Dataset Information

Policy driven changes in animal research practices: mapping researchers' attitudes towards animal-free innovations using the Netherlands as an example.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Reducing the number of animals used in experiments has become a priority for the governments of many countries. For these reductions to occur, animal-free alternatives must be made more available and, crucially, must be embraced by researchers.

Methods

We conducted an international online survey for academics in the field of animal science (N?=?367) to explore researchers' attitudes towards the implementation of animal-free innovations. Through this survey, we address three key questions. The first question is whether scientists who use animals in their research consider governmental goals for animal-free innovations achievable and whether they would support such goals. Secondly, responders were asked to rank the importance of ten roadblocks that could hamper the implementation of animal-free innovations. Finally, responders were asked whether they would migrate (either themselves or their research) if increased animal research regulations in their country of residence restricted their research.

Results

While nearly half (40%) of the responders support governmental goals, the majority (71%) of researchers did not consider such goals achievable in their field within the near future. In terms of roadblocks for implementation of animal-free methods, ~?80% of the responders considered 'reliability' as important, making it the most highly ranked roadblock. However, all other roadblocks were reported by most responders as somewhat important, suggesting that they must also be considered when addressing animal-free innovations. Importantly, a majority reported that they would consider migration to another country in response to a restrictive animal research policy. Thus, governments must consider the risk of researchers migrating to other institutes, states or countries, leading to a 'brain-drain' if policies are too strict or suitable animal-free alternatives are not available.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that development and implementation of animal-free innovations are hampered by multiple factors. We outline three pillars concerning education, governmental influence and data sharing, the implementation of which may help to overcome these roadblocks to animal-free innovations.

SUBMITTER: Bressers S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6477718 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Policy driven changes in animal research practices: mapping researchers' attitudes towards animal-free innovations using the Netherlands as an example.

Bressers S S van den Elzen H H Gräwe C C van den Oetelaar D D Postma P H A PHA Schoustra S K SK

Research integrity and peer review 20190423

<h4>Background</h4>Reducing the number of animals used in experiments has become a priority for the governments of many countries. For these reductions to occur, animal-free alternatives must be made more available and, crucially, must be embraced by researchers.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted an international online survey for academics in the field of animal science (<i>N</i> = 367) to explore researchers' attitudes towards the implementation of animal-free innovations. Through this survey, we ad ...[more]

PMID: 31024742

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Prospective registration of animal studies has been suggested as a new measure to increase value and reduce waste in biomedical research. We sought to further explore and quantify animal researchers' attitudes and preferences regarding animal study registries (ASRs). DESIGN:Cross-sectional online survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted a survey with three different samples representing animal researchers: i) corresponding authors from journals with high Eigenfactor, ii) a random Pubmed sample and iii) members of the CAMARADES network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Perceived level of importance of different aspects of publication bias, the effect of ASRs on different aspects of research as well as the importance of different research types for being registered. RESULTS:The survey yielded responses from 413 animal researchers (response rate 7%). The respondents indicated, that some aspects of ASRs can increase administrative burden but could be outweighed by other aspects decreasing this burden. Animal researchers found it more important to register studies that involved animal species with higher levels of cognitive capabilities. The time frame for making registry entries publicly available revealed a strong heterogeneity among respondents, with the largest proportion voting for "access only after consent by the principal investigator" and the second largest proportion voting for "access immediately after registration". CONCLUSIONS:The fact that the more senior and experienced animal researchers participating in this survey clearly indicated the practical importance of publication bias and the importance of ASRs underscores the problem awareness across animal researchers and the willingness to actively engage in study registration if effective safeguards for the potential weaknesses of ASRs are put into place. To overcome the first-mover dilemma international consensus statements on how to deal with prospective registration of animal studies might be necessary for all relevant stakeholder groups including animal researchers, academic institutions, private companies, funders, regulatory agencies, and journals.

Project description:Introduction:Emergency care research in Africa is not on par with other world regions. The study aimed to assess the perceptions and practices towards research among current emergency care providers in Africa. Methods:A survey was sent to all individual members of the African Federation of Emergency Medicine. The survey was available in English and French. Results:One hundred and sixty-eight responses were analysed (invited n = 540, responded n = 188, 34.8%, excluded n = 20). Responders' mean age was 36.3 years (SD = 9.1); 122 (72.6%) were male, 104 (61.9%) were doctors, and 127 (75.6%) were African trained. Thirty-seven (22%) have never been involved in research; 33 (19.6%) have been involved in ?5 research projects. African related projects were mostly relevant to African audiences (n = 106, 63.1%). Ninety-four (56%) participants have never published. Forty-one (24.4%) were not willing to publish in open access journals requesting a publication fee; 65 (38.7%) will consider open access journals if fees are sponsored. Eighty responders (47.6%) frequently experienced access block to original articles due to subscription charges. Lack of research funding (n = 108, 64.3%), lack of research training (n = 86, 51.2%), and lack of allocated research time (n = 76, 45.2%) were the main barriers to research involvement. Improvement of research skills (n = 118, 70.2%) and having research published (n = 117, 69.6%) were the top motivational factors selected. Responders agreed that research promotes critical thinking (n = 137, 81.5%) and serve as an important educational tool (n = 134, 80.4%). However, 134 (79.8%) feel that emergency care workers need to be shown how to use research to improve clinical practice. Most agreed that insufficient emergency care research is being conducted in Africa (n = 113, 67.3%). Discussion:There is scope to increase research involvement in emergency care in Africa, but solutions need to be find to address lack of research-related funding, training and time.

Project description:ObjectivesPublication bias, non-publication, and selective reporting of animal studies limit progress toward the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) that guide ethical animal testing, waste public resources, and result in redundant research, which collectively undermine the public's trust in scientific reliability. In this study, we aimed to 1) validate findings from a previous follow-up study by our team that examined the publication rates of animal studies from protocol to publication and 2) identify incentives for improving publication rates in animal research.MethodsThe researchers responsible for the animal proposals (n = 210) from our previous study were contacted as participants for a Web-based survey between October 2019 and April 2020. Question types varied between free text questions, answer options based on a 5-point Likert scale and closed yes/no questions.ResultsIn total, 78 researchers responsible for 101 of 210 animal study proposals participated, yielding a response rate of 48.1%. Results showed that the publication rate increased from 67% in our follow-up study to 70%. According to a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = "not relevant" to 5 = "extremely relevant"), the most widely accepted suggestions for increasing publication rates were "Publication costs for open access journals are fully covered by funders or universities" (mean 4.02, SD 1.01), "Performance-based allocation of intramural funds for results reporting of animal research not supporting the initial hypothesis (including preprints and repositories)" (mean 3.37, SD 1.05), and "Researchers receive more information from scientific journals that also publish non-significant results" (mean 3.30, SD 1.02).ConclusionWhile the extent of publication and publication practices have been thoroughly investigated for clinical trials, less data is available for animal research to date. Therefore, the study contributes in complementing the picture of publication practice in animal research. Suggestions from our survey may help improve the publication rates of animal studies.

Dataset Information

Policy driven changes in animal research practices: mapping researchers' attitudes towards animal-free innovations using the Netherlands as an example.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Policy driven changes in animal research practices: mapping researchers' attitudes towards animal-free innovations using the Netherlands as an example.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets