<< All Back-issues
<< This Issue's Table of Contents
ILAR Journal 43(1) 2002
Implications of Human-Animal Interactions and Bonds in the Laboratory
Introduction
Thomas L. Wolfle
| Thomas K. Wolfle, D.V.M., Ph.D., is a former Director of ILAR. |
While sitting at my computer drafting this Introduction on September 11, 2001, my son called from an NBC News office where he works. I had not been watching television or listing to the radio, so his words that the New York Trade Center and the Pentagon had been attacked left me numb. I spent much of the rest of the day watching the televised events unfold as I suspect many of you did. I did not feel like writing about human-animal interactions. On that day of tragedy, I could not imagine that anyone would be interested in reading about this topic.
By the time you read these words, a few weeks will have passed since this tragedy. At that time, I believe that you will be interested in reading the articles in this issue. By the time I returned to work, that belief had boosted my courage and had reinstated my eagerness to share my thoughts about the topic of human-animal interactions in the laboratory.
This topic departs from the many published issues of ILAR Journal. Some time ago, as ILAR Council members pondered key topics to develop into quarterly issues, the idea for this human-animal bond topic emerged slowly and then took wings! Some were hesitant about it; others were enthusiastic. The more we thought about it in relation to research animals, rather than the more traditional articles on bonding to pets, the more convinced we became of the importance of the topic to members of institutional animal care and use committees and the research institutions using animals.
During the 1980s while at the National Institutes of Health (NIH1), I also had thoughts about this topic. I was involved with several excellent human-animal bond programs. I considered my good friend Dr. Leo Bustad to be the Father of this movement in the United States, and I sought every opportunity to hear him speak. Probably through his influence, I began to consider the role of animals in human health in a broad context. The emerging literature suggested that pets had beneficial affects on humans, including possibly lowering blood pressure. If pets benefit people in this way, why should we not examine how research animals affect the people who work with them--and how that effect, in turn, might influence the research itself? If research animals benefit human health by their use in medical research, as certainly thought, should NIH perhaps host an international conference to examine the "Health Benefits of Pets"? Indeed, with great cooperation from the NIH leadership, a conference on this topic was held (NIH 1987). It added prestige to those who felt so strongly about the beneficial effects of human-animal bonds. It did little, however, to explain the liability of such a bond fully. Contributors in this issue do address the downsides of bonds in the research environment.
The relationship between animals and the research people who interact with them is not described--or dismissed--easily, as you will learn from the manuscripts that follow. The very fact that a "bond" exists between human and animal means that there has been a close and mutually meaningful relationship. However, that relationship comes at considerable cost. In addition to laboratory animal workers' numerous physical risks (e.g., allergy, bites, and scratches), there are other risks less easily described. These risks include feelings of affected persons, such as anger at those who have to use and kill animals in research and betrayal by those who trained them to be good observers of animals, which resulted in a fondness, attachment, or bond with the animals.
Ironically, the people who feel so deeply are among the best, and most devoted, to their jobs. Not surprisingly, many of these people are animal care personnel whose job it is to attend to the animals daily. These caregivers often are first to observe the subtle effects of research protocols. They are a key component of the research team yet often feel alienated. What can a research establishment do for these highly motivated employees? Or, are such feelings inappropriate in a research environment? In the long run, does it even matter to the people or to the animals whether these "casual" relationships come and go? The goal, after all, is to produce good research, not to encourage or discourage such extracurricular relationships!
As a young Air Force officer some 40 yr ago, I was encouraged not to assign names to the many rhesus monkeys in my charge. I was admonished that the animals are research subjects, not pets. The concern was that having names for the animals might blur this distinction between a research subject and a pet. I understood, but I had a dilemma. Part of our job was to assess subtle changes in those animals that might be important to the investigators. Another part of the job required daily observations of the breeding colony, pairing animals to mate on time, and generally trying to maintain harmony. In each of these duties, it did not seem possible to remain distant--emotionally isolated--from the animals. In fact, the inevitable closeness that resulted from those intimate interactions was precisely what made us capable of doing what we were asked to do. Yet most, but not all, animals had numbers--F49, A12, Z13--hanging on their cage doors. Eventually, we all came to know that F49 was Sam, A12 was Rosie, and Z13 was Curious. Was the naming of the animals the cause of the inevitable attachments that formed? On the contrary, such attachments are the result of compassionate people doing their job right.
During the 1970s and 1980s, most facilities underwent similar "job schizophrenia"; numbers were in the records but names began appearing on the lips. A change in this behavior was not caused by--but most certainly was affected by--language in the Animal Welfare Regulations. The very term "psychological well-being," which referred to nonhuman primate welfare, caused quite a stir. Many people rejected knowing anything about the "psyche" of monkeys and continued to maintain an emotional distance from the animals. Others, however, saw the inclusion of this term as little different from what they were doing, and it provided them an institutional blessing that had been lacking. In addition, it accelerated a very important process that had begun behind the scenes some decades earlier. In celebration of the animals' newly found status, individuals were giving names first to primates and then to dogs, cats, rabbits, cows, and other research animals. With this status, along with the enhanced attention to the psychological well-being of primates and the general welfare of all research animals, came the inevitable bonding between the care staff and the animals.
Such bonding is not universal. I recently worked with a highly respected investigator whose mice were "reagents"--hairy test tubes to answer critical questions of science. Did his attitude affect either him or his animals adversely? I think not because he seldom interacted directly with his animals. His technicians and the animal care personnel interacted for him. However, his attitude might have affected them in an important way, as several of the authors of this volume suggest.
These questions are explored from a number of perspectives in this issue. We have tried to present them in a logical order, but in a sense there is no true order, and each article can be read before or after any other.
Relationships between research personnel and their animals differ greatly, just as people's relationships with their pets differ among the general population. Nevertheless, many common (albeit sometimes subtle) elements affect such bonds. This volume begins with a discussion of how bonds are developed with research animals. Bayne (2002) discusses the day-to-day work of investigators and care staff, which affects the relationships. From her extensive work related to behavior of various species of animals, she discerns which work approaches produce positive results, and she discusses some of the emotional and physical risks of close interactions with some animals.
By the nature of their work, animal care staff have more opportunities to experience close relationships with the animals than do research technicians. These staff members offer great insight into the emotional benefit, and pain, of such involvement. Chang and Hart relate these insights through a survey of veterinarians and care staff at the University of California system research centers. They show that many caregivers select their job because of the animals, but that such positions are often emotionally disconcerting. They suggest that the care staff would benefit from being included in the research group and seminars on the research project and being provided options for the stress of euthanasia.
It comes as no surprise to those who share homes with dogs and cats that these animals readily recognize them and distinguish strangers. Research animals also have a vast capacity to recognize people and events that they have learned will lead to pleasure--or to pain or displeasure. Davis (2002) provides an intriguing look at these mechanisms in a large number of animal species. He discusses the implications of this recognition for the welfare of the animals and the effect it may have on research data.
Many animal care staff believe that their work and their relationships with the animals enhance their job satisfaction. They report that they benefit significantly from these relationships. Yet, the same people acknowledge that these relationships entail moral consequences and ethical burdens. Herzog (2002) addresses these consequences with real life examples and an eminently readable overview of the positions of key philosophers on this issue. He also argues that institutions could do more to help concerned staff cope with their conflicted feelings, and he identifies key steps institutions can take.
What constitutes a bond with an animal? Does one have a bond simply by virtue of caring for and feeling great fondness for the animal? What role does the animal play in this process? Do a wagging tail and eager tongue convey a bond? What responsibilities do the human and the animal have in consummating a bond? Does any of this really matter in regard to research animals and care staff? Russow (2002) argues convincingly for the need for a structured definition of a bond, for which she provides a virtual blueprint. She also emphasizes the implicit contract that a bond creates and the ethical problems created when this trust is broken. She concludes with the following statement: "For all of these reasons, researchers must continue to question the barriers that have traditionally been erected against forming HABs [human-animal bonds] in the name of objectivity seriously and to investigate with care the ways in which fostering the formation of HABs can promote animal welfare without compromising the scientific respectability of research."
Most caring people hope for the day when research and testing can be done without the need for animals. But that day has not come, and we do rely on animals for many new discoveries in biology and for evaluating the efficacy and safety of new drugs. Researchers, technicians, veterinarians, and care staff devote their lives to the humane care and use of the animals, and to the search for that day when the animals are no longer needed. In the meantime, we owe a great debt of appreciation to the animals whose lives have been taken in the name of science. This appreciation is not simply an abstract thought but, as Iliff (2002) recounts, has been organized around the world as specific and ongoing tributes to the animals. Her article is a moving overview of many of these formal occasions in which institutions and people recognize and thank the animals whose lives continue to make the world a better place to live.
1Abbreviation used in this Introduction: NIH, National Institutes of Health.
References
Chang FT, Hart LA. 2002. Human-animal bonds in the laboratory: How animal behavior affects the perspectives of caregivers. ILAR J 43:10-18.
Davis H. 2002. Prediction and preparation: Pavlovian implications of research animals discriminating among humans. ILAR J 43:19-26.
Herzog H. 2002. Ethical aspects of relationships between humans and research animals. ILAR J 43:27-32.
Iliff SA. 2002. An additional "R"--Remembering the animals. ILAR J 43:38-47.
NIH [National Institutes of Health]. 1987. Health Benefits of Pets. Proceedings of the NIH Technology Assessment Workshop held September 10-11, 1987. Washington DC: GPO. [Out of Print].
Russow L-M. 2002. Ethical implications of the human-animal bond in the laboratory. ILAR J 43:33-37.