate societal values. This conversation will also work for promoting understanding of scientific values by non-scientific portions of society. It is the propagation of this greater mutual understanding which is one of the key functions of conversation and critical to the continued use of animals in research and teaching. Conversation must also take place within the scientific community. There is no doubt that for the greatest benefit to be derived with the least cost to animal welfare, science must be of the highest quality. The debate must continue as to what constitutes high quality, relevant research. Individual scientists will need to embrace the importance of research quality and move beyond mere acquiescence to authority. Individual scientists need to determine for themselves what constitutes quality research and implement this because it provides the greatest benefit, not because they suffer penalties otherwise. Conversation within scientific society will be necessary for individuals to understand what is quality science, how to implement good practice and the importance of this. Exchange of ideas, as occurs in conversation also serves to improve education of all participants. The cynic was convinced that society was unwilling to self-educate and keep themselves informed. By conversation, the uninformed gain valuable insight and improve the breadth of their experience. In turn, through conversation, the cynic will hopefully come to understand that scientists are humans with emotions and subject to emotional reaction. The pragmatist will see that the mathematical equation is not so easily weighed but will learn from conversation that cost versus benefit is highly complex. The purist will come to understand that while high quality science is in fact essential, defining what constitutes high quality is difficult and will require continued evaluation through debate and conversation. The actual conversations do not need to be elaborate or formal. They will take place naturally and develop organically. People will congregate and talk at school or on the bus. The issues discussed will be the topic of conversations at scientific meetings and committee hearings as well as at conferences and in classrooms. Conversations will take place in the elevator and in lecture halls. The quiet will listen patiently while the talkative ramble on. The erudite will relish the opportunity to debate and all interested parties will finish with a slightly different perspective than they started. What is important for the purpose is that no one shrink from the conversation. The topic can be difficult and emotional at times. Many will not have thought about the topic and others will be excessively enthusiastic. But all must consciously engage and participate. There is no excuse for not participating. Every member of society has a responsibility to converse. This is because all of society will derive benefit from the good usage of animals in research and teaching. For the same reasons, all will be impacted if society withdraws its acceptance of animal use or if that animal use is poor. Acceptance of animal use in research and teaching is based on the decisions and opinions of the individual. Many and varied factors influence those decisions and opinions. The breadth and depth of experience and knowledge which underpins the perspectives of individuals is vast and only continues to grow, expanded by continued scientific research and investigation. There is no single act or policy that can guarantee that society will continue to accept the use of animals. There are in place many sound principles as well as irrational dogmatic beliefs. It is an overwhelming task to try and resolve the varied experiences and opinions of a society composed of such varied individuals. Free societies do not dictate morals but rather allow free and open debate to determine ethics. The mechanism of this debate is the simple conversation. By conversation, progress will continue and the opinion of society will adapt to meet the needs of that society. The place of scientific research and the use of animals in science will continue to develop organically with that society as it progresses. The simple conversation will serve to bind science within society and determine the future of animal use in research and teaching.

< Back 2014 ANZCCART Essay Competition Winner Conversations to Improve Animal Welfare in Research and Teaching (by Katherine Reid) Previous Next

< Back External Resources Links to resources from other organisations Previous Next

About Us About Us ANZCCART (Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching) is two independent organisations in each of Australia and New Zealand committed to providing leadership in addressing ethical, social, cultural and scientific issues relating to the use and welfare of animals in research and teaching. We have a shared Vision, Mission and Role in society. ANZCCART’s VISION To be the leading source of information and advice concerning the ethical, social, cultural and scientific use of animals in research and teaching. MISSION STATEMENT ANZCCART’s corporate mission and objectives are to promote: Informed open discussion and debate within the community when considering ethical, social, cultural and scientific issues relating to the use of animals in research and teaching, by providing a neutral forum. Excellence in the use and welfare of animals supplied for or used in research and teaching. Responsible scientific use of animals. The 3Rs principle of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement as they apply to the use of animals for scientific purposes. Strategic partnerships to contribute to the education and training of scientists, students, animal care staff, members of Animal Ethics Committees, and the broader community. ANZCCART’s ROLE ANZCCART seeks to achieve these objectives, first by providing an ongoing focus to the social, ethical, cultural and scientific issues involved, second by providing a forum for discussion of these issues and third by facilitating access to relevant specialist advice and resources. Further, through its publications and activities ANZCCART is a source of information for the general public about how animals are used in research and teaching in Australia and New Zealand. ANZCCART New Zealand Established as a standing committee of the Royal Society Te Apārangi, the Board of ANZCCART New Zealand comprises representatives from the research, animal welfare, animal ethics and education communities. ANZCCART New Zealand is an advisory organisation that provides guidance and information to a wide range of stakeholders, including Animal Ethics Committees (AEC), scientists, teachers, regulatory authorities, granting agencies, government, animal welfare organisations, the media, and the general public. ANZCCART New Zealand promotes and supports the commitment to the principles embodied in the New Zealand legislation regulating the use of animals in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand ( Animal Welfare Act 1999, Part 6 ). AIMS Our primary aims are to: Promote open discussions around the social license for, ethical and cultural considerations related to, and scientific validity of the use of animals in research and teaching. A pillar of this is the ANZCCART Openness Agreement on Animal Use in Research and Teaching. Encourage the highest standards of care, consideration and responsible use of animals for research and teaching purposes. . Act as a focal point for information and advice concerning the ethical and scientific use of animals in research and teaching. Advocate for the "Three Rs" – replacement, reduction and refinement of animals in research and teaching – as a guiding principle. Identify, enable, and enhance strategic partnerships that develop capacity by contributing to and supporting the education and training of scientists, students, and the broader community. Support the development and inclusion of mātauranga Māori in relation to the care and use of animals in research and teaching, and alignment of policy and practice with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. VALUES In pursuing our aims, we are guided by the following values: Rigour: We apply rigorous standards to our discussions and recommendations, ensuring that they are based on the best available evidence and informed by the perspectives of all relevant stakeholders. Openness: We are committed to transparency and openness in our processes, fostering an environment where challenging and informed debate can take place. Responsiveness: We aim to respond effectively to emerging ethical, social, cultural, scientific issues and developments relating to the use and welfare of animals in research and teaching. Inclusiveness: We actively engage with diverse stakeholders, including the research, animal welfare, and education communities, to ensure that our work is comprehensive and well-rounded. Collaboration: We work collaboratively with various organisations, institutions, and individuals to achieve our objectives and contribute to a more responsible and compassionate future for both animals and humans. Partnership: We support and affirm the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including the bicultural partnership it establishes between tangata Tiriti and tangata whenua, in all our aims and work. History of ANZCCART ANZCCART, the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, was established on the 1st of January, 1993, as a result of a collaborative effort between the Australian Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ACCART, established in May 1987) and various New Zealand authorities, including the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (now known as the Ministry for Primary Industries) and the Royal Society of New Zealand (now Royal Society Te Apārangi). In New Zealand, this followed decades of efforts by the Society to promote and progress the humane use of animals in science. The Australia-New Zealand collaboration aimed to address the growing need for ethical and scientific guidance in the use of animals for research and teaching purposes in both countries. In New Zealand, ANZCCART operates as a committee of the Royal Society Te Apārangi, maintaining strong connections with its Australian counterpart. New Zealand formed a standing committee of the Royal Society and joined ACCART to form ANZCCART in 1993. The joint name was to emphasise united efforts in promoting the ethical use of animals in research and teaching across both nations.This partnership has allowed the organizations to share resources, expertise, and knowledge while working towards common goals. For a comprehensive understanding of ANZCCART's history, we recommend reading the article “ Reflections on the use of animals in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand – a historical perspective. ” by Dr David Bayvel et al. (2011). (PDF, 653 kb, 4 pages) This article offers valuable insights into the development of ANZCCART and the progress made over the years in improving the ethical and scientific use of animals in research, testing, and teaching in both Australia and New Zealand.

Animal welfare What is animal welfare and whose welfare is considered? Animals are recognized as sentient beings in New Zealand law. This means they have sufficiently complex nervous systems to support flexible and adaptive behaviour and, importantly, a range of different experiences and feelings that they can interpret as good/positive or bad/negative. In New Zealand, animals considered to be sentient are mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, octopus, squid, crabs, lobsters and crayfish (see Information about animal research in NZ for more information). The welfare of an animal depends on its mental state – the negative or positive experiences it is having at a particular point in time. Negative experiences might include pain, discomfort, breathlessness, nausea, fear, anxiety, hunger, thirst and even loneliness, frustration or boredom, depending on the kind of animal. Good experiences might include feelings of pleasure, comfort, safety and companionship, again depending on the kind of animal. The animal’s mental state is influenced by its perception of both its physical health and its environment. How can we understand an animal’s welfare state to make improvements? Often in research, it is necessary to perform procedures that may cause animals to experience negative states like fear, pain, nausea, or breathlessness. In addition to compromise during procedures, animals may also experience compromise in their home environment, during day-to-day husbandry and handling, preparation for, as well as recovery from, the procedure. An animal may be more likely to experience welfare compromise because of its age, physical state, particular type or breeding. When using animals in research, testing, and teaching, we have a responsibility to promote good welfare, meaning minimizing welfare compromise due to negative experiences and enhancing welfare by providing opportunities for positive experiences. The people responsible must consider the ways that their use of, or interaction with, the animals may impact their welfare. Another way to think about this is to ask “What mental states will the animal experience in this situation, in this physical condition or due to this procedure?”. We can understand the degree to which welfare is compromised by evaluating the quality, likelihood, severity/intensity and duration of any and all negative experiences; we do this using observable or measurable indicators of mental states, including behavioural, physiological and neurophysiological measurements. Likewise, we can understand the degree of welfare enhancement, primarily by evaluating animal’s behavioural responses to opportunities that arise or we provide. One model we can use to organize investigations of welfare and the evidence for an animal’s mental experiences and its overall welfare state is the Five Domains Model. This is an internationally recognised welfare assessment framework developed in New Zealand. It reflects modern understanding of animal welfare by breaking down the factors that influence welfare into four categories (Domain 1 Food and water; Domain 2 Physical environment; Domain 3 Health and physical status; Domain 4 Behavioural interactions) and includes the associated mental experiences in a fifth category (Domain 5 Mental states). With care, the Model can be used for any species in any context. It allows the user to apply their own knowledge of the animal species to identify potential sources of welfare compromise and opportunities for welfare enhancement. How can we improve the welfare of animals used in RTT? The Three Rs The Three Rs provide guidance on ways to minimize welfare compromise for animals used in RTT by avoiding animal use altogether (Replacement), reducing the number of animals that might experience welfare compromise whilst still achieving the purpose of having used them (Reduction) or reducing the likelihood, severity and/or duration of negative mental experiences arising due to the ways animals are used and managed (Refinement). Providing opportunities for positive experiences, while continuing to minimise negatives, is another way to refine animal use. For more information about the Three Rs see NC3Rs . Minimizing welfare compromise (Refinement) depends on what the problem is for the animal. Importantly, animals must be conscious to be having any mental experiences, including pain, so using general anaesthesia to make an animal unconscious is one way to reduce welfare compromise during a procedure. Pain can also be alleviated or reduced by using drugs that block or reduce pain signals (local anaesthetics or analgesics). However, pain-relieving drugs won’t reduce hunger, thirst, breathlessness, nausea, fear or loneliness. So, the remedy must be appropriate for the problem, and the effectiveness of the intervention should be evaluated using methods like those described above. For example, fear due to human-animal interactions can be reduced by avoiding or refining handling procedures, while anxiety might be relieved by manipulating animal housing or social groupings. Likewise, such changes in animal housing and management can provide animals opportunities for positive experiences. Promoting these feelings wherever possible can enhance the welfare of animals, as well as making them easier to handle and work with. Resources for minimizing welfare compromise: Beausoleil, N., & Mellor, D. (2015). Introducing breathlessness as a significant animal welfare issue. New Zealand Veterinary Journal , 63 (1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2014.940410 Resources for enhancing welfare: ·Baumans, V. (2005). Environmental Enrichment for Laboratory Rodents and Rabbits: Requirements of Rodents, Rabbits, and Research. ILAR Journal , 46 (2), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.46.2.162 Rault, J.-L., Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., & Hemsworth, P. (2020). The Power of a Positive Human–Animal Relationship for Animal Welfare. Frontiers in Veterinary Science , 7 . https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.590867 Resources for understanding animal welfare and its assessment: Mellor, D. J. (2017). Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare. Animals, 7(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7080060 Mellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N. J., Littlewood, K. E., McLean, A. N., McGreevy, P. D., Jones, B., & Wilkins, C. (2020). The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals, 10(10), 1870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101870 Littlewood, K.E.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Mellor, D.J. Updating the Five Provisions: Aligning Welfare-Focused Care with the Five Domains Model. Animals 2026 , 16 , 1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16121927

< Back Use of Animals in NZ Use of Animals in New Zealand Previous Next

< Back Information for New Zealand Teachers Resources Previous Next