Is it acceptable to use animals to model obese humans? A critical discussion of two arguments against the use of animals in obesity research

Examining compliance with ethical standards for animal research: is there a need for refinement? A qualitative study from northern Europe

Ethical guidelines for research on animals such as the 3Rs (Replacing, Reducing, Refining) and positive harm-benefit evaluations are anchored in EU Directive 2010/63. In this qualitative study we investigated how ethical guidelines interact and/or compete with other considerations when animal research is planned. Four focus groups consisting mainly of researchers involved in animal use were conducted in four Northern European countries and findings were analysed thematically with the support of NVIVO. Practical issues and the importance of doing good science were dominant topics. Practical issues could not easily be separated from the goal of good science. Participants expressed concerns which accord with the core-values of the 3Rs, but in one group they explicitly referred to the 3Rs as a concept. Conflicts between reductions in animal numbers and the risk of creating unreliable results were addressed. They also criticized the practice of using more animals to improve statistical figures to get results published in highly ranked journals - a finding we believe is new. The main conclusion of this study is that ethical values could not easily be separated from the goal of producing good science. Whereas policy makers seem to expect researchers to explicitly take ethical considerations into account, we found that their ethical thinking is mainly manifested as an implicit part of methodology and design. We don't see this as a problem as long as the underlying core values are implicitly respected, or promoted, in the relevant experimental practice.

Recommendations for Addressing Harm-Benefit Analysis and Implementation in Ethical Evaluation - Report from the AALAS-FELASA Working Group on Harm-Benefit Analysis - Part 2

International regulations and guidelines strongly suggest that the use of animal models in scientific research should be initiated only after the authority responsible for the review of animal studies has concluded a well-thought-out harm–benefit analysis (HBA) and deemed the project to be appropriate. The AALAS–FELASA working group on HBA has performed a literature review and based on this review, proposed a method for HBA. Examples of the working group’s approach are included in this report.

Current concepts of Harm-Benefit Analysis of Animal Experiments - Report from the AALAS-FELASA Working Group on Harm-Benefit Analysis - Part 1

International regulations and guidelines strongly suggest that the use of animal models in scientific research should be initiated only after the authority responsible for the review of animal studies has concluded a well-thought-out harm-benefit analysis (HBA) and deemed the project to be appropriate. Although the process for conducting HBAs may not be new, the relevant factors and algorithms used in conducting them during the review process are deemed to be poorly defined or lacking by committees in many institutions. This paper presents the current concept of HBAs based on a literature review. References on cost or risk benefit from clinical trials and other industries are also included. Several approaches to HBA have been discovered including algorithms, graphic presentations and generic processes. The aim of this study is to better aid and harmonize understanding of the concepts of 'harm', 'benefit' and 'harm-benefit analysis'.

A Critical Look at Biomedical Journals' Policies on Animal Research by Use of a Novel Tool: The EXEMPLAR Scale

Simple Summary

Biomedical journals have the responsibility to promote humane research. To gauge and evaluate journal policies on animal research, the EXEMPLAR—For “Excellence in Mandatory Policies on Animal Research”—scale is presented and applied to evaluate a sample of 170 biomedical journals, providing an overview of the current landscape of editorial policies on the ethical treatment of animals.

Abstract

Animal research is not only regulated by legislation but also by self-regulatory mechanisms within the scientific community, which include biomedical journals’ policies on animal use. For editorial policies to meaningfully impact attitudes and practice, they must not only be put into effect by editors and reviewers, but also be set to high standards. We present a novel tool to classify journals’ policies on animal use—the EXEMPLAR scale—as well as an analysis by this scale of 170 journals publishing studies on animal models of three human diseases: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Type-1 Diabetes and Tuberculosis. Results show a much greater focus of editorial policies on regulatory compliance than on other domains, suggesting a transfer of journals’ responsibilities to scientists, institutions and regulators. Scores were not found to vary with journals’ impact factor, country of origin or antiquity, but were, however, significantly higher for open access journals, which may be a result of their greater exposure and consequent higher public scrutiny.

What's Special about the Ethical Challenges of Studying Disorders with Altered Brain Activity?

Where there is no viable alternative, studies of neuronal activity are conducted on animals. The use of animals, particularly for invasive studies of the brain, raises a number of ethical issues. Practical or normative ethics are enforced by legislation, in relation to the dominant welfare guidelines developed in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Guidelines have typically been devised to cover all areas of biomedical research using animals in general, and thus lack any specific focus on neuroscience studies at the level of the ethics, although details of the specific welfare recommendations are different for invasive studies of the brain. Ethically, there is no necessary distinction between neuroscience and other biomedical research in that the brain is a final common path for suffering, irrespective of whether this involves any direct experience of pain. One exception arises in the case of in vitro studies, which are normally considered as an acceptable replacement for in vivo studies. However, to the extent sentience is possible, maintaining central nervous system tissue outside the body naturally raises ethical questions. Perhaps the most intractable challenge to the ethical use of animals in order to model neuronal disorder is presented by the logical impasse in the argument that the animal is similar enough to justify the validity of the experimental model, but sufficiently different in sentience and capacity for suffering, for the necessary experimental procedures to be permissible.