Scientific inertia in animal-based research in biomedicine

Chemicals regulation and non-animal methods: displacing the gold standard

Regulating industrial chemicals in foodstuffs and consumer products is a major aspect of protecting populations against health risks. Non-animal testing methods are an essential part of the radical change to the framework for toxicity testing that is long overdue in global economies. This paper discusses reasons why the drive to reduce animal testing for chemical safety testing is so difficult to achieve, as perceived by those who are closely involved in chemicals regulations in different capacities. Progress is slow, despite the fact that the ethico-legal conditions for a move away from animal testing are largely in place, and despite scientific arguments for a radical change in the paradigm of toxicity testing, away from reliance on animal studies. I present empirical data drawn from two studies in a European Commission context promoting non-animal methods. The aim of the paper is modest. It is to foreground the voices of those who deal with the science and regulation of chemicals on a day-to-day basis, rather than to offer a theoretical framework for what I heard from them. I offer a synthesis of the main challenges faced by non-animal alternatives, as these are perceived by people in different stakeholder groups dealing with chemicals regulation. I show where there are pockets of agreement between different stakeholders, and where the main disagreements lie. In particular there is dispute and disagreement over what counts as validation of these alternative tests, and by implication of the traditional 'gold standard' of animal testing. Finally, I suggest that the shift to non-animal methods in chemicals regulation demonstrates the need for the concept of validation to be broadened from a purely techno-scientific definition, and be more explictly understood as a demand for trust and acceptance, with more attention given to the complex social, institutional and economic settings in which it operates.

Lessons for the Future of NAMs from History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science

This paper explores what we can learn from the humanities and social sciences about how standards operate in and around science, in order to understand more about how 'the gold standard' can be shifted away from the use of animals in research and testing, and toward New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). These fields allow us to consider potential futures of NAMs as alternatives, replacements, or complements to animal use in testing and research. As we demonstrate, the questions that we pose and how they are framed are as important as the answers that result. Rather than asking how to 'redefine the gold standard', norms and expectations for NAMs must be actively debated and transparently defined. These considerations would be based, in part, on what has been learned in the past from non-human animal models and systems, but also use the norms within the fields from which the NAMs derive in light of the rich broader contexts within which they are being developed. As we argue, notions such as 'a gold standard' are limited and must be replaced by contextualised standards that depend on the scientific, sociocultural and other factors that contribute to our understanding of a particular method (new or otherwise) as 'good' for a particular purpose.

Mitigating animal methods bias to reduce animal use and improve biomedical translation

Nonanimal biomedical research methods have advanced rapidly over the last decade making them the first-choice model for many researchers due to improved translatability and avoidance of ethical concerns. Yet confidence in novel nonanimal methods is still being established and they remain a small portion of nonclinical biomedical research, which can lead peer reviewers to evaluate animal-free studies or grant proposals in a biased manner. This "animal methods bias" is the preference for animal-based research methods where they are not necessary or where nonanimal-based methods are suitable. It affects the fair consideration of animal-free biomedical research, hampering the uptake and dissemination of these approaches by putting pressure on researchers to conduct animal experiments and potentially perpetuating the use of poorly translatable model systems. An international team of researchers and advocates called the Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias (COLAAB) aims to provide concrete evidence of the existence and consequences of this bias and to develop and implement solutions towards overcoming it. The COLAAB recently developed the first of several mitigation tools: the Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing, which is described herein along with broader implications and future directions of this work.

Animal rights, animal research, and the need to reimagine science

What would it look like for researchers to take non-human animal rights seriously? Recent discussions foster the impression that scientific practice needs to be reformed to make animal research ethical: just as there is ethically rigorous human research, so there can be ethically rigorous animal research. We argue that practically little existing animal research would be ethical and that ethical animal research is not scalable. Since animal research is integral to the existing scientific paradigm, taking animal rights seriously requires a radical, wholesale reimagining of science.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05340426.

Why Do I Choose an Animal Model or an Alternative Method in Basic and Preclinical Biomedical Research? A Spectrum of Ethically Relevant Reasons and Their Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Research model selection decisions in basic and preclinical biomedical research have not yet been the subject of an ethical investigation. Therefore, this paper aims, (1) to identify a spectrum of reasons for choosing between animal and alternative research models (e.g., based on in vitro or in silico models) and (2) provides an ethical analysis of the selected reasons.

METHODS

In total, 13 researchers were interviewed; the interviews were analyzed qualitatively. The ethical analysis was based on the principlism approach and a value judgement model.

RESULTS

This paper presents 66 reasons underlying the choice of researchers using animal (27 reasons) or alternative models (39). Most of the reasons were assigned to the work environment (29) and scientific standards (22). Other reasons were assigned to personal attitudes (11) and animal welfare (4). Qualitative relevant normative differences are presented in the ethical analysis. Even if few reasons can be rejected outright from an ethical point of view, there are good reasons to give some more weight than others.

CONCLUSIONS

The spectrum of reasons and their ethical assessment provide a framework for reflection for researchers who may have to choose between animal models and (investing in) alternatives. This can help to reflect on and ethically justify decisions.

Advancing the 3Rs: innovation, implementation, ethics and society

The 3Rs principle of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in science has been gaining widespread support in the international research community and appears in transnational legislation such as the European Directive 2010/63/EU, a number of national legislative frameworks like in Switzerland and the UK, and other rules and guidance in place in countries around the world. At the same time, progress in technical and biomedical research, along with the changing status of animals in many societies, challenges the view of the 3Rs principle as a sufficient and effective approach to the moral challenges set by animal use in research. Given this growing awareness of our moral responsibilities to animals, the aim of this paper is to address the question: Can the 3Rs, as a policy instrument for science and research, still guide the morally acceptable use of animals for scientific purposes, and if so, how? The fact that the increased availability of alternatives to animal models has not correlated inversely with a decrease in the number of animals used in research has led to public and political calls for more radical action. However, a focus on the simple measure of total animal numbers distracts from the need for a more nuanced understanding of how the 3Rs principle can have a genuine influence as a guiding instrument in research and testing. Hence, we focus on three core dimensions of the 3Rs in contemporary research: (1) What scientific innovations are needed to advance the goals of the 3Rs? (2) What can be done to facilitate the implementation of existing and new 3R methods? (3) Do the 3Rs still offer an adequate ethical framework given the increasing social awareness of animal needs and human moral responsibilities? By answering these questions, we will identify core perspectives in the debate over the advancement of the 3Rs.

Challenging Future Generations: A Qualitative Study of Students' Attitudes toward the Transition to Animal-Free Innovations in Education and Research

In 2016, the Dutch government declared its commitment to phasing out animal experiments by 2025. Although a high number of animal experiments are still performed and the 2025 target will not be met, the commitment remains. Efforts are being made to identify levers that might foster the transition to animal-free science. Education has been found to play a key role in the future of animal-free science and young generations are increasingly seen as key stakeholders. However, their attitudes toward the transition to animal-free innovations have not been investigated. The present article focuses on the values and beliefs held by students, who in 2022, participated in the course 'Replacing Animal Testing' (RAT) Challenge, organized by a consortium of Dutch universities. Contextually, students' motivations to follow the course were investigated. The research was based on a qualitative study, including semi-structured interviews and a literature review. Our analysis of the findings revealed that students feel aligned with the social, ethical, and scientific reasons that support the transition to animal-free innovations. Moreover, the participants identified a series of regulatory, educational, cultural, and political obstacles to the transition that align with those identified in recent literature. From the discussion of these findings, we extrapolated six fundamental challenges that need to be addressed to foster the transition to animal-free science in an acceptable and responsible way.

On the very idea of pursuitworthiness

Recent philosophical literature has turned its attention towards assessments of how to judge scientific proposals as worthy of further inquiry. Previous work, as well as papers contained within this special issue, propose criteria for pursuitworthiness (Achinstein, 1993; Whitt, 1992; DiMarco & Khalifa, 2019; Laudan, 1977; Shan, 2020; Šešelja et al., 2012). The purpose of this paper is to assess the grounds on which pursuitworthiness demands can be legitimately made. To do this, I propose a challenge to the possibility of even minimal criteria of pursuitworthiness, inspired by Paul Feyerabend. I go on to provide a framework for identifying the contexts in which pursuitworthiness criteria may promote the efficiency of scientific inquiry. I then spell out some implications this framework has for values and pursuit.