Open AccessAttitudes of laboratory animal professionals and researchers towards carbon dioxide euthanasia for rodents and perceived barriers to change
Author(s) -
Michael W Brunt,
Lucía Améndola,
Daniel M. Weary
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
laboratory animals
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.62
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1758-1117
pISSN - 0023-6772
DOI - 10.1177/00236772211025166
Subject(s) - ambivalence , anxiety , distress , qualitative research , scale (ratio) , psychology , medicine , social psychology , clinical psychology , psychiatry , sociology , social science , physics , quantum mechanics
Evidence indicates that carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) induces negative affective states (including anxiety, fear and distress) in laboratory rodents, but many countries still accept it for euthanasia. Alternative methods (e.g. inhalant anaesthetic) may represent a refinement over CO 2 but are not widely adopted. We conducted an online survey of Canadian and European laboratory animal professionals and researchers ( n = 592) to assess their attitudes towards the use of CO 2 and alternative methods for rodent euthanasia using quantitative 7-point scale (from 1 (= strongly oppose) to 7 (= strongly favour) and qualitative (open-ended text) responses. CO 2 was identified as the most common method used to kill rodents, and attitudes towards this method were variable and on average ambivalent (mean ± SD score on our 7-point scale was 4.4 ± 1.46). Qualitative analysis revealed four themes relating to participant attitude: (a) the animal’s experience during gas exposure; (b) practical considerations for humans; (c) compromise between the animal’s experience and practical considerations; and (d) technical description of the procedure or policies. Many participants (51%) felt that there were alternatives available that could be considered an improvement over CO 2 , but perceived barriers to implementing these refinements. Qualitative analysis of these responses revealed five themes: (a) financial constraints; (b) institutional culture; (c) regulatory constraints; (d) research constraints; and (e) safety concerns. In conclusion, concerns regarding the use of CO 2 often focused on the animal’s experience, but barriers to alternatives related to operational limitations. New research is now required on to how best to overcome these barriers.