Animal Model Research: The Apples and Oranges Quandary

In this paper, I explore the premises underlying the problem of the evaluation of animal models. I argue that the presence of similarities and differences between the model and the modelled, although historically and currently a dominant antinomy framing evaluation, is not a bottom-line consideration. What is critical is 1) whether we learn and 2) whether we improve treatment through the animal model research. Similarity between model and modelled and the closely related concept of validity are not coterminus with these critical evaluative measures. In fact, differences between the model and modelled also can provide impetus to new understanding and treatment innovations. The apples and oranges argument — that model and modelled are incommensurable — whether based on theoretical or empirical grounds, is not an adequate critique. Continuing argument that relies heavily on similarities versus differences is unconstructive, reducing to the proverbial half-empty/half-full bottle argument.

Levels of citation of nonhuman animal studies conducted at a Canadian research hospital

The publication of scientific articles that receive few or no citations raises questions of the appropriate use of resources as well as ethics. In the case of animal research, the ethics issue extends beyond human patients to nonhuman animals, as the research subjects them to pain and, typically, to death. This study is a citation analysis of animal research conducted at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children (HSC). Of the 594 publications (1990 to 1995) on animal research by affiliates of HSC, 29% received fewer than 10 citations in a 10-year period. We compare the research history of 13 "best" and 13 "worst" HSC scientists. Worst researchers continue to do infrequently cited research. Recommendations indicate how institutions and researchers can become more effective and accountable.