Existing national and EU regulations and laws to protect animal welfare are being challenged by the increasing importance and use of genetically modified animals in biomedical research. Scientists, veterinarians, lawyers and regulatory authorities need to adapt these laws to improve animal welfare in research while not hindering medical progress.
In the European Union (EU), animal welfare is seen as a matter of great importance. However, with respect to animal experimentation, European citizens feel quite uninformed. The European Directive 2010/63/EU for the protection of laboratory animals aims for greater transparency and requires that a comprehensible, nontechnical summary (NTS) of each authorised research project involving animals is published by the respective Member State. However, the NTSs remain sleeping beauties if their contents are not easily and systematically accessible. The German web-based NTS database AnimalTestInfo is a unique channel for scientists to communicate their work, and provides the opportunity for large-scale analyses of planned animal studies to inform researchers and the public. For an in-depth meta-analysis, we classified the duly completed NTSs submitted to AnimalTestInfo in 2014 and 2015 according to the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) system. Indexing the NTSs with ICD codes provided a fine-grained overview of the prospective uses of experimental animals. Using this approach, transparency, especially for highly controversial animal research involving, for example, nonhuman primates, is fostered, as it enables pinpointing the envisaged beneficiary down to the level of the addressed disease. Moreover, research areas with many planned projects involving animals can be specified in detail. The development of 3R (replacement, reduction, and refinement) measures in these research areas may be most efficient, as a large number of experimental animals would benefit from it. Indexing NTSs with ICD codes can support governments and funding agencies in advancing target-oriented funding of 3R research. Data drawn from NTSs can provide a basis for the development, validation, and implementation of directed 3R strategies as well as guidance for rethinking the role of animal research models.
Abstract Preregistration of studies is a recognized tool in clinical research to improve the quality and reporting of all gained results. In preclinical research, preregistration could boost the translation of published results into clinical breakthroughs. When studies rely on animal testing or form the basis of clinical trials, maximizing the validity and reliability of research outcomes becomes in addition an ethical obligation. Nevertheless, the implementation of preregistration in animal research is still slow. However, research institutions, funders, and publishers start valuing preregistration, and thereby level the way for its broader acceptance in the future. A total of 3 public registries, the OSF registry, preclinicaltrials.eu, and animalstudyregistry.org already encourage the preregistration of research involving animals. Here, they jointly declare common standards to make preregistration a valuable tool for better science. Registries should meet the following criteria: public accessibility, transparency in their financial sources, tracking of changes, and warranty and sustainability of data. Furthermore, registration templates should cover a minimum set of mandatory information and studies have to be uniquely identifiable. Finally, preregistered studies should be linked to any published outcome. To ensure that preregistration becomes a powerful instrument, publishers, funders, and institutions should refer to registries that fulfill these minimum standards.
Representatives of applied science (e.g. governmental organizations, academia, and industry) met to discuss the progress towards a harmonized human health risk assessment in developmental toxicology of plant protection products, biocidal products, and other environmental chemicals at the 9(th) Berlin Workshop on Developmental Toxicity held in September 2018. Within the focus of the scientific discussion were the future of in-vitro methods for developmental and reproductive toxicology, the potential relevance of alternative species in testing of developmental effects, and risk and hazard assessment of developmental and endocrine effects. Furthermore, the need for a harmonized terminology for classification of anomalies in laboratory animals in developmental toxicity studies aiming for human health risk assessment was determined. Here, the DevTox database was identified as an extremely valuable tool. Overall, the participants agreed that still one of the biggest challenges for testing developmental toxicity in the 21(st) century is the development of animal-free test strategies and alternatives to animal testing that could provide human-relevant information in a rapid, efficient, and mechanistically informative manner.
