Re: We need better animal research, better reported
Dear Editor,
Thank you to Deborah Cohen for their comprehensive article and Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga and Malcolm Macleod for their accompanying editorials.
I am sure I am not the only clinician who has had to reconcile their adverse feelings towards vivisection with the desire to provide the best care for patients. However, I was horrified to read of the inadequate research methods of the MVA85A animal studies the authors report. Furthermore, the fact these data went on to underpin a clinical trial in a vulnerable, non-white patient population is an additional disappointment.
Although there is rigorous UK legislation in the form of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to ensure animals used in research are treated as ethically as possible, this seems redundant when the methodological processes underpinning the experiments are so poor. I wonder if this is something researchers recognise and are actively trying to change or if it has become an cultural norm.
I accept that animal experiments, despite their limitations, currently are an integral part of pre-clinical trials to test both treatment concepts and safety. However, a move towards research methods focused on human biology, as proposed by the Safer Medicines Campaign, would hopefully result in better translational data and a reduction in animal suffering. However, I can appreciate how exploring novel techniques may be a challenge in the current climate where public funding for scientific research continues to be cut.
Animal experimentation can only be justified with robust methodology and I welcome the authors suggestions to improve the design, registration, reporting and transparency of animal studies. Hopefully this will lead to less unnecessary animal suffering and safer, more effective treatments for patients.
Rapid Response:
Re: We need better animal research, better reported
Dear Editor,
Thank you to Deborah Cohen for their comprehensive article and Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga and Malcolm Macleod for their accompanying editorials.
I am sure I am not the only clinician who has had to reconcile their adverse feelings towards vivisection with the desire to provide the best care for patients. However, I was horrified to read of the inadequate research methods of the MVA85A animal studies the authors report. Furthermore, the fact these data went on to underpin a clinical trial in a vulnerable, non-white patient population is an additional disappointment.
Although there is rigorous UK legislation in the form of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to ensure animals used in research are treated as ethically as possible, this seems redundant when the methodological processes underpinning the experiments are so poor. I wonder if this is something researchers recognise and are actively trying to change or if it has become an cultural norm.
I accept that animal experiments, despite their limitations, currently are an integral part of pre-clinical trials to test both treatment concepts and safety. However, a move towards research methods focused on human biology, as proposed by the Safer Medicines Campaign, would hopefully result in better translational data and a reduction in animal suffering. However, I can appreciate how exploring novel techniques may be a challenge in the current climate where public funding for scientific research continues to be cut.
Animal experimentation can only be justified with robust methodology and I welcome the authors suggestions to improve the design, registration, reporting and transparency of animal studies. Hopefully this will lead to less unnecessary animal suffering and safer, more effective treatments for patients.
Competing interests: No competing interests