Despite guidelines that UK students should receive training in good research conduct and consider wider societal and ethical issues of their animal research, this is not happening, writes Dr Juliet Dukes, senior scientific officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in The Guardian.
Poor design, conduct and reporting of animal research is a global issue – and the costs are significant. It’s estimated that $28bn (£22bn) a year is spent on pre-clinical research that cannot be replicated; this wastes funding, damages science, causes avoidable animal suffering, and fails patients waiting for the development of new treatments.
Dukes says the reproducibility "crisis", as it’s been labelled, is recognised by the scientific community and has prompted various initiatives for improvement, but there has been little change yet. The situation would be unacceptable to many; public opinion about animal research includes provisos on the justification and need for research that should be taken seriously, as research is ultimately funded by the public.
Dukes writes that these fundamental problems with scientific quality indicate that something is going horribly wrong with the education of researchers.
She writes: "Unless real action is taken to address this, poor-quality science will only continue. But what is missing from training, and how can we improve?
"Research Councils UK (RCUK) invests £3bn of UK taxes annually into research of all disciplines. Its recent guidance emphasises robust experimental design, stating that students should receive training in good research conduct and consider wider societal and ethical issues of their research. This seems progressive, since good science, animal welfare and ethics are intrinsically linked. But where are the safeguards to ensure that students receive this training, reflect on it, and show evidence of its application?"
Dukes says: "Worryingly, many academics consider teaching scientific research ethics to be 'a waste of their time' and a 'box-ticking exercise' with little reflection on the scientific process. This attitude is supported by the details for online graduate programmes of 18 universities leading doctoral training partnerships funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Biotechnology and Biological Research Council (BBSRC).
"The courses include ethics as part of research integrity, good research practice and clinical research – but not for animal use, save three exceptions. Overall, only two universities teach the replacement, reduction and refinement of animal use (the 3Rs), animal welfare, and the ethics of using animals in research. Just one university mandates its ethics and 3Rs course for all those who may be using animals in regulated procedures, or using animal tissues."
Acording to Dukes, the MRC and BBSRC fund hundreds of projects involving animals every year, but have no current requirement for students to receive 3Rs training beyond the basic modules needed for a Home Office licence. "The teaching of 'research ethics and governance' is a commitment by signatories of the concordat to support research integrity (including RCUK), but reflection on ethical use of animals is not included."
Dukes notes that some efforts are being made: the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) provides training for its PhD students, and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) runs an annual summer school.
But, she says, these two excellent programmes reach fewer than 50 students a year, who are already active in 3Rs research, unlike the majority of PhD students in the life sciences. In 2013/14, there were 117,675 first-year postgraduate students studying the life sciences, with the MRC alone funding 1,900 studentships at any one time. Current 3Rs and ethical training for doctoral students is therefore grossly inadequate.
Dukes says there is an urgent need for comprehensive and focused education in ethical decision-making, animal welfare and the 3Rs for postgraduate students. This would lead to better science, reductions in animal use and suffering as per the government’s delivery plan to reduce the use of animals, "place 3Rs at the heart" of research, and improved compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It would also bring economic benefits through more efficient spending of research funding, and increase public trust in science.
Dukes writes: 'To achieve this steps should include: research studentships that involve the use of animals, or animal-derived material or data, having a clear and enforced requirement for students to undergo education in ethical decision-making about whether and how animals are used; the 3Rs; animal welfare; robust experimental design and critical analysis of prior work; the output of the student’s work demonstrating reflection on the above; and education of this nature, and evidence of the student’s reflection, conditional for awards by the MRC, BBSRC and other funders of life-science research.
"These provisos, properly enforced, would also help address legitimate public concerns about the impact of science on animals, and benefit patient groups and society as a whole, through improving how effectively research (using animals or humane alternatives) translates to the clinic.
"Maybe the next generation of life-science researchers will become truly independent thinkers – conducting research to a genuinely high standard, challenging the status quo and making appropriate and ethical choices that minimise the suffering of other species while improving the quality of science. But for that to happen, we require genuine commitment and resources to provide the education that life scientists really need."
In PLOS Biology, UK scientists outline a framework to make remaining material derived from animal studies in biomedical research more visible and accessible to the scientific community.
Using animals to research potentially life-saving treatments for humans is a necessary part of the scientific process, though progress has been made in reducing the number of animals involved. In a new commentary, scientists in the UK led by Professor Valerie Speirs describe a framework designed to make remaining material derived from animal studies in biomedical research more visible and accessible to the scientific community.
The framework, called SEARCH (Sharing Experimental Animal Resources, Coordinating Holdings), encourages scientists to share before considering developing new or additional models, with the ultimate aim to reduce the number of animals used in biomedical research.
The first SEARCH prototype, called SEARCHBreast, has been developed through funding from the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). SEARCHBreast is a database that lists tissues associated with mouse models of breast cancer, and makes them available without charge to scientists. It is run by the University of Leeds, alongside the Barts Cancer Institute, the University of Sheffield and the Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute.
Leeds-based Speirs, project PI, explains that resource’s goal to make maximum use of any animal used in research. “We know that several animals are needed to produce reliable results. But in general only a fraction of each tissue sample is required to perform an experiment. Scientists typically store the rest of the material away which is often never re-visited,” Speirs said.
Rather than duplicating what already exists, scientists can first check the database to see if an existing resource matches their needs. That benefits researchers because the database means tissue can be made available faster and cheaper than would be possible if they had to obtain new animals for each experiment. It also serves the goals of the 3Rs which aims to Reduce, Replace and Refine the use of animals in biomedical research. “By using more of the available tissue, less animals will need to be used in first place,” Speirs said.
The team’s goal in creating the resource is twofold. “We want to foster a culture of collaboration, and by doing this, we’re reducing the number of animals needed for research all round,” Professor Speirs said. “This is the first tissue-sharing website of its kind and I feel it’s a good contribution to make to science and to animal welfare. We have shown this concept works for breast cancer and our research shows a desire from scientists in other disciplines to adopt SEARCH in their own field”.
Research commentary under embargo until Friday 13th January 2017
[link url="https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/dec/10/we-are-getting-animal-research-wrong-only-education-can-fix-it?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other"]The Guardian report[/link]
PLOS Biology material
PLOS Biology commentary