Explore the vast range of titles available.

Specimens and associated data in natural history collections (NHCs) foster substantial scientific progress. In this paper, we explore recent contributions of NHCs to the study of systematics and biogeography, genomics, morphology, stable isotope ecology, and parasites and pathogens of mammals. To begin to assess the magnitude and scope of these contributions, we analyzed publications in the Journal of Mammalogy over the last decade, as well as recent research supported by a single university mammal collection (Museum of Southwestern Biology, Division of Mammals). Using these datasets, we also identify weak links that may be hindering the development of crucial NHC infrastructure. Maintaining the vitality and growth of this foundation of mammalogy depends on broader engagement and support from across the scientific community and is both an ethical and scientific imperative given the rapidly changing environmental conditions on our planet.

Background Scientific research projects involving animals are required to undergo ethical evaluation, generally known as harm-benefit analysis (HBA) , to ensure that they address important ethical concerns related to animal welfare and the scientific quality of the research to maximize the likelihood of their potential benefits. Research continuously shows the challenges encountered by decision-makers, prompting researchers to review how HBA is conducted and to propose tools to aid decision-making. However, the extent to which such resources are currently available, their jurisdictions of applicability, and how they guide decision-making are not entirely clear. Method Through a Scoping Review methodology, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for publications in Europe and North America (USA and Canada) from 1985 to 2023. Title and abstract, full-text, and reference screenings, followed by data charting, respectively, were carried out for retrieved publications using pre-developed and registered review protocol. Results 17 resources that can guide HBA and decision-making were identified. They discussed what should constitute harm to animals and benefits of research, and how these two interests can be balanced to make a decision. Some adopt mathematical calculations, some propose guidelines for committee discussions, while others propose the combination of different approaches to decision-making. Conclusions Decision-making based on deliberation among committee members should be supported over the use of scoring approaches. Additionally, making ethical decisions on a case-by-case basis is preferable to accuracy, which may not be realistically practicable.

Decisions about the appropriate use of animals in research are largely made by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). Several commentators claim that scientists exert excessive influence on IACUC decisions. We studied 87 protocol reviews from 10 IACUCs to assess whether any group of participants appeared to dominate the protocol discussions. Audio recordings of the meetings were coded to capture the topics of the discussions. We found that animal research scientists made the largest total number of topic mentions while community members made the fewest. On a per person basis, chairpersons and attending veterinarians made the most mentions. Scientists presented the largest number of protocols, and the subsequent discussions tended to contain the same topics mentioned in the presentations. The large number of protocols presented by scientists and their total number of comments made during protocol discussions suggest that scientists may significantly influence IACUC decision making.

Committee composition is a recurrent theme within the literature on Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). The ability of IACUCs to ensure the ethical treatment of nonhuman research subjects depends upon who makes up these committees. Non-scientists and those not affiliated with the research institution have been deemed indispensable for the democratic, objective review of protocols and, thus, for ethical treatment. IACUCs’ critics and partners alike have persistently offered suggestions for how to further optimize committee composition towards these ends. This paper contributes to the ongoing conversation by advocating for the addition of holistic species experts to IACUCs, arguing that holistic species experts are as indispensable for the political and epistemic viability of protocol reviews as non-scientists and non-affiliates. Holistic species experts are defined here as members of the larger community who have extensive firsthand experience with animals living and dying under relatively ideal conditions. If we accept that non-scientists and non-affiliates are crucial for IACUCs' ethical treatment of animals, then we have every reason to embrace holistic species experts. The values, welfare expertise, and productive epistemic dissonance that these experts bring to the table would prove invaluable.

Background Animals in captivity are inherently separated from their natural environments, which both exposes them to new heterospecific organisms as well as reduces contact with naturally occurring predators, prey or microbiota. The microbes that live on and in animals are increasingly recognized as having important impacts on animal health, development and behavior. We raised post-metamorphic treefrogs in 1) naturalistic containers in groups, 2) regularly sterilized containers in groups, or 3) regularly sterilized containers but solitary. Froglets were raised for over eight months; in addition to monitoring growth and development, we collected fecal samples on three occasions, gut samples on two occasions, and skin swab samples once. We compared the diversity of microbial communities across sample types and over time. Results Froglets raised in group housing, either naturalistic or regularly cleaned, had the fastest growth and sexual differentiation, but naturalistic housing also improved survival. Alpha diversity of bacteria on the skin or in the gut did not vary with rearing conditions, whereas diversity in the gut increased over time. Alpha diversity of feces did vary with rearing treatment and changed over time. Bacterial community composition (beta diversity) varied most strongly with sample type, but also with rearing conditions and over time. In addition, bacterial communities of feces were highly correlated with those of guts, indicating that feces can serve as an accurate and non-invasive biomarker of the gut microbiome. Lastly, transferring frogs from regularly sterilized environments to naturalistic vivaria improved bacterial community diversity. Conclusions Our study suggests that naturalistic housing improves the overall health and development of captive amphibians and that these improvements may occur by facilitating a more stable and diverse microbiome.

Background Postapproval monitoring (PAM) is a critical component of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) oversight, ensuring compliance with approved protocols and ethical animal research practices. While the PAM is not explicitly mandated under U.S. federal regulations, it has been widely recognized as an essential mechanism for verifying adherence to animal welfare standards. In contrast, Korea has formally integrated the PAM into its legal framework, making it a mandatory function of IACUCs. Results This study examines the implementation and perception of the PAM in Korean institutions through a survey of relevant professionals. These findings indicate that while awareness of the PAM is high, challenges such as limited manpower and institutional support hinder its effective execution. Additionally, the pandemic highlighted the potential for online remote monitoring as a supplemental method, although concerns remain regarding its effectiveness in assessing real-time animal welfare conditions. The study suggests that a hybrid PAM model, that combines onsite and remote monitoring, could improve oversight efficiency while addressing resource constraints. Strengthening administrative support, increasing professional staffing, and enhancing researcher training are crucial steps for optimizing PAM operations in Korea. Conclusions These insights contribute to the broader discourse on the evolution of animal research oversight and the need for adaptable monitoring strategies in diverse regulatory environments.

Long-term re-sightings of individuals used in satellite telemetry research are important for determining the effects of tagging on large whales. We evaluated the initial behavioral response, healing process, and short-term reproductive behavior and success of 7 percutaneous-tagged humpback whales (4 M, 3 F) monitored for 4–10 years in the feeding ground of the Magellan Strait, Chile. We took post-tagging photographs incidentally every year during re-sighting expeditions. We did not observe an initial reaction to tagging or sudden change in behavior or direction of movement. Two of the females had 3 and 2 calves before tagging, and one of them had 2 calves every 3 years after tagging. Post-tagging annual site fidelity remained nearly 100%. We did not observe initial tag protrusion in any individual. Four whales (57%) showed no signs of initial tissue damage shortly after tagging; we observed tissue shedding in 2 individuals, and traces of blood on 1 whale. Complete wound healing apparently occurred in all individuals within the first 2 years after tagging, and 5 of them showed no scars 3–6 years later. Four individuals showed small to medium (<5 cm) tumor-like lumps for several years after tagging, but some were undistinguishable from other natural lumps (e.g., barnacles) observed near the tag injury. Overall, tagging did not seem to affect reproductive success or the behavior of individuals during and immediately after tagging. The development of new technologies always can pose a risk to animal welfare, thus studies such as this one are important for carefully evaluating the effects of tagging on whales.

Using animals in scientific research is commonly justified on the utilitarian basis that the benefits of scientific progress to human health and society exceed by far the harm inflicted on animals. In an attempt to ensure that this is indeed the case for every research project, legislation and guidelines increasingly demand the application of harm-benefit analysis (HBA) as part of the approval process of animal research protocols. The ethical principle of HBA asserts that the costs of an action should be weighed against the expected benefits. Any action that may inflict harm can only be approved if it is associated with a greater benefit. This principle is intuitively appealing but how to use it as a practical rule for ethical decisions is a difficult question. The main difficulty is that the future benefits of most scientific research are unmeasurable, unpredictable and are not manifested at the level of the individual project. Applying HBA in such cases may impede scientific progress by inducing a bias against basic research. Moreover, it can lead to the toleration of unnecessary harm to animals in research. Given these caveats of HBA, I call policy-makers to reconsider the place of HBA in animal research. Instead, I support an alternative guideline which is based on replacing the HBA principle (that the expected benefits of the research must exceed the harms caused to the animals) with two independent but mutually necessary principles: (1) any research using an animal must carry a benefit for society and (2) the harm inflicted to an animal in an experiment must be minimal and scientifically justified. I argue that rigorous harm-analysis, which is not weighted against obscure benefits, can increase the over-all benefits of research while reducing the harms to animals.

Background The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) became compulsory in 2008 by the Animal Protection Act in Korea. Seoul National University (SNU), which conducts 5% of Korea’s total animal protocol reviews and uses 10% of national laboratory animal usage, has been influential in the review of animal protocols and management of animal facilities. This study was undertaken to suggest the operational improvement of the IACUC. It focused on the case of SNU. Results The methodological framework consists of a qualitative approach. In particular, this study is focused on the grounded theory approach and sixty people were surveyed through purposeful sampling. Through this study, we found that various practical educations are necessary such as: (1) education for researchers on how to write a protocol, (2) standardization of screening criteria for various animal experiments by presenting various cases, (3) training on a detailed understanding of relevant laws and policies. In particular, an integrated management system, making it possible to share information among the related committees, would be essential for smoother operation of the IACUC. Conclusions If various levels of education and the integrated management system are established, it will be possible to enhance the excellence of researchers and to better manage the operation of the IACUC.