Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) can make a difference in biodiversity conservation. Their application, however, can create risks and raise ethical issues that need addressing. Unfortunately, there is a lack of attention to the topic in the scientific literature and, to our knowledge, there is no tool for the ethical assessment of ARTs in the context of conservation that has been described. This paper reports the first applications of the Ethical Assessment Tool (ETHAS) to trans-rectal ovum pick-up (OPU) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures used in a northern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) conservation project. The ETHAS consists of two checklists, the Ethical Evaluation Sheet and the Ethical Risk Assessment, and is specifically customized for each ART procedure. It provides an integrated, multilevel and standardized self-assessment of the procedure under scrutiny, generating an ethical acceptability ranking (totally, partially, not acceptable) and a risk rank (low, medium, high), and, hence, allows for implementing measures to address or manage issues beforehand. The application of the ETHAS to the procedures performed on the northern white rhinoceros was effective in ensuring a high standard of procedures, contributing to the acceptability and improved communication among the project's partners. In turn, the tool itself was also refined through an iterative consultation process between experts and stakeholders.

Avantea Foundation 26100 Cremona Italy

Avantea Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies 26100 Cremona Italy

Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science University of Padua 35020 Padua Italy

Department of Reproduction Management Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research D 10315 Berlin Germany

Department of Veterinary Medical Science University of Bologna 40064 Bologna Italy

Ethics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine Conservation and Animal Welfare University of Padua 35020 Padua Italy

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Free University of Berlin D 14195 Berlin Germany

Kenya Wildlife Service Nairobi 00100 Kenya

Ol Pejeta Wildlife Conservancy Nanyuki 10400 Kenya

Science Communication Science Management Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research D 10315 Berlin Germany

ZOO Dvůr Králové 54401 Dvůr Králové nad Labem Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Ceballos G., Ehrlich P.R., Raven P.H. Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2020;117:13596–13602. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1922686117. PubMed DOI PMC

Dirzo R., Young H.S., Galetti M., Ceballos G., Isaac N.J.B., Collen B. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science. 2014;345:401–406. doi: 10.1126/science.1251817. PubMed DOI

Comizzoli P., Holt W.V. Breakthroughs and new horizons in reproductive biology of rare and endangered animal species. Biol. Reprod. 2019;101:514–525. doi: 10.1093/biolre/ioz031. PubMed DOI

Herrick J.R. Assisted reproductive technologies for endangered species conservation: Developing sophisticated protocols with limited access to animals with unique reproductive mechanisms. Bio. Reprod. 2019;100:1158–1170. doi: 10.1093/biolre/ioz025. PubMed DOI

Comizzoli P. Biotechnologies for wildlife fertility preservation. Anim. Front. 2015;5:73–78. doi: 10.2527/af.2015-0011. DOI

Lueders I., Allen W.T. Managed wildlife breeding-an undervalued conservation tool? Theriogenology. 2020;150:48–54. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.01.058. PubMed DOI

Comizzoli P. Biobanking and fertility preservation for rare and endangered species. Anim. Reprod. 2017;14:30–33. doi: 10.21451/1984-3143-AR889. DOI

Goszczynski D.E., Denicol A.C., Ross P.J. Gametes from stem cells: Status and applications in animal reproduction. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2019;54:22–31. doi: 10.1111/rda.13503. PubMed DOI

Shenfield F. Ethical and legal perspectives of assisted reproductive technology. In: Jauniaux E.R.M., Rizk B.R.M.B., editors. Pregnancy After Assisted Reproductive Technology. Cambridge University; Cambridge, UK: 2012. pp. 182–191.

Fasouliotis S.J., Schenker J.G. Ethics and assisted reproduction. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2000;90:171–180. doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(00)00271-2. PubMed DOI

Ryder O.A., Friese C., Greely H.T., Sandler R., Saragusty J., Durrant B.S., Redford K.H. Exploring the limits of saving a subspecies: The ethics and social dynamics of restoring northern white rhinos (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) Conserv. Sci. Pr. 2020;2 doi: 10.1111/csp2.241. DOI

Farstad W.K. Ethics in animal breeding. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2018;53:4–13. doi: 10.1111/rda.13335. PubMed DOI

Swart J.A.A. Ethical Issues of Technologies Used for Animal Breeding. In: Kaplan D.M., editor. Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Volume 1. Springer; Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 2014. pp. 2338–2345. DOI

Hansen P.J. Implications of Assisted Reproductive Technologies for Pregnancy Outcomes in Mammals. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2020;8:395–413. doi: 10.1146/annurev-animal-021419-084010. PubMed DOI

Comizzoli P., Mermillod P., Mauget R. Reproductive biotechnologies for endangered mammalian species. Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 2000;40:493–504. doi: 10.1051/rnd:2000113. PubMed DOI

Monfort S.L. “Mayday mayday mayday”, the millennium ark is sinking! Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2014;753:15–31. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-820-2_2. PubMed DOI

Huesemann M., Huesemann J. Techno-Fix: Why Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment–Michael Huesemann, Joyce Huesemann. New Society Publishers; Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: 2011.

Campbell M.L.H., Sandøe P. Welfare in horse breeding. Veter- Rec. 2015;176:436–440. doi: 10.1136/vr.102814. PubMed DOI PMC

Petyim S., Båge R., Madej A., Larsson B. Ovum Pick-up in Dairy Heifers: Does it Affect Animal Well-being? Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2007;42:623–632. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00833.x. PubMed DOI

Greggor A.L., Vicino G.A., Swaisgood R.R., Fidgett A., Brenner D., Kinney M.E., Farabaugh S., Masuda B., Lamberski N. Animal Welfare in Conservation Breeding: Applications and Challenges. Front. Veter- Sci. 2018;5:323. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00323. PubMed DOI PMC

European Commission Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes. Official Journal of the European Union. [(accessed on 14 January 2021)];2010 Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0063.

Murray N. Handbook on Import Risk Analysis for Animals and Animal Products Volume 2. Quantitative Risk Assessment. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE); Paris, France: 2004.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) Guidance on Risk Assessment for Animal Welfare. EFSA J. 2012;10:2513. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. DOI

Doorn N. The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards. Risk Anal. 2014;35:354–360. doi: 10.1111/risa.12293. PubMed DOI

European Commission Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. Comm. Eur. Commun. 2000:1–28.

European Commission H2020 Programme Guidance—How to Complete Your Ethics Self-Assessment. Version 6.1. [(accessed on 14 January 2021)];2019 Feb 4;:1–41. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/ethics/h2020_hi_ethics-self-assess_en.pdf.

McKenna L., Gray R. The importance of ethics in research publications. Collegian. 2018;25:147–148. doi: 10.1016/j.colegn.2018.02.006. DOI

Cooney R. The Precautionary Principle in Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource Management. An Issues Paper for Policy-Makers, Researchers and Practitioners. IUCN; Gland, Switzerland: Cambridge, UK: 2004.

Hutchins M. The Limits of Compassion. Wildl. Prof. 2007;1:42–44. doi: 10.4004/1933-2866(2007)1[42:TLOC]2.0.CO;2. DOI

Paquet P.C., Darimont C.T. Wildlife conservation and animal welfare: Two sides of the same coin? Anim. Welf. 2010;19:177–190.

Johnson P., Adams V.M., Armstrong D., Baker S.E., Biggs D., Boitani L., Oriol-Cotterill A., Dale E., O’Donnell H., Douglas D.J.T., et al. Consequences Matter: Compassion in Conservation Means Caring for Individuals, Populations and Species. Animals. 2019;9:1115. doi: 10.3390/ani9121115. PubMed DOI PMC

McMahoniD C.R., Harcourt R.G., Bateson P., Hindell M. Animal welfare and decision making in wildlife research. Biol. Conserv. 2012;153:254–256. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.05.004. DOI

Beausoleil N., Mellor D.J., Baker L., Baker S.E., Bellio M., Clarke A.S., Dale A., Garlick S., Jones B., Harvey A., et al. “Feelings and Fitness” Not “Feelings or Fitness”–The Raison d’être of Conservation Welfare, Which Aligns Conservation and Animal Welfare Objectives. Front. Veter- Sci. 2018;5:296. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00296. PubMed DOI PMC

Harrington L.A., Moehrenschlager A., Gelling M., Atkinson R.P.D., Hughes J., Macdonald D.W. Conflicting and Complementary Ethics of Animal Welfare Considerations in Reintroductions. Conserv. Biol. 2013;27:486–500. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12021. PubMed DOI

Field K.A., Paquet P.C., Artelle K.A., Proulx G., Brook R.K., Darimont C.T. Publication reform to safeguard wildlife from researcher harm. PLoS Biol. 2019;17:e3000193. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000193. PubMed DOI PMC

Brønstad A., Newcomer C.E., Decelle T., Everitt J.I., Guillen J., Laber K. Current concepts of Harm–Benefit Analysis of Animal Experiments—Report from the AALAS–FELASA Working Group on Harm–Benefit Analysis—Part 1. Lab. Anim. 2016;50:1–20. doi: 10.1177/0023677216642398. PubMed DOI PMC

Lindsjö J., Cvek K., Spangenberg E.M.F., Olsson J.N.G., Stéen M. The Dividing Line Between Wildlife Research and Management—Implications for Animal Welfare. Front. Veter- Sci. 2019;6:13. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00013. PubMed DOI PMC

Shwiff S.A., Anderson A., Cullen R., White P.C.L. Assignment of measurable costs and benefits to wildlife conservation projects. Wildl. Res. 2013;40:134–141. doi: 10.1071/WR12102. DOI

Lindsjö J., Fahlman Å., Törnqvist E. Animal Welfare from moose to moose—Implementing the principles of the 3rs in wildIfe research. J. Wildl. Dis. 2016;52:S65–S77. doi: 10.7589/52.2S.S65. PubMed DOI

de Mori B. Animal Testing: The Ethical Principle of the 3Rs from Laboratories to “Field” Research with Wild Animals. Etica Polit/Ethics Polit XXI. 2019;3:553–570.

Hansson S.O. Ethics beyond application. In: Takala T., Herissone-Kelly P., Holm S., editors. Cutting through the Surface: Philosophical Approaches to Bioethics. Volume 1. Brill | Rodopi; Leiden, The Netherlands: 2009. pp. 19–28. DOI

Hansson S.O. Do we Need a Special Ethics for Research? Sci. Eng. Ethic. 2011;17:21–29. doi: 10.1007/s11948-009-9186-6. PubMed DOI

European Commission Horizon 2020%#x2014;Online Manual, Ethics. [(accessed on 14 January 2021)]; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm.

Harley E.H., De Waal M., Murray S., O’Ryan C. Comparison of whole mitochondrial genome sequences of northern and southern white rhinoceroses (Ceratotherium simum): The conservation consequences of species definitions. Conserv. Genet. 2016;17:1285–1291. doi: 10.1007/s10592-016-0861-2. DOI

Groves C.P., Fernando P., Robovský J. The Sixth Rhino: A Taxonomic Re-Assessment of the Critically Endangered Northern White Rhinoceros. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e9703. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009703. PubMed DOI PMC

Cinková I., Policht R. Contact Calls of the Northern and Southern White Rhinoceros Allow for Individual and Species Identification. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e98475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098475. PubMed DOI PMC

Emslie R. 2020. Ceratotherium simum Ssp. cottoni. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T4183A45813838. DOI

Saragusty J., Diecke S., Drukker M., Durrant B., Ben-Nun I.F., Galli C., Göritz F., Hayashi K., Hermes R., Holtze S., et al. Rewinding the process of mammalian extinction. Zoo Biol. 2016;35:280–292. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21284. PubMed DOI

Woods E.J., Benson J.D., Agca Y., Critser J.K. Fundamental cryobiology of reproductive cells and tissues. Cryobiology. 2004;48:146–156. doi: 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2004.03.002. PubMed DOI

Hermes R., Göritz F., Portas T., Bryant B., Kelly J., MacLellan L., Keeley T., Schwarzenberger F., Walzer C., Schnorrenberg A., et al. Ovarian superstimulation, transrectal ultrasound-guided oocyte recovery, and IVF in rhinoceros. Theriogenology. 2009;72:959–968. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2009.06.014. PubMed DOI

Goeritz F., Hermes R., Walzer C., Zainuddin Z.Z., Payne J., Hildebrandt T.B. Etorphine free anesthesia protocols optimized for frequent reproductive interventions ranging from semen collection, artificial insemination to Ovum-Pick-Up (OPU) in four rhino species; In Proceedins of the Scientific Program of the 15th International Elephant & Rhino Conservation and Research Symposium; Singapore. 4–18 November 2016.

Miller M.A., Buss P. Rhinoceridae (Rhinoceroses) Elsevier BV; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 2015. pp. 538–547.

Valverde A., Crawshaw G.J., Cribb N., Bellei M., Gianotti G., Arroyo L., Koenig J., Kummrow M., Costa M.C. Anesthetic management of a white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) undergoing an emergency exploratory celiotomy for colic. Veter- Anaesth. Analg. 2010;37:280–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2010.00534.x. PubMed DOI

Hildebrandt T., Hermes R., Colleoni S., Diecke S., Holtze S., Renfree M.B., Stejskal J., Hayashi K., Drukker M., Loi P., et al. Embryos and embryonic stem cells from the white rhinoceros. Nat. Commun. 2018;9:2589. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04959-2. PubMed DOI PMC

Walzer C., Göritz F., Hermes R., Nathan S., Kretzschmar P., Hildebrandt T.B. Immobilization and Intravenous Anesthesia in a Sumatran Rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2010;41:115–120. doi: 10.1638/2009-0150.1. PubMed DOI

Mora I.M., Langan J.N., Bailey R.S., Aitken-Palmer C., Adkesson M.J., Tang K.N., Chinnadurai S.K., Chinnadurai C.K. Repeated anesthesia in a black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) to manage upper respiratory obstruction. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2018;49:1041–1046. doi: 10.1638/2018-0095.1. PubMed DOI

Atkinson M.W., Hull B., Gandolf A.R., Blumer E.S. Repeated chemical immobillzation of a captive greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), using combinations of etorphine, detomidine, and ketamine. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2002;33:157–162. doi: 10.1638/1042-7260(2002)033[0157:rcioac]2.0.co;2. PubMed DOI

Winters B.D., Gurses A.P., Lehmann H., Sexton J.B., Rampersad C.J., Pronovost P. Clinical review: Checklists–translating evidence into practice. Crit. Care. 2009;13:210. doi: 10.1186/cc7792. PubMed DOI PMC

Hales B., Terblanche M., Fowler R., Sibbald W. Development of medical checklists for improved quality of patient care. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2007;20:22–30. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm062. PubMed DOI

MacDiarmid S., Pharo H. Risk analysis: Assessment, management and communication. Rev. Sci. Tech. l’OIE. 2003;22:397–408. doi: 10.20506/rst.22.2.1408. PubMed DOI

International Office of Epizootics (OIE) OIE Terrestrial Manual, Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. 8th ed. Volume 1. OIE; Paris, France: 2018. Import Risk Analysis–Chapter 2.1; pp. 67–71.

Hartley M., Sainsbury A. Methods of Disease Risk Analysis in Wildlife Translocations for Conservation Purposes. EcoHealth. 2017;14:16–29. doi: 10.1007/s10393-016-1134-8. PubMed DOI PMC

Ersdal G., Aven T. Risk informed decision-making and its ethical basis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2008;93:197–205. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2006.12.018. DOI

Smith A.J., Clutton R.E., Lilley E., Hansen K.E.A., Brattelid T. PREPARE: Guidelines for planning animal research and testing. Lab. Anim. 2017;52:135–141. doi: 10.1177/0023677217724823. PubMed DOI PMC

Kilkenny C., Browne W.J., Cuthill I.C., Emerson M., Altman D.G. Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research. PLoS Biol. 2010;8:e1000412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412. PubMed DOI PMC

du Sert N.P., Hurst V., Ahluwalia A., Alam S., Avey M.T., Baker M., Browne W.J., Clark A., Cuthill I.C., Dirnagl U., et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2020;18:e3000410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410. PubMed DOI PMC

Versteege L. Best Practice Guidelines for the White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) EAZA; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 2018.

Smith J.A., Broek F.A.R.V.D., Martorell J.C., Hackbarth H., Ruksenas O., Zeller W. Principles and practice in ethical review of animal experiments across Europe: Summary of the report of a FELASA working group on ethical evaluation of animal experiments. Lab. Anim. 2007;41:143–160. doi: 10.1258/002367707780378212. PubMed DOI

Bout H.J., Van Vlissingen J.M.F., Karssing E.D. Evaluating the ethical acceptability of animal research. Lab. Anim. 2014;43:411–414. doi: 10.1038/laban.572. PubMed DOI

Nagoya protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diverisity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; Montreal, QC, Canada: 2011. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; pp. 1–25.

Home–Global Code of Conduct. [(accessed on 14 January 2021)]; Available online: https://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/

Broom D.M. [(accessed on 14 January 2021)];Animal Welfare in the European Union–Petitions. 2017 Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583114/IPOL_STU.

United Nations . Convention on Biological Diversity United Nations. United Nations; San Francisco, CA, USA: 1992.

Jennings M., Berdoy M., Hawkins P., Kerton A., Law B., Lilley E., Reed B., Stanford C., Sinnett-Smith P., Smith D., et al. Guiding Principles on good practice for Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies. 3rd ed. RSPCA/LASA; Hull, UK: 2015.

Grimm H., Olsson I.A.S., Sandøe P. Harm–benefit analysis-what is the added value? A review of alternative strategies for weighing harms and benefits as part of the assessment of animal research. Lab. Anim. 2019;53:17–27. doi: 10.1177/0023677218783004. PubMed DOI

Dolan K. Ethics, Animals, and Science. Blackwell; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 1999.

Laber-Laird K.E., Newcomer C.E., Decelle T., Everitt J.I., Guillen J., Brønstad A. Recommendations for Addressing Harm–Benefit Analysis and Implementation in Ethical Evaluation—Report from the AALAS–FELASA Working Group on Harm–Benefit Analysis—Part 2. Lab. Anim. 2016;50:21–42. doi: 10.1177/0023677216642397. PubMed DOI PMC

Smith A.J., Clutton R.E., Lilley E., Hansen K.E.A., Brattelid T. Improving animal research: PREPARE before you arrive. BMJ. 2018;360:k760. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k760. PubMed DOI

Carolan M.S. The Precautionary Principle and Traditional Risk Assessment. Organ. Environ. 2007;20:5–24. doi: 10.1177/1086026607300319. DOI

Hooijmans C.R., De Vries R., Leenaars P., Ritskes-Hoitinga M. The Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) for improved design, reporting and scientific quality of animal studies GSPC versus ARRIVE guidelines. Lab. Anim. 2011;45:61. doi: 10.1258/la.2010.010130. PubMed DOI PMC

Hooijmans C.R., Leenaars M., Ritskes-Hoitinga M. A Gold Standard Publication Checklist to Improve the Quality of Animal Studies, to Fully Integrate the Three Rs, and to Make Systematic Reviews More Feasible. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2010;38:167–182. doi: 10.1177/026119291003800208. PubMed DOI

Tickner J.A., Kriebel D., Wright S. A compass for health: Rethinking precaution and its role in science and public health. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2003;32:489–492. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg186. PubMed DOI

Hartley M. Assessing risk factors for reproductive failure and associated welfare impacts in elephants in European zoos. J. Zoo Aquarium. Res. 2016;4:1–12.

Hermes R., Hildebrandt T.B., Walzer C., Göritz F., Patton M.L., Silinski S., Anderson M.J., Reid C.E., Wibbelt G., Tomasova K., et al. The effect of long non-reproductive periods on the genital health in captive female white rhinoceroses (Ceratotherium simum simum, C.s. cottoni) Theriogenology. 2006;65:1492–1515. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2005.09.002. PubMed DOI

Hermes R., Hildebrandt T., Göritz F. Reproductive problems directly attributable to long-term captivity–asymmetric reproductive aging. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2004:49–60. doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2004.05.015. PubMed DOI

Cuervo-Arango J., Claes A.N., Stout T.A. A retrospective comparison of the efficiency of different assisted reproductive techniques in the horse, emphasizing the impact of maternal age. Theriogenology. 2019;132:36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.04.010. PubMed DOI

Roth T.L. A review of the reproductive physiology of rhinoceros species in captivity. Int. Zoo Yearb. 2006;40:130–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2006.00130.x. DOI

Chastant-Maillard S., Quinton H., Lauffenburger J., Cordonnier-Lefort N., Richard C., Marchal J., Mormede P., Renard J. Consequences of transvaginal follicular puncture on well-being in cows. Reproduction. 2003;125:555–563. doi: 10.1530/rep.0.1250555. PubMed DOI

Pennington P.M., Durrant B. Assisted reproductive technologies in captive rhinoceroses. Mamm. Rev. 2019;49:1–15. doi: 10.1111/mam.12138. DOI

Walzer C., Goritz F., Pucher H., Hermes R., Hildebrandt T. Chemical restraint and anesthesia in white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) for reproductive evaluation, semen collection and artificial insemination; Proceedings of the AAZV and IAAAM Joint Conference; aa. 2000; pp. 98–101.

Portas T.J. A review of drugs and techniques used for sedation and anaesthesia in captive rhinoceros species. Aust. Veter- J. 2004;82:542–549. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2004.tb11196.x. PubMed DOI

Galli C., Duchi R., Colleoni S., Lagutina I., Lazzari G. Ovum pick up, intracytoplasmic sperm injection and somatic cell nuclear transfer in cattle, buffalo and horses: From the research laboratory to clinical practice. Theriogenology. 2014;81:138–151. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.09.008. PubMed DOI

Boni R., Roviello S., Zicarelli L. Repeated ovum pick-up in Italian Mediterranean buffalo cows. Theriogenology. 1996;46:899–909. doi: 10.1016/S0093-691X(96)00248-8. PubMed DOI

Stangl M., Kühholzer B., Besenfelder U., Brem G. Repeated endoscopic ovum pick-up in sheep. Theriogenology. 1999;52:709–716. doi: 10.1016/S0093-691X(99)00164-8. PubMed DOI

OIE Terrestrial Manual . OIE Terrestrial Manual, Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. 8th ed. Volume 1. OIE; Paris, France: 2018. Tests for sterility and freedom from contamination of biological materials intended for veterinary use–Chapter 1.1.9; pp. 109–122.

OIE Terrestrial Manual . OIE Terrestrial Manual, Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. 8th ed. Volume 1. OIE; Paris, France: 2018. Biosafety and Biosecurity: Standard for managing biological risk in the veterinary laboratory and animal facilities–Chapter 1.1.4; pp. 48–63.

OIE Terrestrial Manual . OIE Terrestrial Manual, Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. 8th ed. Volume 1. OIE; Paris, France: 2018. Collection, submission and storage of diagnostic specimens-Chapter 1.1.2; pp. 11–22.

Lazzaria G., Crotti G., Turini P., Duchi R., Mari G., Zavaglia G., Barbacini S., Galli C. Equine embryos at the compacted morula and blastocyst stage can be obtained by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) of in vitro matured oocytes with frozen–thawed spermatozoa from semen of different fertilities. Theriogenology. 2002;58:709–712. doi: 10.1016/s0093-691x(02)00777-x. DOI

Hughes C. Association of Clinical Embryologists– Guidelines on Good Practice in Clinical Embryology Laboratories 2012. Hum. Fertil. 2012;15:174–189. doi: 10.3109/14647273.2012.747891. PubMed DOI

Magli M.C., Abbeel E.V.D., Lundin K., Royere D., Van Der Elst J., Gianaroli L. for Committee of the Special Interest Group on Embryology. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories. Hum. Reprod. 2008;23:1253–1262. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den068. PubMed DOI

Santos M.J.D.L., Apter S., Coticchio G., Debrock S., Lundin K., Plancha C.E., Prados F., Rienzi L., Verheyen G., Woodward B., et al. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories (2015) Hum. Reprod. 2016;31:685–686. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew016. PubMed DOI

Parnpai R., Liang Y., Ketudat-Cairns M., Somfai T., Nagai T. Vitrification of buffalo oocytes and embryos. Theriogenology. 2016;86:214–220. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.04.034. PubMed DOI

Prieto M.T., Sánchez-Calabuig M.J., Hildebrandt T.B., Santiago-Moreno J., Saragusty J. Sperm cryopreservation in wild animals. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2014;60:851–864. doi: 10.1007/s10344-014-0858-4. DOI

Douet C., Reigner F., Barrière P., Blard T., Deleuze S., Goudet G. First attempts for vitrification of immature oocytes in donkey (Equus asinus): Comparison of two vitrification methods. Theriogenology. 2019;126:261–265. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2018.12.030. PubMed DOI

Hermes R., Hildebrandt T.B., Göritz F. Cryopreservation in rhinoceros—Setting a new benchmark for sperm cryosurvival. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0200154. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200154. PubMed DOI PMC

Anckaert E., Fair T. DNA methylation reprogramming during oogenesis and interference by reproductive technologies: Studies in mouse and bovine models. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2015;27:739–754. doi: 10.1071/RD14333. PubMed DOI

Galli C., Crotti G., Notari C., Turini P., Duchi R., Lazzari G. Embryo production by ovum pick up from live donors. Theriogenology. 2001;55:1341–1357. doi: 10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00486-1. PubMed DOI

Hermes R., Göritz F., Saragusty J., Sós E., Molnár V., Reid C., Schwarzenberger F., Hildebrandt T. First successful artificial insemination with frozen-thawed semen in rhinoceros. Theriogenology. 2009;71:393–399. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.10.008. PubMed DOI

Barcelo-Fimbres M., Campos-Chillón L., Mtango N., Altermatt J., Bonilla L., Koppang R., Verstegen J. Improving in vitro maturation and pregnancy outcome in cattle using a novel oocyte shipping and maturation system not requiring a CO2 gas phase. Theriogenology. 2015;84:109–117. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2015.02.020. PubMed DOI

Comizzoli P., Songsasen N., Hagedorn M., Wildt D. Comparative cryobiological traits and requirements for gametes and gonadal tissues collected from wildlife species. Theriogenology. 2012;78:1666–1681. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.04.008. PubMed DOI

International Office of Epizootics (OIE) OIE Terrestrial Manual, Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. 8th ed. Volume 1. OIE; Paris, France: 2018. Transport of Biological specimens–Chapter 1.1.3; pp. 23–47.

Kaplan S., Garrick B.J. On The Quantitative Definition of Risk. Risk Anal. 1981;1:11–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x. PubMed DOI

Waldram M.S., Bond W.J., Stock W.D. Ecological Engineering by a Mega-Grazer: White Rhino Impacts on a South African Savanna. Ecosystems. 2008;11:101–112. doi: 10.1007/s10021-007-9109-9. DOI

Saayman M., Saayman A. Is the rhino worth saving? A sustainable tourism perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016;25:251–264. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2016.1197229. DOI

In vitro fertilization program in white rhinoceros

Ethical Analysis of the Application of Assisted Reproduction Technologies in Biodiversity Conservation and the Case of White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) Ovum Pick-Up Procedures