Risk-Based Decision Making: A Systematic Scoping Review of Animal Models and a Pilot Study on the Effects of Sleep Deprivation in Rats

Animals, including humans, frequently make decisions involving risk or uncertainty. Different strategies in these decisions can be advantageous depending the circumstances. Short sleep duration seems to be associated with more risky decisions in humans. Animal models for risk-based decision making can increase mechanistic understanding, but very little data is available concerning the effects of sleep. We combined primary- and meta-research to explore the relationship between sleep and risk-based decision making in animals. Our first objective was to create an overview of the available animal models for risky decision making. We performed a systematic scoping review. Our searches in Pubmed and Psychinfo retrieved 712 references, of which 235 were included. Animal models for risk-based decision making have been described for rodents, non-human primates, birds, pigs and honey-bees. We discuss task designs and model validity. Our second objective was to apply this knowledge and perform a pilot study on the effect of sleep deprivation. We trained and tested male Wistar rats on a probability discounting task; a “safe” lever always resulted in 1 reward, a “risky” lever resulted in 4 or no rewards. Rats adapted their preferences to variations in reward probabilities (p < 0.001), but 12 h of sleep deprivation during the light phase did not clearly alter risk preference (p = 0.21).

Dilemmas in the Management of Liminal Rodents-Attitudes of Dutch Pest Controllers

Simple Summary

Most people think the welfare of non-human animals matters. However, when it comes to rats and mice labeled as ‘pests’, welfare generally appears less important. Together with stakeholders in the field of pest management, we are working to develop a framework for less harmful rodent control that can be used by pest controllers. An online survey was carried out in order to find out to what extent Dutch pest controllers take the welfare of rats and mice into account as part of their profession. Our findings show that respondents pay attention to animal welfare and believe that some methods used cause severe animal suffering. Also, they think there are situations in which more attention for preventive methods (e.g., cleaning, removing food sources, or closing holes in a building) benefits both humans and pest animals. They indicate, however, that it is sometimes hard to include animal welfare in their work. An important reason for this is that clients do not always want to invest sufficient money in prevention. The findings of this study are useful for further conversations with pest controllers and their clients on how to safeguard animal welfare. Furthermore, they are relevant to the framework we are developing.

Abstract

When non-human animals are labeled as ‘pests’, their moral status and welfare seem relatively unimportant. In a multi-stakeholder project, we develop an assessment frame for a more responsible rodent management that includes animal welfare. An online survey among 129 Dutch pest controllers was carried out in order to find out more about pest controllers’ attitudes about animal welfare. Respondents indicate to consider animal welfare in their job. They see differences in the welfare impact of different rodent control methods. A dilemma may occur when methods with a high impact, such as rodenticides, are ofttimes used in practice. Respondents also indicate that in different real-life scenarios (the hospital kitchen vs. the private backyard), a different weight may be attributed to the importance of animal welfare. Almost half of the respondents encounter difficulties when weighing animals against human interests. The problems are mainly related to clients who are not willing to invest sufficient money in preventive methods, where respondents do believe in. Some differences were found between respondents depending on membership of a professional association for pest controllers. The results of this study are relevant input for focus groups with pest controllers and their clients and for the development of the aforementioned assessment frame.