TY - JOUR KW - choice test KW - preference test KW - cognitive bias KW - refinement KW - Animal welfare AU - A Habedank AU - P Kahnau AU - K Diederich AU - L Lewejohann AB - Severity assessment in animal experimentation is a complex biomedical and ethical issue. While the requirements for laboratory animal science regarding assessment of severity are getting more demanding, criteria for such an assessment are still biased by uncertainty. The interpretation of physiological and behavioral measures in relation to animal welfare is difficult and often reflecting an educated gut feeling rather than scientifically sound conclusions. Here, we argue for the importance of including the animals’ perspective into severity assessment. Preference tests are a straightforward approach in asking the appraisal of different goods. However, preference for one good over another does not necessarily indicate suffering if the access to the preferred good is denied. Nor can the overall severity of an experimental measurement be derived solely from the fact that the animal would rather not participate in such a procedure. To gain a better understanding of the valence of choices made, there is demand for sophisticated tests which allow estimating the strength of the respective preferences. Animals usually cannot choose to avoid experimental procedures and such experiences leave traces in internal affective states. These emotion-like states can be revealed using tests of cognitive bias, which ask the animal if future expectations are “optimistic” or “pessimistic”. Advancing these methods on testing cognitive bias in mice allows a comprehensive severity assessment taking internal affective states into account. The set of measures proposed here include the animal’s point of view in severity assessment with regard to their preference and valence of future expectations. BT - Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift C1 - {"oldId":108430,"title":"Severity assessment from an animal\u2019s point of view","topline":"","teaserText":"Belastungsbeurteilung aus Sicht des Tieres","content":"

Abstract<\/span>
Severity assessment in animal experimentation is a complex biomedical and ethical issue. While the requirements for laboratory animal science regarding assessment of severity are getting more demanding, criteria for such an assessment are still biased by uncertainty. The interpretation of physiological and behavioral measures in relation to animal welfare is difficult and often reflecting an educated gut feeling rather than scientifically sound conclusions. Here, we argue for the importance of including the animals\u2019 perspective into severity assessment. Preference tests are a straightforward approach in asking the appraisal of different goods. However, preference for one good over another does not necessarily indicate suffering if the access to the preferred good is denied. Nor can the overall severity of an experimental measurement be derived solely from the fact that the animal would rather not participate in such a procedure. To gain a better understanding of the valence of choices made, there is demand for sophisticated tests which allow estimating the strength of the respective preferences. Animals usually cannot choose to avoid experimental procedures and such experiences leave traces in internal affective states. These emotion-like states can be revealed using tests of cognitive bias, which ask the animal if future expectations are \u201coptimistic\u201d or \u201cpessimistic\u201d. Advancing these methods on testing cognitive bias in
mice allows a comprehensive severity assessment taking internal affective states into account. The set of measures proposed here include the animal\u2019s point of
view in severity assessment with regard to their preference and valence of future expectations.<\/p>

Keywords<\/span>
choice test, preference test, cognitive bias, refinement, animal welfare<\/p>

Zusammenfassung<\/span>
Die Beurteilung der Belastung im Tierversuch stellt eine komplexe ethische und biomedizinische Herausforderung dar. Die Anforderungen an die Versuchstierkunde bez\u00fcglich der Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung steigen stetig. Derzeit fehlen jedoch wissenschaftliche \u00fcberpr\u00fcfbare Messparameter um die Belastungen aus Sicht der Tiere einsch\u00e4tzen zu k\u00f6nnen. Die Interpretation von Verhaltensdaten und physiologischer Parameter im Zusammenhang mit tierlichem Wohlergehen ist nicht immer eindeutig; anstelle valider wissenschaftlicher Kriterien tritt mitunter ein \u201eBauchgef\u00fchl\u201c des Beurteilenden. Dieser \u00dcbersichtsartikel diskutiert die besondere Bedeutung, die Tiere selbst bei Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung zu \u201ebefragen\u201c. In Wahlversuchen k\u00f6nnen die Tiere zwischen verschiedenen Ressourcen w\u00e4hlen. Die Bevorzugung eines Gutes gegen\u00fcber einem anderen f\u00fchrt dann aber nicht zwangsl\u00e4ufig zu Leid, wenn das Tier keinen Zugang zum pr\u00e4ferierten Gut hat. Um die Pr\u00e4ferenzen der Tiere besser beurteilen zu k\u00f6nnen, besteht ein dringender Bedarf f\u00fcr aussagekr\u00e4ftigere Pr\u00e4ferenztests. Ferner k\u00f6nnen Tiere \u00fcblicherweise nicht frei entscheiden, ob sie an bestimmten Versuchen teilnehmen wollen. In Tierversuchen getestet zu werden, k\u00f6nnte den emotionalen Status der Tiere messbar beeintr\u00e4chtigen. Zwar sind die inneren emotionalen Zust\u00e4nde nicht immer offensichtlich, sie k\u00f6nnen jedoch mit Hilfe des Erwartungsvalenztests experimentell sichtbar gemacht werden. Dieses Verfahren gibt Aufschluss \u00fcber die Erwartungshaltung der Tiere gegen\u00fcber zuk\u00fcnftigen Ereignissen, anthropomorph formuliert, ob sie die Zukunft eher \u201eoptimistisch\u201c oder \u201epessimistisch\u201c sehen. Eine Erweiterung dieses Erwartungsvalenztests f\u00fcr M\u00e4use k\u00f6nnte eine
umfassendere Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung m\u00f6glich machen, die auch die emotionalen Zust\u00e4nde der Tiere ber\u00fccksichtigt. Die hier vorgeschlagenen Methoden
zielen auf eine Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung aus Sicht der Tiere ab, indem deren Pr\u00e4ferenz und Erwartungsvalenz mit einbezogen werden.<\/p>

Schl\u00fcsselw\u00f6rter<\/span>
Pr\u00e4ferenztest, Wahlversuch, Erwartungsvalenz, Refinement, Wohlergehen<\/p>","categories":["Open Access","Tier\u00e4rztliche Wochenschrift","Abostufe BMTW","Fachartikel","Abostufe frei"],"fromDate":"Jun 19, 2018 11:06:14 AM","oldUrls":["http:\/\/vetline.de\/severity-assessment-from-an-animals-point-of-view\/150\/3130\/108430","http:\/\/vetline.de\/severity-assessment-from-an-animals-point-of-view\/150\/3216\/108430"],"doiLanguage":"englisch","doiProductFormat":"online","doiPublisher":"Schl\u00fctersche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG","doiSerialWorkTitle":"Berl M\u00fcnch Tier\u00e4rztl Wochensch","doiDocumentUri":"https:\/\/vetline.de\/files\/smfiledata\/7\/2\/2\/6\/7\/3\/BMTW_OA_18007_Lewejohann.pdf","doiSource":"Berl M\u00fcnch Tier\u00e4rztl Wochensch","doiissn":"0005-9366","doiNr":"10.2376\/0005-9366-18007","doiFirstPage":".","doiLastPage":"..","doiTransmitted":true,"doiAuthor":"Habedank A, Kahnau P, Diederich K, Lewejohann L","pdf":{"path":"http:\/\/data\/BMTW_OA_18007_Lewejohann.pdf","title":"BMTW_OA_18007_Lewejohann","description":"Severity assessment from an animal\u2019s point of view"},"authors":[{"firstName":"A","middleName":"","lastName":"Habedank"},{"firstName":"P","middleName":"","lastName":"Kahnau"},{"firstName":"K","middleName":"","lastName":"Diederich"},{"firstName":"L","middleName":"","lastName":"Lewejohann"}],"contentOptimised":"

Summary<\/strong>
Severity assessment in animal experimentation is a complex biomedical and ethical issue. While the requirements for laboratory animal science regarding assessment of severity are getting more demanding, criteria for such an assessment are still biased by uncertainty. The interpretation of physiological and behavioral measures in relation to animal welfare is difficult and often reflecting an educated gut feeling rather than scientifically sound conclusions. Here, we argue for the importance of including the animals\u2019 perspective into severity assessment. Preference tests are a straightforward approach in asking the appraisal of different goods. However, preference for one good over another does not necessarily indicate suffering if the access to the preferred good is denied. Nor can the overall severity of an experimental measurement be derived solely from the fact that the animal would rather not participate in such a procedure. To gain a better understanding of the valence of choices made, there is demand for sophisticated tests which allow estimating the strength of the respective preferences. Animals usually cannot choose to avoid experimental procedures and such experiences leave traces in internal affective states. These emotion-like states can be revealed using tests of cognitive bias, which ask the animal if future expectations are \u201coptimistic\u201d or \u201cpessimistic\u201d. Advancing these methods on testing cognitive bias in
mice allows a comprehensive severity assessment taking internal affective states into account. The set of measures proposed here include the animal\u2019s point of
view in severity assessment with regard to their preference and valence of future expectations.<\/p>

Keywords:<\/strong>
choice test, preference test, cognitive bias, refinement, animal welfare<\/p>

Zusammenfassung<\/strong>
Die Beurteilung der Belastung im Tierversuch stellt eine komplexe ethische und biomedizinische Herausforderung dar. Die Anforderungen an die Versuchstierkunde bez\u00fcglich der Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung steigen stetig. Derzeit fehlen jedoch wissenschaftliche \u00fcberpr\u00fcfbare Messparameter um die Belastungen aus Sicht der Tiere einsch\u00e4tzen zu k\u00f6nnen. Die Interpretation von Verhaltensdaten und physiologischer Parameter im Zusammenhang mit tierlichem Wohlergehen ist nicht immer eindeutig; anstelle valider wissenschaftlicher Kriterien tritt mitunter ein \u201eBauchgef\u00fchl\u201c des Beurteilenden. Dieser \u00dcbersichtsartikel diskutiert die besondere Bedeutung, die Tiere selbst bei Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung zu \u201ebefragen\u201c. In Wahlversuchen k\u00f6nnen die Tiere zwischen verschiedenen Ressourcen w\u00e4hlen. Die Bevorzugung eines Gutes gegen\u00fcber einem anderen f\u00fchrt dann aber nicht zwangsl\u00e4ufig zu Leid, wenn das Tier keinen Zugang zum pr\u00e4ferierten Gut hat. Um die Pr\u00e4ferenzen der Tiere besser beurteilen zu k\u00f6nnen, besteht ein dringender Bedarf f\u00fcr aussagekr\u00e4ftigere Pr\u00e4ferenztests. Ferner k\u00f6nnen Tiere \u00fcblicherweise nicht frei entscheiden, ob sie an bestimmten Versuchen teilnehmen wollen. In Tierversuchen getestet zu werden, k\u00f6nnte den emotionalen Status der Tiere messbar beeintr\u00e4chtigen. Zwar sind die inneren emotionalen Zust\u00e4nde nicht immer offensichtlich, sie k\u00f6nnen jedoch mit Hilfe des Erwartungsvalenztests experimentell sichtbar gemacht werden. Dieses Verfahren gibt Aufschluss \u00fcber die Erwartungshaltung der Tiere gegen\u00fcber zuk\u00fcnftigen Ereignissen, anthropomorph formuliert, ob sie die Zukunft eher \u201eoptimistisch\u201c oder \u201epessimistisch\u201c sehen. Eine Erweiterung dieses Erwartungsvalenztests f\u00fcr M\u00e4use k\u00f6nnte eine
umfassendere Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung m\u00f6glich machen, die auch die emotionalen Zust\u00e4nde der Tiere ber\u00fccksichtigt. Die hier vorgeschlagenen Methoden
zielen auf eine Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung aus Sicht der Tiere ab, indem deren Pr\u00e4ferenz und Erwartungsvalenz mit einbezogen werden.<\/p>

Schl\u00fcsselw\u00f6rter:<\/strong>
Pr\u00e4ferenztest, Wahlversuch, Erwartungsvalenz, Refinement, Wohlergehen<\/p>","primaryLanguage":"englisch","summary":"Severity assessment in animal experimentation is a complex biomedical and ethical issue. While the requirements for laboratory animal science regarding assessment of severity are getting more demanding, criteria for such an assessment are still biased by uncertainty. The interpretation of physiological and behavioral measures in relation to animal welfare is difficult and often reflecting an educated gut feeling rather than scientifically sound conclusions. Here, we argue for the importance of including the animals\u2019 perspective into severity assessment. Preference tests are a straightforward approach in asking the appraisal of different goods. However, preference for one good over another does not necessarily indicate suffering if the access to the preferred good is denied. Nor can the overall severity of an experimental measurement be derived solely from the fact that the animal would rather not participate in such a procedure. To gain a better understanding of the valence of choices made, there is demand for sophisticated tests which allow estimating the strength of the respective preferences. Animals usually cannot choose to avoid experimental procedures and such experiences leave traces in internal affective states. These emotion-like states can be revealed using tests of cognitive bias, which ask the animal if future expectations are \u201coptimistic\u201d or \u201cpessimistic\u201d. Advancing these methods on testing cognitive bias in
mice allows a comprehensive severity assessment taking internal affective states into account. The set of measures proposed here include the animal\u2019s point of
view in severity assessment with regard to their preference and valence of future expectations.<\/p>

","keywords":["choice test","preference test","cognitive bias","refinement","animal welfare"],"zusammenfassung":"Die Beurteilung der Belastung im Tierversuch stellt eine komplexe ethische und biomedizinische Herausforderung dar. Die Anforderungen an die Versuchstierkunde bez\u00fcglich der Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung steigen stetig. Derzeit fehlen jedoch wissenschaftliche \u00fcberpr\u00fcfbare Messparameter um die Belastungen aus Sicht der Tiere einsch\u00e4tzen zu k\u00f6nnen. Die Interpretation von Verhaltensdaten und physiologischer Parameter im Zusammenhang mit tierlichem Wohlergehen ist nicht immer eindeutig; anstelle valider wissenschaftlicher Kriterien tritt mitunter ein \u201eBauchgef\u00fchl\u201c des Beurteilenden. Dieser \u00dcbersichtsartikel diskutiert die besondere Bedeutung, die Tiere selbst bei Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung zu \u201ebefragen\u201c. In Wahlversuchen k\u00f6nnen die Tiere zwischen verschiedenen Ressourcen w\u00e4hlen. Die Bevorzugung eines Gutes gegen\u00fcber einem anderen f\u00fchrt dann aber nicht zwangsl\u00e4ufig zu Leid, wenn das Tier keinen Zugang zum pr\u00e4ferierten Gut hat. Um die Pr\u00e4ferenzen der Tiere besser beurteilen zu k\u00f6nnen, besteht ein dringender Bedarf f\u00fcr aussagekr\u00e4ftigere Pr\u00e4ferenztests. Ferner k\u00f6nnen Tiere \u00fcblicherweise nicht frei entscheiden, ob sie an bestimmten Versuchen teilnehmen wollen. In Tierversuchen getestet zu werden, k\u00f6nnte den emotionalen Status der Tiere messbar beeintr\u00e4chtigen. Zwar sind die inneren emotionalen Zust\u00e4nde nicht immer offensichtlich, sie k\u00f6nnen jedoch mit Hilfe des Erwartungsvalenztests experimentell sichtbar gemacht werden. Dieses Verfahren gibt Aufschluss \u00fcber die Erwartungshaltung der Tiere gegen\u00fcber zuk\u00fcnftigen Ereignissen, anthropomorph formuliert, ob sie die Zukunft eher \u201eoptimistisch\u201c oder \u201epessimistisch\u201c sehen. Eine Erweiterung dieses Erwartungsvalenztests f\u00fcr M\u00e4use k\u00f6nnte eine
umfassendere Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung m\u00f6glich machen, die auch die emotionalen Zust\u00e4nde der Tiere ber\u00fccksichtigt. Die hier vorgeschlagenen Methoden
zielen auf eine Belastungseinsch\u00e4tzung aus Sicht der Tiere ab, indem deren Pr\u00e4ferenz und Erwartungsvalenz mit einbezogen werden.<\/p>

","schluesselwoerter":["Pr\u00e4ferenztest","Wahlversuch","Erwartungsvalenz","Refinement","Wohlergehen"],"translatedTitle":"Belastungsbeurteilung aus Sicht des Tieres","abstractE":"Severity assessment in animal experimentation is a complex biomedical and ethical issue. While the requirements for laboratory animal science regarding assessment of severity are getting more demanding, criteria for such an assessment are still biased by uncertainty. The interpretation of physiological and behavioral measures in relation to animal welfare is difficult and often reflecting an educated gut feeling rather than scientifically sound conclusions. Here, we argue for the importance of including the animals\u2019 perspective into severity assessment. Preference tests are a straightforward approach in asking the appraisal of different goods. However, preference for one good over another does not necessarily indicate suffering if the access to the preferred good is denied. Nor can the overall severity of an experimental measurement be derived solely from the fact that the animal would rather not participate in such a procedure. To gain a better understanding of the valence of choices made, there is demand for sophisticated tests which allow estimating the strength of the respective preferences. Animals usually cannot choose to avoid experimental procedures and such experiences leave traces in internal affective states. These emotion-like states can be revealed using tests of cognitive bias, which ask the animal if future expectations are \u201coptimistic\u201d or \u201cpessimistic\u201d. Advancing these methods on testing cognitive bias in mice allows a comprehensive severity assessment taking internal affective states into account. The set of measures proposed here include the animal\u2019s point of view in severity assessment with regard to their preference and valence of future expectations.","date":{"year":2018,"date":"06\/2018","accepted":"2018-06-19"},"volume":131,"openAccess":true,"journal":"Berliner und M\u00fcnchener Tier\u00e4rztliche Wochenschrift","titleImageId":944,"pages":"","redirects":["severity-assessment-from-an-animals-point-of-view\/150\/3130\/108430","severity-assessment-from-an-animals-point-of-view\/150\/3216\/108430"],"tierartCategories":[],"artikelartCategories":["Open Access","Tier\u00e4rztliche Wochenschrift","Abostufe BMTW","Fachartikel","Abostufe frei"]} CY - Hannover DA - 06/2018 DO - 10.2376/0005-9366-18007 LA - English N2 - Severity assessment in animal experimentation is a complex biomedical and ethical issue. While the requirements for laboratory animal science regarding assessment of severity are getting more demanding, criteria for such an assessment are still biased by uncertainty. The interpretation of physiological and behavioral measures in relation to animal welfare is difficult and often reflecting an educated gut feeling rather than scientifically sound conclusions. Here, we argue for the importance of including the animals’ perspective into severity assessment. Preference tests are a straightforward approach in asking the appraisal of different goods. However, preference for one good over another does not necessarily indicate suffering if the access to the preferred good is denied. Nor can the overall severity of an experimental measurement be derived solely from the fact that the animal would rather not participate in such a procedure. To gain a better understanding of the valence of choices made, there is demand for sophisticated tests which allow estimating the strength of the respective preferences. Animals usually cannot choose to avoid experimental procedures and such experiences leave traces in internal affective states. These emotion-like states can be revealed using tests of cognitive bias, which ask the animal if future expectations are “optimistic” or “pessimistic”. Advancing these methods on testing cognitive bias in mice allows a comprehensive severity assessment taking internal affective states into account. The set of measures proposed here include the animal’s point of view in severity assessment with regard to their preference and valence of future expectations. PB - Schlütersche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG PP - Hannover PY - 2018 T1 - Severity assessment from an animal’s point of view T2 - Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift TI - Severity assessment from an animal’s point of view TT - Belastungsbeurteilung aus Sicht des Tieres VL - 131 SN - 0005-9366 ER -