Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine (Jan 2020)

Joining forces: the need to combine science and ethics to address problems of validity and translation in neuropsychiatry research using animal models

  • Franck L. B. Meijboom,
  • Elzbieta Kostrzewa,
  • Cathalijn H. C. Leenaars

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-019-0085-4
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 15, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Current policies regulating the use of animals for scientific purposes are based on balancing between potential gain of knowledge and suffering of animals used in experimentation. The balancing process is complicated, on the one hand by plurality of views on our duties towards animals, and on the other hand by more recent discussions on uncertainty in the probability of reaching the final aim of the research and problems of translational failure. Methods The study combines ethical analysis based on a literature review with neuropsychiatry-related preclinical research as a case study. Results Based on the analysis and the case study we show that neuropsychiatry-related preclinical research is an especially interesting case from an ethical perspective. The 3R principles (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) are used to minimize the negative consequences for the animals used in research. However, neuropsychiatric research is characterized by specific challenges in assessing the probability of success of reaching the final aim, due to our limited mechanistic knowledge of human neuropsychiatric illness. Consequently, the translational value of the currently used animal models may be difficult to prove, which undermines the validity of these models and complicated the ethical assessment. Conclusions We conclude that a combined approach that deals with both science and the ethical dimensions is necessary to address the problems of validity and translation in neuropsychiatry-related preclinical research. We suggest this approach to comprise first, improved experimental methods, e.g. by using systematic reviews, second, a more patients-based approach that leads to models that reflect interindividual variation better, and third, more interdisciplinary cooperation.

Keywords