The problem with relying on scientific progress

When I started at Replacing Animal Research (then FRAME) five years ago, I asked what was needed to create this shift away from animal use and was told “we need more non-animal methods (NAMs) – more research, more development, more validation”. Basically, more hard science. There was a strong view that once there were sufficient NAMs available and they had been proven more relevant than the animal research currently being done, the shift would happen automatically. It makes sense, right? If the science is that good, scientists will naturally choose to use it.  

But then in other (or occasionally the same) conversations, I would hear about how researchers were curious to try new methods and thought they might be better, but couldn’t get funding as they were more expensive. Or how they didn’t want to try non-animal methods as they thought they wouldn’t get published. Or how having built a track record and skill-set in animal work, they were worried about having to effectively start over to build their career credentials (research career progress is fairly linear with greater expertise building on previous published work, and enhanced reputation making it easier to access larger funding pots). Or that their university simply did not have the equipment to enable them to try new things. These were people like me with homes and families built in a location and on an assumed income for whom it was not that easy to just pick up and move to another location, or to risk a lower chance of being funded in a new area, versus a safer bet by building on what they’d done before. 

So, it’s not all about the science. There are a lot of human and system factors at play creating inertia  and making it very difficult for the people at the heart of it all, the scientists, to change – even when they know other methods exist which might be better. 

How the social sciences can help

As a psychologist by training, this seemed fairly logical to me, but I quickly discovered that suggesting to scientists that perhaps their work and the overall activity of ‘science’ was not purely driven by facts and findings, made me quite unpopular! Fortunately, it’s a view that is increasingly acknowledged and many other organisations are starting to examine how to help overcome these challenges. Both social science researchers in academia, and those working within non-profits have started to try to use social science methods such as surveys, interviews, qualitative analysis and modelling to attempt to uncover more details about the factors at play. 

We’ve supported and been involved in a number of such projects but one of the most interesting to me has been the RSPCA’s work on Supporting Replacement in Academia. In this, in-depth interviews were conducted with a range of stakeholders and analysed thematically. It makes for interesting reading but some take-home points for me are: 

• The importance of two-way conversations. The needs of in vivo researchers need to be heard, to inform what NAMs are developed and ensure they are useful and usable. 

• The need for greater sharing and collaboration between scientists of different methodologies. Researchers spoke of their peer group often being defined by the type of work they had gone into and the risk of losing that if they moved into something different.  

• That the development and promotion of NAMs per se – whilst still a good and important thing – does not necessarily lead to replacement of animals. In fact, researchers highlighted how NAMs can inform further in vivo work. 

There were many others, but these were ones that I have found myself ruminating on since re-reading the report. As a member of the Steering Group for this work we have a follow-up workshop in a few weeks and I’m looking forward to discussing with colleagues how we can take further action to tackle some of the issues raised.  

If you’re a university researcher or working in the life sciences we’d love to hear what you think? Do any of the report’s finding resonate with you? What do you think would help?