No abstract

In September 2021, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution to phase out animal use for research, testing, and education, through the adoption of an action plan. Here we explore the opportunity that the action plan could offer in developing a more holistic outlook for fundamental and biomedical research, which accounts for around 70% of all animal use for scientific purposes in the EU. We specifically focus on biomedical research to consider how mapping scientific advances to patient needs, taking into account the ambitious health policies of the EU, would facilitate the development of non-animal strategies to deliver safe and effective medicines, for example. We consider what is needed to help accelerate the move away from animal use, taking account of all stakeholders and setting ambitious but realistic targets for the total replacement of animals. Importantly, we envisage this as a ‘phase-in’ approach, encouraging the use of human-relevant NAMs, enabling their development and application across research (with applications for toxicology testing). We make recommendations for three pillars of activity, inspired by similar efforts for making the shift to renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions, and point out where investment—both financial and personnel—may be needed.

No abstract

Publication of scientific findings is a fundamental part of the research process that pushes innovation and generates policies and interventions that benefit society, but it is not without biases. Publication bias is generally recognized as journal's preference for publishing studies based on the direction and magnitude of results. However, early evidence of a new type of bias related to publication has emerged in which editorial policy and/or peer reviewers or editors request that animal data be provided to validate studies produced using nonanimal human biology-based approaches. We describe herein "animal-reliance bias" in publishing: a reliance on or preference for animal-based methods where they may not be necessary or where nonanimal-based methods may be suitable, which affects the likelihood of a manuscript being accepted for publication. To gather evidence of the occurrence of this emerging type of publication bias, we set out to collect the experiences and perceptions of scientists and reviewers related to animal- and nonanimal-based experiments during peer review. To this end, we created a survey with 33 questions that was completed by 90 respondents working in several areas in the biological and biomedical fields. Twenty-one survey respondents indicated that they have carried out animal-based experiments for the sole purpose of anticipating reviewer requests. Thirty-one survey respondents indicated that they have been asked by peer reviewers to add animal experimental data to their nonanimal study; 14 of these felt that it was sometimes justified, and 11 did not think the request was justified. The data presented strongly support the occurrence of animal-reliance bias and indicates that status quo and conservatism biases may explain such attitudes by peer reviewers and editors. To our knowledge, this is the first study to recognize the existence of animal-reliance bias in publishing and provides the basis for developing strategies to prevent this practice from happening.