Culture of care in animal research – Expanding the 3Rs to include people

Abstract

Research on animals is essential for science and medical progress. While it is still necessary to conduct this research, it is essential to apply the highest standards in animal welfare, including animal husbandry and care. Furthermore, it is important to recognize the special relationship between research animals and the people who care for them. Caring for research animals can be extremely fulfilling and meaningful, but it also comes with challenges, particularly when caring for animals experiencing pain or distress. These challenges can lead to work-related mental stress. To get more insight into the challenges of working in animal research, we organized a panel discussion at the GV-SOLAS (German Society for Laboratory Animal Science) and IGTP (Interest Group Animal Caretakers) conference 2021 about work wellbeing. This discussion was the first of its kind in Germany. The active panel contributions included the view of an ethical philosopher, a scientist, a lecturer for laboratory animal science, an animal facility manager and an animal caretaker. They gave insights from their perspective into key factors that can affect human wellbeing in animal research. Keys ideas included stigmatization of work, tension between research aims and animal wellbeing, and the importance of supportive culture to overcome work-related strains, as well as lack of education and supportive environments to cope with emotional stress in the workplace. Overall, the discussion has shown that we must also promote human wellbeing when promoting culture of care in animal research, because there is strong relationship between culture of care and individual performance.

Cost of caring in animal research

The importance of animal research is highlighted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic – research animals have been and still are essential in understanding the virus and developing vaccines and therapies to combat it. Occasionally, these research animals are discussed in the media and politics and recognized for their contribution to this important biomedical research. Experienced animal caretakers are not only at the forefront of putting theoretical aspects of enrichment into practice to counteract possible stress effects based on research protocols, but are also essential in training on adequate management and care.¹ However, the people responsible for the care of these research animals are often not recognized, especially animal caretakers, technicians and veterinarians.² Even more, it can be a delicate situation as given hierarchies between scientists and animal service staff shift in terms of ensuring good care for research animals, which requires trust and appreciative cooperation. ¹ This care for animals in research can be challenging. Working with research animals often requires longer than average or flexible working hours with weekend duties – which is reflective of the high level of protection that research animals deserve. A high degree of animal welfare is a necessity for both public support of animal research and good quality research results, and this requires a high standard of care.

As highlighted in the healthcare sector, compassion is a key element in providing care to other beings.³ Therefore, the research animal field needs people who are particularly caring, compassionate and empathic.^4,5 Caring professions that require compassion and empathy can lead to compassion satisfaction as a positive outcome of caring for others but can also lead to negative outcomes such as burnout.^4–6 The negative cost of caring has been addressed for many years within the human healthcare sector, and with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic the global challenge of ensuring wellbeing and mental health has become even more clear.⁷ In caring fields, work-related stress can lead to the development of a particular phenomenon called compassion fatigue.^8,9 Compassion fatigue is described as a state of physical and mental exhaustion and an inability to cope with external environmental conditions.^5,8

When compassion fatigue manifests itself, undesirable symptoms occur, such as reduced ability to feel empathy, lower care-giving behaviour, anger, irritability, increased use of alcohol and drugs, decrease in professional decision-making ability and increase in absence from work. In addition to the effects on the work life, compassion fatigue also affects the private life of the person concerned through heightened anxiety, irrational fears and problems in personal relationships.⁵ Compassion fatigue was first described for professions that take responsibility and care for other people in difficult life situations, such as palliative care, rescue workers and psychological therapists.⁹ Unsurprisingly, the recent results of studies show that work-related mental stress and compassion fatigue also occurs not only in challenging human–animal relationships such as in veterinary clinics and shelters,^10,11 but also in animal research personnel.^12–15

This highlights the need to pay more attention to the human strain and human wellbeing in the animal research community. To get more insight into the views of different stakeholders in Germany, we organized, for the first time, a panel discussion at the GV-SOLAS (German Society for Laboratory Animal Science) and IGTP (Interest Group Animal Caretakers) conference 2021 about work wellbeing.

German conference roundtable 2021 on mental stress and work wellbeing in animal research

Roundtable background

The increase in studies on mental stress and compassion fatigue in the last three years underlines the relevance of mental health in laboratory animal science. So far, most of the published studies on human wellbeing in animal research are focused on North America, the UK and Spain, but outcomes are very likely valid also in other countries such as, for example, Germany. While the types of stress may vary between different professional groups, three factors seem to be particularly stressful across professions:^12,14–16

• Low public image of animal research and stigmatization as ‘dirty’ work;

• Low social support and poor internal communication culture;

• Areas of conflict in daily work.

Apart from low public appreciation, tensions in one's own work can lead to strain. This can be due to the inherent tension between caring for research animals, trying to decrease pain or distress and to ensure their welfare as much as possible, and simultaneously carrying out animal research that can cause pain or distress or decreased welfare for research animals. This paradoxical situation can lead to moral stress, especially in animal care professionals as they enter the profession because of their love and empathy towards animals.^10,17 Moral stress is a particular form of stress and arises because individuals are uncertain whether they can meet their or society’s moral obligations.^18,19 However, mental stress, such as work-related anxiety, seems also to be associated with less work experience in animal research.^12,20

In our own experiences from workshops, seminars and other panel discussions (6R-Roundtable: https://www.berliner-kompaktkurse.de/6r-roundtable.html) the three key factors listed above are also present in Germany among animal caretakers, attending veterinarians, animal welfare officers, animal managers and scientists. Based on these initial indications, we organized a roundtable on work-related stress and wellbeing at the 2021 virtual meeting of GV-SOLAS and the IGTP, which was public to all participants of the conference. The aim of the event was to show opinions and to discuss how the three key factors affect the quality of work-related stress and work wellbeing in the context of their professional activities.

Roundtable summary

The roundtable was divided into two sections. No voice or video recordings were made during the event to ensure anonymity of the audience and panellists. The first part included five keynote speeches (three minutes each) by the invited speakers, who shared their own views on the event topic from their profession with the auditorium. These contributions included the view of an ethical philosopher (university), a scientist (basic research, university), a lecturer for laboratory animal science (higher education, university), an animal facility manager (pharma company) and an animal caretaker (pharma company). The speakers emphasized several relevant points for compassion fatigue. The summaries of the individual key speeches are listed below according to the individual perspectives.

From an ethical perspective, it was emphasized that the best we can do is to avoid unnecessary levels of pain while also working to promote positive welfare for research animals. Additionally, working to ensure true benefits from each animal study would help improve social stigmatization. Even though animal research has supported nearly every medical achievement, the discussion about animal research has been highly controversial for many years and has often stigmatized animal research as ‘dirty’ work. This may be due to the fact most people are not exposed to animal research and do not understand its direct benefits. In addition, positive representations of animal research in the media and politics are rare. As a research community, we can work to prevent stigmatization. Stigmas can affect any profession involved in some form of animal research. It can make people feel ashamed of their work and reluctant to talk about their profession in private life. Getting out of the stigma requires meaningful, informed, animal welfare-oriented and compassionate animal research. In addition, a high degree of empathy towards research animals might promote social acceptance and should be considered as a positive character trait in all professions in animal research. When these factors are achieved, professionals should feel more empowered and positive about talking about their work.

From the scientist’s point of view, there can sometimes be a trade-off between the research aims and the strain on animals. This begins with planning for the animal research. Studies must be designed to achieve the best data while inflicting as little stress on the animals as possible. At times, achieving meaningful scientific results is only possible when causing a level of stress on the animals that scientists would prefer to avoid. This tension can cause work related stress for all animal research personnel. As a scientific supervisor, it is particularly important to support early career scientists. Successful scientific projects are vital for successful scientific careers – but the aforementioned conflict between meaningful results and animal stress can be difficult, especially for young scientists.

From the lecturer for laboratory animal science point of view, addressing mental stress and wellbeing must start early in academic careers and higher education. Responsible management of students and trainees means also ‘applying the 3Rs to people’:

1. Replace all those who do not explicitly want to do the work in animal research.

2. Reduce the number of people working in animal research to the most necessary amount, while also maximizing animal care. Ensure that staff are highly skilled by providing education and training.

3. Refine animal research professionals’ mental stress by providing support and resiliency advice early in animal research careers. Emotional strain must be taken seriously and given adequate attention, for example, by offering pastoral care during laboratory animal science training courses.^21-22

From the animal care workers’ and animal facility managers’ view, animal welfare and human wellbeing are closely connected in everyday work. Animal caretakers must both take care of research animals each day and simultaneously be actively or passively involved in putting research animals under strain for research. Therefore, it is important to give animal care staff space for their emotions and offer them opportunities to create a balance. In particular, animal caretakers should be supported in their efforts to ensure maximum animal wellbeing, such as increasing enrichment and providing low-stress handling such as through animal training. Additionally, institutions should create supportive environments where caretakers can decide not to perform certain stressful activities (e.g. euthanasia of a particular animal) without fear of losing their jobs, critique from peers or management. For managers of animal facilities, it is clear there can be tension between balancing animal welfare, staff welfare and research interest on a daily basis. In order not to be under strain as a leader themselves, managers particularly need support from their management, especially in the context of safeguarding human wellbeing.

In the second part, the speakers discussed together with the audience (170 participants from the different professional groups in the field of animal research, noted at the beginning of the panel discussion event) the aspects from the keynote speeches on the three key factors and how to deal with one’s feelings and mental stress in the workplace. The speakers’ contributions to the discussion found broad approval in the auditorium. It is clear that all professional groups in this field run the risk of work-related mental stress. Taken together, within the German animal research field, three major areas of work are needed according to the discussants:

• More awareness of the real issues surrounding work wellbeing;

• More resources to prevent work-related mental stress;

• More supportive cultures to promote work wellbeing.

This should be done in a broad approach of supportive opportunities to promote individuals’ ability to cope with emotional stress in the workplace. There is a variety of ways to reach these aims. For example, training individuals in mental health first aid or compassion fatigue is beneficial. Also, working to build personal resilience, for example, by offering coaching and seminars.

Fostering a culture of care in animal research – rethink

To promote the highest level of animal welfare in housing, breeding and use, a culture of care (CoC)should be promoted within every organization (. Culture is the most important and most complex part of any organization as it impacts performance.²³ For healthcare, culture is co-created through interactions, communications, influences and collaborations between the members of an organization; it reflects the organization’s values. Organizational culture therefore includes quality, safety and compassionate practice.

To improve care, it is essential to promote an appropriate internal CoC.²⁴ To build a CoC, an institution should work to create an environment where all people feel valued, including both the individuals being cared for (e.g. clients, patients) and organizational staff.³ Strong values such as compassion and safety play a central role in leading and caring.^3,24 A CoC uses the positive psychological capital of every individual employee, including good performance, job satisfaction and organizational commitment.²⁵ The following factors are contrary to a positive CoC : high workloads including weekends and night shifts, high professional and personal demands, moral conflicts and lack of control or support, and these factors are associated with low job satisfaction, burnout, anxiety disorder and compassion fatigue, which all negatively impact caring behaviour towards patients.^7,26,27 Hence, a CoC must therefore also address human wellbeing in order to ensure the quality of care, but also to prevent workplace stigmatization of those affected by mental illness.^28,29

Relationships with humans are one of the most important parts of research animals’ lives. Therefore, happy, well-trained people are critical for animal welfare to reduce animal stress and ultimately contribute to good science.³¹ Hence, the presence of mental stress and compassion fatigue in animal research is concerning as they affect not only the individuals suffering from compassion fatigue, but also potentially the animals they are tasked to care for. The intertwined welfare of humans and animals underlines the concept of ‘one welfare’, which is a recognition of the connection of human and animal welfare.³² Our German roundtable discussion results are backed up by the existing literature. LaFollette et al.¹⁴ found a correlation between professional quality of life, animal stress, whether an individual has control over whether they euthanize animals they care for and method of euthanasia. Higher compassion fatigue was associated with higher animal stress, less control over euthanasia and physical euthanasia methods. On the other hand, positive human–animal interactions, such as a good quality of enrichment¹⁴ or stress-free handling,^33,34 seem to be important links to promote both animal wellbeing and human wellbeing.^14,33 Interestingly, individuals who reported higher compassion satisfaction performed more often relationship-building human–animal interactions, such as, for example, naming their animals. On the other hand, this was associated with higher secondary traumatic stress as one component of compassion fatigue.¹⁴

Recently a study by Randall et al.¹³ examined the most important work-related factors associated with feelings of compassion fatigue and subsequent coping mechanisms. Extreme or moderate compassion fatigue degree (rated by over 60% of general respondents) was associated with feeling understaffed, having good relationships with animals, lack of coping resources, lack of awareness and training of compassion fatigue, and a poor relationship with supervisors. The main coping mechanisms reported by participants in this study published by Randall et al.¹³ were talking to someone or being away from work, self-care strategies and physical activity.

In summary, it is clear that we need to pay more attention to mental health and work wellbeing, because there is a strong relationship between culture of care and individual performance. Institutions should be committed to fostering a comprehensive culture of care that also places a high value on human wellbeing. To combat three main causes of compassion fatigue various strategies should be employed: improving animal research personnel’s social support, better institutional culture of care and communication, open and transparent communication with the public to improve understanding of animal research, and general support for work related stress. Hence, we need to rethink our 3R concept in a wider way in the progress of fostering a living CoC in animal research. While the term is widely internationally accepted as a commitment to drive and improve animal welfare with the upmost priority, recent publications also suggest that a CoC also covers ensuring research quality, promoting a transparent communication and staff wellbeing.^35–38 Regarding transparency, it will be important to engage more strongly in dialogue with different critical voices in society³⁹ also in events like the described panel discussion. With such a defined code of ethics, the legal and social requirements for animal welfare and animal protection can be implemented. At the same time, we achieve our own ethical requirements in treating laboratory animals. In consequence, a living CoC in animal research implements the well-known 3R principles (replacement/reduction/refinement) from Russel and Burch (1959) as the core element of directive 2010/63/EU and three further principles: reproducibility as well as responsibility and respect towards animals and humans.³⁸

To achieve more work-related wellbeing, there is of course a need to implement institutional mental health programmes that strengthening wellbeing and promote compassion resilience.^16,38 Although mental health is getting more and more attention, it seems that the effort taken in educational means does not have a comparable effect in the workplace. There will be a need for more than the traditional educational concepts if knowledge and content of mental wellbeing is to be integrated into people’s (work-)life sustainably. This means that a far-sighted CoC needs to be developed that, in addition to implementing the 3Rs, also ensures work competences and good work structures. How this can be achieved (best) will be subject to further studies. Overall, we conclude from the German roundtable that there is a need to address work-related mental stress within our laboratory animal science community, and to offer holistic approaches to support resilience and coping.

Data availability

No raw data was collected. The article reviews a public panel discussion and its outcomes. All information can be found in the manuscript. Further information can be obtained from the corresponding author.

Ethical statement

This publication was reviewed by a member of the central ethics committee of the University of Veterinary Medicine. There was no cause for objections with regard to ethical questions.