杏吧原创

AFTER years of defensiveness, a siege mentality and the stonewalling of any criticism, a quiet revolution is under way in animal research.

What has triggered this change of heart? It鈥檚 partly down to the economic climate plus fewer new medicines 鈥� despite increased investment in research 鈥� and the removal of much of the threat from animal rights extremism, in the UK at least.

Until recently the only criticism of animal research came from antivivisection groups who persistently complained about a lack of transparency. Now criticism is coming from researchers too, with the recognition that not all aspects of animal experimentation are as robust as they should be and that something needs to change.

That is why we have published aimed at improving the quality of reporting on animal experiments in research papers (see 鈥淣ew animal experiment guidelines issued鈥�). These have been met with support, notably from the major funding bodies and many international journals. This is indicative of the new climate in which we operate.

Five years ago the guidelines would have been met with scepticism and accusations of increased bureaucracy from some within the scientific community.

The difference is that these guidelines come in the wake of recent studies, which reveal serious shortcomings in animal research. One by my own organisation, the UK鈥檚 NC3Rs, found that key information was missing from many of the 300 or so publications we analysed that described publicly funded experiments on rodents and monkeys in the UK and the US.

All of the missing details could influence the experimental outcome and its interpretation. Poor reporting erodes confidence in peer review, the bedrock of quality control. Lack of information in many papers makes it impossible to know whether the study was properly designed and appropriately analysed. It doesn鈥檛 look good for the reputation of those who fund or carry out animal experiments.

The new guidelines should ensure the science emerging from animal research is maximised and that every animal used counts. Better reporting will allow greater opportunity to evaluate which animal models are useful and which are not. One way of doing this is through the systematic reviews that are the gold standard in clinical studies but rarely undertaken for animal studies due to the paucity of information published.

Animal research has been a thorn in the side of researchers for many years. We can鈥檛 afford to get this wrong, scientifically, ethically or financially. Failings in reporting animal data properly can be perceived as an attempt to hide something, either about the quality or value of what is being done. When animal research is funded from the public purse a public mandate is essential. There is much scope for improvement. It is time for scientists 鈥� funders, researchers and editors 鈥� to use the new guidelines to put our house in order.