~~

CHAPTER 1 4

A PRESCRIPTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

ROSALIND M. ROLLAND
Much discussion, little consensus of opinion, and no definite answers characterize the continuing debate over the meaning of the phrase psychological well-being as introduced by Congress in the proposed Animal Welfare Act (1985) and enacted as Public Law 99-148. Primate specialists in a variety of disciplines do agree that currently there is no precise definition of psychological well-being as it pertains to captive nonhuman primates (Novak & Suomi, 1988; Petto, Novak, Fingold, & Walsh, 1989; Woolverton, Ator, Beardsley, & Carroll, 1989). Furthermore, objective quantifiable measurements that accurately reflect the psychological well-being of a nonhuman primate have yet to be developed and accepted (see C.L. Coe, chapter 10; L. Johnson, A. Petto, & P.K. Sehgal, chapter 11; S. Line, H. Markowitz, K.N. Morgan, & S. Strong, chapter 17; G.P. Sackett, chapter 5 ; and S.J. Suomi & M.A. Novak, chapter 7; in this volume). The problem posed by these new regulations will be how to promote psychological well-being when one can neither define it nor measure it objectively. Assuming that regulations proposed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) become implemented, research institutions housing nonhuman primates will have to face the practical considerations of compliance. The requirements for group housing, exercise periods, social interaction, and environmental enrichment will have a major impact upon colony management, disease control, and the design of research projects. Although the objective of increasing the well-being and humane treatment of captive primates is undeniably indicative of a good trend, institution of these
1 29

130

ROSALIND M. ROLLAND

changes may not always benefit the health of a given primate. The costs and benefits must be weighed, and a decision must be made on behalf of each individual (e.g., M. Keeling, P. Alford, & M. Bloomsmith, chapter 8; and S.J. Suomi & M.A. Novak, chapter 7; in this volume).

THE ROLE OF THE CLINICAL VETERINARIAN

Who, then, will balance the positives and negatives and arrive at a prescription for the psychological well-being of each captive primate? As the proposed regulations are now written, it appears that the attending veterinarian of the research institution will bear this responsibility. Section 3.81 of Part 111 of the amendments delineates the specific requirements that must be instituted to promote psychological well-being (USDA, 1990). Individual exemptions from these requirements can only be granted by the attending veterinarian and can be invoked only because of their health or condition, or in consideration of their well-being. Exemptions may also be granted by the institutional Animal Care and Use Committee for scientific reasons set forth in the research proposal. Furthermore, records of social interaction, exercise periods, environmental enrichment devices, and exemptions must be kept by the research facility and are subject to inspection by USDA officials or any other federal funding agency. Therefore, it seems inevitable that compliance with these regulations and decisions regarding the psychological state of individual primates will fall primarily upon the clinical veterinarian. How are veterinarians who work with nonhuman primates prepared to meet this new challenge? Veterinary clinical training focuses predominantly upon the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease. Most veterinary work concerns physical health: prevention of disease with vaccinations, diagnosis of disease with laboratory tests, and treatment of disease with pharmacologics. Although mental health is undeniably an integral component of well-being in general, the recognition and treatment of problems is far less objective (see R.D. Hunt, chapter 3 in this volume). There is no single blood test to measure the state of the psyche; there is no vaccine to prevent psychological ailments; and there is no pharmacologic agent with which to treat victims of psychological distress. Few clinical veterinarians have formal training in primate behavior and observational techniques. Promoting psychological well-being will involve a different set of skills from those generally acquired during even specialized veterinary training. Although the intent to promote psychological well-being may be genuine, the background training and resources necessary for success may not be readily available to most clinical veterinarians. Aside from a lack of formal training in primate behavior, veterinarians will also face a new demand upon personnel resources. Determination of the social

A Prescription

131

compatibility of a group of nonhuman primates requires many hours of observation to define the social dynamics. Detailed records of group interactions and individual social histories will have to be maintained. Fulfilling exercise requirements for singly caged primates will require personnel to transfer animals to exercise cages, keep records, and sanitize these areas between uses. For a facility housing a large number of primates, this represents an enormous investment of personnel hours. Most veterinarians will be facing a considerable challenge to implement successfully these proposed regulations. Implementation will require at least rudimentary knowledge of primate behavior and observational techniques, both for veterinarians and for animal-care personnel. It will necessitate development of strategies to determine social compatibility and protocols for the transition from single caging to group housing (e.g, M. Keeling et al., chapter 8 in this volume). Some objective criteria of well-being, both physical and mental, will need to be determined to facilitate rational decisions on behalf of each individual. An efficient record system will be necessary to document social histories, exemptions from group housing, exercise periods, and social interaction for each primate. Without a significant commitment to provide the resources needed to formulate a psychological well-being program at each research institution, implementation of these changes will be haphazard, at best.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PHYSICAL HEALTH

The requirements for social grouping and exercise will doubtless benefit the physical health of many individual animals. Problems associated with singly caged primates, such as obesity, muscle atrophy, and self-mutilation should decline in frequency. Although impossible to quantify, the quality of life of captive nonhuman primates will probably improve in group housing. For all the potential benefits of these changes, certain individual animals are likely to suffer physically from the effort to promote psychological well-being. Group housing can be physically traumatic and sometimes life-threatening . By far the most common physical problem that I treat as a clinical veterinarian is trauma sustained by macaques in group-housing situations. This occurs even when no changes have been made within a previously compatible group. The incidence of traumatic injuries is increased when new groups are formed or when animals have to be removed and reintroduced into a group for medical reasons, as inevitably occurs. Trauma may range from superficial abrasions to multiple wounds and lacerations, sometimes leading to life-threatening loss of blood and shock. The risk of physical injury may be an acceptable one for most animals. However, even in the absence of wounds, lower ranking macaques in any group experience a chronic physical stress of a different nature. Competition for food

132

ROSALIND M. ROLLAND

and shelter is a given in a social-housing situation, and compatibility may change as social alliances are formed (Chapais, 1988). Lower ranking individuals bear the brunt of the competition and of changes in social dynamics. The result can be malnutrition and suboptimal bodyweights for these individuals. During cold weather in northern climates, if low-ranking primates are excluded from heated shelters, serious frostbite or hypothermia can result (Petto, 1988). Chronic social stress probably has other physical ramifications, such as an effect on immune system function (see C.L. Coe, chapter 10 in this volume), yet to be identified. In some cases, a single cage may be both physically and psychologically preferable to group housing. Restrictions on social grouping are listed in section 3.86 of Part I11 of the proposed regulations (USDA, 1990). Part 1 1 1 states that non-human primates may not be housed with other species of primates or animals unless they are compatible, do not prevent access to food, water, or shelter by individual animals, and are not known to be hazardous to the health and well-being of each other. (p. 33525). Theoretically, all singly caged primates could be exempted from the social housing requirement on the basis of this statement. For example, take the fact that competition for food and shelter and changes in compatibility are to be expected in all social groups. Therefore, there is always the possibility of fighting; socially housed primates are always a threat to one another. Although the benefits of group housing are great, a unique set of costs in the form of stresses and physical risk is inherent in group-housing situations. Social housing and interaction will also affect the efficiency of disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. The recognition and treatment of physical problems is facilitated by single caging and obscured by group housing. Subtle changes associated with ill health such as anorexia, lethargy, or a change in water consumption may be readily apparent in the singly housed primate, but very difficult to discern in a group situation. In general, the signs of disease must be more dramatic and severe to be recognizable in individuals housed in a group. Frequently, recognition is associated with a more advanced stage of the disease process. For example, puncture wounds resulting from bites are often difficult to identify in primates housed in social groups. The injury may not be recognized until the wound has become infected, resulting in abscess formation or a discharge that can be seen. The delay in wound care and antibiotic therapy will certainly have an impact on the health and well-being of these individuals. In group housing, outbreaks of infectious diseases such as Shigellosis and Campylobacter infection are less easily controlled and will involve larger numbers of primates as the organism is passed between members of the group. Even with rigorous sanitation procedures, the use of a common exercise area for primates that remain singly housed increases the possibility of transmission of infectious diseases. It would be impossible to sterilize these areas totally between uses. Therefore, from a strictly medical viewpoint, the singly caged primate is likely

A Prescription

133

to receive better care, as diseases and problems can be readily recognized and treated in the early stages. Group housing will result in a certain compromise in veterinary care to the individual. Although many individuals will benefit from the transition to group housing, others may not fare so well. For example, in the 8 months from April through November, 1989, there were 57 injuries requiring removal from group housing and treatment in the clinic in our group-housed, timed mating colony of about 120 females. Thirty-seven animals were treated and released into the social group without further incident, but eight of the animals (18% of the total number injured) account for 35% of the total injuries recorded. Even though most had had previous social experience, it is clear that at least some of the animals were less well off in these groups of breeding females than they had been in individual cages. Implementation of the requirements for group housing and social interaction will necessitate weighing potential benefits against the potential costs to each individual. At least initially, there will undoubtedly be an increase in physical trauma cases as groups are formed from previously singly caged animals. We have seen such trauma in our new program for group housing of timed-mated rhesus monkeys. Early diagnosis and treatment of disease will be less efficient, which also could increase the morbidity and probably the mortality rate. Infectious disease outbreaks may be more difficult to control.

THE PROGNOSIS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

Even with these potential difficulties, the movement towards providing a more stimulating environment for captive nonhuman primates is a very worthwhile endeavor. Everyone involved in primate research will benefit from healthier research subjects. Adjustments will have to be made in colony management and research protocols taking into account the new housing regulations. An increase in the number of trauma cases, and probably an increase in morbidity and mortality from various disease processes, may have to be accepted. Nevertheless, the goal to improve the existence of captive primates will be worth these costs if it is realized for the majority. However, will compliance with the specific requirements for providing for psychological well-being necessarily accomplish this goal? This system will be difficult to evaluate until some objective criteria for defining the psychological condition of nonhuman primates are developed. However, most important will be the commitment that each research institution is willing to make towards designing its own program for promotion of psychological well-being. If the onus of implementation is merely dumped on the clinical veterinarian with no additional resources to develop such a program, the potential benefits will be greatly diminished. As there is no universal prescription for psychological well-being, new

134

ROSALIND M. ROLLAND

approaches to colony management, housing, facility design, and environmental enrichment will have to be tried. Without the support necessary to test and evaluate alternatives to current management practices, the success of any implemented changes in promoting the psychological well-being of captive primates may be purely serendipitous.

References
Chapais, B. (1988). Rank maintenance in female japanese macaques: Experimental cvidence for social dependency. Behavior, 104, 41-59. Novak, M. A , , & Suomi, S. J. (1988). Psychological well-being of primates in captivity. American Psychologist, 43, 765-773. Petto, A. J. (1988). Fall Fever in Lemur Catta: Near death from an agonistic encounter between adult males. Canadian Review of Physical Anthropology, 6 , 31-34. Petto, A. J., Novak, M. A., Fingold, S . A,, & Walsh, A. C. (1989). The search for psychological well-being in nonhuman primatcs: Information resources. Science and Technology Libraries, 10, 101- 127. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Welfare; Standards; Proposed Rule (9 C.F.R., Part 3) [Docket No. 90-0401. Federal Register 55 (I%), 33448-33531; August 15, 1990. Woolverton, W. L., Ator, M. A,, Beardsley, P. M., & Carroll, M. E. (1989). Effects of environmental conditions on the psychological well-being of primates: A review of the literature. Life Sciences, 44, 901-917.