IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0158791.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Gail F Davies
  • Beth J Greenhough
  • Pru Hobson-West
  • Robert G W Kirk
  • Ken Applebee
  • Laura C Bellingan
  • Manuel Berdoy
  • Henry Buller
  • Helen J Cassaday
  • Keith Davies
  • Daniela Diefenbacher
  • Tone Druglitrø
  • Maria Paula Escobar
  • Carrie Friese
  • Kathrin Herrmann
  • Amy Hinterberger
  • Wendy J Jarrett
  • Kimberley Jayne
  • Adam M Johnson
  • Elizabeth R Johnson
  • Timm Konold
  • Matthew C Leach
  • Sabina Leonelli
  • David I Lewis
  • Elliot J Lilley
  • Emma R Longridge
  • Carmen M McLeod
  • Mara Miele
  • Nicole C Nelson
  • Elisabeth H Ormandy
  • Helen Pallett
  • Lonneke Poort
  • Pandora Pound
  • Edmund Ramsden
  • Emma Roe
  • Helen Scalway
  • Astrid Schrader
  • Chris J Scotton
  • Cheryl L Scudamore
  • Jane A Smith
  • Lucy Whitfield
  • Sarah Wolfensohn

Abstract

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Gail F Davies & Beth J Greenhough & Pru Hobson-West & Robert G W Kirk & Ken Applebee & Laura C Bellingan & Manuel Berdoy & Henry Buller & Helen J Cassaday & Keith Davies & Daniela Diefenbacher & Tone , 2016. "Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0158791
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158791
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158791&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0158791?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonard P Freedman & Iain M Cockburn & Timothy S Simcoe, 2015. "The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-9, June.
    2. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    3. David Baker & Katie Lidster & Ana Sottomayor & Sandra Amor, 2014. "Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-6, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Carly C Barron & Mathew Bocock & Kristen E Biefer & Sylvain Boet & Stephane L Bourque & Isidora Conic & Kai Chen & Yuan Yi Dong & Grace M Fox & Ronald B George & Neil , 2019. "Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Vivian Leung & Frédérik Rousseau-Blass & Guy Beauchamp & Daniel S J Pang, 2018. "ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    3. Fala Cramond & Cadi Irvine & Jing Liao & David Howells & Emily Sena & Gillian Currie & Malcolm Macleod, 2016. "Protocol for a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execut," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 315-328, July.
    4. Watzinger, Martin & Schnitzer, Monika, 2019. "Standing on the Shoulders of Science," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 215, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    5. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    6. Zhongwei Xu & Bingze Xu & Susanna L. Lundström & Àlex Moreno-Giró & Danxia Zhao & Myriam Martin & Erik Lönnblom & Qixing Li & Alexander Krämer & Changrong Ge & Lei Cheng & Bibo Liang & Dongmei Tong & , 2023. "A subset of type-II collagen-binding antibodies prevents experimental arthritis by inhibiting FCGR3 signaling in neutrophils," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Nathalie Percie du Sert & Viki Hurst & Amrita Ahluwalia & Sabina Alam & Marc T Avey & Monya Baker & William J Browne & Alejandra Clark & Innes C Cuthill & Ulrich Dirnagl & Michael Emerson & Paul Garne, 2020. "The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, July.
    8. Claudia Kurreck & Esmeralda Castaños-Vélez & Dorette Freyer & Sonja Blumenau & Ingo Przesdzing & Rene Bernard & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2020. "Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, October.
    9. Beverly S Muhlhausler & Frank H Bloomfield & Matthew W Gillman, 2013. "Whole Animal Experiments Should Be More Like Human Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-6, February.
    10. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    11. Constance Holman & Sophie K Piper & Ulrike Grittner & Andreas Antonios Diamantaras & Jonathan Kimmelman & Bob Siegerink & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2016. "Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    12. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    13. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    14. Muradchanian, Jasmine & Hoekstra, Rink & Kiers, Henk & van Ravenzwaaij, Don, 2020. "How Best to Quantify Replication Success? A Simulation Study on the Comparison of Replication Success Metrics," MetaArXiv wvdjf, Center for Open Science.
    15. Martin Backfisch, 2018. "The Development of Firm Size and Innovativeness in the Pharmaceutical industry between 1989 and 2010," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201813, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    16. Matthias Steinfath & Silvia Vogl & Norman Violet & Franziska Schwarz & Hans Mielke & Thomas Selhorst & Matthias Greiner & Gilbert Schönfelder, 2018. "Simple changes of individual studies can improve the reproducibility of the biomedical scientific process as a whole," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Christopher Allen & David M A Mehler, 2019. "Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, May.
    18. Bertha Estrella & Elena N. Naumova & Magda Cepeda & Trudy Voortman & Peter D. Katsikis & Hemmo A. Drexhage, 2019. "Effects of Air Pollution on Lung Innate Lymphoid Cells: Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Experimental Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Emily M Wong & Fern Tablin & Edward S Schelegle, 2020. "Comparison of nonparametric and parametric methods for time-frequency heart rate variability analysis in a rodent model of cardiovascular disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, November.
    20. Stavroula Kousta & Christine Ferguson & Emma Ganley, 2016. "Meta-Research: Broadening the Scope of PLOS Biology," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-2, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0158791. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.