Search

Simple Summary: In February 2022, the university course Replacing Animal Testing (RAT) Challenge was organized for the first time by an alliance of Dutch universities with the aim of engaging future generations in finding solutions to replace the use of animals in testing. Educating the next generations of researchers and professionals is an important step in the transition to promote animal-free science, to which the Dutch government is committed. Students are key stakeholders in the transition to animal-free innovations but their perspective still remains underrepresented. Therefore, our study aimed to explore their viewpoints focusing on their beliefs, values, and the motivations of students to join the course. We conclude that students share the ethical and scientific values that inspire the transition, and that their reflections on the socio-political landscape provide valuable insights on current and future challenges to the acceptance of animal-free innovations. In 2016, the Dutch government declared its commitment to phasing out animal experiments by 2025. Although a high number of animal experiments are still performed and the 2025 target will not be met, the commitment remains. Efforts are being made to identify levers that might foster the transition to animal-free science. Education has been found to play a key role in the future of animal-free science and young generations are increasingly seen as key stakeholders. However, their attitudes toward the transition to animal-free innovations have not been investigated. The present article focuses on the values and beliefs held by students, who in 2022, participated in the course 'Replacing Animal Testing' (RAT) Challenge, organized by a consortium of Dutch universities. Contextually, students' motivations to follow the course were investigated. The research was based on a qualitative study, including semi-structured interviews and a literature review. Our analysis of the findings revealed that students feel aligned with the social, ethical, and scientific reasons that support the transition to animal-free innovations. Moreover, the participants identified a series of regulatory, educational, cultural, and political obstacles to the transition that align with those identified in recent literature. From the discussion of these findings, we extrapolated six fundamental challenges that need to be addressed to foster the transition to animal-free science in an acceptable and responsible way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Animals, including humans, frequently make decisions involving risk or uncertainty. Different strategies in these decisions can be advantageous depending the circumstances. Short sleep duration seems to be associated with more risky decisions in humans. Animal models for risk-based decision making can increase mechanistic understanding, but very little data is available concerning the effects of sleep. We combined primary- and meta-research to explore the relationship between sleep and risk-based decision making in animals. Our first objective was to create an overview of the available animal models for risky decision making. We performed a systematic scoping review. Our searches in Pubmed and Psychinfo retrieved 712 references, of which 235 were included. Animal models for risk-based decision making have been described for rodents, non-human primates, birds, pigs and honey-bees. We discuss task designs and model validity. Our second objective was to apply this knowledge and perform a pilot study on the effect of sleep deprivation. We trained and tested male Wistar rats on a probability discounting task; a "safe" lever always resulted in 1 reward, a "risky" lever resulted in 4 or no rewards. Rats adapted their preferences to variations in reward probabilities (p < 0.001), but 12 h of sleep deprivation during the light phase did not clearly alter risk preference (p = 0.21). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: To develop new medical treatments, animal studies are used. However, there are questions and concerns about the usefulness of preclinical animal research. These so-called translational success rates vary between 0 and 100% and no clear relationship has been established with possible predictive factors such as animal species or field of research. This paper presents the main results of a conference that was organised in November 2019 as part of a research project that focuses on ways to improve predictability of translation from preclinical research to clinical studies. Based on the conference results and the findings from the research project, we define four points of attention that are crucial in the search for improved translational success rates: (a) optimising the methods and design of studies; (b) incorporation of the complexity of the human patient in research; (c) start with the patient rather than existing animal models as the gold standard; and (d) more and better collaboration within the chain from funding to pharmacy. We conclude that this requires improved organization and use of procedures, as well as a change of attitude and culture in research. Preclinical animal studies are performed to analyse the safety and efficacy of new treatments, with the aim to protect humans. However, there are questions and concerns about the quality and usefulness of preclinical animal research. Translational success rates vary between 0 and 100%, and no clear relationship has been found with possible predictive factors such as animal species or field of research. Therefore, it is not yet possible to indicate what factors predict successful translation. Translational strategies were therefore discussed at an international conference held in the Netherlands in November 2019, aiming to develop practical guidelines for more robust animal-to-human translation. The conference was organised during the course of a research project funded by the Dutch Research Council (313-99-310), addressing possible solutions for the low translational values that had been published for a multitude of animal studies in human health care. This article provides an overview of the project and the conference discussions. Based on the conference results and the findings from the research project, we define four points of attention that are crucial in the search for improved translational success rates: (a) optimising the methods and design of studies; (b) incorporation of the complexity of the human patient in research; (c) start with the patient rather than existing animal models as the gold standard; and (d) more and better collaboration within the chain from funding to pharmacy. We conclude that this requires improved organization and use of procedures, as well as a change of attitude and culture in research, including a consideration of the translational value of animal-free innovations and human-relevant science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The idea of One Health acknowledges the interdependence of human and non-human animal health against the backdrop of a shared environment. This requires collaboration across disciplines to tackle complex health problems. How does One Health affect the education of veterinary ethics, traditionally restricted to both animal and professional ethics? First, veterinary ethics education provides an opportunity within the curriculum for students to engage with the meaning and implication of One Health, so as to develop their own viewpoint. Similarly, One Health can enrich veterinary ethics. It does so by introducing relevant ethical fields and other cultural perspectives, as well as promoting ways of teaching that motivate and sensitize students to become aware of the underlying interdependency and complexity of health issues while at the same time fostering their capacity for ethical problem solving. What does One Health imply for veterinary ethics education? In order to answer this question, we will first have to establish what One Health itself involves. The meaning and scope of One Health, however, cannot be established without reference to its values—whose health matters? Veterinary ethics education is well equipped to facilitate such an open-ended inquiry into multispecies health. One Health also widens the scope of veterinary ethics by making salient, among other fields, environmental ethics, global health justice, and non-Western approaches to ethics. Finally, One Health requires students to engage with interdependence. Discussing three levels of interdependence, we argue that veterinary ethics stands to benefit from a more contemplative pedagogy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]