What was the point?

Last week, a well-known scientific magazine shared an article about a study in the United States where scientists observed the behaviour of mice when exposed to other mice (that they knew), that had been anesthetized and were unresponsive.

The study showed that mice tried to help their unconscious companions, showing the compassion one would expect from a social species. Whilst this outcome might be interesting, it is not surprising or groundbreaking science. This was animal research conducted on mice bred or acquired for the study, involving surgery to implant electrodes in the brain of the mouse ‘rescuer’, and other painful procedures like injections, for the mouse ‘rescuee’ causing emotional distress.

If it underwent ethical review, it was deemed important enough to be granted a licence for the procedures (brain surgery and anaesthesia of the partner mouse) to be carried out, and it was funded and published.

Like myself you may question the benefit and necessity of this study. My colleague Lucinda summed it up…

“Sometimes we don’t need replacements… Because the research done doesn’t need to be replaced. It just needs to not be done.”

A couple of weeks prior a shocking study from Australia was reported in the Guardian newspaper where female rats were strangled and/or subjected to blunt head trauma. The rats were then observed taking walking tests to assess their co-ordination and balance. The aim was to study their blood for potential markers to identify concussion or brain injuries caused by intimate partner violence in people. They were ‘modelling’ domestic abuse injuries in mice in non-comparable circumstances, causing an unimaginable amount of damage, trauma and stress to animals for surely what is at best a negligible amount of knowledge that will have little impact our understanding of intimate partner violence in people.

Here in the UK, this type of study would undergo ethical review. I am not sure what ethical approvals this study underwent, but if it did, I cannot fathom how this study was approved by Australian authorities.

Research uses valuable time, funding and resources, it is important to ensure these are not wasted and the research has value. It is even more important when there are ethical considerations, such as causing harm to animals, which could be avoided altogether if the research was deemed to have limited benefit.

Who decides if science is worth doing here in the UK?

Well in theory, lots of people.

1. The researcher who plans a study should believe that they have a scientific question that is worth answering. They should look at previous research and theories in the field and the potential impact of answering this question on society and scientific progress. They will consider potential research methods to obtain the data needed to answer the question and the feasibility and ethics of doing so. Once they have decided that these things are worth it, they need funding to carry out the research.
2. Funders should be scrutinising the project through the same lens. Will the outcome have value and impact, is the method feasible and ethical, if there are questions around these things can they be addressed?
3. Once funding has been received, some studies may need ethical approval e.g. if there are human participants, patients, surveys, or stem cells involved. Ethical approval comes from the University or institution where the study is being conducted, or if patients are being used an NHS Research Ethics Committee would be involved. In theory it would make sense to do this BEFORE getting funding, but this is not necessary.
4. If licensed animal research is involved, in the UK this ethical review falls under the responsibilities of an ‘Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body’ or AWERB. As required by the law.

We have to put the animals first.

When animal use is proposed in the UK, something called the ‘Harm Benefit analysis’  is conducted as part of the project licence application process to help make the decision about whether a licence is granted for the animal research or not. Whilst this does not demand a detailed ethical review of the value of the research to the wider field of scientific progress, or how ‘necessary’ the research is, it is better than nothing. These are difficult decisions for all involved, and  the legislation requirements in the UK and EU are more stringent than some parts of the world. Yet even here in the UK we know there are failings to implement and review replacement opportunities.

We must work together to ensure scientists and reviewers across the world have the tools and training to help them make difficult ethical decisions.

Reviewers and researchers need to take a step back and ask: what really is the benefit of this research, and does it need to happen at all?