Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions

Artificial Intelligence as a Replacement for Animal Experiments in Neurology: Potential, Progress, and Challenges

Animal experimentation has long been a cornerstone of neurology research, but it faces growing scientific, ethical, and economic challenges. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are providing new opportunities to replace animal testing with more human-relevant and efficient methods. This article explores the potential of AI technologies such as brain organoids, computational models, and machine learning to revolutionize neurology research and reduce reliance on animal models. These approaches can better recapitulate human brain physiology, predict drug responses, and uncover novel insights into neurological disorders. They also offer faster, cheaper, and more ethical alternatives to animal experiments. Case studies demonstrate AI's ability to accelerate drug discovery for Alzheimer's, predict neurotoxicity, personalize treatments for Parkinson's, and restore movement in paralysis. While challenges remain in validating and integrating these technologies, the scientific, economic, practical, and moral advantages are driving a paradigm shift towards AI-based, animal-free research in neurology. With continued investment and collaboration across sectors, AI promises to accelerate the development of safer and more effective therapies for neurological conditions while significantly reducing animal use. The path forward requires the ongoing development and validation of these technologies, but a future in which they largely replace animal experiments in neurology appears increasingly likely. This transition heralds a new era of more humane, human-relevant, and innovative brain research.

Laboratory animal ethics education improves medical students' awareness of laboratory animal ethics

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we added laboratory animal ethics education into both didactic sessions and practical sessions the general surgery laboratory course, with the didactic sessions focus on teaching the fundamental principles of laboratory animal ethics, while the practical sessions emphasize the application of these principles in laboratory classes and have assessed the changes in medical students' perception of laboratory animal ethics following medical students exposure to such education.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-nine third-year medical students from Wuhan University's Second Clinical College completed a laboratory animal ethics awareness questionnaire and a laboratory animal ethics written examination before and after laboratory animal ethics education.

RESULTS

After receiving laboratory animal ethics education, the percentage of students who supported euthanasia for the execution of animals and humane treatment of laboratory animals were 95.2% and 98.8%, respectively, which did not differ from the 94.9% and 96.4% observed before the education. Moreover, there was a notable increase in the proportion of students who knew about regulations related to laboratory animals (from 39.9% to 57.1%), welfare issues (from 31.9% to 50.0%), and the 3R principle (from 30.4% to 58.9%) post-education, all statistically significant at P < 0.05. Test scores also showed improvement, with students scoring (93.02 ± 11.65) after education compared to (67.83 ± 8.08) before, a statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

This research helps to provide information for the good practices of laboratory animal ethics education. After receiving laboratory animal ethics education, students are better able to treat laboratory animals in a correct animal ethical manner. Laboratory animal ethics education helps improve students' knowledge of laboratory animal ethics. Students' perception towards how the laboratory animal ethics course should be delivered may vary. Still, new courses or better organized courses on laboratory animal ethics education are required in order to provide students an in-depth understanding.

It's Time to Review the Three Rs, to Make them More Fit for Purpose in the 21st Century

The Three Rs have become widely accepted and pursued, and are now the go-to framework that encourages the humane use of animals in science, where no other option is believed to exist. However, many people, including scientists, harbour varying degrees of concern about the value and impact of the Three Rs. This ranges from a continued adherence to the Three Rs principles in the belief that they have performed well, through a belief that there should be more emphasis (or indeed a sole focus) on replacement, to a view that the principles have hindered, rather than helped, a critical approach to animal research that should have resulted in replacement to a much greater extent. This critical review asks questions of the Three Rs and their implementation, and provides an overview of the current situation surrounding animal use in biomedical science (chiefly in research). It makes a case that it is time to move away from the Three Rs and that, while this happens, the principles need to be made more robust and enforced more efficiently. To expedite a shift from animal use in science, toward a much greater and quicker adoption of human-specific New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), some argue for a straightforward focus on the best available science.

Methodological rigour in preclinical urology: a systematic review reporting research quality over a 14-year period

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence and trends of essential study design elements in preclinical urological studies, as well as key factors that may improve methodological rigour, as the demand for methodological rigour in preclinical studies is increasing since research reproducibility and transparency in the medico-scientific field are being questioned.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed was searched to include preclinical urological studies published between July 2007 to June 2021. A total of 3768 articles met the inclusion criteria. Data on study design elements and animal models used were collected. Citation density was also examined as a surrogate marker of study influence. We performed an analysis of the prevalence of seven critical study design elements and temporal patterns over 14 years. Randomisation was reported in 50.0%, blinding in 15.0%, sample size estimation in 1.0%, inclusion of both sexes in 6.3%, statistical analysis in 97.1%, housing and husbandry in 47.7%, and inclusion/exclusion criteria in 5.0%. Temporal analysis showed that the implementation of these study design elements has increased, except for inclusion of both sexes and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Reporting study design elements were associated with increased citation density in randomisation and statistical analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of bias is prevalent in 14-year publications describing preclinical urological research, and the quality of methodological rigour is barely related to the citation density of the article. Yet five study design elements (randomisation, blinding, sample size estimation, statistical analysis, and housing and husbandry) proposed by both the National Institutes of Health and Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments guidelines have been either well reported or are being well reported over time.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022233125.

Mission impossible accomplished? A European cross-national comparative study on the integration of the harm-benefit analysis into law and policy documents

The harm-benefit analysis (HBA) is a cornerstone of the European Directive 2010/63/EU (the Directive). The Directive regulates the care and handling of animals used for scientific purposes in the European Union (EU). Since its implementation, there has been ongoing debate around the practical applicability of the HBA for research project review processes. The objectives of this study are to analyze the operationalization of HBA in EU member states and investigate the consistency of HBA's implementation in terms of national legislation and available policy documents. To meet these objectives, we evaluated the transposition of the HBA requirement into national legislation. We also conducted a comprehensive comparative cross-national analysis of all guidance documents pertinent to HBA. The results of our study show that there are (1) deficits in the transposition of the HBA requirement into national laws, (2) significant discrepancies in available policy documents relating to HBA, and (3) insufficiently consistent implementations of HBA in European countries.

Uncontrolled pain: a call for better study design

Studies assessing animal pain in veterinary research are often performed primarily for the benefit of animals. Frequently, the goal of these studies is to determine whether the analgesic effect of a novel treatment is clinically meaningful, and therefore has the capacity to improve the welfare of treated animals. To determine the treatment effect of a potential analgesic, control groups are necessary to allow comparison. There are negative control groups (where pain is unattenuated) and positive control groups (where pain is attenuated). Arising out of animal welfare concerns, there is growing reluctance to use negative control groups in pain studies. But for studies where pain is experimentally induced, the absence of a negative control group removes the opportunity to demonstrate that the study methods could differentiate a positive control intervention from doing nothing at all. For studies that are controlled by a single comparison group, the capacity to distinguish treatment effects from experimental noise is more difficult; especially considering that pain studies often involve small sample sizes, small and variable treatment effects, systematic error and use pain assessment measures that are unreliable. Due to these limitations, and with a focus on farm animals, we argue that many pain studies would be enhanced by the simultaneous inclusion of positive and negative control groups. This would help provide study-specific definitions of pain and pain attenuation, thereby permitting more reliable estimates of treatment effects. Adoption of our suggested refinements could improve animal welfare outcomes for millions of animals globally.

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.

The 12 Rs Framework as a Comprehensive, Unifying Construct for Principles Guiding Animal Research Ethics

Animal research ethics and animal welfare in science have become progressively tightly regulated, and ethical integrity and scientific quality, as well as social responsiveness and responsibility have become key requirements for research to be approved, funded, published, and accepted. The multitude of factors to contemplate has in some instances not only become complex, requiring a team approach, but often perceived as confusing and overwhelming. To facilitate a process of simplistic yet comprehensive conceptualization, we developed the 12 Rs Framework to act as a mind map to guide scientists, oversight structures, and other stakeholders through the myriad of ethical considerations. It unfolds into three domains of twelve encompassing ethical principles, values, and other considerations, including the animal welfare, social values, and scientific integrity domains, whilst also recognizing the diversity of local context, legal requirements, values, and cultures around the globe. In the end, it can be seen as a unifying ethical framework to foster and promote animal research ethics.

Influence of animal pain and distress on judgments of animal research justifiability among university undergraduate students and faculty

Acceptance of animal research by the public depends on several characteristics of the specific experimental study. In particular, acceptance decreases as potential animal pain or distress increases. Our objective in this study was to quantify the magnitude of pain/distress that university undergraduate students and faculty would find to be justifiable in animal research, and to see how that justifiability varied according to the purpose of the research, or the species to which the animal belonged. We also evaluate how demographic characteristics of respondents may be associated with their opinions about justifiability. To accomplish this goal, we developed and administered a survey to students and faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our survey employed Likert-style questions that asked them to designate the level of animal pain or distress that they felt was justifiable for each of the following six purposes—animal disease, human disease, basic research, human medicine, chemical testing, or cosmetic testing. These questions were asked about five different species of animals including monkeys, dogs/cats, pig/sheep, rats/mice, or small fish. We used the data to establish a purpose-specific pain/distress scale, a species-specific pain/distress scale, and a composite pain/distress scale that, for each respondent, averaged the extent of justifiable pain/distress across all purposes and species. For purpose, students were more likely to choose higher levels of pain for animal disease research, followed by human disease, basic research, human medicine, chemical testing, and cosmetic testing. Faculty were more likely to choose the same level of pain for the first four purposes, followed by lower levels of pain for chemical and cosmetic testing. For species, students were more likely to choose higher levels of pain for small fish and rats/mice (tied), pigs/sheep and monkeys (tied), than for dogs/cats. For faculty, order from least to most justifiable pain/distress was small fish, rats/mice, pigs/sheep, then dogs/cats and monkeys (the latter two tied). Interestingly, exploratory factor analysis of the pain/distress scales indicated that when it comes to justifying higher levels of pain and distress, respondents identified two distinct categories of purposes, chemical and cosmetic testing, for which respondents were less likely to justify higher levels of pain or distress as compared to other purposes; and two distinct categories of species, small fish and rats/mice, for which respondents were more likely to justify higher levels of pain/distress than other species. We found that the spread of acceptance of animal research was much smaller when survey questions included pain/distress compared to when only purpose or species were part of the question. Demographically, women, vegetarians/vegans, and respondents with no experience in animal research justified less animal pain/distress than their counterparts. Not surprisingly, a lower level of support for animal research in general was correlated with lower justifiability of pain/distress. Based on these findings, we discuss the role of animal pain/distress in regulatory considerations underlying decisions about whether to approve specific animal uses, and suggest ways to strengthen the ethical review and public acceptance of animal research.

Existing Ethical Tensions in Xenotransplantation

The genetic modification of pigs as a source of transplantable organs is one of several possible solutions to the chronic organ shortage. This paper describes existing ethical tensions in xenotransplantation (XTx) that argue against pursuing it. Recommendations for lifelong infectious disease surveillance and notification of close contacts of recipients are in tension with the rights of human research subjects. Parental/guardian consent for pediatric xenograft recipients is in tension with a child's right to an open future. Individual consent to transplant is in tension with public health threats that include zoonotic diseases. XTx amplifies concerns about justice in organ transplantation and could exacerbate existing inequities. The prevention of infectious disease in source animals is in tension with the best practices of animal care and animal welfare, requiring isolation, ethologically inappropriate housing, and invasive reproductive procedures that would severely impact the well-being of intelligent social creatures like pigs.

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

ABSTRACT

Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

An African ethical perspective on South Africa's regulatory frameworks governing animals in research

In South Africa, there is currently no legislation that addresses animal experimentation directly. There is, however, a complex framework that consists of laws, national standards, and institutional guidelines governing the use of animals in scientific settings. Consequently, this paper starts by unpacking this framework, both legal and voluntary, in the South African context. Thereafter, it examines some criticisms against this framework. It subsequently proposes that an African ethic could respond to these criticisms, and so unpacks the central tenets of an African ethic in order to demonstrate how it may do this. Finally, it will argue that there are convincing moral reasons, from within an African framework, to significantly reduce, and even abolish, the use of animals in research, and that it should be enacted in legal regulations.

Phase-In to Phase-Out—Targeted, Inclusive Strategies Are Needed to Enable Full Replacement of Animal Use in the European Union

Simple Summary

In the European Union (and elsewhere), the overall use of animals in laboratories has failed to undergo any significant decline, despite six decades of purported adherence to the “3Rs” principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement. In the EU, the 1986 adoption of a legal requirement to use scientific methods not entailing the use of live animals, rising public opinion against the use of animals and the almost exponential rise in development and application of non-animal new approach methodologies (NAMs) signals a readiness to end animal testing. Indeed, the European Parliament recently carried an almost unanimous vote to adopt an action plan to phase out the use of animals in research and testing. This article explores what is needed to make this action plan a success, considering all stakeholders and their needs.

Abstract

In September 2021, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution to phase out animal use for research, testing, and education, through the adoption of an action plan. Here we explore the opportunity that the action plan could offer in developing a more holistic outlook for fundamental and biomedical research, which accounts for around 70% of all animal use for scientific purposes in the EU. We specifically focus on biomedical research to consider how mapping scientific advances to patient needs, taking into account the ambitious health policies of the EU, would facilitate the development of non-animal strategies to deliver safe and effective medicines, for example. We consider what is needed to help accelerate the move away from animal use, taking account of all stakeholders and setting ambitious but realistic targets for the total replacement of animals. Importantly, we envisage this as a ‘phase-in’ approach, encouraging the use of human-relevant NAMs, enabling their development and application across research (with applications for toxicology testing). We make recommendations for three pillars of activity, inspired by similar efforts for making the shift to renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions, and point out where investment—both financial and personnel—may be needed.

Protecting Canada’s Lab Animals: The Need for Legislation

Simple Summary

In this paper we argue that the current oversight system for animal-based science in Canada needs major reform to keep pace with progressive legislation in other nations and to prioritize the replacement of animals as best scientific practice.

Abstract

Canada’s current non-legislated oversight system for animal-based science not only fails to adequately incentivize the replacement of sentient animals as best scientific practice in any meaningful way, but also fails to adequately protect those animals bred, harmed, and killed in the name of science. In this paper, we outline the various shortcomings of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, and we highlight the need for Canada to move towards national legislation akin to that seen in other jurisdictions like the U.K. We conclude that while legislation alone cannot ensure the replacement of sentient animals in science, it appears to be a precondition for significant progress in animal protection and for the development and adoption of non-animal methods.

It's Time to Include Harm to Humans in Harm-Benefit Analysis - But How to Do It, That is the Question

The Three Rs (reduction, refinement, replacement) concept put forward by Russell and Burch now appears to be widely accepted. However, their warnings concerning reliance on animals as models for humans, the insurmountable problem of species differences and the impact of human variation, have been downplayed or even ignored. Schemes for harm-benefit analysis have been introduced, but the focus has largely been on harm to the animals, rather than on the direct and indirect benefit to humans, which is much more difficult to evaluate. Greater recognition should be given to the direct or indirect harm to humans resulting from the current over-reliance of biomedical research and testing on data obtained from animal experiments. That will be hard to achieve in the current climate, given the vigorous defence of animal experimentation by those with vested interests, confusion over responsibilities for regulating animal experimentation, hierarchies of regulatory authorities which require or limit experiments on animals, and exaggerated claims about the current availability of new approach methodologies (NAMs) and relevant and reliable strategies for their use. Those who defend animal experimentation at almost any cost must bear part of the responsibility for the human harms which result. Meanwhile, much greater effort should be put into the development, validation and application of new approaches not involving animals.

Developing Recommendations for Cumulative Endpoints and Lifetime Use for Research Animals

Research animals are important for scientific advancement, and therefore, their long-term welfare needs to be monitored to not only minimize suffering, but to provide positive affective states and experiences. Currently, there is limited guidance in countries around the world on cumulative and experimental endpoints. This paper aims to explore current opinions and institutional strategies regarding cumulative use and endpoints through a scoping survey and review of current regulations and welfare assessment tools, and ultimately to provide recommendations for assessment of cumulative and lifetime use of research animals. The survey found that only 36% of respondents indicated that their institution had cumulative use endpoint policies in place, but these policies may be informal and/or vary by species. Most respondents supported more specific guidelines but expressed concerns about formal policies that may limit their ability to make case-by-case decisions. The wide diversity in how research animals are used makes it difficult for specific policies to be implemented. Endpoint decisions should be made in an objective manner using standardized welfare assessment tools. Future research should focus on robust, efficient welfare assessment tools that can be used to support planning and recommendations for cumulative endpoints and lifetime use of research and teaching animals.

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.

Reviewing the animal literature: how to describe and choose between different types of literature reviews

Before starting any (animal) research project, review of the existing literature is good practice. From both the scientific and the ethical perspective, high-quality literature reviews are essential. Literature reviews have many potential advantages besides synthesising the evidence for a research question. First, they can show if a proposed study has already been performed, preventing redundant research. Second, when planning new experiments, reviews can inform the experimental design, thereby increasing the reliability, relevance and efficiency of the study. Third, reviews may even answer research questions using already available data. Multiple definitions of the term literature review co-exist. In this paper, we describe the different steps in the review process, and the risks and benefits of using various methodologies in each step. We then suggest common terminology for different review types: narrative reviews, mapping reviews, scoping reviews, rapid reviews, systematic reviews and umbrella reviews. We recommend which review to select, depending on the research question and available resources. We believe that improved understanding of review methods and terminology will prevent ambiguity and increase appropriate interpretation of the conclusions of reviews.

Severity Classification of Surgical Procedures and Application of Health Monitoring Strategies in Animal Research Proposals: A Retrospective Review

Animal experimentation has been one of the most controversial areas of animal use, mainly due to the intentional harms inflicted upon the animals used. In an effort to reduce these harms, research on refinement has increased significantly over the past 20 years. However, the extent to which these efforts have helped to reduce the severity of the research procedures, and thus animal suffering, is uncertain. To provide an indication of the awareness and implementation of refinement methods, we reviewed the experimental techniques for 684 surgical interventions described in 506 animal research applications that had been sent to the German competent authorities for approval in 2010. In this paper, we describe and discuss the severity categorisation of the proposed surgeries and the planned health monitoring strategies. We found that the researchers frequently underestimated the levels of pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm that were to be inflicted on the animals. Furthermore, the planned health monitoring strategies were generally flawed. To ensure responsible treatment of animals and high-quality science, adequate training of research workers in recognising and alleviating animal suffering is essential.

The Contribution of Rat Studies to Current Knowledge of Major Depressive Disorder: Results From Citation Analysis

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most severe depression type and one of the leading causes of morbidity worldwide. Animal models are widely used to understand MDD etiology, pathogenesis, and treatment, but the efficacy of this research for patients has barely been systematically evaluated. Such evaluation is important given the resource consumption and ethical concerns incurred by animal use. We used the citation tracking facilities within Web of Science and Scopus to locate citations of original research papers on rats related to MDD published prior to 2013—to allow adequate time for citations—identified in PubMed and Scopus by relevant search terms. Resulting citations were thematically coded in eight categories, and descriptive statistics were calculated. 178 publications describing relevant rat studies were identified. They were cited 8,712 times. More than half (4,633) of their citations were by other animal studies. 794 (less than 10%) were by human medical papers. Citation analysis indicates that rat model research has contributed very little to the contemporary clinical understanding of MDD. This suggests a misuse of limited funding hence supporting a change in allocation of research and development funds targeting this disorder to maximise benefits for patients.

Can prospective systematic reviews of animal studies improve clinical translation?

Systematic reviews are powerful tools with the potential to generate high quality evidence. Their application to animal studies has been instrumental in exposing the poor quality of these studies, as well as a catalyst for improvements in study design, conduct and reporting. It has been suggested that prospective systematic reviews of animal studies (i.e. systematic reviews conducted prior to clinical trials) would allow scrutiny of the preclinical evidence, providing valuable information on safety and efficacy, and helping to determine whether clinical trials should proceed. However, while prospective systematic reviews allow valuable scrutiny of the preclinical animal data, they are not necessarily able to reliably predict the safety and efficacy of an intervention when trialled in humans. Consequently, they may not reliably safeguard humans participating in clinical trials and might potentially result in lost opportunities for beneficial clinical treatments. Furthermore, animal and human studies are often conducted concurrently, which not only makes prospective systematic reviews of animal studies impossible, but suggests that animal studies do not inform human studies in the manner presumed. We suggest that this points to a confused attitude regarding animal studies, whereby tradition demands that they precede human studies but practice indicates that their findings are often ignored. We argue that it is time to assess the relative contributions of animal and human research in order to better understand how clinical knowledge is actually produced.

A Belmont Report for Animals?

Human and animal research both operate within established standards. In the United States, criticism of the human research environment and recorded abuses of human research subjects served as the impetus for the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and the resulting Belmont Report. The Belmont Report established key ethical principles to which human research should adhere: respect for autonomy, obligations to beneficence and justice, and special protections for vulnerable individuals and populations. While current guidelines appropriately aim to protect the individual interests of human participants in research, no similar, comprehensive, and principled effort has addressed the use of (nonhuman) animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, the lack of a fundamental effort to explore the ethical issues and principles that should guide decisions about the potential use of animals in research has led to unclear and disparate policies. Here, we explore how the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report could be applied consistently to animals. We describe how concepts such as respect for autonomy and obligations to beneficence and justice could be applied to animals, as well as how animals are entitled to special protections as a result of their vulnerability.

Animal Research, Accountability, Openness and Public Engagement: Report from an International Expert Forum

In November 2013, a group of international experts in animal research policy (n = 11) gathered in Vancouver, Canada, to discuss openness and accountability in animal research. The primary objective was to bring together participants from various jurisdictions (United States, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom) to share practices regarding the governance of animals used in research, testing and education, with emphasis on the governance process followed, the methods of community engagement, and the balance of openness versus confidentiality. During the forum, participants came to a broad consensus on the need for: (a) evidence-based metrics to allow a "virtuous feedback" system for evaluation and quality assurance of animal research, (b) the need for increased public access to information, together with opportunities for stakeholder dialogue about animal research, (c) a greater diversity of views to be represented on decision-making committees to allow for greater balance and (d) a standardized and robust ethical decision-making process that incorporates some sort of societal input. These recommendations encourage aspirations beyond merely imparting information and towards a genuine dialogue that represents a shared agenda surrounding laboratory animal use.

Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates

Background

Drug development is currently hampered by high attrition rates; many developed treatments fail during clinical testing. Part of the attrition may be due to low animal-to-human translational success rates; so-called “translational failure”. As far as we know, no systematic overview of published translational success rates exists.

Systematic scoping review

The following research question was examined: “What is the observed range of the animal-to-human translational success (and failure) rates within the currently available empirical evidence?”. We searched PubMed and Embase on 16 October 2017. We included reviews and all other types of “umbrella”-studies of meta-data quantitatively comparing the translational results of studies including at least two species with one being human. We supplemented our database searches with additional strategies. All abstracts and full-text papers were screened by two independent reviewers. Our scoping review comprises 121 references, with various units of measurement: compound or intervention (k = 104), study/experiment (k = 10), and symptom or event (k = 7). Diagnostic statistics corresponded with binary and continuous definitions of successful translation. Binary definitions comprise percentages below twofold error, percentages accurately predicted, and predictive values. Quantitative definitions comprise correlation/regression (r²) and meta-analyses (percentage overlap of 95% confidence intervals). Translational success rates ranged from 0 to 100%.

Conclusion

The wide range of translational success rates observed in our study might indicate that translational success is unpredictable; i.e. it might be unclear upfront if the results of primary animal studies will contribute to translational knowledge. However, the risk of bias of the included studies was high, and much of the included evidence is old, while newer models have become available. Therefore, the reliability of the cumulative evidence from current papers on this topic is insufficient. Further in-depth “umbrella”-studies of translational success rates are still warranted. These are needed to evaluate the probabilistic evidence for predictivity of animal studies for the human situation more reliably, and to determine which factors affect this process.

The Application of Humane Endpoints and Humane Killing Methods in Animal Research Proposals: A Retrospective Review

Refinement refers to the use of methods that help to minimise animal suffering in the laboratory. Research in this area has increased significantly over the past two decades. However, the extent to which refinements are applied in practice is uncertain. To provide an indication of the implementation and awareness of refinements, we reviewed the experimental techniques for 684 surgical interventions described in 506 animal research applications sent to the German competent authorities for approval in 2010. In this paper, we describe and discuss the appropriateness of the proposed humane endpoints and killing methods. We found that, when the investigators included humane endpoints in their application, these were often lacking in detail and/or were to be implemented at a late stage of suffering. In addition, the choice of method to kill the animals could be improved in the majority of the applications. We provide recommendations for future improvements, based on the recent literature. To ensure scientific rigour, avoid needless animal suffering and enable an accurate harm–benefit analysis, animal researchers have to be knowledgeable about refinement methods and apply them effectively. To assess compliance and ensure that only those studies in which potential benefits outweigh the harms are carried out, reviews such as ours — as well as retrospective assessments of actual harms and benefits — should be conducted widely and regularly, and the findings should be published.