Atuka’s work plays a critical role in the development of new therapies for Parkinson’s disease (PD) and related neurological conditions. Such debilitating conditions remain poorly understood with a huge range of unmet clinical needs. Meanwhile, the number of people living with neurodegenerative conditions is only rising as our population ages. While recent advances in non-animal technologies to help advance research have been significant, some of that research still requires the use of animals. We treat the use and welfare of animals in our care as a core scientific and ethical responsibility, and we aim to be transparent about how that responsibility is upheld.
This page summarizes our Animal Welfare and Humane Use of Animal Models Policy. The full policy is available upon request.
Why animals are used in our research
Parkinson’s disease involves the progressive loss of specific neuronal populations and the disruption of a staggering range of both motor and non-motor functions. Understanding how those processes unfold, and testing whether a potential therapy can slow, halt, or reverse them, or treat symptoms once established, requires biological systems complex enough to model the disease. For some questions, validated non-animal methods are sufficient. For others, they are not yet adequate. We use animal models only when the scientific question genuinely requires it.
Our commitments
The 3 Rs. Every study at Atuka is designed around the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement: using non-animal methods wherever validated alternatives exist, minimizing the number of animals required to answer the scientific question, and refining techniques to minimize pain, distress, and discomfort. We follow the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) for the planning and reporting of animal research. Study designs incorporate both sexes appropriately as a biological variable, in line with current NIH and EU methodological standards, with single-sex studies conducted only where a documented scientific rationale is approved within the Animal Use Protocol.
Active evaluation of alternatives. We regularly evaluate available New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) and Non-Animal Technologies (NATs) — including advanced in vitro systems, organ-on-chip platforms, and AI- and computation-based models — to determine whether a validated alternative can address the scientific questions at hand. At the organizational level, we conduct an annual review of developments in NAMs and NATs to assess whether emerging methods can replace, supplement, or reduce animal use in our work.
Non-human primates. We recognize all animals in our care as sentient beings with species-specific welfare needs. Non-human primate research is subject to a particularly high threshold of scientific justification because of the cognitive, social, and behavioral complexity of these animals, and because their use raises distinct ethical and societal considerations. NHP use is only acceptable where the biological question cannot be answered using non-animal methods, human-based approaches, or other animal models, and where there is a documented, evidence-based rationale for why NHP physiology is necessary. Protocols are periodically re-evaluated against emerging scientific evidence and new NAMs and NATs, with the explicit aim of reducing or eliminating NHP use where scientifically possible. We monitor evolving regulatory frameworks, including the U.S. FDA Modernization Act 2.0, which increasingly recognize the potential for alternatives to certain traditional NHP studies.
Welfare as scientific quality. Suboptimal welfare introduces biological variability and compromises the integrity of research data. We treat high standards of welfare as inseparable from good science.
Humane endpoints. Every study defines, in advance, the objective, species-specific clinical scoring criteria that will trigger intervention, supportive care, or humane euthanasia, with the goal of preventing avoidable suffering. Monitored indicators include changes in body weight, behaviour, and physiological measures appropriate to the species and study.
Monitoring frequency is set according to anticipated severity and increased during high-risk phases of a study. Decisions about humane endpoints are made by a team that includes veterinary personnel, the Study Director, and any research collaborator, rather than unilaterally. The attending veterinarian has the authority to intervene, suspend procedures, require modifications, or mandate humane euthanasia at any point. The relevant ethics committee holds the same authority.
Housing and enrichment. Our goal is for animals to behave normally in the research environment. Animals are group-housed wherever possible and prepared for study through habituation and positive reinforcement training where appropriate. Housing units provide species-appropriate control of temperature, humidity, air quality, light, and noise.
Our non-human primate housing is purpose-designed and socially enriched, meeting or exceeding current US, Canadian, UK, and EU directives, with environmental enrichment, varied diet, and structured behavioural management as part of daily care.
A culture of care
Standards, protocols, and oversight committees only work when the people doing the day-to-day work are trained, supported, and expected to speak up. Animal care at Atuka is built on that foundation.
Our veterinary, animal care, and scientific staff complete documented, species-specific training before participating in any procedure, and skills are maintained and developed through ongoing technique-specific training. Staff at every level are expected to raise welfare concerns and have defined internal routes for doing so. Veterinary staff hold independent authority to intervene at any point if welfare concerns arise, and ethics committees hold the same authority.
Oversight and accountability
Every animal study at Atuka is reviewed and approved by an independent ethics committee operating under recognized international animal welfare standards before any work begins. Depending on the jurisdiction, this oversight is provided by an Animal Care Committee under Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) standards, an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), or an equivalent body, with AAALAC International accreditation where applicable. The CCAC system of oversight is recognized by the U.S. National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare for Public Health Service funding purposes.
Our Toronto facility holds a CCAC Certificate of Good Animal Practice and is subject to unannounced inspection by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs under the Animals for Research Act. Where multiple regulatory frameworks apply, we benchmark against the most stringent applicable standard, including CCAC, ILAR, AAALAC, and EU Directive 2010/63/EU.
Overall accountability for animal-based research sits with Atuka’s Executive Chair, supported by named operational leads at each research site.
Quality and reporting
Welfare matters both because animals are sentient and because compromised welfare undermines scientific validity.
Atuka operates under the Enhancing Quality in Preclinical Data (EQIPD) Quality Management System, which incorporates ARRIVE 2.0 standards and supports the reproducibility and integrity of preclinical research data. EQIPD was developed to address the absence of a non-regulated equivalent to GLP in preclinical research.
Protocol deviations, unexpected adverse events, or unanticipated morbidity or mortality must be reported to the relevant ethics committee within 24 hours.
Transparency
We support thoughtful, respectful, and good-faith communication about the scientific rationale for animal research and the standards that govern it, while protecting collaborator confidentiality and the safety of our staff and partners.