Recommendations for Addressing Harm-Benefit Analysis and Implementation in Ethical Evaluation - Report from the AALAS-FELASA Working Group on Harm-Benefit Analysis - Part 2

Toward an integrated ethical review process: an animal-centered research framework for the refinement of research procedures

The involvement of animals in research procedures that can harm them and to which they are deemed unable to consent raises fundamental ethical dilemmas. While current ethical review processes emphasize the application of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement), grounded in a human-centered utilitarian ethical approach, a comprehensive ethical review also involves a harm-benefit analysis and the consideration of wider ethical issues. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, approaches are still needed to facilitate the integrative assessment and iterative revision of research designs to improve their ethical value or to identify cases in which using animals is irremediably unethical. Additionally, frameworks are lacking that explicitly include an animal-centered perspective into the ethical review process beyond welfare concerns, failing to cover broader ethical considerations (such as consent). In previous work we proposed an Animal-Centered Research framework (ACRf) comprising four animal-centered research principles (relevance, impartiality, welfare and consent) which could help researchers and ethical review bodies apprise research designs from an animal-centered perspective. This paper builds on and further develops our previous work by contextualizing the ACRf within the bigger picture of animal research ethical review and by illustrating how the ACRf could be operationalized within current ethical review processes. We contribute an extended framework that integrates the application of the ACRf principles within the ethical review process. To this end, we present findings from a theoretical case study focusing on the ethical review of a research protocol on the study of stress response in pigs. We discuss how our extended framework could be easily applied to facilitate a holistic approach to the ethical review process, and inform an iterative process of refinement, to support the development of research designs that are both more ethical and scientifically valid.

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.

Severity Classification of Laboratory Animal Procedures in Two Belgian Academic Institutions

According to the EU Directive 2010/63, all animal procedures must be classified as non-recovery, mild, moderate or severe. Several examples are included in the Directive to help in severity classification. Since the implementation of the Directive, different publications and guidelines have been disseminated on the topic. However, due to the large variety of disease models and animal procedures carried out in many different animal species, guidance on the severity classification of specific procedures or models is often lacking or not specific enough. The latter is especially the case in disease models where the level of pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm depends on the duration of the study (for progressive disease models) or the dosage given (for infectious or chemically induced disease models). This, in turn, may lead to inconsistencies in severity classification between countries, within countries and even within institutions. To overcome this, two Belgian academic institutions with a focus on biomedical research collaborated to develop a severity classification for all the procedures performed. This work started with listing all in-house procedures and assigning them to 16 (sub)categories. First, we determined which parameters, such as clinical signs, dosage or duration, were crucial for severity classification within a specific (sub)category. Next, a severity classification was assigned to the different procedures, which was based on professional judgment by the designated veterinarians, members of the animal welfare body (AWB) and institutional animal ethics committee (AEC), integrating the available literature and guidelines. During the classification process, the use of vague terminology, such as 'minor impact', was avoided as much as possible. Instead, well-defined cut-offs between severity levels were used. Furthermore, we sought to define common denominators to group procedures and to be able to classify new procedures more easily. Although the primary aim is to address prospective severity, this can also be used to assess actual severity. In summary, we developed a severity classification for all procedures performed in two academic, biomedical institutions. These include many procedures and disease models in a variety of animal species for which a severity classification was not reported so far, or the terms that assign them to a different severity were too vague.

Practical Application of the 3Rs in Rodent Transgenesis

The principles of the 3Rs (replace, reduce, refine), as originally published by Russell and Burch, are internationally acclaimed guidelines for meeting ethical and welfare standards in animal experimentation. Genome manipulation is a standard technique in biomedical research and beyond. The goal of this chapter is to give practical advice on the implementation of the 3Rs in laboratories generating genetically modified rodents. We cover 3R aspects from the planning phase through operations of the transgenic unit to the final genome-manipulated animals. The focus of our chapter is on an easy-to-use, concise protocol that is close to a checklist. While we focus on mice, the proposed methodological concepts can be easily adapted for the manipulation of other sentient animals.

New perspectives for teaching Culture of Care and their strengths and challenges

Nurturing a culture of care remains a key strategy and needs to be well integrated in the education programmes for laboratory animal professionals. Addressing attitudes is a complex task that must ensure reflective learning approaches. Teaching strategies must facilitate a safe space to talk openly about emotions and caring responsibilities. We reflect on two training initiatives focusing on culture of care. Firstly, the 'Care-full Stories' tool, which uses fictionalised prompts (storytelling) to encourage participants to share their own stories from working in animal research. Feedback on its impact on establishing a safe space for sharing experiences and the importance of appreciating diverse perspectives between staff is discussed. Secondly, we provide feedback on the development of training approaches on animal research integrity and culture of care with low- middle-income international communities. Strategic targets addressing the multicultural diversity of the communities, recognising their specific needs and their access to resources, must be well defined. It is important to acknowledge the interconnection between people, animals and their shared natural environment when defining the culture of care concept and addressing the teaching approaches. We discuss both the positive outcomes and challenges of these two learning experiences to support innovation when planning tools for teaching culture of care. Accounting for 'how' and 'where' the training will be delivered remains key to its successful uptake and local sustainability. Supporting improved educational tools to ascertain why caring has an impact on our professional lives will have a direct impact on the wellbeing of laboratory animal professionals worldwide.

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.

Fit for Purpose Assessment: A New Direction for IACUCs

The organization and function of the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) is the key component of government regulation and oversight of necessary scientific research using live animals and of AAALAC - International accreditation of animal care and use programs in the United States. The regulations, roles, and responsibilities of IACUCs have evolved since their inception 35 years ago from a limited focus on animal welfare and specific animal procedures to embracing scientific quality, data reproducibility and translation, and animal welfare as inextricably interdependent and critical components of generation of new scientific knowledge and medical treatments. A current challenge for IACUCs is in evaluating whether benefits to be derived (eg, new knowledge or treatments) justify any unavoidable pain, stress, or injury associated with proposed research protocols, because the former are long-term and at best speculative outcomes, whereas the latter are immediate and tangible for the study animals. Scientific consensus is that research most likely to generate significant new knowledge and medical treatments is that conducted to high scientific, technical, and quality standards and reported with full transparency to facilitate reproducibility. As an alternative to current benefits evaluations included in risk benefit and harm benefit constructs, the authors propose that IACUCs assess the proposed research for scientific quality and alignment of study elements with the study purpose (e.g., Fit for Purpose [FfP]), including justifications for study design components, selection of primary endpoints and technologies, rationale for data and statistical analyses, and research communication plans. Fit for Purpose endpoints are objective, immediate, and impactful as are the potential risks for study animals, and at the same time they are the best predictors for achievement of longer-term benefits. We propose that IACUCs and any revision of The ILAR Guide consider FfP concepts in place of traditional benefits assessment to accelerate the generation of new knowledge and treatments benefiting medical and veterinary patients and the environment through better science and animal welfare rather than to continue to rely on speculative future outcomes.

An Exploration of Non-Coding RNAs in Extracellular Vesicles Delivered by Swine Anterior Pituitary

Extracellular vesicles are lipid bilayer-delimited particles carrying proteins, lipids, and small RNAs. Previous studies have demonstrated that they had regulatory functions both physiologically and pathologically. However, information remains inadequate on extracellular vesicles from the anterior pituitary, a key endocrine organ in animals and humans. In this study, we separated and identified extracellular vesicles from the anterior pituitary of the Duroc swine model. Total RNA was extracted and RNA-seq was performed, followed by a comprehensive analysis of miRNAs, lncRNAs, and circRNAs. Resultantly, we obtained 416 miRNAs, 16,232 lncRNAs, and 495 circRNAs. Furthermore, GO and KEGG enrichment analysis showed that the ncRNAs in extracellular vesicles may participate in regulating intracellular signal transduction, cellular component organization or biogenesis, small molecule binding, and transferase activity. The cross-talk between them also suggested that they may play an important role in the signaling process and biological regulation. This is the first report of ncRNA data in the anterior pituitary extracellular vesicles from the duroc swine breed, which is a fundamental resource for exploring detailed functions of extracellular vesicles from the anterior pituitary.

Harm-Benefit Analyses Can Be Harmful

Harm-benefit analyses (HBAs) are becoming de rigueur with some governmental regulatory agencies and popular with local institutional animal care and use committees (or their equivalents), the latter due, in part, to the adoption of HBAs as an international accreditation standard. Such analyses are employed as an attempt to balance potential or actual pain or distress imposed on laboratory animals against scientists' justifications for those impositions. The outcomes of those analyses are then supposed to be included in an official assessment of whether a given animal protocol should be approved as proposed. While commendable in theory as a means to avoid or minimize animal suffering, HBAs come with a flawed premise. Establishing an accurate prediction of benefit, especially for so-called "basic" research (vs "applied" research, such as in vivo testing for product development or batch release), is often impossible given the uncertain nature of experimental outcomes and the eventual value of those results. That impossibility, in turn, risks disapproving a legitimate research proposal that might have yielded important new knowledge if it had been allowed to proceed. Separately, the anticipated harm to which the animal would be subjected should similarly be scrutinized with an aim to refine that harm regardless of purported benefits if the protocol is approved. The intentions of this essay are to reflect on the potential harm and benefit of the HBA itself, highlight how HBAs may be helpful in advancing refinements, and propose alternative approaches to both parts of the equation in the assessment process.

Neuroethics and Animals: Report and Recommendations From the University of Pennsylvania Animal Research Neuroethics Workshop

Growing awareness of the ethical implications of neuroscience in the early years of the 21st century led to the emergence of the new academic field of “neuroethics,” which studies the ethical implications of developments in the neurosciences. However, despite the acceleration and evolution of neuroscience research on nonhuman animals, the unique ethical issues connected with neuroscience research involving nonhuman animals remain underdiscussed. This is a significant oversight given the central place of animal models in neuroscience. To respond to these concerns, the Center for Neuroscience and Society and the Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society at the University of Pennsylvania hosted a workshop on the “Neuroethics of Animal Research” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At the workshop, expert speakers and attendees discussed ethical issues arising from neuroscience research involving nonhuman animals, including the use of animal models in the study of pain and psychiatric conditions, animal brain-machine interfaces, animal–animal chimeras, cerebral organoids, and the relevance of neuroscience to debates about personhood. This paper highlights important emerging ethical issues based on the discussions at the workshop. This paper includes recommendations for research in the United States from the authors based on the discussions at the workshop, loosely following the format of the 2 Gray Matters reports on neuroethics published by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

The Symbiotic Relationship Between Scientific Quality and Animal Research Ethics

Researchers have worked with animals as models for decades to expand our knowledge of basic biological processes and to systematically study the physiology of disease. In general, the public has an expectation that work with animals has a purpose and will ultimately reap benefits. The likelihood of such an outcome is directly dependent on the quality of the science being conducted with those animals. However, not all frameworks for consideration of the ethics around animal research overtly consider scientific quality. In the following review, we explore the complex relationship between scientific quality and animal research ethics. We advocate for the development of a detailed "Harm-Yield Analysis" for the evaluation of biomedical animal research that emphasizes scientific quality along with societal benefit in the ethical justification of the research. We reflect on the lost opportunity to establish best practices in animal research early in the career of scientists by introducing in the curriculum and encouraging the use of a paradigm of the iterative consideration of the ethics of animal research alongside other aspects of experimental design.

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.

Learning organizations and animal care programs in the absence of appropriate national legislation

The absence, in many nations, of appropriate and corresponding legislation for the protection of experimental animals as well as continual management education programs, significantly affects the inclusion and recognition of experimental results, worldwide. For more than a decade, researchers from Latin American countries have unsuccessfully struggled to get proper legislation. Until today, not many effective results have been seen. After reviewing previous literature and carefully analyzing the available methodologies and practical examples, this paper aims at redesigning the actions and strategies of the members of the research facilities to implement an effective laboratory animal care and use program, and permit the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) accreditation, independent of national legislative network .This paper also suggests a domestic working method for the teamwork to assume international harmonized legislation, through the application of the Five Disciplines stated by Senge, as methodological process linked with laboratory animal science as scientific background.

Bioethical, Reproducibility, and Translational Challenges of Animal Models

There is no prescribed stage or standardized point at which an animal model protocol is reviewed for reproducibility and translatability. The method of review for a reproducible and translatable study is not consistently documented in peer literature, and this is a major challenge for those working with animal models of human diseases. If the study is ill designed, it is impossible to perform an accurate harm/benefit analysis. In addition, there may be an ethical challenge if the work is not reproducible and translatable. Animal welfare regulations and other documents of control clearly state the role of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees are to look at science justification within the context of animal welfare. This article, concentrating on models not governed by regulations, outlines issues and offers recommendations for refining animal model review with a goal to improve study reproducibility and translatability.

Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden

The use of animals in research entails a range of societal and ethical issues, and there is widespread consensus that animals are to be kept safe from unnecessary suffering. Therefore, harm done to animals in the name of research has to be carefully regulated and undergo ethical review for approval. Since 2013, this has been enforced within the European Union through Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. However, critics argue that the directive and its implementation by member states do not properly consider all aspects of animal welfare, which risks causing unnecessary animal suffering and decreased public trust in the system. In this pilot study, the ethical review process in Sweden was investigated to determine whether or not the system is in fact flawed, and if so, what may be the underlying cause of this. Through in-depth analysis of 18 applications and decisions of ethical reviews, we found that there are recurring problems within the ethical review process in Sweden. Discrepancies between demands set by legislation and the structure of the application form lead to submitted information being incomplete by design. In turn, this prevents the Animal Ethics Committees from being able to fulfill their task of performing a harm-benefit analysis and ensuring Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (the 3Rs). Results further showed that a significant number of applications failed to meet legal requirements regarding content. Similarly, no Animal Ethics Committee decision contained any account of evaluation of the 3Rs and a majority failed to include harm-benefit analysis as required by law. Hence, the welfare may be at risk, as well as the fulfilling of the legal requirement of only approving "necessary suffering". We argue that the results show an unacceptably low level of compliance in the investigated applications with the legal requirement of performing both a harm-benefit analysis and applying the 3Rs within the decision-making process, and that by implication, public insight through transparency is not achieved in these cases. In order to improve the ethical review, the process needs to be restructured, and the legal demands put on both the applicants and the Animal Ethics Committees as such need to be made clear. We further propose a number of improvements, including a revision of the application form. We also encourage future research to further investigate and address issues unearthed by this pilot study.

An Ethical Assessment Tool (ETHAS) to Evaluate the Application of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Mammals' Conservation: The Case of the Northern White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum cottoni)

Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) can make a difference in biodiversity conservation. Their application, however, can create risks and raise ethical issues that need addressing. Unfortunately, there is a lack of attention to the topic in the scientific literature and, to our knowledge, there is no tool for the ethical assessment of ARTs in the context of conservation that has been described. This paper reports the first applications of the Ethical Assessment Tool (ETHAS) to trans-rectal ovum pick-up (OPU) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures used in a northern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) conservation project. The ETHAS consists of two checklists, the Ethical Evaluation Sheet and the Ethical Risk Assessment, and is specifically customized for each ART procedure. It provides an integrated, multilevel and standardized self-assessment of the procedure under scrutiny, generating an ethical acceptability ranking (totally, partially, not acceptable) and a risk rank (low, medium, high), and, hence, allows for implementing measures to address or manage issues beforehand. The application of the ETHAS to the procedures performed on the northern white rhinoceros was effective in ensuring a high standard of procedures, contributing to the acceptability and improved communication among the project's partners. In turn, the tool itself was also refined through an iterative consultation process between experts and stakeholders.

Research on the Radiotoxicology of Plutonium Using Animals: Consideration of the 3Rs-Replace, Reduce, Refine

To characterize the health effects of incorporated plutonium, many experiments have been conducted using different animal models. These range from (1) applied (tissue uptake/retention determination, decorporation therapy efficacy), (2) fundamental (gene expression, cancer induction), and (3) dosimetry models. In recent years, the use of animals for scientific purposes has become a public concern. The application of the 3Rs - Replace (use of alternative methods or animals not considered capable of experiencing pain, suffering, and distress), Reduce (reduction in animal numbers), and Refine (better animal welfare and minimization of suffering, pain and distress) - has increased to address ethical concerns and legislative requirements. The introduction of novel non-animal technologies is also an important factor as complementary options to animal experimentation. In radiotoxicology research, it seems there is a natural tendency to Replace given the possibility of data reuse obtained from contamination cases in man and animal studies. The creation of "registries" and "repositories" for nuclear industry workers (civil and military) is now a rich legacy for radiotoxicological measurements. Similarly, Reduction in animal numbers can be achieved by good experimental planning with prior statistical analyses of animal numbers required to obtain robust data. Multiple measurements in the same animal over time (external body counting, excreta collection) with appropriate detection instruments also allow Reduction. In terms of Refinement, this has become "de rigueur" and a necessity given the societal and legal concerns for animal welfare. For research in radiotoxicology, particularly long-term studies, better housing conditions within the constraints of radiation protection issues for research workers are an important concern. These are all pertinent considerations for the 3Rs remit and future research in radiotoxicology.

The Role of the IACUC in the Absence of Regulatory Guidance

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) occasionally face regulatory requirements for which clear guidance may not be available. Either the regulating body has chosen not to provide such guidance or the guidance may be minimal or even ambiguous. Such guidance may be desirable when institutions have research needs, in which case IACUCs are left to their own interpretation to develop internal policies, procedures, and documents. Typically, this is approached by an IACUC working with partners in the laboratory animal community and may involve input from regulators who can provide context as well as parameters to consider. Over time, shared institutional experiences and documentation coalesce to create a general framework that provides a baseline for others to consider as templates for further policy elaboration or development. The strength of this approach relies on the ability to share freely, including having unobstructed access to such documents.

Attitudes toward animals, and how species and purpose affect animal research justifiability, among undergraduate students and faculty

As members of a university community that sponsors animal research, we developed a survey to improve our knowledge about factors underlying the perceived justifiability of animal research among faculty and undergraduate students. To accomplish this objective, we gathered quantitative data about their general views on animal use by humans, their specific views about the use of different species to address different categories of scientific questions, and their confidence in the translatability of animal research to humans. Students and faculty did not differ in their reported levels of concern for the human use of animals, but women reported significantly higher levels of concern than men. Among students, experience with animal research was positively correlated with less concern with animal use, and having practiced vegetarianism or veganism was associated with more concern. Gender, experience with animal research, and dietary preferences were similarly correlated with the extent of justifiability of animal use across all research purposes and species. Faculty responses resembled those for students, with the exception that justifiability varied significantly based on academic discipline: biological sciences faculty were least concerned about human use of animals and most supportive of animal research regardless of purpose or species. For both students and faculty, justifiability varied depending on research purpose or animal species. Research purposes, ranked in order of justifiability from high to low, was animal disease, human disease, basic research, human medicine, animal production, chemical testing, and cosmetics. Justifiability by purpose was slightly lower for students than for faculty. Species justifiability for students, from high to low, was small fish, rats or mice, pigs or sheep, monkeys, and dogs or cats. Faculty order was the same except that monkeys and dogs or cats were reversed in order. Finally, confidence in the translatability of animal research to our understanding of human biology and medicine was not different between students and faculty or between genders, but among faculty it was highest in biological sciences followed by physical sciences, social sciences, and then arts and humanities. Those with experience in animal research displayed the most confidence, and vegetarians/vegans displayed the least. These findings demonstrate that, although the range of views in any subcategory is large, views about animal research justifiability can vary significantly among respondent subpopulations in predictable ways. In particular, research purpose and choice of animal species are important variables for many people. This supports the claim that ensuring purpose and species are robustly integrated into research proposal reviews and approvals should be considered to be a best practice. We suggest that strengthening this integration beyond what is described in current regulations would better meet the justifiability criteria expressed by members of our campus community.

Design of composite measure schemes for comparative severity assessment in animal-based neuroscience research: A case study focussed on rat epilepsy models

Comparative severity assessment of animal models and experimental interventions is of utmost relevance for harm-benefit analysis during ethical evaluation, an animal welfare-based model prioritization as well as the validation of refinement measures. Unfortunately, there is a lack of evidence-based approaches to grade an animal's burden in a sensitive, robust, precise, and objective manner. Particular challenges need to be considered in the context of animal-based neuroscientific research because models of neurological disorders can be characterized by relevant changes in the affective state of an animal. Here, we report about an approach for parameter selection and development of a composite measure scheme designed for precise analysis of the distress of animals in a specific model category. Data sets from the analysis of several behavioral and biochemical parameters in three different epilepsy models were subjected to a principal component analysis to select the most informative parameters. The top-ranking parameters included burrowing, open field locomotion, social interaction, and saccharin preference. These were combined to create a composite measure scheme (CMS). CMS data were subjected to cluster analysis enabling the allocation of severity levels to individual animals. The results provided information for a direct comparison between models indicating a comparable severity of the electrical and chemical post-status epilepticus models, and a lower severity of the kindling model. The new CMS can be directly applied for comparison of other rat models with seizure activity or for assessment of novel refinement approaches in the respective research field. The respective online tool for direct application of the CMS or for creating a new CMS based on other parameters from different models is available at https://github.com/mytalbot/cms. However, the robustness and generalizability needs to be further assessed in future studies. More importantly, our concept of parameter selection can serve as a practice example providing the basis for comparable approaches applicable to the development and validation of CMS for all kinds of disease models or interventions.

Good Research Practice: Lessons from Animal Care and Use

Animal care and use play a pivotal role in the research process. Ethical concerns on the use of animals in research have promoted the creation of a legal framework in many geographical areas that researchers must comply with, and professional organizations continuously develop recommendations on specific areas of laboratory animal science. Scientific evidence demonstrates that many aspects of animal care and use which are beyond the legal requirements have direct impact on research results. Therefore, the review and oversight of animal care and use programs are essential to identify, define, control, and improve all of these aspects to promote the reproducibility, validity, and translatability of animal-based research outcomes. In this chapter, we summarize the ethical principles driving legislation and recommendations on animal care and use, as well as some of these laws and international recommendations. Examples of the impact of specific animal care and use aspects on research, as well as systems of internal and external oversight of animal care and use programs, are described.

Genomewide analysis of circular RNA in pituitaries of normal and heat-stressed sows

Background

As a newly characterized type of noncoding RNA, circular RNA (circRNA) has been shown to have functions in diverse biological processes of animals. It has been reported that several noncoding RNAs may regulate animals’ response to heat stress which can be easily induced by hyperthermia in summer. However, the expression and functions of circRNAs in the pituitary of sows and whether they participate in heat stress adaption are still unclear.

Results

In this study, we found that high temperature over the thermoneutral zone of sows during the summer increased the serum heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) level, decreased the superoxide dismutase (SOD) vitality and prolactin (PRL) concentration, and induced heat stress in sows. Then, we explored circRNA in the pituitary of heat-stressed and normal sows using RNA sequencing and bioinformatics analysis. In total, 12,035 circRNAs were detected, with 59 circRNAs differentially expressed, including 42 up-regulated and 17 down-regulated circRNAs in pituitaries of the heat-stressed sows. Six randomly selected circRNAs were identified through reverse transcription PCR followed by DNA sequencing and other 7 randomly selected differentially expressed circRNAs were verified by quantitative real-time PCR analysis. The predicted target genes regulated by circRNAs through sponging microRNAs (miRNAs) were enriched in metabolic pathway. Furthermore, the predicted circRNA–miRNA–mRNA interactions showed that some circRNAs might sponge miRNAs to regulate pituitary-specific genes and heat shock protein family members, indicating circRNA’s roles in pituitary hormone secretion and heat stress response.

Conclusions

Our results provided a meaningful reference to understand the functions of circRNA in the porcine pituitary and the mechanisms by which circRNA may participate in animals’ response to heat stress.

Ethical and IACUC Considerations Regarding Analgesia and Pain Management in Laboratory Rodents

Scientists have ethical and regulatory commitments to minimize pain and distress during their use of sentient laboratory animals. Here I discuss pain as a special form of distress and the long history of ethical and regulatory standards calling on scientists to prevent, minimize, treat or terminate animal pain. Scientists, veterinarians, and IACUC face 2 challenges: knowledge of effective analgesic doses and regimens for all sexes, ages and genotypes of rodent is incomplete, and concerns regarding the effects of analgesic drugs on research outcomes push scientists to request approval to withhold analgesics and leave animal pain unalleviated. IACUC thus conduct what I call an 'ethics of uncertainty,' in which they factor in the limits of available ethically relevant information on the amount of expected animal suffering, the usefulness of analgesics to mitigate this suffering, and the eventual benefits that come from the research. IACUC must factor in current limitations in severity assessments of various experimental manipulations in various strains, inaccurate pain diagnosis, in known effective analgesic and other refinements, and on effects of pain medications and untreated pain on data outcomes, when deciding to allow potentially painful experiments and animal care practices. This article focuses on 3 areas of concern: the limits of veterinary "professional judgment" when the animal model's degree of pain and the efficacy of pain medications are not yet known; the review of proposals with known, unalleviated significant pain and distress (that is, Category E experiments); and the attempt to review the balance between animal welfare harms and scientific objectives. I propose no new regulations, standards, or ethical norms herein but rather explore some of the implications when existing ethical principles are applied to evolving scientific knowledge (and vice versa). I conclude that applying current animal pain management knowledge to prevailing ethical principles will shift IACUC toward greater caution in allowing potentially painful animal experiments, with heightened caution regarding the ability of analgesics to mitigate the animals' pain.

The Role of the Three Rs in Improving the Planning and Reproducibility of Animal Experiments

Training in the design of animal experiments focuses all too often on those aspects which can be approached mathematically, such as the number of animals needed to deliver a robust result, allocation of group size, and techniques such as randomization, blocking and statistical analysis. Important as they are, these are only a small part of the process of planning animal experiments. Additional key elements include refinements of housing, husbandry and procedures, health and safety, and attention at all stages to animal welfare. Advances in technology and laboratory animal science have led to improvements in care and husbandry, better provision of anesthetics and analgesics, refined methods of drug administration, greater competence in welfare assessment and application of humane endpoints. These improvements require continual dialogue between scientists, facility managers and technical staff, a practice that is a key feature of what has become known as the culture of care. This embodies a commitment to improving animal welfare, scientific quality, staff care and transparency for all stakeholders. Attention to both the physical and mental health of all those directly or indirectly involved in animal research is now an important part of the process of planning and conducting animal experiments. Efforts during the last 30 years to increase the internal and external validity of animal experiments have tended to concentrate on the production of guidelines to improve the quality of reporting animal experiments, rather than for planning them. Recently, comprehensive guidelines for planning animal studies have been published, to redress this imbalance. These will be described in this paper. Endorsement of this overarching influence of the Three R concept, by all the stakeholders, will not only reduce animal numbers and improve animal welfare, but also lead to more reliable and reproducible research which should improve translation of pre-clinical studies into tangible clinical benefit.

The Pursuit and Advancement of Knowledge as a Justification for the Use of Animals in Research

It is commonly said that animal research is sometimes ethically appropriate because it can lead to knowledge, irrespective of benefits this knowledge might bring to humans or animals. Proponents of this view, which I call the "knowledge justification," have been unclear about what they mean by the term "knowledge." They also omit from the justification other features of animal research that are intimately connected with the pursuit and advancement of knowledge. This article identifies and includes in a modified knowledge justification 5 general elements of the pursuit and advancement of knowledge in animal research: "knowledge" in the sense of facts, information, or explanations; "knowledge" in the sense of the experience of having knowledge; contemplation; the exercise of intellectual faculties and skills; and pleasures, frustrations, and challenges in the pursuit and advancement of knowledge. The article explains why these elements are valuable and must be given weight in assessing the ethical appropriateness of curiosity-driven animal research. The discussion critiques defenses and applications of current expressions of the knowledge justification. The article offers a preliminary defense of curiosity-driven animal research by arguing that using animals to obtain scientific knowledge and the pleasures of scientific inquiry can be far more valuable for humans and no more harmful to some animals than the use of these animals to produce meat for human consumption. The article presents 2 examples of curiosity-driven animal research to further establish the plausibility of the knowledge justification and suggests questions and guidelines for developing the justification.

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.

Examining compliance with ethical standards for animal research: is there a need for refinement? A qualitative study from northern Europe

Ethical guidelines for research on animals such as the 3Rs (Replacing, Reducing, Refining) and positive harm-benefit evaluations are anchored in EU Directive 2010/63. In this qualitative study we investigated how ethical guidelines interact and/or compete with other considerations when animal research is planned. Four focus groups consisting mainly of researchers involved in animal use were conducted in four Northern European countries and findings were analysed thematically with the support of NVIVO. Practical issues and the importance of doing good science were dominant topics. Practical issues could not easily be separated from the goal of good science. Participants expressed concerns which accord with the core-values of the 3Rs, but in one group they explicitly referred to the 3Rs as a concept. Conflicts between reductions in animal numbers and the risk of creating unreliable results were addressed. They also criticized the practice of using more animals to improve statistical figures to get results published in highly ranked journals - a finding we believe is new. The main conclusion of this study is that ethical values could not easily be separated from the goal of producing good science. Whereas policy makers seem to expect researchers to explicitly take ethical considerations into account, we found that their ethical thinking is mainly manifested as an implicit part of methodology and design. We don't see this as a problem as long as the underlying core values are implicitly respected, or promoted, in the relevant experimental practice.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

The harm benefit analysis (HBA) is the cornerstone of animal research regulation and is considered to be a key ethical safeguard for animals. The HBA involves weighing the anticipated benefits of animal research against its predicted harms to animals but there are doubts about how objective and accountable this process is.

OBJECTIVES

i. To explore the harms to animals involved in pre-clinical animal studies and to assess these against the benefits for humans accruing from these studies; ii. To test the feasibility of conducting this type of retrospective HBA.

METHODS

Data on harms were systematically extracted from a sample of pre-clinical animal studies whose clinical relevance had already been investigated by comparing systematic reviews of the animal studies with systematic reviews of human studies for the same interventions (antifibrinolytics for haemorrhage, bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, corticosteroids for brain injury, Tirilazad for stroke, antenatal corticosteroids for neonatal respiratory distress and thrombolytics for stroke). Clinical relevance was also explored in terms of current clinical practice. Harms were categorised for severity using an expert panel. The quality of the research and its impact were considered. Bateson's Cube was used to conduct the HBA.

RESULTS

The most common assessment of animal harms by the expert panel was 'severe'. Reported use of analgesia was rare and some animals (including most neonates) endured significant procedures with no, or only light, anaesthesia reported. Some animals suffered iatrogenic harms. Many were kept alive for long periods post-experimentally but only 1% of studies reported post-operative care. A third of studies reported that some animals died prior to endpoints. All the studies were of poor quality. Having weighed the actual harms to animals against the actual clinical benefits accruing from these studies, and taking into account the quality of the research and its impact, less than 7% of the studies were permissible according to Bateson's Cube: only the moderate bisphosphonate studies appeared to minimise harms to animals whilst being associated with benefit for humans.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first time the accountability of the HBA has been systematically explored across a range of pre-clinical animal studies. The regulatory systems in place when these studies were conducted failed to safeguard animals from severe suffering or to ensure that only beneficial, scientifically rigorous research was conducted. Our findings indicate a pressing need to: i. review regulations, particularly those that permit animals to suffer severe harms; ii. reform the processes of prospectively assessing pre-clinical animal studies to make them fit for purpose; and iii. systematically evaluate the benefits of pre-clinical animal research to permit a more realistic assessment of its likely future benefits.

Necessary, but Not Sufficient. The Benefit Concept in the Project Evaluation of Animal Research in the Context of Directive 2010/63/EU

Simple Summary

According to Directive 2010/63/EU, project proposals involving experiments on animals have to be approved in a harm-benefit-analysis (HBA) that weighs the potential benefits of the experiment against the harm inflicted on animals. Only if the benefit outweighs the harm, will the project be approved. However, it is unclear what counts as a valid benefit. In this paper, we analyze the underlying premises of the HBA and its consequences for the project evaluation process. We come to the conclusion that knowledge, as such, is considered a low benefit and that only knowledge applied to benefit society, e.g., new cancer treatment or potent vaccine, etc., is considered to be a high benefit. However, we demonstrate that benefit of this kind cannot be assessed prospectively for research proposals due to the inherent uncertainties of research and the difficulty of determining extra-scientific factors that are crucial for the generation of societal benefit. As a consequence, we advocate a reevaluation of current project evaluation and propose to develop an alternative model for project evaluation.

Abstract

Directive 2010/63/EU (henceforth “Directive”) on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes mandates that every project proposal in EU member states involving procedures on living non-human vertebrates and cephalopods has to be approved in an review process, including a harm-benefit-analysis (HBA), to assess “whether the harm to the animals in terms of suffering, pain and distress is justified by the expected outcome taking into account ethical consideration and may ultimately benefit human beings, animals or the environment”. Despite the justifying relevance of “outcome” and “benefit”, it remains unclear how to understand these concepts. However, national authorities and applicants require a clear understanding of this to carry out a HBA. To analyze the underlying premises of the HBA and its consequences for the evaluation process, we introduce a heuristic to analyze the relation between “outcome”, “benefit” and “prospective benefit assessment”. We then apply the heuristic to all seven legitimate purposes for animal research stated in the Directive, namely basic research, translational or applied research, product safety, education and training, protection of the environment, preservation of species and forensic inquiries. As we show, regardless of which purpose is aimed for, applicants are hard-pressed to demonstrate tangible benefits in a prospective assessment. In the HBA, this becomes a problem since—as we argue—the only reasonable, expected and tangible outcome of research can ever be knowledge. The potential long-term benefits on the basis of gained knowledge are unforeseeable and impossible to predict. Research is bound to fall short of these proclaimed societal benefits and its credibility will suffer as long as research has to validate itself through short-term societal benefit. We propose to revise the ethical evaluation based on the HBA and we think it necessary to develop an alternative model for project evaluation that focuses on the value of knowledge as a scientific outcome as a necessary but not sufficient condition for societal benefit.

The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions: Why Harm-Benefit Analysis and Its Emphasis on Practical Benefit Jeopardizes the Credibility of Research

Simple Summary

The European legislation on project evaluation of animal research has recently changed. Every procedure on live non-human vertebrates and cephalopods has to be approved in a project evaluation (harm–benefit analysis (HBA)) that weighs the inflicted harms on animals against potential prospective benefits. Recent publications on the HBA prioritise “societal benefits” that have a foreseeable, positive impact on humans, animals, or the environment over gaining knowledge (e.g., basic research). However, we argue that whether potential prospective societal benefits are realized is (a) impossible to predict and (b) exceeds the scope and responsibility of researchers. Furthermore, the emphasis on practical benefits has the drawback of driving researchers into speculation on the practical benefit of their research and, therefore, into promising too much. Repeated failure to deliver proclaimed practical benefits will lead to a loss of trust and credibility in research. The concepts of benefit and benefit assessment in the HBA, as well as the HBA itself, require re-evaluation in a spirit that embraces the value of knowledge in our society. Research projects should be measured by the quality of the research they perform and by the contributions they make to a specific field of research or research program. Only then can promises regarding benefits (in terms of knowledge) be kept and continued public trust ensured. Time and again, scientific knowledge has been utilized to great benefit for humans, animals, and the environment. The HBA, as it currently stands, tends to turn this idea upside down and implies that research is of value only if the resulting findings bring about direct practical benefits, which science itself can neither provide nor guarantee. The road to hell is, as the saying goes, paved with good intentions.

Abstract

It is our concern that European Union Directive 2010/63/EU with its current project evaluation of animal research in the form of a harm–benefit analysis may lead to an erosion of the credibility of research. The HBA assesses whether the inflicted harm on animals is outweighed by potential prospective benefits. Recent literature on prospective benefit analysis prioritizes “societal benefits” that have a foreseeable, positive impact on humans, animals, or the environment over benefit in the form of knowledge. In this study, we will argue that whether practical benefits are realized is (a) impossible to predict and (b) exceeds the scope and responsibility of researchers. Furthermore, we believe that the emphasis on practical benefits has the drawback of driving researchers into speculation on the societal benefit of their research and, therefore, into promising too much, thereby leading to a loss of trust and credibility. Thus, the concepts of benefit and benefit assessment in the HBA require a re-evaluation in a spirit that embraces the value of knowledge in our society. The generation of scientific knowledge has been utilised to great benefit for humans, animals, and the environment. The HBA, as it currently stands, tends to turn this idea upside down and implies that research is of value only if the resulting findings bring about immediate societal benefit.

Considerations for Infectious Disease Research Studies Using Animals

Animal models are vital in understanding the transmission and pathogenesis of infectious organisms and the host immune response to infection. In addition, animal models are essential in vaccine and therapeutic drug development and testing. Prior to selecting an animal model to use when studying an infectious agent, the scientific team must determine that sufficient in vitro and ex vivo data are available to justify performing research in an animal model, that ethical considerations are addressed, and that the data generated from animal work will add useful information to the body of scientific knowledge. Once it is established that an animal should be used, the questions become 'Which animal model is most suitable?' and 'Which experimental design issues should be considered?' The answers to these questions take into account numerous factors, including scientific, practical, welfare, and regulatory considerations, which are the focus of this article.

Assessing the satisfaction and burden within an academic animal care and use program

Although animal research requires adherence to various regulations and standards, the manner in which compliance is maintained and the degree of additional constraints varies between institutions. Regulatory burden, particularly if institutionally imposed, has become a concern for institutions as increased regulatory expectations result in decreased resources available for research efforts. Faculty, research staff, and support staff engaged in animal research were surveyed to determine what institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) processes were considered burdensome, the perceived value of some suggested modifications, and satisfaction with the IACUC administrative office and the animal resource unit. Although the results revealed overwhelming satisfaction with the IACUC administrative office and the animal resource unit, several IACUC processes were deemed burdensome, and therefore there would be value in modifying IACUC processes. When comparing the value of modifying IACUC processes, different groups within the animal care and use program (ACUP) tended to have different responses on many of the topics. This survey identified several perceived burdensome IACUC processes that would likely benefit individuals if modified. In today's environment of shrinking budgets for biomedical research, minimizing regulatory burden-particularly unnecessary, self-imposed burden-in the ACUP is particularly important to ensure that costs, time, and effort are appropriate to achieve animal welfare and quality of research endeavors.-Norton, J. N., Reynolds, R. P., Chan, C., Valdivia, R. H., Staats, H. F. Assessing the satisfaction and burden within an academic animal care and use program.