Researcher blogs

Recently, we applied for an ethical approval to the ethics committee for animal research (regional djurförsöksetisk nämnd). Stating this one sentence can feel like holding a bomb that may explode before you have even finished uttering the words. This is sadly true for any statements related to animal research. You never know if you will be met with curiosity and understanding, anger and distrust, or any reaction in-between. With today’s message, I hope to not only give an insight into what it means practically when considering the ethics of performing animal research, but also into why animal research is still crucial, and to ask some questions on how we can defuse this metaphorical bomb.

Animal research has been a matter of discussion and much controversy for a long time. Sadly, decades of careful whispering, or potentially even complete silence, regarding animal research have allowed misunderstanding and distrust for this part of science to grow for fear of retribution. In return, this fear has resulted in continued secrecy, and details around animal research have often remained obscure. However, organisations and facilities around the globe, including Karolinska Institutet, have been taking steps towards increased transparency in order to increase not only the understanding for the need of animals in science but also of the practical aspects associated with the research. I believe it is vital that science, all aspects of it, is discussed and shared even outside of the scientific field, because biology is complex and research findings that eventually lead to medical breakthroughs only do so with baby-steps.

How to diffuse the metaphorical bomb?

First, it is important to understand that science, and thus animal research, is nuanced. It is not black and white. This means that the investigative process is slow, it can be uncertain, but mostly it is means that a bold and clear statement is rarely possible, or at least accurate. Unfortunately, we like clear-cut answers, especially answers that provide a certain solution to specific health issues that people live with.

So, how can we help the public trust the results from work in progress, work that does not have all the answers yet? How can we help others understand the importance of continuing research that may, at a glance, be deemed irrelevant to the immediate questions asked? I believe that part of the answer lies in helping to provide a better understanding of the research process itself.

The right tool for the job

In life sciences, we have access to a variety of methods suited to answer a variety of different research questions. One way to classify different approaches is by the biological or research context, namely in silico (via computer simulation), in vitro/ex vivo (on cells), in vivo (on live animals).

Where computer simulation will be very helpful in processes such as building models, analysing data, and increasing the efficiency of screening potentially therapeutic compounds, cell- and tissue-based research are a good tool to answer initial questions regarding cellular response and initial characterisation of biological systems. However, neither in silico nor in vitro/ex vivo data will be able to provide a full insight into how different physiological systems are influenced under different circumstances.

To date, only research performed on live animals will allow us to study the biology of an organism as a whole. For instance, a new therapeutic compound, that was found through computer simulation and proved to have some beneficial effect on cells in culture without any signs of toxicity, may not result in the same beneficial effect when administered to living animals, or it may cause significant side effects that outweigh the benefit of the compound. We should also not forget that any computer simulation will need to be based on the available biological information, which can only be provided through basic research, including non-pharmaceutical research in animals.

No animal research without an ethical approval

Besides a better understanding of the research process, we need to help provide a better understanding of how work involving research animals is conducted and regulated. I hope it is needless to say that everyone working with animals must always go through appropriate education and training suited to the work they will be performing, including ethics and regulations. Moreover, any animal research may only be conducted after approval by a certified ethics committee.

Having applied for an approval, it appears to me that some of the most important points that are considered first is how the research benefits society and second if animals are the best model to answer the proposed scientific questions. This is critical when deciding which experiments should be performed on living animals and which experiments can be avoided by using other relevant methods. In addition, all experimental procedures are evaluated not only based on how appropriate they are for obtaining the best quality data but also to how they can be designed and executed to have the least possible impact on the animal. Related to this, the quality of care of the animals will be considered at all times.

All these considerations also translate into how we perform our research after the ethical application has been approved. We continue to plan our experiments within the bounds of our approval and in such a way that we achieve the best possible quality of data while ensuring the best possible welfare of our animals. This includes regularly revising whether new animal-free research methods have been developed that can complement, and thus, (partially) replace certain animal experiments.

Finally, in addition to the requirement of an ethical approval, regular internal and external audits are conducted to ensure that the performed research adheres to the approval as well as to current regulations.

Bridging the gap

For as long as we want to increase our understanding of biology and how we can use this knowledge to continue improving patient health and welfare, animal studies will remain crucial. They are necessary to allow for high-quality research that can mimic and study diseases in relevant ways or that maintains sufficient freedom for innovation and discovery of drugs. On the other hand, it also remains vital that we continue to consider the ethics of any procedures that involve animals. We are therefore under a moral imperative to ensure full transparency about animal research and that all procedures continue to be subject to independent review to guarantee the best possible conduct for the best quality outcome.

I hope that when we can help provide a better insight into the need for animal studies we can all meet with curiosity and through open communication in order to encourage further discoveries and innovation based on patient needs.