ENVIRONMENTAL ENRICHMENT IN LABORATORY RODENTS FOR ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY AND SCIENTIFIC RIGOR

FARAH HANIS JUHARI*

*Corresponding author : farahhanis@utm.my

*Dr. Farah Hanis Juhari is a member of Cancer and Infectious Diseases (CAID) and a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biosciences, Faculty of Science, UTM.

Introduction

Rats (Rattus norvegicus) and mice (Mus musculus) represent the most widely used laboratory animals because of their genetic proximity to humans, small size, and ease of breeding. However, the barren cages in which they are traditionally housed strongly limit the expression of species-specific behaviours, thereby inducing stress, behavioural dysfunctions, and physiological alterations. Environmental enrichment, defined as the provision of modifications in the animals’ environment that encourage exploration, social interaction and cognitive engagement, has long been proposed as both an ethical imperative and a strategy to enhance the reliability of scientific results. Nevertheless, implementation remains inconsistent, mainly due to logistical constraints such as manpower and standardization issues.

Welfare Frameworks: Five Freedoms and 3Rs

The concept of enrichment is deeply anchored in established frameworks of animal welfare. The Five Freedoms, initially formulated by the Brambell Committee (1965) and subsequently refined by the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), delineate the fundamental conditions that must be provided to any animal under human care. These freedoms include (1) freedom from hunger and thirst through access to fresh water and a diet that maintains health and vigour; (2) freedom from discomfort by ensuring appropriate housing, shelter and resting areas; (3) freedom from pain, injury or disease by means of prevention, rapid diagnosis and treatment; (4) freedom to express normal behaviour by providing sufficient space, environmental complexity and social companionship; and (5) freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions that avoid mental suffering. Environmental enrichment directly addresses several of these freedoms, most notably by enabling the expression of natural behaviours (freedom 4) and by reducing psychological distress (freedom 5), while also contributing indirectly to physical health (freedoms 1–3) through stress reduction and improved activity patterns. Although initially conceived as broad ethical guidelines rather than scientifically validated indicators, the Five Freedoms remain an influential conceptual foundation for modern animal welfare policies.

Parallel to this ethical framework, the 3Rs principle, namely Replacement, Reduction and Refinement was introduced by Russell and Burch (1959), has become the cornerstone of ethical scientific practice involving animals. Replacement advocates the use of non-animal methods where scientifically possible, such as in vitro assays or computer modelling, while Reduction emphasizes the importance of minimizing the number of animals used without compromising statistical validity. Refinement, the most directly relevant to enrichment, requires that experimental procedures and housing conditions be modified to minimize pain, suffering, distress, and lasting harm, while promoting positive welfare states. Enrichment constitutes a paradigmatic refinement strategy: by facilitating species-specific behaviours and reducing the incidence of stress-induced physiological and behavioural alterations. It improves both animal well-being and the reliability of experimental outcomes. Furthermore, refinement through enrichment contributes indirectly to Reduction, since lower stress and improved welfare reduce inter-individual variability and enhance reproducibility, thereby decreasing the overall number of animals required to reach robust conclusions. Together, the Five Freedoms and the 3Rs provide complementary ethical and scientific justifications for environmental enrichment, establishing it not only as a moral obligation but also as a methodological necessity for producing valid, reproducible science.

Understanding Environmental Enrichment

In their natural habitats, rodents display a wide range of species-specific behaviours including burrowing, nesting, climbing, gnawing, and complex social interactions. These behaviours are not merely incidental but play essential roles in maintaining physiological balance, cognitive development, and emotional stability. The restriction of such behaviours in laboratory environments, where animals are often housed in barren and monotonous cages, has been consistently linked to impaired welfare, manifesting as stereotypic behaviours, elevated stress hormone concentrations, and cognitive dysfunctions (Gordon et al., 2025; Renaud et al., 2024; Francis et al., 2022). Environmental enrichment aims to provide animals with opportunities to express parts of this behavioural repertoire by modifying the housing environment in ways that stimulate activity, exploration, and social interaction. For example, providing soft nesting materials encourages nest-building and resting behaviour, while structural enrichment such as cardboard egg trays promotes exploration and hiding (Figure 1). The types of enrichment applicable to laboratory rodents are summarised in Table 1. Importantly, enrichment is not a luxury but a fundamental component of good husbandry practice, as it directly contributes to both welfare and scientific reliability.

Figure 1. Examples of enrichment used for rats. (a) A rat resting on a hanging hammock. (b) Two rats exploring a treat hidden in an egg carton (Source: Halimi & Hanis, 2025)

Table 1. Categories of enrichment, associated natural behaviours, and expected welfare outcomes in laboratory rodents

Because rodents are highly motivated to chew and shred, all enrichment materials must be non-toxic, replaceable, and subject to routine inspection to mitigate risks of ingestion or injury. While enrichment provides measurable welfare benefits, its implementation requires careful standardization to ensure compatibility with experimental protocols and to prevent unintended variability in research outcomes.

Rat Tickling as Social Enrichment

Among social enrichment strategies, rat tickling has received particular attention. Playful handling induces 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations, often interpreted as laughter, and is associated with reduced fear responses and enhanced optimism (Panksepp & Burgdorf, 2000; Burke et al., 2022). A systematic review of 22 studies confirmed its consistent positive effects on welfare (LaFollette et al., 2017). In addition, tickling has been shown to reduce stress during invasive procedures such as injections (Cloutier et al., 2012) and to promote hippocampal neurogenesis in responsive individuals (Wöhr et al., 2009). Recent student research further suggests that tickling may compensate for diminished opportunities for rough-and-tumble play among group-housed rats, indicating that this form of playful handling can fulfil social motivation and may therefore serve as a particularly suitable enrichment strategy for singly housed individuals (Figure 2) (Chan & Hanis, 2024).

Figure 2. Rat tickling procedure. (a) Gentle dorsal contact applied to the nape area to simulate rough-and-tumble play. (b) Pinning and ventral stimulation, mimicking natural play behaviour among juvenile rats (Chan & Hanis, 2024)

Benefits of Enrichment

Enrichment produces a wide range of advantages that extend across behavioural, physiological, and scientific domains. At the most immediate level, enriched rodents display clear signs of improved welfare, including a reduction in stereotypic behaviours, lower levels of anxiety, and an increase in both exploratory activity and positive social interactions. These behavioural modifications are consistently interpreted as indicators of enhanced psychological well-being. Beyond observable behaviour, enrichment also exerts profound neurological effects. Numerous studies have demonstrated that enriched environments stimulate hippocampal neurogenesis, increase synaptic density, and promote greater neural plasticity, thereby supporting cognitive flexibility and resilience to stressors.

From a scientific perspective, enrichment contributes to reduced inter-individual variability, which is of critical importance for research reproducibility and validity. Animals maintained under barren housing conditions often exhibit high variability in physiological and behavioural responses due to chronic stress, whereas enrichment mitigates these confounding influences, resulting in more consistent datasets. This reduction in background noise not only enhances the reliability of findings but also aligns with the principle of Reduction within the 3Rs framework, since fewer animals are required to obtain statistically robust results.

In addition, enrichment also strengthens the human–animal relationship. Techniques such as rat tickling improve animals’ perception of human interaction, reducing fear and stress associated with handling. This in turn facilitates routine husbandry and experimental procedures by decreasing the likelihood of injury to both animals and personnel. Collectively, these benefits illustrate how enrichment simultaneously enhances animal welfare and scientific integrity, underscoring its role as both an ethical obligation and a methodological necessity in laboratory practice.

Challenges and Considerations

One of the most persistent objections to enrichment is the claim that it introduces variability into experimental outcomes. This concern reflects the assumption that additional stimuli may act as uncontrolled factors that confound interpretation. Yet, accumulated evidence suggests the opposite: stress and deprivation themselves are major sources of behavioural and physiological variability, and enrichment, by mitigating these effects, can enhance reproducibility (Würbel & Garner, 2007). The reluctance to acknowledge this evidence highlights a deeper cultural resistance within laboratory science, where barren housing remains the traditional standard despite its clear limitations.

Practical and logistical barriers further complicate the adoption of enrichment. Materials must be safe, durable, and hygienic, as poorly designed or inadequately maintained items risk causing injury, ingestion hazards, or pathogen accumulation. Because rodents actively manipulate and destroy enrichment materials, frequent replacement is often required, which increases costs and labour demands. The need for trained personnel to apply and monitor enrichment consistently also places pressure on facilities already constrained by limited resources.

Nonetheless, conceptual challenges persist regarding standardisation and individual differences. International guidelines mandate the provision of enrichment but do not prescribe uniform protocols, leading to wide variation between laboratories in terms of the type, frequency, and complexity of enrichment offered. Such heterogeneity can hinder cross-study comparability, yet rigidly standardised approaches may neglect meaningful variation in strain, sex, or individual behavioural profiles. Addressing these challenges requires moving beyond the question of whether enrichment should be implemented to how it can be optimally tailored, integrated, and standardised without compromising either welfare or scientific integrity.

Regulatory and Ethical Mandates

Regulatory frameworks at both international and national levels increasingly recognise environmental enrichment as an essential component of laboratory animal welfare. The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council, 2011) and the EU Directive 2010/63/EU explicitly mandate that animals must be provided with housing and husbandry conditions that permit the expression of species-specific behaviours and minimize pain, suffering, and distress. Within these frameworks, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) play a central role in enforcing compliance, ensuring that any restriction on enrichment or other welfare provisions is scientifically justified.

In Malaysia, the ethical use of animals in research is governed by the Animal Welfare Act 2015 (Act 772), which stipulates standards for the care, use, and treatment of animals, including laboratory species. Complementary to this legal framework, the Malaysian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (2010, revised 2020) provides detailed guidance on husbandry, experimental procedures, and enrichment practices. All institutions conducting animal research are required to establish Animal Care and Use Committees (ACUCs), equivalent to IACUCs, which review research protocols to ensure alignment with the 3Rs principles and to safeguard animal welfare. These committees also serve as a mechanism of accountability, requiring researchers to justify any limitations on enrichment or deviations from recommended welfare practices.

Together, these international and Malaysian frameworks reflect a converging consensus: enrichment is not optional, but rather a regulatory and ethical mandate. The challenge lies in translating these requirements into consistent practice, particularly in resource-constrained facilities where enrichment may be perceived as secondary to experimental objectives. Effective implementation requires institutional commitment, researcher training, and adequate resource allocation to ensure that enrichment contributes both to welfare improvements and to the production of scientifically valid results.

Conclusion

Environmental enrichment, grounded in the principles of the Five Freedoms and the 3Rs, is both an ethical requirement and a scientific necessity. Strategies such as rat tickling, structural modifications, and simple devices like puzzle feeders not only improve welfare but also strengthen the validity and reproducibility of experimental outcomes. Enrichment materials must consider rodents’ natural tendencies such as gnawing and shredding while ensuring safety. Ultimately, well-designed enrichment improves both the quality of animal lives and the reliability of research, thereby advancing humane and robust science.

References

1. Brambell Committee. (1965). Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems (Cmnd. 2836). Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

2. Burke, C. J., Panksepp, J., & Burgdorf, J. (2022). Who’s laughing? Play, tickling and ultrasonic vocalizations in rats. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 377(1863), Article 20210184. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0184

3. Chan Vai Yan, N., & Farah Hanis, J. (2024). Effects of rat tickling method on the development of stereotypical behaviour and ghrelin levels [Unpublished undergraduate dissertation]. Department of Biosciences, Faculty of Science, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

4. Cloutier, S., Panksepp, J., & Newberry, R. C. (2012). Playful handling by caretakers reduces fear of humans in the laboratory rat. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 140(3–4), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.07.005

5. Domínguez-Oliva, A., Hernández-Ávalos, I., Bueno-Nava, A., Chávez, C., Verduzco-Mendoza, A., Olmos-Hernández, A., Villanueva-García, D., Avila-Luna, A., Mora-Medina, P., Martínez-Burnes, J., Gálvez-Rosas, A., & Mota-Rojas, D. (2025). Environmental enrichment for laboratory rats and mice: Endocrine, physiological, and behavioral benefits of meeting rodents’ biological needs. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9, Article 1622417. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1622417

6. Halimi, A. B., & Hanis, F. (2025). Effects of enriched housing in laboratory rats [Unpublished undergraduate dissertation]. Department of Biosciences, Faculty of Science, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

7. Liu, Q., Rodchenko, M., & Špinka, M. (2024). Disentangling developmental effects of play aspects in rat rough-and-tumble play. Biology Letters, 20(3), 20240037. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0037

8. Malaysia. (2015). Animal Welfare Act 2015 (Act 772). Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad.

9. Mieske, P., Hobbisefken, U., Fischer-Tenhagen, C., Heini, C., Hohlbaum, K., Kahrau, P., Meier, J., Wilzopolski, J., Butzke, D., Rudeck, L., Lewyjohann, L., & Diederich, K. (2022). Bored at home?—A systematic review on the effect of environmental enrichment on the welfare of laboratory rats and mice. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9, Article 899219. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.899219

10. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. (2010; revised 2020). Malaysian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Department of Veterinary Services Malaysia.

11. National Research Council. (2011). Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals (8th ed.). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12910

12. Panksepp, J., & Burgdorf, J. (2000). 50-kHz chirping (“laughter?”) in response to conditioned and unconditioned tickle-induced reward in rats: Effects of social housing and genetic variables. Behavioural Brain Research, 115(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(00)00238-2

13. Premoli, A., Pietropalo, S., Wöhr, M., Simola, N., & Bonini, S. A. (2023). Mouse and rat ultrasonic vocalizations in neuroscience and neuropharmacology: State of the art and future applications. European Journal of Neuroscience, 57(12), 2062–2096. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.15957

14. Russell, W. M. S., & Burch, R. L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen.

15. Tivey, E. K. L., Martin, J. E., Brown, S. M., Bombail, V., Lawrence, A. B., & Mendl, S. L. (2022). Sex differences in 50-kHz call subtypes emitted during tickling-induced playful behaviour in rats. Scientific Reports, 12, Article 15323. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19362-7

16. Veissier, I., Lesimple, C., Brunet, V., Aubé, L., & Boettcher, R. (2024). Rethinking environmental enrichment as providing opportunities to acquire information. Animal, 18, Article 101251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101251

17. Würbel, H., & Garner, J. P. (2007). Refinement of rodent research through environmental enrichment and systematic randomization. ILAR Journal, 48(2), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.48.2.124