Animal research. Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research

Mission Creep or Mission Lapse? Scientific Review in Research Oversight

BACKGROUND

The ethical use both of human and non-human animals in research is predicated on the assumption that it is of a high quality and its projected benefits are more significant than the risks and harms imposed on subjects. Yet questions remain about whether and how IRBs and IACUCs should consider the scientific value of proposed research studies.

METHODS

We draw upon 45 interviews with IRB and IACUC members and researchers with oversight experience about their perceptions of their own roles in reviewing the quality and value of scientific protocols. Interview transcripts were memoed to highlight specific findings, which were then used to identify key themes through an iterative process.

RESULTS

IRB and IACUC members expressed broad trust in the need for and value of research, and they often assumed that protocols had social value or that prior review, especially when associated with funding, affirmed both the rigor and merit of those protocols. Some oversight members also took an explicit stance against scientific review by stating that such review is not within the regulatory mandates governing their parts in the oversight system. Yet other interviewees expressed uneasiness about the current paradigm for evaluating the quality and overall value of science, suggesting that IRB and IACUC members perceive gaps in the oversight systems.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reveal many similarities in how IRB and IACUC members understand the roles and limitations of their respective oversight committees. We conclude with a discussion of how the lack of a clear mandate regarding scientific review within US federal regulations may undermine ethical engagement of whether human and animal research is scientifically justified, resulting in a "mission lapse" wherein no organizational body is clearly responsible for ensuring that the research being conducted has the potential to advance science and benefit society.

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.

Animal Research that Respects Animal Rights: Extending Requirements for Research with Humans to Animals

The purpose of this article is to show that animal rights are not necessarily at odds with the use of animals for research. If animals hold basic moral rights similar to those of humans, then we should consequently extend the ethical requirements guiding research with humans to research with animals. The article spells out how this can be done in practice by applying the seven requirements for ethical research with humans proposed by Ezekiel Emanuel, David Wendler, and Christine Grady to animal research. These requirements are (1) social value, (2) scientific validity, (3) independent review, (4) fair subject selection, (5) favorable risk-benefit ratio, (6) informed consent, and (7) respect for research subjects. In practice, this means that we must reform the practice of animal research to make it more similar to research with humans, rather than completely abolish the former. Indeed, if we ban animal research altogether, then we would also deprive animals of its potential benefits-which would be ethically problematic.

Engaging Ethicists in Animal Research Policymaking

The significance of ethical considerations for animal research policy has long been acknowledged, but the role of philosophical ethics in the policymaking process has been less clear. By comparing the ethical framework of animal research policy with that for human subjects research, this article considers how the legacies of these two policy areas influence current policy and suggests that ethicists and ethical scholarship have been underutilized in developing animal research policy. An important aspect of policymaking is gathering and responding to input provided by various stakeholders. Given their expertise in a highly relevant area, ethicists should be considered key stakeholders in animal research policy deliberations. This article explores the role of ethicists and ethical scholarship in influencing animal research policy and suggests that a more robust engagement with the professional ethics community throughout the deliberative process is vital for policymakers to adequately account for ethical considerations.

Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions

IACUCs serve a critical role in animal care and use programs, ensuring that institutions which use animals in research and teaching do so responsibly and humanely. This role is defined in part by federal regulations, policies, and guidelines that prescribe the establishment and function of these committees. Often, IACUC administrators are expected to evaluate IACUC performance to ensure that committees execute these functions effectively, and in a manner that is suitable to the institution. However, methods for IACUC performance evaluation have not been well described in the peer-reviewed literature. To address this deficit, we conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE to identify methods that have been used to assess IACUCs. The scope of this review was intentionally broad to capture evaluation methods used by other institutional committees with similar responsibilities in overseeing research conduct, including animal ethics committees (AECs), institutional biosafety committees (IBCs), and institutional review boards (IRBs). Over 100 publications that included empirical evaluation methods were identified, although only 17 evaluated IACUCs in the United States. A substantial number of the studies used qualitative methods, such as surveys or questionnaires, interviews, and observations. The IACUC functions and characteristics most often assessed in the 17 publications included components of the protocol review processes and committee membership. We compiled this information to offer IACUC administrators a source of methodologies that can be incorporated into quality improvement and IACUC performance evaluation efforts. We also suggest ways in which organizations may evaluate IACUCs using methods described in the literature for other types of committees.

From Unpleasant to Unbearable-Why and How to Implement an Upper Limit to Pain And Other Forms of Suffering in Research with Animals

The focus of this paper is the requirement that the use of live animals in experiments and in vivo assays should never be allowed if those uses involve severe suffering. This requirement was first implemented in Danish legislation, was later adopted by the European Union, and has had limited uptake in North America. Animal suffering can arise from exposure to a wide range of different external and internal events that threaten biological or social functions, while the severity of suffering may be influenced by the animals' perceptions of their own situation and the degree of control they are able to exert. Severe suffering is more than an incremental increase in negative state(s) but involves a qualitative shift whereby the normal mechanisms to contain or keep negative states at arm's length no longer function. The result of severe suffering will be a loss of the ability of cope. The idea of putting a cap on severe suffering may be justified from multiple ethical perspectives. In most, if not all, cases it is possible to avoid imposing severe suffering on animals during experiments without giving up the potential benefits of finding new ways to cure, prevent, or alleviate serious human diseases and generate other important knowledge. From this it follows that there is a strong ethical case to favor a regulatory ban on animal experiments involving severe suffering.

Animals and Alternatives: Societal Expectations and Scientific Need

As Russell and Burch suggested more than 40 years ago, the most humane science is the best science. The path ahead is clear: pain and distress must be eliminated in animal experiments or reduced to an absolute minimum, and, as scientists, we must use the most humane approaches in our research. To accomplish the best science, we must train those who come after us in the principles and practice of humane science.

“Each of them necessitated the community's rejection of one time-honored scientific theory in favor of another incompatible with it. Each produced a consequent shift in the problems available for scientific scrutiny and in the standards by which the profession determined what should count as an admissible problem or as a legitimate problem-solution. And each transformed the scientific imagination in ways that we shall ultimately need to describe as a transformation of the world within which scientific work was done. Such changes, together with the controversies that almost always accompany them, are the defining characteristics of scientific revolutions.” (Thomas Kuhn, 1922–1996, on scientific revolutions)

“Change is scientific, progress is ethical; change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy.” (Bertrand Russell, 1872–1970)

Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees

Simple Summary

In the EU, research projects using animals must be evaluated and approved by an ethical committee prior to start to balance potential harm to the animals with potential benefit to humans, in order to ensure moral standards, scientific validity, and public trust. However, different levels of knowledge among committee members, different views on which ethical aspects are relevant, member hierarchies, and a discrepancy between prevailing scientific norms of objectivity and the necessary conditions of a proper ethical evaluation makes it challenging. If applications are not properly evaluated, this can cause distrust in the ethics committees by society. We analyzed the role of scientific norms among Swedish committee members, application of the harm–benefit model, and the role of emotions in the ethical decision-making process. Researchers and chairpersons were most positive, whereas laypersons from animal welfare organizations were most negative. Laypersons more often felt emotionally engaged in the evaluation, but also that they felt they had less influence. We argue that the prevailing scientific norms are preventing necessary conditions for sound ethical evaluation consideration by excluding some members from the discourse. We propose that alternative models for ethical decision-making could contribute to an improved process and hence meet public trust.

Abstract

Ethical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory within the EU and other countries. However, the evaluation process has been subject to criticism, e.g., that the committees are not balanced or democratic enough and that the utilitarian weighting of harm and benefit that is normally prescribed is difficult to carry out in practice. In this study, members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) completed a survey aiming to further investigate the decision-making process. We found that researchers and animal laypersons make significantly different ethical judgments, and hold disparate views on which ethical aspects are the most relevant. Researchers were significantly more content than laypersons with the functioning of the committees, indicating that the ethical model used suited their preferences better. We argue that in order to secure a democratic and proper ethical evaluation, the expectations of a scientific discourse must be acknowledged, while giving room for different viewpoints. Further, to fulfil the purpose of the project evaluations and meet public concern, the functions of the different AEC member categories need to be clarified. We suggest that one way of achieving a more thorough, balanced and inclusive ethical evaluation is to allow for more than one model of ethical reasoning.

Harm-benefit analysis - what is the added value? A review of alternative strategies for weighing harms and benefits as part of the assessment of animal research

Animal experiments are widely required to comply with the 3Rs, to minimise harm to the animals and to serve certain purposes in order to be ethically acceptable. Recently, however, there has been a drift towards adding a so-called harm-benefit analysis as an additional requirement in assessing experiments. According to this, an experiment should only be allowed if there is a positive balance when the expected harm is weighed against the expected benefits. This paper aims to assess the added value of this requirement. Two models, the discourse model and the metric model, are presented. According to the former, the weighing of harms and benefits must be conducted by a committee in which different stakeholders engage in a dialogue. Research into how this works in practice, however, shows that in the absence of an explicit and clearly defined methodology, there are issues about transparency, consistency and fairness. According to the metric model, on the other hand, several dimensions of harms and benefits are defined beforehand and integrated in an explicit weighing scheme. This model, however, has the problem that it makes no real room for ethical deliberation of the sort committees undertake, and it has therefore been criticised for being too technocratic. Also, it is unclear who is to be held accountable for built-in ethical assumptions. Ultimately, we argue that the two models are not mutually exclusive and may be combined to make the most of their advantages while reducing the disadvantages of how harm-benefit analysis in typically undertaken.

Trends in animal use at US research facilities

Minimising the use of animals in experiments is universally recognised by scientists, governments and advocates as an ethical cornerstone of research. Yet, despite growing public opposition to animal experimentation, mounting evidence that animal studies often do not translate to humans, and the development of new research technologies, a number of countries have reported increased animal use in recent years. In the USA--one of the world's largest users of animals in experiments--a lack of published data on the species most commonly used in laboratories (eg, mice, rats and fish) has prevented such assessments. The current study aimed to fill this gap by analysing the use of all vertebrate animals by the top institutional recipients of National Institutes of Health research funds over a 15-year period. These data show a statistically significant 72.7% increase in the use of animals at these US facilities during this time period-driven primarily by increases in the use of mice. Our results highlight a need for greater efforts to reduce animal use. We discuss technical, institutional, sociological and psychological explanations for this trend.

Hematological changes of silver carp (hypophthalmichthys molitrix) in response to Diazinon pesticide

Diazinon is widely consumed for plague control in the agricultural farms and in domestic and aquaculture aspects. The present research purposed to evaluate the effect of half-lethal concentration (LC50) of diazinon on some biochemical and hematological parameters of silver carp, hypophthalmichthys molitrix, after 0, 24, 48 and 96 h. The results showed that the values of leukocytes (WBC), haematocrit (Ht), hemoglobin (Hb), MCHC, lymphocyte, cortisol and glucose were significantly increased (P < 0.05). The mount of MCV and MCH were significantly increased at 48 h and then decreased at 96 h (P < 0.05). Moreover, there was a significant increasing in neutrophils count at 48 h, and then a significant decreasing at 96 h (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in RBC, monocyte and eosinophile counts among treatment groups at different sampling intervals. Thereupon, low-term (96 h) exposure to diazinon at half-lethal concentration (LC50) caused biochemical and hematological changes in silver carp, and offers a simply implement to appraise toxicity-derivatived changes.

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.

Does the goal justify the methods? Harm and benefit in neuroscience research using animals

The goal of the present chapter is to open up for discussion some of the major ethical issues involved in animal-based neuroscience research. We begin by approaching the question of the moral acceptability of the use of animals in research at all, exploring the implications of three different ethical theories: contractarianism, utilitarianism, and animal rights. In the rest of this chapter, we discuss more specific issues of neuroscience research within what we argue is the mainstream framework for research animal ethics, namely one based on harm-benefit analysis. We explore issues of harms and benefits and how to balance them as well as how to reduce harm and increase benefit within neuroscience research.

Critical Analysis of Assessment Studies of the Animal Ethics Review Process

In many countries the approval of animal research projects depends on the decisions of Animal Ethics Committees (AEC's), which review the projects. An animal ethics review is performed as part of the authorization process and therefore performed routinely, but comprehensive information about how well the review system works is not available. This paper reviews studies that assess the performance of animal ethics committees by using Donabedian's structure-process-outcome model. The paper points out that it is well recognised that AECs differ in structure, in their decision-making methods, in the time they take to review proposals and that they also make inconsistent decisions. On the other hand, we know little about the quality of outcomes, and to what extent decisions have been incorporated into daily scientific activity, and we know almost nothing about how well AECs work from the animal protection point of view. In order to emphasise this viewpoint in the assessment of AECs, the paper provides an example of measures for outcome assessment. The animal suffering is considered as a potential measure for outcome assessment of the ethics review. Although this approach has limitations, outcome assessment would significantly increase our understanding of the performance of AECs.

A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, part 2: structure and organizational functions

Support for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) varies among those in animal use-related professions. The authors designed and carried out an anonymous survey to solicit opinions on the structure and organizational functions of IACUCs. They found that most respondents believed a single, institution-based IACUC was an appropriate venue for institutional approval of animal care and use, that their IACUCs represented their institutions' constituencies and that the unaffiliated IACUC members adequately represented their surrounding communities. Respondents believed that members came prepared for IACUC meetings, and a majority agreed that full committee reviews were more thorough than designated member reviews. The quality of veterinary care for animals was deemed to be very good. Participants reported that the status of the person submitting an animal use protocol, the perceived monetary value of a grant associated with a protocol and pressure for a rapid protocol review did not alter the quality of the protocol review. On many of the survey items, opinions of IACUC members differently significantly from those of non-members, and opinions of non-member IACUC administrators differed from those of IACUC chairpersons, perhaps owing to differences in responsibilities and perceived status.

A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Part 1: animal welfare and protocol compliance

Nearly half of all external grants from the US National Institutes of Health require approval by the recipient organization's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before the funds can be used for research with animals. Given that large sums of money are spent annually on research involving animals, studies evaluating the strengths, weaknesses and overall effectiveness of IACUCs and similar animal welfare committees are needed. The authors designed and carried out a self-assessment survey on IACUC function and effectiveness. They found that 98% of all respondents believed that their IACUCs advanced animal welfare, but in many instances, veterinarians' responses to individual survey items were significantly different from those of other IACUC members. Protocol compliance, protocol review training and better understanding among non-committee members of the need for regulatory oversight are some areas where improvements could be made. Less than 50% of respondents stated that literature searches to find alternatives to animal use or painful or distressful procedures were helpful.

Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions

Simple Summary

This study analyzed the membership of animal experimentation oversight committees at leading U.S. research institutions. We found the leadership and general membership of these committees to be dominated by animal researchers and the remainder of the committees to be largely comprised of other institutional representatives. These arrangements may contribute to previously-documented committee biases in favor of approving animal experiments and dilute input from the few members representing animal welfare and the interests of the general public.

Abstract

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) were created to review, approve and oversee animal experiments and to balance the interests of researchers, animals, institutions and the general public. This study analyzed the overall membership of IACUCs at leading U.S. research institutions. We found that these committees and their leadership are comprised of a preponderance of animal researchers, as well as other members who are affiliated with each institution; some of whom also work in animal laboratories. This overwhelming presence of animal research and institutional interests may dilute input from the few IACUC members representing animal welfare and the general public, contribute to previously-documented committee bias in favor of approving animal experiments and reduce the overall objectivity and effectiveness of the oversight system.

The institutional review board is an impediment to human research: the result is more animal-based research

Biomedical research today can be generally classified as human-based or nonhuman animal-based, each with separate and distinct review boards that must approve research protocols. Researchers wishing to work with humans or human tissues have become frustrated by the required burdensome approval panel, the Institutional Review Board. However, scientists have found it is much easier to work with the animal-based research review board, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Consequently, animals are used for investigations even when scientists believe these studies should be performed with humans or human tissue. This situation deserves attention from society and more specifically the animal protection and patient advocate communities, as neither patients nor animals are well served by the present situation.

The interpretation and application of the three Rs by animal ethics committee members

The Three Rs form the basis of review of animal-use protocols by Animal Ethics Committees (AECs), but little research has examined how AECs actually interpret and implement the Three Rs. This topic was explored through in-depth, open-ended interviews with 28 members of AECs at four Canadian universities. In describing protocol review, AEC members rarely mentioned the Three Rs, but most reported applying some aspects of the basic concepts. Comments identified several factors that could impede full application of the Three Rs: incomplete understanding of the Three Rs (especially Refinement), trust that researchers implement Replacement and Reduction themselves, belief by some members that granting agency review covers the Three Rs, focus on sample size rather than experimental design to achieve Reduction, focus on harm caused by procedures to the exclusion of housing and husbandry, and lack of consensus on key issues, notably on the nature and moral significance of animal pain and suffering, and on whether AECs should minimise overall harm to animals. The study suggests ways to achieve more consistent application of the Three Rs, by providing AECs with up-to-date information on the Three Rs and with access to statistical expertise, by consensus-building on divisive issues, and by training on the scope and implementation of the Three Rs.

Are laboratory animals stressed by their housing environment and are investigators aware that this stress can affect physiological data?

Although stress can affect the behavior and physiology of laboratory animals, there has been little investigation into how the quality of animal research is affected if the animals are stressed. Even minor perturbations (i.e., environmental noise) can produce a stress response. A pilot survey was designed (29/49 responded) to determine the prevalence of noise in animal facilities and whether researchers are aware that noise can affect animal physiology. Most respondents agreed that environmental factors are stressful to laboratory animals (97%) and minor pain/stress causes physiological changes (62%). Of 19/29 respondents who believed their facility was quiet, 8 identified at least 3-5 pronounced noise sources. We hypothesize that the level of extraneous noise considered acceptable by an investigator depends on their degree of awareness that environment can affect an animal's physiology, and their perception of the existence of 'mind-body' interactions in an animal.