What is a Culture of Care?

Culture of Care in the context of laboratory animals refers to an approach in which all individuals — including animals, staff and other stakeholders — are valued, respected and cared for. It means following animal welfare guidelines and applying the 3Rs by, for example, introducing replacement methods, implementing strategies to minimise animal surplus and sharing tissues, and ongoing refinement of humane endpoints. It also covers staff, by ensuring the well-being of individuals caring for laboratory animals and those using them for experiments. It implies transparency throughout the process and the generation of high-quality experimental data. Culture of Care is an all-encompassing concept and needs everyone’s participation to be successful. 

Evaluating the Culture of Care in a given institution can be a way of ensuring its culture vision in terms of animal care and use is on the ‘right path’. It’s also a vital tool for identifying shortcomings in current practices and determining areas that require further improvement. Even though managers play a role in Culture of Care, it’s the laboratory animal care staff (e.g. technicians) who have close and frequent contact with the animals.  

They are the first responders to the needs of laboratory animals. In addition to routine care like feeding and cleaning, they also monitor the animals’ welfare. Thus, they are in the ideal position to detect and raise issues promptly. Laboratory animal care staff are the foundation on which Culture of Care can be established and built on.  

The role of animal care staff in a Culture of Care

A study published in ATLA set out to determine the Culture of Care at Sri Lankan animal facilities by sending a questionnaire to all of the country’s institutions. Due to the importance of laboratory animal care staff, the study focused on their opinions to assess the Culture of Care in the respective animal facilities. The 24 participants in this study (from over 80% of Sri Lankan laboratory animal facilities) were recruited while attending a free workshop on laboratory animal science and Culture of Care.  

Participants in the survey were then invited to join in a roundtable discussion to expand on some of the topics. This study used a matrix (referred to as the ‘Capability Maturity Model’) that some of the authors had previously published in ATLA. According to this model, the Culture of Care can be scored on a scale with five levels reflecting Culture of Care: 

Level 1:

In the first stage, there is no awareness of the concept of Culture of Care.  

Animal welfare is seen as a legal requirement, but without commitment from leadership. There are no clear processes to ensure compliance, and animal welfare is not recognised as a ‘business risk’. It can include financial/legal risks (e.g. fines, loss of funding), reputational (e.g. media coverage, loss of public trust) and personnel (e.g. high staff turnover). Responsibility is wrongly assumed to lie with the veterinarians.  

Frontline staff and investigators generally show low engagement, leading to preventable incidents being dismissed as inevitable.  

Level 2:

In the second stage, individuals become aware of the CoC concept. However, they respond primarily in a reactive manner. Animal welfare is broadly acknowledged but viewed in the context of compliance with legislation. It is often perceived as a business risk, which leads to some investment in prevention. Incidents are increasingly viewed as avoidable (the institution’s incident rate tends to be average), but the overall approach remains reactive, with staff responding to events as they occur.  

Level 3:

In the third stage, there is a broader awareness but an incomplete understanding of the Culture of Care concept. There’s a well-established system, with staff viewing animal welfare as a personal and moral duty, rather than just a legal obligation.  

Animals are treated with respect, and welfare incidents are consistently low. Leadership is active, staff are well-trained, and managers understand that many welfare issues stem from management decisions. A significant number of frontline personnel collaborate with management to make improvements.  

Performance is closely monitored, with data used effectively. Animal welfare programmes align with Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) international standards, regardless of the institution’s accreditation status. 

Level 4:

In the fourth stage, deliberate efforts are made to embed a Culture of Care, supported by appropriate systems, dedicated funding and qualified personnel.  

Most staff view animal welfare as a moral, scientific and economic priority. Supportive and engaged leadership is evident throughout the institution, and staff feel comfortable expressing and sharing their values on the subject. Prevention measures and ongoing refinement of practices means that animal welfare incidents are rare. The institution maintains AAALAC accreditation and consistently receives reports with no mandatory findings. 

Level 5:

In the fifth and final stage, the Culture of Care is fully realised and embedded throughout the institution. 

What are the barriers to understanding Culture of Care?

The authors found that most Sri Lankan institutions are currently at Level 1, with some showing early signs of transitioning to Level 2. One institute stood at Level 3.  

Challenges mentioned were:

• Insufficient funding of funds  

• Inadequate management commitment  

• Lack of routine health monitoring and institutional animal welfare policies  

• Poor communication e.g. between scientists and animal care staff, networking opportunities  

• Absence of transparent animal welfare reporting methods 

Although these findings might seem disappointing in terms of the national standard of culture of care, this exercise is crucial to identify gaps in current practices and know the areas that need improving.  

The authors pointed out that establishing a strong culture of care in a country where the concept is novel and such practices are not common is a gradual process, which should start with a general understanding of the process and of the structures that should be implemented. According to the evaluation model used, and in agreement with feedback from study participants, progression to Level 2 would be achievable by increasing the commitment of management, as well as promoting staff dedication and animal welfare education. Empowering staff is also a key part of the process, as culture of care relies on a good understanding of each person’s role, in turn encouraging transparency and accountability.  

An interesting point the authors raised is that caring for laboratory animals is not a standard ‘general laboratory’ role, which is the category under which recruitment takes place at most Sri Lankan institutions. A high proportion of animal care workers are believed to suffer from stress and compassion fatigue, and would benefit from the introduction of approaches of combatting and/or controlling it.  

However, unqualified and/or dispassionate staff can cause unnecessary stress to animals while handling them, which in turn negatively impacts the stress levels of co-workers witnessing it. To avoid the suffering of both animals and the staff in general, the authors recommend the implementation of tailor-made recruitment policies to ensure only people who align with welfare-focused values are recruited for such roles. 

Conclusion paragraph from the paper:

“Advancing to higher levels of CMM will require not only enhanced training and awareness, via organisations like the SLALAS, but also a stronger institutional focus on the emotional well-being of laboratory animal technicians, who are often frontline caregivers. Supporting their mental health, recognising their contributions and maintaining a compassionate, inclusive research environment are essential steps in cultivating a sustainable CoC. Moreover, the development of tailor-made recruitment strategies to attract individuals who align with welfare-focused values, along with the allocation of increased funding to support infrastructure, staff development and commitment from institutional leadership, will be crucial in bringing meaningful changes to Sri Lanka’s CoC landscape.”