Translational science: a survey of US biomedical researchers' perspectives and practices.
Journal
Lab animal
ISSN: 1548-4475
Titre abrégé: Lab Anim (NY)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0417737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
received:
23
03
2021
accepted:
09
11
2021
pubmed:
25
12
2021
medline:
6
1
2022
entrez:
24
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This national survey aimed to identify how biomedical researchers using vertebrate animals viewed issues of significance for translational science, including oversight and public engagement, and to analyze how researcher characteristics and animal model choice correlate with those views. Responses from 1,187 researchers showed awareness of, and concerns about, problems of translation, reproducibility and rigor. Surveyed scientists were nevertheless optimistic about the value of animal studies, were favorable about research oversight and reported openness with non-scientists in discussing their animal work. Differences in survey responses among researchers also point to diverse perspectives within the animal research community on these matters. Most significant was variability associated with the primary type of animal that surveyed scientists used in their work. Other significant divergence in opinion appeared on the basis of professional role factors, including the type of degree held, workplace setting, type of funding, experience on an institutional animal care and use committee and personal demographic characteristics of age and gender.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34949847
doi: 10.1038/s41684-021-00890-0
pii: 10.1038/s41684-021-00890-0
pmc: PMC8889754
mid: NIHMS1778384
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
22-35Subventions
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM099952
Pays : United States
Organisme : U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (NIH)
ID : R01GM099952
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.
Références
Ioannidis, J. P. A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2, e124 (2005).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Baker, M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nat. News 533, 452 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/533452a
Munafò, M. R. et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0021 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012).
doi: 10.1038/483531a
Prinz, F., Schlange, T. & Asadullah, K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712 (2011).
doi: 10.1038/nrd3439-c1
Seok, J. et al. Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 3507–3512 (2013).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222878110
Mogil, J. S. Animal models of pain: progress and challenges. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10, 283–294 (2009).
doi: 10.1038/nrn2606
Mak, I. W. Y., Evaniew, N. & Ghert, M. Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment. Am. J. Transl. Res. 6, 114–118 (2014).
pubmed: 24489990
pmcid: 3902221
Dawson, T. M., Golde, T. E. & Lagier-Tourenne, C. Animal models of neurodegenerative diseases. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 1370–1379 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41593-018-0236-8
van der Worp, H. B. et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med. 7, e1000245 (2010).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245
Scott, S. et al. Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS. Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. 9, 4–15 (2008).
doi: 10.1080/17482960701856300
Garner, J. P., Gaskill, B. N., Weber, E. M., Ahloy-Dallaire, J. & Pritchett-Corning, K. R. Introducing Therioepistemology: the study of how knowledge is gained from animal research. Lab Anim. (NY) 46, 103–113 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/laban.1224
Muhlhausler, B. S., Bloomfield, F. H. & Gillman, M. W. Whole animal experiments should be more like human randomized controlled trials. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001481 (2013).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001481
Peers, I. S., Ceuppens, P. R. & Harbron, C. In search of preclinical robustness. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 733–734 (2012).
doi: 10.1038/nrd3849
Kilkenny, C. et al. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS ONE 4, e7824 (2009).
Beynen, A. C., Gärtner, K. & van Zutphen, L. F. M. In Principles of Laboratory Animal Science (eds. Zutphen, L. F. M., Baumans, V. & Beynen, A.C.) 103–110 (Elsevier, 2001).
Barbee, R. W. & Turner, P. V. Incorporating laboratory animal science into responsible biomedical research. ILAR J. 60, 9–16 (2019).
doi: 10.1093/ilar/ilz017
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M. & Altman, D. G. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000412 (2010).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412
Percie du Sert, N. et al. The ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000410 (2020).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410
National Research Council. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th edn (The National Academies Press, 2011).
Russell, W. M. S. & Burch, R. L. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. (Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, 1959).
LaFollette, H. & Shanks, N. Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation (Routledge, 2020).
Pound, P., Ebrahim, S., Sandercock, P., Bracken, M. B. & Roberts, I. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? Br. Med. J. 328, 514–517 (2004).
doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514
Greek, C. R. & Greek, J. S. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals. (A&C Black, 2000).
Jones, J. & Saad, L. Gallup Poll Social Series: Values and Beliefs. Available at https://www.gallup.com/201200/gallup-poll-social-series-work.aspx (2019).
Strauss, M. Americans Are Divided Over the Use of Animals in Scientific Research. Available at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/16/americans-are-divided-over-the-use-of-animals-in-scientific-research/ (2018).
Lankau, E. W., Turner, P. V., Mullan, R. J. & Galland, G. G. Use of nonhuman primates in research in North America. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 53, 278–282 (2014).
pubmed: 24827570
pmcid: 4128566
Magden, E. R., Mansfield, K. G., Simmons, J. H. & Abee, C. R. in Laboratory Animal Medicine 3rd edn (eds. Fox, J. G, Anderson, L. C., Otto, G. M. Pritchett-Corning, K. R. & Whary, M. T.) 771–930 (Academic Press, 2015).
Baker, K. C. & Dettmer, A. M. The well-being of laboratory non-human primates. Am. J. Primatol. 79, e22520 (2017).
Colman, R. J. et al. Marmosets: welfare, ethical use, and IACUC/regulatory considerations. ILAR J. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilab003 (2021).
Rader, K. Making Mice: Standardizing Animals for American Biomedical Research, 1900–1955 (Princeton University Press, 2004).
Perlman, R. L. Mouse models of human disease: an evolutionary perspective. Evol. Med. Public Health 1, 170–176 (2016).
Courtine, G. et al. Can experiments in nonhuman primates expedite the translation of treatments for spinal cord injury in humans? Nat. Med. 13, 561–566 (2007).
doi: 10.1038/nm1595
Colman, R. J. Non-human primates as a model for aging. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Basis Dis. 1864, 2733–2741 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2017.07.008
Perrin, S. Preclinical research: make mouse studies work. Nat. News 507, 423–425 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/507423a
Richter, S. H., Garner, J. P. & Würbel, H. Environmental standardization: cure or cause of poor reproducibility in animal experiments. Nat. Methods 6, 257–261 (2009).
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1312
Voelkl, B. et al. Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 21, 384–393 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41583-020-0313-3
Laukens, D., Brinkman, B. M., Raes, J., De Vos, M. & Vandenabeele, P. Heterogeneity of the gut microbiome in mice: guidelines for optimizing experimental design. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 40, 117–132 (2016).
doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuv036
Willmann, R. et al. Enhancing translation: guidelines for standard pre-clinical experiments in mdx mice. Neuromuscul. Disordd 22, 43–49 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.nmd.2011.04.012
Eisner, D. A. Reproducibility of science: fraud, impact factors and carelessness. J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 114, 364–368 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2017.10.009
Fang, F. C., Bennett, J. W. & Casadevall, A. Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct. Mbio 4, e00640–12 (2013).
Everitt, J. I. & Berridge, B. R. The role of the IACUC in the design and conduct of animal experiments that contribute to translational success. ILAR J. 58, 129–134 (2017).
doi: 10.1093/ilar/ilx003
Pritt, S., McNulty, J. A., Greene, M., Light, S. & Brown, M. Decreasing institutionally imposed regulatory burden for animal research. Lab Anim. (NY) 45, 297–300 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/laban.1067
National Research Council. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. (National Academies Press, 2007).
Festing, S. & Wilkinson, R. The ethics of animal research: talking point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Rep. 8, 526–530 (2007).
doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400993
DeGrazia, D. The ethics of animal research: what are the prospects for agreement? Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 8, 23–34 (1999).
doi: 10.1017/S0963180199801054
Wadman, M. Hundreds of US scientists urge more transparency in animal research. Available at https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/hundreds-us-scientists-urge-more-transparency-animal-research (2018).
Basel Declaration Society. Basel Declaration. A Call for More Trust, Transparency and Communication on Animal Research. Available at https://www.basel-declaration.org/basel-declaration/ (2010).
MacArthur Clark, J., Clifford, P., Jarrett, W. & Pekow, C. Communicating about animal research with the public. ILAR J. 60, 34–42 (2019).
doi: 10.1093/ilar/ilz007
Waltz, M., Saylor, K. W., Fisher, J. A. & Walker, R. L. Biomedical researchers’ perceptions of the NIH’s Sex as a Biological Variable policy for animal research: results from a US national survey. J. Womens Health (Larchmt.) 30, 348–354 (2021).
doi: 10.1089/jwh.2020.8674