Dataset Information

Biosafety Risk Control Strategies in Laboratory Animal Research.

ABSTRACT: To understand biosafety's current situation in laboratory animal research and risk factors affecting occupational health. Compliance surveys were conducted by questionnaire via Questionnaire Star (an application app on the Internet) in Chinese. Thirty-nine anonymous questionnaires were collected. The surveyed institution has established 24 types of ABSL (Animal Biosafety Laboratory) and biosafety management organizations and systems equipped with safety equipment. Our study also suggests that the principal of the laboratory establishment fails to perform supervision and inspection responsibilities, the inappropriate design of the animal biosafety laboratory, non-standardized personnel training and health management, non-strict waste management, and insufficient emergency management. The administrative department and work units should address certain safety and occupational health risks in laboratory animal research. The author proposes control strategies based on organizational guarantee, personnel management, emergency management, etc., to help prevent risks and ensure occupational health. Due to regional limitations and small sample size, the results may not be generalisable to all parts of the world. However, some of the key common issues may also be present in other regions, so we believe that this research still has some relevance.

SUBMITTER: Weng ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10944157 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Biosafety Risk Control Strategies in Laboratory Animal Research.

Weng Shun-Tai ST Li Qu-Wen QW Gao Ya-Dong YD Qiu Yu-Feng YF

Safety and health at work 20231118 1

To understand biosafety's current situation in laboratory animal research and risk factors affecting occupational health. Compliance surveys were conducted by questionnaire via Questionnaire Star (an application app on the Internet) in Chinese. Thirty-nine anonymous questionnaires were collected. The surveyed institution has established 24 types of ABSL (Animal Biosafety Laboratory) and biosafety management organizations and systems equipped with safety equipment. Our study also suggests that th ...[more]

PMID: 38496279

Similar Datasets

Project description:If a laboratory animal survives an experiment without lasting compromised welfare, its future must be negotiated. Rehoming may be a consideration. This paper reports on research findings that provide an indication of the uptake of animal rehoming by UK facilities and the associated moral, ethical, practical and regulatory considerations that inform decisions to rehome or not. This research addresses a widely acknowledged gap in the literature to understand both the numbers, and types of animals rehomed from UK research facilities, as well as the main motivations for engaging in the practice, and the barriers for those facilities not currently rehoming. From the ~160 UK research facilities in the UK, 41 facilities completed the questionnaire, giving a response rate of approximately 25%. Results suggest rehoming occurs routinely, yet the numbers are small; just 2322 animals are known to have been rehomed between 2015-2017. At least 1 in 10 facilities are rehoming. There exists a clear preference for the rehoming of some species (mainly cats, dogs and horses) over others (rodents, agricultural animals and primates). Indeed, although 94.15% of species kept in laboratories are rodents, they make up under a fifth (19.14%) of all animals known to be rehomed between 2015-2017. The primary motivation for rehoming is to boost staff morale and promote a positive ethical profile for the facility. Barriers include concern for the animal's welfare following rehoming, high scientific demand for animals that leaves few to be rehomed, and, finally, certain animals (mainly those genetically modified) are simply unsuited to rehoming. The findings of this research will support facilities choosing to rehome, as well as those that are not currently engaging in the practice. By promoting the practice, the benefits to rehoming in terms of improving laboratory animal's quality of life, helping facility staff to overcome the moral stress of killing, and addressing public concern regarding the fate of laboratory animals, can be attained. It is only once an understanding of rehoming from the perspective of UK research facilities has been ascertained, that appropriate policy and support can be provided.

Project description:Dental procedures produce a large amount of spatter and aerosols that create concern for the transmission of airborne diseases, such as Covid-19. This study established a methodology with the objective of evaluating new associated strategies to reduce the risk of cross-transmission in a health environment by simulating spread of potentially contaminated dispersion particles (PCDP) in the environment. This crossover study, was conducted in a school clinic environment (4 clinics containing 12 dental chairs each). As a positive control group (without barriers), 12 professionals activated at the same time the turbine of dental drill, for one minute, with a bacterial solution (Lactobacillus casei Shirota, 1.5x108 CFU/mL), which had been added in the cooling reservoir of the dental equipment. In the experimental groups, the professionals made use of; a) an individual biosafety barrier in dentistry (IBBD) which consists of a metal support covered by a disposable PVC film barrier; b) a Mobile Unit of Disinfection by Ultraviolet-C, consisting of 8 UV lamps-C of 95W, of 304μW/cm2 of irradiance each, connected for 15 minutes (UV-C) and; c) the association between the two methods (IBBD + UV-C). In each clinic, 56 Petri dishes containing MRS agar were positioned on the lamps, benches and on the floor. In addition, plates were placed prior to each test (negative control group) and plates were also placed in the corridor that connects the four clinics. In the groups without barrier and IBBD + UV-C the passive air microorganisms in Petri dishes was also evaluated at times of 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes after the end of the dental's drill activation. The mean (standard deviation) of CFU of L. casei Shirota for the positive control group was 3905 (1521), while in the experimental groups the mean using the IBBD was 940 (466) CFU, establishing a reduction on average, of 75% (p<0.0001). For the UV-C group, the mean was 260 (309) CFU and the association of the use of IBBD + UV-C promoted an overall average count of 152 (257) CFU, establishing a reduction on average of 93% and 96%, respectively (p<0.0001). Considering these results and the study model used, the individual biosafety barrier associated with UV-C technology showed to be efficient strategies to reduce the dispersion of bioaerosols generated in an environment with high rate of PCDP generation and may be an alternative for the improvement of biosafety in different healthy environment.

Project description:ObjectiveIn this study, we added laboratory animal ethics education into both didactic sessions and practical sessions the general surgery laboratory course, with the didactic sessions focus on teaching the fundamental principles of laboratory animal ethics, while the practical sessions emphasize the application of these principles in laboratory classes and have assessed the changes in medical students' perception of laboratory animal ethics following medical students exposure to such education.MethodsOne hundred and eighty-nine third-year medical students from Wuhan University's Second Clinical College completed a laboratory animal ethics awareness questionnaire and a laboratory animal ethics written examination before and after laboratory animal ethics education.ResultsAfter receiving laboratory animal ethics education, the percentage of students who supported euthanasia for the execution of animals and humane treatment of laboratory animals were 95.2% and 98.8%, respectively, which did not differ from the 94.9% and 96.4% observed before the education. Moreover, there was a notable increase in the proportion of students who knew about regulations related to laboratory animals (from 39.9% to 57.1%), welfare issues (from 31.9% to 50.0%), and the 3R principle (from 30.4% to 58.9%) post-education, all statistically significant at P < 0.05. Test scores also showed improvement, with students scoring (93.02 ± 11.65) after education compared to (67.83 ± 8.08) before, a statistically significant difference.ConclusionsThis research helps to provide information for the good practices of laboratory animal ethics education. After receiving laboratory animal ethics education, students are better able to treat laboratory animals in a correct animal ethical manner. Laboratory animal ethics education helps improve students' knowledge of laboratory animal ethics. Students' perception towards how the laboratory animal ethics course should be delivered may vary. Still, new courses or better organized courses on laboratory animal ethics education are required in order to provide students an in-depth understanding.

Project description:ContextPublication bias jeopardizes evidence-based medicine, mainly through biased literature syntheses. Publication bias may also affect laboratory animal research, but evidence is scarce.ObjectivesTo assess the opinion of laboratory animal researchers on the magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions for publication bias. And to explore the impact of size of the animals used, seniority of the respondent, working in a for-profit organization and type of research (fundamental, pre-clinical, or both) on those opinions.DesignInternet-based survey.SettingAll animal laboratories in The Netherlands.ParticipantsLaboratory animal researchers.Main outcome measure(s)Median (interquartile ranges) strengths of beliefs on 5 and 10-point scales (1: totally unimportant to 5 or 10: extremely important).ResultsOverall, 454 researchers participated. They considered publication bias a problem in animal research (7 (5 to 8)) and thought that about 50% (32-70) of animal experiments are published. Employees (n = 21) of for-profit organizations estimated that 10% (5 to 50) are published. Lack of statistical significance (4 (4 to 5)), technical problems (4 (3 to 4)), supervisors (4 (3 to 5)) and peer reviewers (4 (3 to 5)) were considered important reasons for non-publication (all on 5-point scales). Respondents thought that mandatory publication of study protocols and results, or the reasons why no results were obtained, may increase scientific progress but expected increased bureaucracy. These opinions did not depend on size of the animal used, seniority of the respondent or type of research.ConclusionsNon-publication of "negative" results appears to be prevalent in laboratory animal research. If statistical significance is indeed a main driver of publication, the collective literature on animal experimentation will be biased. This will impede the performance of valid literature syntheses. Effective, yet efficient systems should be explored to counteract selective reporting of laboratory animal research.

Dataset Information

Biosafety Risk Control Strategies in Laboratory Animal Research.

Publications

Biosafety Risk Control Strategies in Laboratory Animal Research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets