Clutton, Eddie

Dennison, Ngaire

Murphy, Kathy

Musk, Gabrielle C.

Taylor, Polly

Ware, Jodi

Wolfensohn, Sarah

Wright, Jayne

Crossref

Regulating research on client‐owned animals

THE media coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the general public to different perspectives of medical research. Ethical considerations such as the potentially premature use of unproven interventions have also been put under scrutiny. This may put the population at risk as evidence-based medical advice is not always given due regard in comparison to these unproven approaches.here are parallels to these issues in companion animal clinical practice. Changes imposed by the pandemic are likely to further compromise the quality and integrity of veterinary research, as ambiguous, incomplete and ineffective welfare guidelines continue to be applied. This is especially concerning given the long-standing recognition of the limitations of many of these guideline

Musk, Gabrielle C

Edinburgh Research Explorer

Clarified Guidelines for Conducting “Research” on Client-Owned Animals Urgently RequiredThe incessant media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the general public to different perspectives of medical research, with questions about study conduct, oversight, data interpretation and presentation being raised. Ethical considerations such as the potentially premature use of unproven (and unregulated) interventions have also been put under scrutiny because they can jeopardize the health and welfare of study subjects by being ineffective, or even harmful. More importantly, in accepting the associated media coverage as fact, a wider population may be put at risk as evidence-based medical advice is not given due regard.There are parallels to these issues in companion animal clinical practice. Changes imposed by the pandemic are likely to further compromise the quality and integrity of “veterinary research” which continues to apply ambiguous, incomplete, and ineffective welfare guidelines. This is especially concerning given the prolonged recognition of the limitations of these guidelines.1-10 In the era of coronavirus, veterinarians have to adapt with briefer appointments, sometimes conducted with clients separated from their animals, limiting patient assessment and complicating further decision-making – including the provision of informed consent. Suboptimal consultations lead to greater difficulty in establishing (and up-holding) harm:benefit ratios, namely, "stop-go" and humane endpoints, monitoring the safety and efficacy of treatments, and effective recording of outcomes.The current issue of In Practice (13 November, 2020, vol 42, pp 488-496) features a timely review of the legislative framework for animal research in the UK.10 It offers important information for all veterinarians and particularly those who purport to advance veterinary health care through the use of “innovative” treatments of clients’ animals. Boxes 5 and 6 describe paths for departures from standard (or recognised) veterinary practice, several of which, unfortunately, incorporate decision trees that allow for subjective interpretation. These less well-defined paths represent loopholes in measures aimed to safeguard companion animals from becoming unregulated “research” subjects – an increasing risk given the success of the media's (incomplete) portrayal of advanced veterinary treatments, most of which are not life-or-death, some clearly challenging the concept of recognised veterinary practice. Unfortunately, a determined and sustained representation to the RCVS has not achieved success in closing these loopholes. We believe, with the exigencies imposed by the current pandemic and the current recommendations by the RCVS Legislative Working Party (https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/legislation-working-party-report/) which would require opening up of the Veterinary Surgeons Act to allow amendment, that the time has come for clear and unequivocal clarification of what can and cannot be carried out on client-owned animals in the name of innovation. This should be treated as a matter of urgency by the RCVS; in order to preclude further unregulated research eroding the very foundations of evidence-based medicine and often contrary to the veterinary surgeon’s promise that “ABOVE ALL, my constant endeavour will be to ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to my care”.Jodi Ware, BS, PharmD,1,2Eddie Clutton, BVSc, MRCVS, DVA, DiplECVAA, MRCA1,3Ngaire Dennison, MA, VetMB, MRCVS1,4Kathy Murphy, BVetMed, DPhil, CVA, CLAS, MRCVS1,5Gabrielle C. Musk, BSc, BVMS, PhD, Cert VA, DiplECVAA1,6Polly Taylor, BA VetMB, MA VetMB, PhD, DVA, DipECVAA, MRCVS1,7Sarah Wolfensohn, OBE, BSc, VetMB, FSB, DipECLAM, DipECAWBM-WSEL, FRCVS1,8Jayne Wright, BSc, BVetMed, MRCVS, PhD, FRCPath, DipECVP, MBA1,9EthicsFirst, Twitter @ethicsfirstorgJ. Ware Consulting LLC, Kingwood, Texas USA, email: jodiware@mac.comWellcome Trust Critical Care Laboratory for Large Animals, Roslin Institute, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RGBiological Services, University of Dundee, MSI/WTB/JBC Complex, Dow Street, Dundee, DD1 5EHComparative Biology Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HHAnimal Care Services, University of Western Australia, M720, Perth, WA 6009, AustraliaTaylor Monroe, Gravel Head Farm, Little Downham, Ely, Cambridgeshire CB6 2TYUniversity of Surrey School of Veterinary Medicine, Stags Hill, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7TEJayne Wright Ltd, Underhill House, Putley, Herefordshire HR8 2QR ReferencesHampshire VA. Regulatory issues surrounding the use of companion animals in investigations, trials, and studies. ILAR Journal 2003;44(3):191-196. Yeates J, Everitt S, Innes JF, Day MJ. Ethical and evidential considerations on the use of novel therapies in veterinary practice. J Small Anim Pract 2013;54(3):119-123.Yeates JW. Ethical principles for novel therapies in veterinary practice. J Small Anim Pract 2016;57(2):67-73.Page R, Baneaux P, Vail D, Olson P, Anestidou L, et al. Conduct, oversight, and ethical considerations of clinical trials in companion animals with cancer: report of a workshop on best practice recommendations. J Vet Intern Med 2016;30(2):527-535.Davies R, London C, Lascelles B, Conzemius M. Quality assurance and best research practices for non-regulated veterinary clinical studies. BMC Vet Res 2017;13(1):242.Grimm H, Bergadano A, Musk GC, Otto K, Taylor PM, Duncan JC. Drawing the line in clinical treatment of companion animals: recommendations from an ethics working party. Vet Rec 2018;182(23):664. Walker RL, Fisher JA. Companion animal studies: slipping through a research oversight gap. Am J Bioethics 2018;18(10):62-63. Ferdowsian H, Johnson LSM, Johnson J, Fenton A, Shriver A, Gluck J. A Belmont report for animals? Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2020;29(1):19-37.Gray C, Fox M, Hobson-West P. Reconciling autonomy and beneficence in treatment decision-making for companion animal patients. Liverp Law Rev 2018;39(1):47-69.Dennison N, Petrie A. Legislative framework for animal research in the UK. In Practice 2020;42(9):488-496.

English

Regulating research on client-owned animals

University of Dundee Online Publications

Regulating research on client-owned animals

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

Edinburgh Research Explorer

University of Dundee Online Publications

University of Dundee Online Publications