Communicating About Animal Research with the Public

Science communication in experimental biology: experiences and recommendations

During the century of Journal of Experimental Biology's existence, science communication has established itself as an interdisciplinary field of theory and practice. Guided by my experiences as a scientist and science writer, I argue that science communication skills are distinct from scientific communication skills and that engaging in science communication is particularly beneficial to early-career researchers; although taking on these dual roles is not without its difficulties, as I discuss in this Perspective. In the hope of encouraging more scientists to become science communicators, I provide: (i) general considerations for scientists looking to engage in science communication (knowing their audience, storytelling, avoiding jargon) and (ii) specific recommendations for crafting effective contributions on social media (content, packaging, engagement), an emerging, accessible and potentially impactful mode of science communication. Effective science communication can boost the work of experimental biologists: it can impact public opinion by incisively describing the consequences of the climate crisis and can raise social acceptance of fundamental research and experiments on animals.

An investigation into ‘community expectations’ surrounding animal welfare law enforcement in Australia

Nature of reform to animal welfare legislation in Australia has commonly been attributed to increasing alignment with the ‘communities’ expectations’, implying that the community has power in driving legislative change. Yet, despite this assertion there has been no publicly available information disclosing the nature of these ‘expectations’, or the methodology used to determine public stance. However, based on previous sociological research, as well as legal reforms that have taken place to increase maximum penalties for animal welfare offences, it is probable that the community expects harsher penalties for offences. Using representative sampling of the Australian public, this study provides an assessment of current community expectations of animal welfare law enforcement. A total of 2152 individuals participated in the survey. There was strong support for sentences for animal cruelty being higher in magnitude (50% support). However, a large proportion (84%) were in favour of alternate penalties such as prohibiting offenders from owning animals in the future. There was also a belief that current prosecution rates were too low with 80% of respondents agreeing to this assertion. Collectively, this suggests a greater support for preventing animal cruelty through a stronger enforcement model rather than punishing animal cruelty offenders through harsher sentences. This potentially indicates a shift in public opinion towards a more proactive approach to animal welfare, rather than a reactive approach to animal cruelty.

Tumor growth monitoring in breast cancer xenografts: A good technique for a strong ethic

Purpose

Although recent regulations improved conditions of laboratory animals, their use remains essential in cancer research to determine treatment efficacy. In most cases, such experiments are performed on xenografted animals for which tumor volume is mostly estimated from caliper measurements. However, many formulas have been employed for this estimation and no standardization is available yet.

Methods

Using previous animal studies, we compared all formulas used by the scientific community in 2019. Data were collected from 93 mice orthotopically xenografted with human breast cancer cells. All formulas were evaluated and ranked based on correlation and lower mean relative error. They were then used in a Gompertz quantitative model of tumor growth.

Results

Seven formulas for tumor volume estimation were identified and a statistically significant difference was observed among them (ANOVA test, p < 2.10⁻¹⁶), with the ellipsoid formula (1/6 π × L × W × (L + W)/2) being the most accurate (mean relative error = 0.272 ± 0.201). This was confirmed by the mathematical modeling analysis where this formula resulted in the smallest estimated residual variability. Interestingly, such result was no longer valid for tumors over 1968 ± 425 mg, for which a cubic formula (L x W x H) should be preferred.

Main findings

When considering that tumor volume remains under 1500mm³, to limit animal stress, improve tumor growth monitoring and go toward mathematic models, the following formula 1/6 π × L × W x (L + W)/2 should be preferred.

“It’s Not Good for the Animals, but I Think It Should Be Done”—Using Focus Group Interviews to Explore Adolescent Views on Animal Experimentation

Simple Summary

There are comparatively many studies that explore how adults judge animal experiments. But how do young people think about this topic? Our group interviews conducted with Austrian teenagers showed that the participants assessed animal tests more positively than we had expected. The teenagers evaluated animal experiments mainly based on the following criteria: the relevance of research, the extent of animal suffering, and the existence of alternatives. All groups found positive aspects for animal experiments and identified acceptable animal experiments among the examples discussed. Particularly with regard to the approval of animal experiments, a key consideration was the extent to which the research is relevant to humans.

Abstract

The present study focused on an in-depth analysis of adolescents’ (aged 15–16) attitudes towards animal experimentation. Focus group interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding regarding the ethical considerations of this age group. The data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis. All participants considered their own knowledge about the whole topic as low. Our results show that adolescents in the study had considerably more positive attitudes toward animal experimentation than the literature had suggested. All groups identified positive aspects of animal experimentation and accepted at least one scenario of animal experimentation. Most of the groups rated half of the examples presented as acceptable. The participants tended to make specific assessments in view of a concrete scenario and seemed to form their positions anew. In their discussion, students focused mainly on the following criteria: the relevance of research, the extent of animal suffering, and the existence of alternatives. Generally, we hypothesize that the focus group discussions took place largely within the framework of anthropocentric ethics.

Use of animals in dental research: Trends and ethical reflections

This study aimed to survey and analyze the profile of experimental dental research in animals, verifying its trends. We evaluated studies developed with the use of animals in vivo, published in 10 dental journals with high impact factors, from 2015 to 2020. From 1652 studies retrieved, 594 involved in vivo experimentation on animals and were analyzed further. Rats were the species most used and with the highest mean of animals per study. Ferrets, although presenting the lowest rate of publications, had the second highest mean of animals per study. Periodontics was the dental specialty with the highest number of publications, while oral rehabilitation had the lowest number. The data on the institution responsible for reviewing animal research protocols approval, sample size, anesthesia and analgesia were provided in 93.10%, 83%, 70.54% and 23.74% of studies, respectively. In 53% of studies, euthanasia was specified and anesthetic overdose was the method most used. Over the period analyzed, there was a reduction in animal studies in vivo, and periodontics was the specialty that most used this experimental model. Although most studies mentioned approval by an ethics committee, some publications neglected to mention sample size, anesthesia and euthanasia. The omission of essential information may raise scientific and ethical concerns.

Translational science: a survey of US biomedical researchers' perspectives and practices

This national survey aimed to identify how biomedical researchers using vertebrate animals viewed issues of significance for translational science, including oversight and public engagement, and to analyze how researcher characteristics and animal model choice correlate with those views. Responses from 1,187 researchers showed awareness of, and concerns about, problems of translation, reproducibility and rigor. Surveyed scientists were nevertheless optimistic about the value of animal studies, were favorable about research oversight and reported openness with non-scientists in discussing their animal work. Differences in survey responses among researchers also point to diverse perspectives within the animal research community on these matters. Most significant was variability associated with the primary type of animal that surveyed scientists used in their work. Other significant divergence in opinion appeared on the basis of professional role factors, including the type of degree held, workplace setting, type of funding, experience on an institutional animal care and use committee and personal demographic characteristics of age and gender.

Open Transparent Communication about Animals in Laboratories: Dialog for Multiple Voices and Multiple Audiences

In this article, I offer insights and proposals to the current movement for increased openness and transparency about animal use in laboratories. Increased transparency cannot be total transparency-as no story or picture can ever be complete. When research advocates share their stories, they must decide which words and pictures to edit out. I ask here: Who of the listening "public" gets a chance to revisit this editing, and find the information that is important to them? To the extent that (what I call) the "new openness" attempts to speak to a "lay public" and exclude animal activists, I suggest that refinement-focused animal protectionists deserve enhanced avenues of openness and inclusion-which some research advocates might fear giving to more extreme activists and which a less invested "lay public" may not want or need. I conclude with some specific examples and suggestions to not just invite inquiry from animal advocates, but to bring them in as witnesses and participants, to learn from and incorporate their concerns, priorities, expertise, and suggestions. This can bring a diversity of ideas and values that could improve the quality of science, the credibility of animal researchers, and the welfare of the animals in laboratories.

Responsible Science and Research Animal Use

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.

Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials: Part 2: Potential Alternatives to the Use of Animals in Preclinical Trials

Dramatically rising costs in drug development are in large part because of the high failure rates in clinical phase trials. The poor correlation of animal studies to human toxicity and efficacy have led many developers to question the value of requiring animal studies in determining which drugs should enter in-human trials. Part 1 of this 2-part series examined some of the data regarding the lack of concordance between animal toxicity studies and human trials, as well as some of the potential reasons behind it. This second part of the series focuses on some alternatives to animal trials (hereafter referred to as animal research) as well as current regulatory discussions and developments regarding such alternatives.

Methods for in vivo studies in rodents of chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy

Peripheral neuropathy is one of the most common, dose limiting, and long-lasting disabling adverse events of chemotherapy treatment. Unfortunately, no treatment has proven efficacy to prevent this adverse effect in patients or improve the nerve regeneration, once it is established. Experimental models, particularly using rats and mice, are useful to investigate the mechanisms related to axonal or neuronal degeneration and target loss of function induced by neurotoxic drugs, as well as to test new strategies to prevent the development of neuropathy and to improve functional restitution. Therefore, objective and reliable methods should be applied for the assessment of function and innervation in adequately designed in vivo studies of CIPN, taking into account the impact of age, sex and species/strains features. This review gives an overview of the most useful methods to assess sensory, motor and autonomic functions, electrophysiological and morphological tests in rodent models of peripheral neuropathy, focused on CIPN. We include as well a proposal of protocols that may improve the quality and comparability of studies undertaken in different laboratories. It is recommended to apply more than one functional method for each type of function, and to perform parallel morphological studies in the same targets and models.