More than 3Rs: The importance of scientific validity for harm-benefit analysis of animal research

Lab Animal

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 164-166

  Würbel, Hanno ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; ANIMAL WELFARE;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMAL WELFARE; ANIMALS;

EID: 85016172996     PISSN: 00937355     EISSN: 15484475     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/laban.1220     Document Type: Note

References (30)

1. Bailoo, J.D., Reichlin, T.S. & Würbel, H. Refinement of experimental design and conduct in laboratory animal research. ILAR J. 55, 383-391 (2014).
2. Brønstad, A. et al. Current concepts of harm-benefit analysis of animal experiments-report from the AALAS-FELASA working group on harm-benefit analysis-part 1. Lab. Anim. 50 1S, 1-20 (2016).
3. Russell, W.M.S. & Burch, R.L. 1959. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen, London.
4. Vogt, L., Reichlin, T.S., Nathues, C. & Würbel, H. Authorization of animal experiments is based on confidence rather than evidence of scientific rigor. PLoS Biol. 14, e2000598 (2016).
5. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D.D. & Goodman, S.N. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002264 (2015).
6. Ioannidis, J.P.A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2, e124 (2005).
7. Macleod, M.R. et al. Risk of bias in reports of in vivo research: a focus for improvement. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002273 (2015).
8. Reichlin, T.S., Vogt, L. & Würbel, H. The researchers' view of scientific rigor-Survey on the conduct and reporting of in vivo research. PLoS ONE 11, e0165999 (2016).
9. Prinz, F., Schlange, T. & Asadullah, K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712 (2011).
10. Begley, C.G. & Ellis, L.M. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531-533 (2012).
11. Kola, I. & Landis, J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711-715 (2004).
12. O'Collins, V.E. et al. 1, 026 experimental treatments in acute stroke. Ann. Neurol. 59, 467-477 (2006).
13. Nestler, E.J. & Hyman, S.E. Animal models of neuropsychiatric disorders. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 1161-1169 (2010).
14. Button, K.S. et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 365-376 (2013).
15. Richter, S.H., Garner, J.P. & Würbel, H. Environmental standardization: cure or cause of poor reproducibility in animal experiments? Nat. Methods 6, 257-261 (2009).
16. Head, M.L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A.T. & Jennions, M.D. The extent and consequences of P-hacking in science. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002106 (2015).
17. Tsilidis, K.K. et al. 2013. Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases. PLoS Biol. 11: e1001609.
18. Sena, E.S., Van der Worp, H.B., Bath, P.M.W., Howells, D.W. & Macleod, M.R. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000344 (2010).
19. Bateson, P. When to experiment on animals. New Sci. 109, 30-32 (1986).
20. Van der Staay, F.J., Arndt, S.S. & Nordquist, R.E. Evaluation of animal models of neurobehavioral disorders. Behav. Brain Funct. 5, 11 (2009).
21. Willner, P. Validation criteria for animal models of human mental disorders: learned helplessness as a paradigm case. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 10, 677-690 (1986).
22. Van der Worp, H.B. et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med. 7, e1000245 (2010).
23. Paylor, R. Questioning standardization in science. Nat. Methods 6, 253-254 (2009).
24. Richter, S.H., Garner, J.P., Auer, C., Kunert, J. & Würbel, H. Systematic variation improves reproducibility of animal experiments. Nat. Methods 7, 167-168 (2010).
25. Richter, S.H. et al. Effect of population heterogenization on the reproducibility of mouse behavior: a multi-laboratory study. PLoS ONE 6, e16461 (2011).
26. Wodarski, R. et al. Cross-centre replication of suppressed burrowing behaviour as an ethologically relevant pain outcome measure in the rat: a prospective multicentre study. Pain 157, 2350-2365 (2016).
27. Voelkl, B. & Würbel, H. Reproducibility crisis: Are we ignoring reaction norms? Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 37, 509-510 (2016).
28. Parker, R.M.A. & Browne, W.J. The place of experimental design and statistics in the 3Rs. ILAR J. 55, 477-485 (2014).
29. Würbel, H. Behaviour and the standardization fallacy. Nat. Genet. 26, 263 (2000).
30. th Congr. Int. Soc. Appl. Ethol., Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, P. 324.