Dataset Information

Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare.

ABSTRACT: Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

SUBMITTER: Davies GF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4948886 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare.

Davies Gail F GF Greenhough Beth J BJ Hobson-West Pru P Kirk Robert G W RG Applebee Ken K Bellingan Laura C LC Berdoy Manuel M Buller Henry H Cassaday Helen J HJ Davies Keith K Diefenbacher Daniela D Druglitrø Tone T Escobar Maria Paula MP Friese Carrie C Herrmann Kathrin K Hinterberger Amy A Jarrett Wendy J WJ Jayne Kimberley K Johnson Adam M AM Johnson Elizabeth R ER Konold Timm T Leach Matthew C MC Leonelli Sabina S Lewis David I DI Lilley Elliot J EJ Longridge Emma R ER McLeod Carmen M CM Miele Mara M Nelson Nicole C NC Ormandy Elisabeth H EH Pallett Helen H Poort Lonneke L Pound Pandora P Ramsden Edmund E Roe Emma E Scalway Helen H Schrader Astrid A Scotton Chris J CJ Scudamore Cheryl L CL Smith Jane A JA Whitfield Lucy L Wolfensohn Sarah S

PloS one 20160718 7

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across ...[more]

PMID: 27428071

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the increasing mobilization of researchers and funding organizations around knowledge translation (KT) in Canada and elsewhere, many questions have been only partially answered, particularly in the field of population health. This article presents the results of a systematic process to draw out possible avenues of collaboration for researchers, practitioners and decision-makers who work in the area of KT. The main objective was to establish a research agenda on knowledge translation in population health.MethodsUsing the Concept Mapping approach, the research team wanted to identify priority themes for the development of research on KT in population health. Mapping is based on multivariate statistical analyses (multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis) in which statements produced during a brainstorming session are grouped in weighted clusters. The final maps are a visual representation of the priority themes of research on KT. Especially designed for facilitating consensus in the understanding and organization of various concepts, the Concept Mapping method proved suitable for achieving this objective.ResultsThe maps were produced by 19 participants from university settings, and from institutions within the health and social services network. Three main perspectives emerge from this operation: (1) The evaluation of the effectiveness of KT efforts is one of the main research priorities; (2) The importance of taking into consideration user contexts in any KT effort; (3) The challenges related to sharing power for decision-making and action-taking among various stakeholder groups. These perspectives open up avenues of collaboration for stakeholders who are involved in research on KT. Besides these three main perspectives, the concept maps reveal three other trends which should be emphasized.ConclusionThe Concept Mapping process reported in this article aimed to provoke collective reflection on the research questions that should be studied, in order to foster coherence in research activities in the field of population health. Based on this, it is appropriate to continue to support the development of research projects in KT and the formation of research teams in this field. Research on KT must lead to concrete outcomes within communities that are interested in the question.

Project description:Laboratory animal personnel may experience significant stress from working with animals in scientific research. Workplace stress can be assessed by evaluating professional quality of life, which is comprised of compassion fatigue (i.e., burnout and secondary traumatic stress) and compassion satisfaction. This research aimed to explore the associations between risk factors and professional quality of life in laboratory animal personnel. In a cross-sectional, convenience sample design, laboratory animal personnel were recruited from widespread online promotion. A total of 801 personnel in the United States or Canada completed an online survey regarding professional quality of life, social support, euthanasia, enrichment, stress/pain levels, and human-animal interactions. Participants worked in a wide range of settings (e.g., industry, academia), research types (e.g., basic, applied, regulatory), species (e.g., non-human primates, mice), and roles (e.g., animal caretaker, veterinarian). Data were analyzed using general linear models. Personnel who reported higher compassion fatigue also reported lower social support, higher animal stress/pain, higher desire to implement more enrichment, and less control over performing euthanasia (p's < 0.05). Higher burnout was associated with less diverse/frequent enrichment, using physical euthanasia methods, and longer working hours. Higher secondary traumatic stress was associated with more relationship-promoting human-animal interactions (e.g., naming animals) and working as a trainers (p's < 0.05). Higher compassion satisfaction was associated with higher social support, less animal stress/pain, and more human-animal interactions (p's < 0.05). Surprisingly, neither personnel's primary animal type (e.g., non-human primates, mice) nor frequency of euthanasia (e.g., daily, monthly) were associated with professional quality of life (p's > 0.05). Our findings show that the professional quality of life of laboratory animal personnel is associated with several factors. Personnel reporting poorer professional quality of life also reported less social support, higher animal stress/pain, less enrichment diversity/frequency and wished they could provide more enrichment, using physical euthanasia, and less control over performing euthanasia. Poorer professional quality of life was also seen in personnel working as trainers, at universities, and longer hours. This study contributes important empirical data that may provide guidance for developing interventions (e.g., improved social support, decreased animal stress, increased animal enrichment diversity/frequency, greater control over euthanasia) to improve laboratory animal personnel's professional quality of life.

Project description:While perceptions of animal welfare have been assessed in veterinary students and students internationally, there remains a gap in research concerning undergraduate and graduate student perspectives of animal welfare in animal science programs at colleges and universities across the United States. A survey was developed to assess current animal science student perspectives of the importance of animal welfare as part of their education, their knowledge of available educational opportunities, and resources they think should be included in animal welfare curricula. An online survey was distributed to a national listserv of university administrators of animal science programs in the United States. A total of 624 survey responses were statistically summarized. Most respondents were undergraduate students (78.0%, n = 487), between the ages of 18 and 24 (85.9%, n = 536), and female (86.1%, n = 537). Results indicated that despite most respondents not taking an animal welfare course previously (60.7%, n = 379), most students strongly agreed that the inclusion of an animal welfare course is an important part of the animal science curriculum (72.0%, n = 449), that animal welfare is an important component of their education (63.1%, n = 394), and that animal welfare courses would be helpful for their future careers (70.0%, n = 437). When asked what attributes would be most important in an animal welfare class, students identified many different types of information and resources. The majority of respondents answered that discussing current hot topics in animal welfare (76.1%, n = 475), ethical discussions (76.0%, n = 474), and practical, applied questions (75.3%, n = 470) were important course components. Suggestions for future research include investigating how animal science student perceptions change before and after taking an animal welfare course and exploring opportunities to expand formal welfare education in animal science departments. Inclusion of animal welfare into the curriculum is critical as many of the students currently enrolled in animal science departments will become the future stakeholders in animal-focused industries.

Project description:BackgroundResearch priorities are best defined through engagement with communities who will be impacted by the research and have lived experience of the topics to be studied. We aimed to establish a pediatric rare disease community stakeholder group and empower them in (1) eliciting perspectives from affected families in the wider region and (2) synthesizing collective ideas into a research agenda focused on shared ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) across rare disease.MethodsThis two-year project utilized a community-centered approach to engage rare disease community members as equal partners in developing a research agenda for ELSI in rare disease. We established "Rare Voices" (RV), a 22-member stakeholder group of patients, parents, clinicians and researchers. Following capacity-building trainings, RV designed and conducted listening sessions with teen patients and parents of children with rare diseases to explore challenges, positive experiences, and ethical concerns. Listening session findings were synthesized and contextualized into research topics, which RV members further refined and prioritized. We used established measures to assess RV member engagement and satisfaction.ResultsFrom 14 listening sessions with parents (n = 52) and teen patients (n = 13), RV identified eight core research topics as most important for future rare disease research: coordinating care, communication, accessing resources and care, impact on family unit, community and support in society, mental health and identity, ethical aspects of care, and uncertainty. RV members were highly engaged throughout the two-year project and reported high levels of satisfaction with the experience and research agenda.ConclusionsThrough capacity-building and authentic engagement, this project resulted in a community-led rare disease research agenda to guide future rare disease ELSI research that aligns with patients' and families' priorities. An environment of equal partnership and respect created a space for mutual learning where community members were empowered to shape the research agenda based on their collective experiences. The agenda recognizes the shared psychosocial and healthcare experiences of rare disease and offers practical areas of research to address patient and family needs.

Dataset Information

Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare.

Publications

Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets