Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare.
Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0158791
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Wolfensohn S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Davies GF;Greenhough BJ;Hobson-West P;Kirk RG;Applebee K;Bellingan LC;Berdoy M;Buller H;Cassaday HJ;Davies K;Diefenbacher D;Druglitrø T;Escobar MP;Friese C;Herrmann K;Hinterberger A;Jarrett WJ;Jayne K;Johnson AM;Johnson ER;Konold T;Leach MC;Leonelli S;Lewis DI;Lilley EJ;Longridge ER;McLeod CM;Miele M;Nelson NC;Ormandy EH;Pallett H;Poort L;Pound P;Ramsden E;Roe E;Scalway H;Schrader A;Scotton CJ;Scudamore CL;Smith JA;Whitfield L;Wolfensohn S
改善实验动物科学和福利需要新的科学研究和人文社会科学研究的见解。虽然科学研究提供了替代、减少和完善涉及实验动物的程序（“3R”）的证据，但人文和社会科学领域的工作可以帮助理解社会、经济和文化进程，这些进程增强或阻碍了了解和处理实验动物的人道方式。然而，目前这些学科观点之间的交流是有限的，他们设计研究项目、产生结果、吸引用户并试图以不同的方式影响政策。为了促进该界面的对话和未来研究，我们召集了一个由 45 名生命科学家、社会科学家、人文学者、非政府组织和政策制定者组成的跨学科小组，以制定合作研究议程。这借鉴了科学政策中其他议程设定活动所采用的方法，采用协作和审议的方法来确定研究重点。参与者是从整个社区招募的，被邀请提交研究问题并就他们的优先事项进行投票。然后，他们在英国举行的互动研讨会上会面，讨论了提交的所有 136 个问题，并共同定义了该小组的 30 个最重要的问题。其成果是关于实验动物科学和福利的人文和社会科学研究的合作未来议程。这些问题表明需要人文和社会科学领域的新研究，为有关实验动物研究的治理和实践的新兴讨论和优先事项提供信息，包括以下问题：国际协调、开放性和公众参与、“护理文化”、危害效益分析和 3R 的未来。下面概述的过程强调了跨学科交流对于改善不同研究文化之间的交流的价值，并确定了提高人文学科、社会科学、科学和科学政策之间未来研究有效性的方法。
Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.