Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), 1510-130 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4, Canada.
Altern Lab Anim. 2004 Jun;32 Suppl 1A:275-85. doi: 10.1177/026119290403201s46.
The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) publishes data on over 25 species of animals used in science, and the US Department of Agriculture publishes data on six of those species. Between 1980 and 1999, the reduction in animal use was found to be correlated between Canada and the USA for dogs (r = 0.944, p < 0.001), cats (r = 0.839, p < 0.001), rabbits (r = 0.852, p < 0.001) and hamsters (r = 0.716, p < 0.01), with no significant correlation found for non-human primates and guinea-pigs. On the basis of the four species where correlation between the two countries was found for reduction in use, the mean ratio of the number of animals used in the USA compared to the number used in Canada was 17.0 +/- 7.5. The CCAC data for these six US-regulated species were used in an analysis of regression with multiple predictors to test whether they could be used to predict the total number of animals used. No significant correlation was found. However, using the same analysis, rats, mice, fish and birds were found to be highly correlated with the total number of animals used (r2 = 0.9835, p < 0.005). The regression equation developed by using Canadian data was validated using UK animal use numbers. An almost perfect fit between the estimated values provided the evidence that total animal use in Canada and the UK decreased at about the same pace during the 1990s. Animal use data can be a useful tool to monitor the implementation of reduction measures. However, their use for the monitoring of refinement measures requires care and analysis. For example, the sustained downward trend in the number of experiments causing severe pain in unanaesthetised animals (category of invasiveness [CI] E) observed in Canada and the USA between 1996 and 1999 is indicative of effective refinement, but it would be misleading to interpret the increase in the number of animals used in Canada under CI D in 1997 as an indication of greater pain and distress. In fact, the larger number of animals in CI D resulted at least in part from the implementation of new CCAC guidelines designed to ensure better monitoring of transgenic animal care and use.
加拿大动物护理委员会(CCAC)公布了超过 25 种用于科学研究的动物的数据,而美国农业部公布了其中 6 种动物的数据。1980 年至 1999 年间,加拿大和美国的狗(r = 0.944,p < 0.001)、猫(r = 0.839,p < 0.001)、兔子(r = 0.852,p < 0.001)和仓鼠(r = 0.716,p < 0.01)的动物使用减少情况呈显著相关,但在非人类灵长类动物和豚鼠方面则没有显著相关性。基于两国在动物使用减少方面存在相关性的四种物种,美国使用的动物数量与加拿大使用的动物数量之比的平均值为 17.0 +/- 7.5。使用这六种受美国监管的物种的 CCAC 数据进行多元预测回归分析,以测试它们是否可用于预测动物总数。结果没有发现显著相关性。然而,使用相同的分析,发现大鼠、小鼠、鱼类和鸟类与动物总数高度相关(r2 = 0.9835,p < 0.005)。使用加拿大数据开发的回归方程通过英国动物使用数据进行了验证。提供的估计值之间几乎完美的拟合表明,加拿大和英国在 20 世纪 90 年代期间,动物总数的使用呈下降趋势。动物使用数据可作为监测减少措施实施情况的有用工具。然而,为了监测改良措施,需要谨慎分析这些数据。例如,1996 年至 1999 年,加拿大和美国未麻醉动物严重疼痛实验(侵入性分类 [CI] E)的数量呈持续下降趋势,这表明改良措施有效,但将 1997 年加拿大 CI D 下使用的动物数量增加解释为疼痛和痛苦加剧的迹象是误导性的。事实上,CI D 中动物数量的增加至少部分是由于实施了新的 CCAC 指南,旨在确保更好地监测转基因动物的护理和使用。