Nature | Editorial

Protection priority

All involved in animal research must ensure that rules for ethical experiments are observed.

Clarified:

Article tools

More than a million people in Europe signed a petition earlier this year to halt research with animals. One reason why Nature and many scientists are able to defend these experiments is that all involved do everything they can to minimize pain and suffering. Animal experiments are approved only after thorough discussion and are carried out according to strict regulatory controls. Society sees the benefits of animal research, but it does not seek them at any cost.

When breaches of the strict rules that govern animal research occur, it is vital — to both supporters and opponents — that they are investigated thoroughly, and that lessons are learnt and shared. This week, Nature publishes a correction on its website that details such a breach of experimental protocol in a previously published paper (L. Raj et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature15370; 2015).

The relevant experiments grew tumours in mice as a way to test possible treatments. This type of study is common, as is the way they are approved and regulated. Researchers typically plan the experiments and then submit details to an institutional review board for approval. In making its decision, the board follows guidelines set out by a separate body charged with oversight of animal procedures — an institutional animal care and use committee. These guidelines are country-specific, and in the case of tumour experiments should include limits on the maximum tumour size allowed, and instructions to the researchers to monitor both tumour size and signs of distress.

In this case, prompted by a complaint from a reader and following consultation with the authors and the relevant bodies, Nature has established that the scientists did not carry out the required monitoring properly. As a result, some of the tumours grew larger than permitted. These mice could therefore have experienced more pain and suffering than originally allowed for.

As well as writing to correct their paper to mark the breach of animal-welfare guidelines, the authors apologize for the breach. They are right to do so. Cases such as this could provoke a justifiable backlash against animal research. All involved — scientists, institutions, funders and journals — must do more to ensure that regulations are strictly observed.

Nature’s policy is that the corresponding author on a paper that reports experiments with animals must confirm that the research was carried out in accordance with the relevant rules (see go.nature.com/a9pjym). As a result of this case, we are increasing the amount of information we request from authors. In experiments in which tumours are grown, we now require authors to include the maximal tumour size permitted by the institutional animal-use committee, and to state that this was not exceeded. Authors must also provide the source data for any figures that analyse tumour growth.

Nature does not want to publish the results of experiments that have not been performed under ethical guidelines. As such, the authors in this case are correcting their paper to withdraw the portion of the data collected in experiments that the institutional committee concluded were in breach. The scientific conclusions of the paper remain valid and useful, and still stand.

Institutions should do more to make sure that the guidelines they set are respected. At the very least, on completion of each project — and before data are submitted — institutions should verify that approved protocols were followed. Funders and institutions must consider better training for young researchers doing work with animals. And the broader community should continue to scrutinize and improve how it carries out these types of experiment. Discussions are already under way, for example, on whether the control arms of similar cancer studies truly need to let (untreated) tumours grow as large as they currently do. Nature is happy to join these discussions and to help to improve practice.

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
525,
Pages:
290
Date published:
()
DOI:
doi:10.1038/525290a

Clarifications

Clarified:

This Editorial originally made reference to the fact that the mice in the experiments showed no visible sign of distress. That statement referred only to the animals for which the data were not withdrawn. The committee did not comment on whether or not the animals in the withdrawn experiments showed distress. For clarity, the statement has now been removed.

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments

Commenting is currently unavailable.

sign up to Nature briefing

What matters in science — and why — free in your inbox every weekday.

Sign up

Listen

new-pod-red

Nature Podcast

Our award-winning show features highlights from the week's edition of Nature, interviews with the people behind the science, and in-depth commentary and analysis from journalists around the world.