Refining animal models in fracture research: Seeking consensus in optimising both animal welfare and scientific validity for appropriate biomedical use

Background In an attempt to establish some consensus on the proper use and design of experimental animal models in musculoskeletal research, AOVET (the veterinary specialty group of the AO Foundation) in concert with the AO Research Institute (ARI), and the European Academy for the Study of Scientific and Technological Advance, convened a group of musculoskeletal researchers, veterinarians, legal experts, and ethicists to discuss, in a frank and open forum, the use of animals in musculoskeletal research. Methods The group narrowed the field to fracture research. The consensus opinion resulting from this workshop can be summarized as follows: Results & Conclusion Anaesthesia and pain management protocols for research animals should follow standard protocols applied in clinical work for the species involved. This will improve morbidity and mortality outcomes. A database should be established to facilitate selection of anaesthesia and pain management protocols for specific experimental surgical procedures and adopted as an International Standard (IS) according to animal species selected. A list of 10 golden rules and requirements for conduction of animal experiments in musculoskeletal research was drawn up comprising 1) Intelligent study designs to receive appropriate answers; 2) Minimal complication rates (5 to max. 10%); 3) Defined end-points for both welfare and scientific outputs analogous to quality assessment (QA) audit of protocols in GLP studies; 4) Sufficient details for materials and methods applied; 5) Potentially confounding variables (genetic background, seasonal, hormonal, size, histological, and biomechanical differences); 6) Post-operative management with emphasis on analgesia and follow-up examinations; 7) Study protocols to satisfy criteria established for a "justified animal study"; 8) Surgical expertise to conduct surgery on animals; 9) Pilot studies as a critical part of model validation and powering of the definitive study design; 10) Criteria for funding agencies to include requirements related to animal experiments as part of the overall scientific proposal review protocols. Such agencies are also encouraged to seriously consider and adopt the recommendations described here when awarding funds for specific projects. Specific new requirements and mandates related both to improving the welfare and scientific rigour of animal-based research models are urgently needed as part of international harmonization of standards.

The threat to scientific integrity in environmental and occupational medicine

Over the last century, environmental and occupational medicine has played a significant role in the protection and improvement of public health. However, scientific integrity in this field has been increasingly threatened by pressure from some industries and governments. For example, it has been reported that the tobacco industry manipulated eminent scientists to legitimise their industrial positions, irresponsibly distorted risk and deliberately subverted scientific processes, and influenced many organisations in receipt of tobacco funding. Many environmental whistleblowers were sued and encountered numerous personal attacks. In some countries, scientific findings have been suppressed and distorted, and scientific advisory committees manipulated for political purposes by government agencies. How to respond to these threats is an important challenge for environmental and occupational medicine professionals and their societies. The authors recommend that professional organisations adopt a code of ethics that requires openness from public health professionals; that they not undertake research or use data where they do not have freedom to publish their results if these data have public health implications; that they disclose all possible conflicts; that the veracity of their research results should not be compromised; and that their research independence be protected through professional and legal support. The authors furthermore recommend that research funding for public health not be directly from the industry to the researcher. An independent, intermediate funding scheme should be established to ensure that there is no pressure to analyse data and publish results in bad faith. Such a funding system should also provide equal competition for funds and selection of the best proposals according to standard scientific criteria.