The European politics of animal experimentation: From Victorian Britain to 'Stop Vivisection'

Specialized educational program for high-grade liver injury management: a three-dimensional printed model approach

PURPOSE

The study aims to present a specialized educational program using a 3D printed model for managing Grade IV and V liver injuries. Hepatic packing, a common technique, may not always achieve sufficient hemostasis in these cases, warranting alternative solutions such as mesh liver wrapping. However, mastering this procedure is challenging due to limited teaching resources and the need for repeated practice.

METHODS

A computer-based model was created from an abdominal CT scan to produce a real-sized injured liver model using thermoplastic elastomer TPU-95. Trainees received systematic instruction from an instructor, allowing them to perform the procedure under supervision and independently.

RESULTS

Eight surgical residents at Hillel Yaffe Medical Center participated in the program, with the majority successfully completing the procedure under supervision. Furthermore, trainees demonstrated reduced procedure times when performing independently, indicating improved proficiency.

CONCLUSION

This educational approach offers a simple and repeatable method for continuous training in managing high-grade liver injuries, holding potential for enhanced patient outcomes.

Researchers and Their Experimental Models: A Pilot Survey in the Context of the European Union Health and Life Science Research

Simple Summary

Scientists in biomedical research use models and methods to constantly improve health in society. This research heavily relies on animal experimentation, and in recent decades, research and researchers have been questioned by societal stakeholders about their way of conducting research. In order to inform science policy makers, we asked the researchers about the use of their experimental models and their view about the role of external stakeholders in their work.

Abstract

A significant debate is ongoing on the effectiveness of animal experimentation, due to the increasing reports of failure in the translation of results from preclinical animal experiments to human patients. Scientific, ethical, social and economic considerations linked to the use of animals raise concerns in a variety of societal contributors (regulators, policy makers, non-governmental organisations, industry, etc.). The aim of this study was to record researchers’ voices about their vision on this science evolution, to reconstruct as truthful as possible an image of the reality of health and life science research, by using a key instrument in the hands of the researcher: the experimental models. Hence, we surveyed European-based health and life sciences researchers, to reconstruct and decipher the varying orientations and opinions of this community over these large transformations. In the interest of advancing the public debate and more accurately guide the policy of research, it is important that policy makers, society, scientists and all stakeholders (1) mature as comprehensive as possible an understanding of the researchers’ perspectives on the selection and establishment of the experimental models, and (2) that researchers publicly share the research community opinions regarding the external factors influencing their professional work. Our results highlighted a general homogeneity of answers from the 117 respondents. However, some discrepancies on specific key issues and topics were registered in the subgroups. These recorded divergent views might prove useful to policy makers and regulators to calibrate their agenda and shape the future of the European health and life science research. Overall, the results of this pilot study highlight the need of a continuous, open and broad discussion between researchers and science policy stakeholders.

Scientific inertia in animal-based research in biomedicine

Despite aspirations to substitute animal experimentation with alternative methods and recent progress in the area of non-animal approaches, such as organoïds and organ(s)-on-a-chip technologies, there is no extensive replacement of animal-based research in biomedicine. In this paper, I will analyse this state of affairs with reference to key institutional and socio-epistemic barriers for the development and use of non-animal approaches in the context of biomedical research in Europe. I will argue that there exist several factors that inhibit change in this context. In particular, there is what I call "scientific inertia", i.e. a certain degree of conservatism in scientific practice regarding the development and use of non-animal approaches to replace animal experimentation. This type of inertia is facilitated by socio-epistemic characteristics of animal-based research in the life sciences and is a key factor in understanding the status quo in biomedical research. The underlying reasons for scientific inertia have not received sufficient attention in the literature to date because the phenomenon transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries in the study of animal experimentation. This paper addresses this issue and seeks to contribute to a better understanding of scientific inertia by using a methodology that looks at the interplay of institutional, epistemic, and regulatory aspects of animal-based research.

The Road Not Mapped: The Neuroethics Roadmap on Research with Nonhuman Primates

We have arrived at an inflection point, a moment in history when the sentience, consciousness, intelligence, agency, and even the moral agency of many nonhuman animals can no longer be questioned without ignoring centuries of accumulated scientific knowledge. Nowhere is this more true than in our understanding of nonhuman primates (NHPs). A neuroethics committed to probing the ethical implications of brain research must be able to respond to and anticipate the challenges ahead as brain projects globally prepare to increase the use of NHPs in research. This requires adopting a less anthropocentric focus that includes nonhuman animals within its scope. But the Neuroethics Roadmap represents a missed opportunity to critically examine the future direction of research with NHPs in an ethically-responsive neuroscience.

Attitudes toward animals, and how species and purpose affect animal research justifiability, among undergraduate students and faculty

As members of a university community that sponsors animal research, we developed a survey to improve our knowledge about factors underlying the perceived justifiability of animal research among faculty and undergraduate students. To accomplish this objective, we gathered quantitative data about their general views on animal use by humans, their specific views about the use of different species to address different categories of scientific questions, and their confidence in the translatability of animal research to humans. Students and faculty did not differ in their reported levels of concern for the human use of animals, but women reported significantly higher levels of concern than men. Among students, experience with animal research was positively correlated with less concern with animal use, and having practiced vegetarianism or veganism was associated with more concern. Gender, experience with animal research, and dietary preferences were similarly correlated with the extent of justifiability of animal use across all research purposes and species. Faculty responses resembled those for students, with the exception that justifiability varied significantly based on academic discipline: biological sciences faculty were least concerned about human use of animals and most supportive of animal research regardless of purpose or species. For both students and faculty, justifiability varied depending on research purpose or animal species. Research purposes, ranked in order of justifiability from high to low, was animal disease, human disease, basic research, human medicine, animal production, chemical testing, and cosmetics. Justifiability by purpose was slightly lower for students than for faculty. Species justifiability for students, from high to low, was small fish, rats or mice, pigs or sheep, monkeys, and dogs or cats. Faculty order was the same except that monkeys and dogs or cats were reversed in order. Finally, confidence in the translatability of animal research to our understanding of human biology and medicine was not different between students and faculty or between genders, but among faculty it was highest in biological sciences followed by physical sciences, social sciences, and then arts and humanities. Those with experience in animal research displayed the most confidence, and vegetarians/vegans displayed the least. These findings demonstrate that, although the range of views in any subcategory is large, views about animal research justifiability can vary significantly among respondent subpopulations in predictable ways. In particular, research purpose and choice of animal species are important variables for many people. This supports the claim that ensuring purpose and species are robustly integrated into research proposal reviews and approvals should be considered to be a best practice. We suggest that strengthening this integration beyond what is described in current regulations would better meet the justifiability criteria expressed by members of our campus community.

Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK

Using animals for cosmetics and medical tests has contributed towards a debate based on conflicting interests. Despite the efforts in justifying the value of animals in conducting analyses, this study seeks to elaborate whether or not it is rational to use animals as test subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The value of animal life is at the core of the emotional conflicts that arise when animals become experimental subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The aim of this study is to determine if there are ethical differences in the use of animal testing in medicine versus cosmetics. The research, through review and content analysis of the existing literature, compares and provides the outcomes of using animals in medical and cosmetics tests by examining studies conducted in the UK. The findings of this research indicated that animal testing is considered acceptable in the medical field only if there are no other alternatives, but is completely unacceptable in the cosmetics field. The study also provides recommendations in the form of alternatives that protect animals from cruelty and may benefit the different stakeholders and the society at large.

Assessing undergraduate student and faculty views on animal research: What do they know, whom do they trust, and how much do they care?

Research using animals is controversial. To develop sound public outreach and policy about this issue, we need information about both the underlying science and people’s attitudes and knowledge. To identify attitudes toward this subject at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, we developed and administered a survey to undergraduate students and faculty. The survey asked respondents about the importance of, their confidence in their knowledge about, and who they trusted to provide information on animal research. Findings indicated attitudes varied by academic discipline, especially among faculty. Faculty in the biological sciences, particularly those who had participated in an animal research project, reported the issue to be most important, and they reported greater confidence in their knowledge about pro and con arguments. Among students, being female, a vegetarian/vegan, or participating in animal research were associated with higher ratings of importance. Confidence in knowledge about regulation and its adequacy was very low across all groups except biological science faculty. Both students and faculty identified university courses and spokespersons to be the most trusted sources of information about animal research. UW-Madison has a long history of openness about animal research, which correlates with the high level of trust by students and faculty. Nevertheless, confidence in knowledge about animal research and its regulation remains limited, and both students and faculty indicated their desire to receive more information from courses and spokespersons. Based on these findings, we argue that providing robust university-wide outreach and course-based content about animal research should be considered an organizational best practice, in particular for colleges and universities.