Opinion: Motivation by restriction?

In 2015, around 40,000 animal experiments were carried out in the Netherlands for the benefit of research into the brain and the nervous system. Part of this neurocognitive research focuses on gaining insights into the activity of functioning brains, for example, to better understand neurological processes and disorders, and to develop new treatments.  To motivate the animals in this research to repeatedly perform certain tasks within a certain time interval, their access to water or food is restricted. Food or water is then given as a reward after the animal has correctly performed a behavioural task or activity.

Because this research method raised both public and political concerns, the then State Secretary for Economic Affairs asked the NCad in 2016 to provide advice on this matter. The State Secretary asked us to determine whether animal welfare could be improved when using this method, or whether there might be scope for alternative methods. We were also asked to establish best practices for this research method for the Netherlands and promote these at a European level.

In February 2018, we presented the opinion entitled ‘Motivation by Restriction?’ to the then State Secretary. In the report we give the following advice:

1. Use the ‘no, unless’ principle as starting point and do not apply any restrictions unless there are well-substantiated scientific arguments and/or compelling public interests to do so.
2. Promote the development and application of replacement methods for restriction of food or fluids.
3. Use this framework and Code of Practice (CoP) as reference documents pursuant to Article 10 of the Experiments on Animals Act.
4. Safeguard and – where possible – improve the welfare of animals that are taught behavioural tasks for the purpose of neurocognitive research.
5. Promote and safeguard the knowledge of different motivational methods among those involved. Have the Commission the Central Authority for Scientific Procedures on Animals (CCD) assess whether this knowledge is sufficiently ensured in project applications. Have the Commission the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) monitor that this knowledge is maintained in the practice, for example by using training records.

The advisory report includes two CoPs, namely ‘Guidelines for NHPs’ and ‘Guidelines for rodents’.