Ilar Journal最新文献

Animals play a key role in biomedical research and other areas of scientific inquiry. But public opinion plays a key role in influencing how this area of science is regulated and funded. Nevertheless, scientists have historically been reticent to speak openly about their animal research or to open their animal facilities to the public in any way. Consequently, most of the available information has come from those opposed to animal research. This imbalance has led to suspicion and lagging public support for this work. To reverse this effect, efforts are now being made in many parts of the world to increase openness and transparency in this sector. The authors firmly believe that encouraging more institutions to join this movement, focused on better and greater communication, is essential to preserve the research community's "permission" to perform justifiable studies involving animals. For the purposes of this article, we consider "the public" to include that cross-section of society who may be asked their views in opinion poll studies and who may vote in elections. It also includes other influential groups such as the media, scientists working in other disciplines, animal welfare groups, and politicians who may shape regulatory frameworks. Public opinion on this issue matters. The majority of funding for biomedical research comes, either directly or indirectly, from the public purse. In the case of pharmaceutical research, funding derives from selling medicines to consumers. We therefore all have a vested interest in this funding. Furthermore, legislation that covers the use of animals in research is permissive-it allows scientists to do things that might otherwise contravene animal welfare laws. But this permission is normally contingent on complying with strict protective measures designed to ensure the work stays within the ethical framework that public opinion has deemed appropriate. Open and transparent communication is the best way to promote public understanding. There is thus a responsibility on all those involved in animal research, whether scientists, animal care staff, physicians, veterinarians, members of ethics committees, or managers and leaders, to support and promote public awareness and trust in this work. Circumstantial evidence shows that, with such open dialogue, there is decreased targeting and harassment of individuals and job pride and satisfaction for all involved is improved.

The authors discuss approaches to bolster investigator engagement, inviting investigators to be partners within the Animal Care Program. Regulatory burden in animal research endeavors continues to be reviewed and critiqued; therefore, this article intends to encourage Animal Care Programs to promote transparency and incorporation of unique educational training initiatives to tailor and focus compliance efforts across research programs. Borrowing from concepts of patient engagement, adherence, and enrollment efforts within the medical profession, it is likely that gains in trust, understanding, and communication between stakeholders within animal programs can be achieved without excessive efforts to alter existing approaches. Institutions will continue to be challenged to balance animal welfare expectations with promotion of research missions. This article provides a framework for somewhat radical ideas, including the use of collaborative orientations, assistance with self-evaluations, timely self-reporting, and meaningful and directed trainings, that are all aimed to resonate in contemporary animal care programs and foster investigator engagement in ongoing compliance efforts.

Globalization of the biomedical research enterprise is occurring at an accelerating pace. Increasingly, scientific collaborations and contracts cross national borders. Assurance that the caliber of animal research and animal welfare are consistent among countries and that such animal use is done in a humane and conscientious manner is of significant concern to the scientific community, the general public, and other stakeholders. Bridging these international collaborations is a clear scientific imperative for statistical validity of the data and reproducibility of results to ensure the animal use is both meaningful and impactful. One way to mitigate the potential confounding effects that the welfare of the animals may have on the research data is to harmonize animal care and use practices and procedures worldwide. By harmonizing the care and use of animals, using high standards that are internationally accepted, research animal welfare and high-quality science will be achieved.

Increasing focus on issues of research reproducibility affords us the opportunity to review some of the key issues related in vivo research. First, we set out some key definitions, to guide the reader through the rest of the paper. Next we consider issues of epistemology, of how animal experiments lead to changes in our understanding of biomedicine and, potentially, to the development of new therapeutics. Here we consider the meaning of statistical significance; the importance of understanding whether findings have general truth; and the advances in knowledge which can result from 'failed' replication. Then, we consider weaknesses in the design, conduct and reporting of experiments, and review evidence for this from systematic reviews and from experimental studies addressing these issues. We consider the impact that these weaknesses have on the development of new treatments for human disease, and reflect on the response to these issues from the biomedical research community. Finally, we consider strategies for improvement including increased use of brief, pre-registered study protocols; pre-registration, open publication and open data; and the central importance of education in improving research performance.

The scientific enterprise satisfies the innate human urge to understand the world; these efforts have led to both improvements and dangers to society. The storied history of relationships between scientists and citizens suggests that the lines between these 2 sectors of society are often blurred. Here we discuss these relationships on the context of animal welfare. We briefly outline the history of animal welfare in research, and the entry of citizens into the discussion, leading to the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. The commitment of scientists to society, in this context, is the act of whistleblowing in research. As medical and life sciences technologies continue to expand at breathtaking rates, the landscape that both scientists and citizens must navigate increases in complexity. We discuss the responsibility of both the scientist and the citizen, as members of the voting public, in the face of the challenges of the future.

This issue of the ILAR Journal focuses on the topic of responsible science as it relates to animal research. We start with the concept of the scientist as a responsible citizen and then move through multiple phases of research including careful experimental planning, reporting, and incorporation of laboratory animal science. The work of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or animal ethical/oversight body in reviewing both animal use and contributing to scientific excellence is explored. Additional topics include protection of animal handlers from multiple experimental hazards, use of agricultural animals and wildlife studies, regulatory ambiguities, and harmonization of animal research. Rounding out the issue is a discussion of how animal care and use programs can enhance animal welfare while mitigating regulatory burden, and our responsibility to clearly communicate the ethical use of animals in advancing biomedical research. A deeper understanding of these topics can assist scientists in simultaneously advancing their research and animal welfare.

Disaster preparedness for research facilities can be a daunting task. The purpose of this review is to introduce basic preparedness concepts and terminology so that facilities may begin to develop customized plans for their specific needs. Regulatory requirements are reviewed and an overview of the Incident Command System, National Preparedness System Planning Frameworks, and fundamental terms is provided. Important concepts for successful planning are then explored. Good planning involves fostering a culture of preparedness, resilience, and understanding the interactions and partnerships with other groups that are essential for core functions and incident response. Methods to gain institutional support and set up an advisory committee are examined in detail. Next, the steps to develop and carry out a plan are outlined. Risk assessments using an all hazards approach and tools such as risk indices and risk matrices are explained, and tips to design and test plans, train personnel, and evaluate improvement are discussed. Finally, special challenges unique to animal research facilities are considered along with ways to address them. Examples and information are drawn from a wide variety of organizations both to underscore themes common to all preparedness plans and to introduce new concepts that may be adapted for use in research institutions.