PLoS Biol. 2016 Nov 10;14(11):e2000391. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000391. eCollection 2016.
- 1Institute for Ethics, History, and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
- 2Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
Abstract
Publication
bias in animal research, its extent, its predictors, and its potential
countermeasures are increasingly discussed. Recent reports and
conferences highlight the potential strengths of animal study registries
(ASRs) in this regard. Others have warned that prospective registration
of animal studies could diminish creativity, add administrative
burdens, and complicate intellectual property issues in translational
research. A literature review and 21 international key-informant
interviews were conducted and thematically analyzed to develop a
comprehensive matrix of main- and subcategories for potential
ASR-related strengths, weaknesses, facilitators, and barriers (SWFBs).
We identified 130 potential SWFBs. All stakeholder groups agreed that
ASRs could in various ways improve the quality and refinement of animal
studies while allowing their number to be reduced, as well as supporting
meta-research on animal studies. However, all stakeholder groups also
highlighted the potential for theft of ideas, higher administrative
burdens, and reduced creativity and serendipity in animal studies. Much
more detailed reasoning was captured in the interviews than is currently
found in the literature, providing a comprehensive account of the
issues and arguments around ASRs. All stakeholder groups highlighted
compelling potential strengths of ASRs. Although substantial weaknesses
and implementation barriers were highlighted as well, different
governance measures might help to minimize or even eliminate their
impact. Such measures might include confidentiality time frames for
accessing prospectively registered protocols, harmonized reporting
requirements across ASRs, ethics reviews, lab notebooks, and journal
submissions. The comprehensive information gathered in this study could
help to guide a more evidence-based debate and to design pilot tests for
ASRs.
