Published eLetters
Guidelines
As a forum for professional feedback, submissions of letters are open to all. You do not need to be a subscriber. To avoid redundancy, we urge you to read other people's letters before submitting your own. Name, current appointment, place of work, and email address are required to send a letter, and will be published with your review. We also require that you declare any competing financial interests. Unprofessional submissions will not be considered or responded to.
Jump to comment:
- Page navigation anchor for Author ResponseAuthor Response
The eLetter by Hawkins et al. makes a variety of sweeping, unsubstantiated comments. It has neither been peer reviewed nor has it undergone editorial scrutiny. It does not provide sufficiently specific scientific arguments, which makes it impossible to engage in an adequate scientific discussion. However, the little there is, can be addressed:
Our hypotheses and aims were clear, and in response to an NC3Rs Working Group that highlighted that: ‘Of particular value would be a comparison of protocols currently approved in the UK in which monkeys may perform the experimental task to obtain fluid 5 or 6 days a week…compared with protocols which involve working every day for longer periods…’ (Prescott et al. 2010). To address this, we provide the first scientific data comparing these protocols, measuring both performance in a cognitive task and welfare impacts using a battery of physiological and behavioural measures.
The choice of control period is criticized, as monkeys had free access to water over the Christmas break, while not performing experiments. It is argued that this change in routine could have affected their behavior, explaining why little difference in behaviour occurred between this period and when animals were under a fluid control regime. However, this interpretation would imply that the fluid control regime had the same welfare impact as a break from experimental protocols wi...
Show MoreCompeting Interests: None declared. - Page navigation anchor for RE: Physiological, behavioral, and scientific impact of different fluid control protocols in the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) – Gray et al. 2016 eNeuro 0195-16.2016RE: Physiological, behavioral, and scientific impact of different fluid control protocols in the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) – Gray et al. 2016 eNeuro 0195-16.2016
Penny Hawkins, Ros Clubb, Sarah Wolfensohn, and Michelle Hudson-Shore
Behavioural neuroscience studies using non-human primates, particularly long-term protocols involving complex tasks, raise significant ethical and animal welfare concerns that are shared by the public and the scientific community. Fluid restriction, which is commonly used to motivate primates to perform behavioural tasks, presents an additional concern because it can increase the cumulative effects of procedures.
It is therefore essential to evaluate the physiological and psychological impacts of these studies, to improve the ability to recognise (and alleviate) suffering and better inform the harm-benefit analysis before, during and after these projects are conducted. However, we have concerns about the methodology and conclusions of this paper. For example, there does not appear to be a clear hypothesis, the ‘control’ group is not strictly a control, there is insufficient information in the methods section to replicate the study, and potential confounds could have been better acknowledged and discussed. Some groupings of behavioural indicators could lead to misinterpretation of the data, and there is no convincing assessment of the animals’ psychological wellbeing; a critically important factor.
We believe that the conclusions, drawn using data from just four animals, are not sustainable and should have been far more tentative; for example, by presenting this as a pilot study...
Show MoreCompeting Interests: None declared.