Critically Evaluating Animal Research

Knight, Andrew

doi:10.1163/9789004391192_015

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But although there is a globally recognized need to replace animal use in toxicology and regulatory testing whenever possible (Balls, 2007;Hartung, 2009;Stephens and Mak, 2013), this is not yet the case in basic and applied research, where most of the animals are used (Daneshian et al, 2015;EC, 2011). Consequently, the value of animal models for biomedial research should be critically appraised by means of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and citation analyses (e.g., Carvalho et al, 2019;Hartung, 2013;Herrmann, 2019a;Knight, 2019;Pound et al, 2004). Also, with regards to research funding strategies and prioritization, assessing return on investment with meaningful indicators is key to enable an assessment of the impact that publicly Thus, the "high-fidelity fallacy" is the unfounded belief that, say, a mouse would be a good predictor of the human situation in a given context because both mice and humans are mammals.…”

Section: Prioritizing Biomedical Research As the Target Of Non-animal Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the 3Rs: Expanding the use of human-relevant replacement methods in biomedical research

Herrmann

Pistollato

Stephens

2019

ALTEX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

20 th century. Relevant techniques include (among others) organson-a-chip (microdevices containing cells and fluids intended to simulate physiological processes in organs); organoids (three-dimensional spheroids containing multiple cell types and intended to simulate physiological processes); high-throughput systems (rapid screening of large numbers of chemicals for biological activity against panels of different cells or biomolecules); induced pluripotent stem cells (adult cells that have been genetically reprogrammed to an embryonic stem cell-like state); and computational modeling (using computation to study the behavior of complex systems).In our view, these methods (and no doubt others in various stages of development) have the potential to replace the use of animals as the default option in both safety testing and biomedical research. That is, these methods will come to comprise the rule, with animal experiments being the exception. This is consistent with Dutch efforts to expeditiously end animal experi- IntroductionThe Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, the landmark book that gave us the 3Rs framework of replacement, reduction, and refinement, turns 60 this year. First published in 1959, Principles was the outcome of a project spearheaded by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), overseen by a committee that included future Nobel Prize-winning scientist Peter Medawar, and carried out by the British scientists William Russell and Rex Burch (Russell and Burch, 1959). The 3Rs framework helped to inspire and guide humane progress in experimental technique during the second half of the 20 th century and beyond (Stephens and Mak, 2013;Balls et al., 2019).The 60 th anniversary of Principles falls in the midst of substantial developments in non-animal methods, i.e., potential replacement technology. Indeed, scientific experimentation is at the cusp of a new era of techniques hardly imagined in the mid-Food for Thought …

show abstract

Section: Prioritizing Biomedical Research As the Target Of Non-animal Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the 3Rs: Expanding the use of human-relevant replacement methods in biomedical research

Herrmann

Pistollato

Stephens

2019

ALTEX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of our study are in agreement with previous studies that empirically evaluated the contribution of animal models to human healthcare either through citation analysis (e.g., Shapiro, 1998 ; Knight, 2007 ; Long et al, 2014 ; Carvalho et al, 2016 ) either through other methods such as systematic reviews (e.g., Perel et al, 2007 ), social science studies (e.g., Shapiro, 1998 ; Compton et al, 2019 ), historical analysis (e.g., Menache, 2012 ), among others (for an extensive review on this topic see, for example, Knight, 2019 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Rat Studies to Current Knowledge of Major Depressive Disorder: Results From Citation Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most severe depression type and one of the leading causes of morbidity worldwide. Animal models are widely used to understand MDD etiology, pathogenesis, and treatment, but the efficacy of this research for patients has barely been systematically evaluated. Such evaluation is important given the resource consumption and ethical concerns incurred by animal use. We used the citation tracking facilities within Web of Science and Scopus to locate citations of original research papers on rats related to MDD published prior to 2013-to allow adequate time for citations-identified in PubMed and Scopus by relevant search terms. Resulting citations were thematically coded in eight categories, and descriptive statistics were calculated. 178 publications describing relevant rat studies were identified. They were cited 8,712 times. More than half (4,633) of their citations were by other animal studies. 794 (less than 10%) were by human medical papers. Citation analysis indicates that rat model research has contributed very little to the contemporary clinical understanding of MDD. This suggests a misuse of limited funding hence supporting a change in allocation of research and development funds targeting this disorder to maximise benefits for patients.

show abstract

“…The high failure rate of drugs in the clinical phase (Begley and Ellis, 2012;Food and Drug Administration, 2004;Hutchinson and Kirk, 2011;Kola and Landis, 2004;Olson et al, 2000) indicates not only poor scientific quality and cognitive bias but also that animals are not good models for humans (e.g., Greek and Kramer, 2019, Chapter 17 in this Volume; Kramer and Greek, 2018;Knight, 2019, Chapter 14 in this Volume; Leist and Hartung, 2013); and the same applies to food-safety testing in animals (Rovida et al, 2015). Already back in 2000, an eye-opening report (Olson et al, 2000) was published about the results of a multinational pharmaceutical company survey, which served to better understand the concordance of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans compared with other animals.…”

Section: Is the Biomedical Research Industry Shifting Away From Animamentioning

confidence: 99%

Refinement on the Way Towards Replacement: Are We Doing What We Can?

Herrmann¹

2019

Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Critically Evaluating Animal Research

Abstract: This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the prevailing cc-by-nc License at the time of publication.

Cited by 7 publications

References 57 publications

Beyond the 3Rs: Expanding the use of human-relevant replacement methods in biomedical research

Beyond the 3Rs: Expanding the use of human-relevant replacement methods in biomedical research

The Contribution of Rat Studies to Current Knowledge of Major Depressive Disorder: Results From Citation Analysis

Refinement on the Way Towards Replacement: Are We Doing What We Can?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About