Complementary Roles for Systematic Analytical Evaluation and Qualitative Whole Animal Profiling in Welfare Assessment for Three Rs Applications

In all scientific research using animals there is the potential for animal welfare to be compromised, due both to the experimental procedures themselves and to features of their husbandry and management. The Three Rs aim to minimize animal welfare compromise, ideally by replacing animal use with other methods. In situations where the use of animals is unavoidable, care is taken to reduce the number of animals used to the minimum needed to achieve the desired outcome and to refine interventions in ways that minimize actual or potential negative impacts on animal welfare (Russell and Burch, 1959). In order to successfully implement refinement strategies, indicators of animal welfare are required. The first step is a prospective evaluation of the potential negative welfare impacts of the scientific and associated husbandry procedures. Once these have been identified, specific mitigation strategies (refinement) can be developed to address them. Following implementation of refinement strategies, a retrospective evaluation of the actual welfare impacts is required to appraise their success. Two complementary approaches to animal welfare assessment are available to assist in successful Three Rs application. They are Systematic Analytical Evaluation (SAE) and Whole Animal Profiling (WAP), the former having strongly quantitative elements related to measurement of functional indices and the latter a strongly qualitative orientation towards assessment of animal demeanor and behavior. Quantitative (SAE) and qualitative (WAP) methods for welfare assessment reflect differing philosophical approaches to the conceptualization and investigation of subjective phenomena such as animal consciousness, emotion, and experience (Wemelsfelder, 2001). The focus of this paper is not the philosophical bases of the different approaches, although an understanding of these enhances appreciation of their value, but instead it focuses on the roles that each may play in understanding the experiences of animals. More specifically, the purposes of this paper are as follows: to describe these two approaches, to identify their strengths and weaknesses and the situations in which each approach may be most valuable, and to highlight the complementarity of the two systems for comprehensively assessing animal welfare.