Dataset Information

Anatomical Evaluation of Rat and Mouse Simulators for Laboratory Animal Science Courses.

ABSTRACT: According to the European Directive 63/2010/EU, education and training involving living rats and mice are classified as an animal experiment and demands the implementation of the 3Rs. Therefore, as a method of refinement, rat and mouse simulators were developed to serve as an initial training device for various techniques, prior to working on living animals. Nevertheless, little is known about the implementation, anatomical correctness, learning efficiency and practical suitability of these simulators. With this in mind, a collaborative research project called "SimulRATor" was initiated to systematically evaluate the existing rat and mouse simulators in a multi-perspective approach. The objective of the study presented here was to identify the anatomical strengths and weaknesses of the available rat and mouse simulators and to determine anatomical requirements for a new anatomically correct rat simulator, specifically adapted to the needs of Laboratory Animal Science (LAS) training courses. Consequently, experts of Veterinary Anatomy and LAS evaluated the anatomy of all currently available rat and mouse simulators. The evaluation showed that compared to the anatomy of living rats and mice, the tails were perceived as the most anatomically realistic body part, followed by the general exterior and the limbs. The heads were rated as the least favored body part.

SUBMITTER: Corte GM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8697941 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Project description:Electroencephalography (EEG) is a common neuroscience technique that is more accessible to undergraduate programs than expensive techniques such as fMRI and single-cell recording. The use of EEG can provide undergraduates with firsthand neuroscience research experience without taking too many financial resources away from a program. There are multiple types of EEG equipment that can be used, including individual electrodes and electrode caps. This study used surveys administered to students who were in a neuroscience laboratory course, conducting research, or participating in research in order to discern which of these two EEG setups is preferred by undergraduates. According to average reaction scores calculated from the surveys, laboratory students tended to prefer individual electrodes over electrode caps, and when explicitly asked about their overall preference, a majority of laboratory students chose individual electrodes over electrode caps. Additionally, comparable levels of improvement in learning objectives and the quality of data collected in laboratory sessions were found across methods. Student researchers' ratings revealed a marginal preference for caps over individual electrodes, and all 5 researchers surveyed chose caps on a discriminate choice question. Research participants' ratings of caps and individual electrodes, however, were not significantly different. These results do not point to a concrete recommendation of one setup over the other but rather suggest that either setup could be a viable option. Therefore, we conclude that programs can comfortably decide which to use based on their own needs and resources as well as the relative advantages and disadvantages of each setup. For example, individual electrodes may be better for programs with low budgets looking to introduce students to EEG data recording, whereas electrode caps may be better for programs looking to better prepare students for future EEG research or to perform multichannel recordings.

Dataset Information

Anatomical Evaluation of Rat and Mouse Simulators for Laboratory Animal Science Courses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets