» Articles » PMID: 33066272

Animal Research Beyond the Laboratory: Report from a Workshop on Places Other Than Licensed Establishments (POLEs) in the UK

Abstract

Research involving animals that occurs outside the laboratory raises an array of unique challenges. With regard to UK legislation, however, it receives only limited attention in terms of official guidelines, support, and statistics, which are unsurprisingly orientated towards the laboratory environment in which the majority of animal research takes place. In September 2019, four social scientists from the Animal Research Nexus program gathered together a group of 13 experts to discuss nonlaboratory research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (A(SP)A) of 1986 (mirroring European Union (EU) Directive 2010/63/EU), which is the primary mechanism for regulating animal research in the UK. Such nonlaboratory research under the A(SP)A often occurs at Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs). The primary objective of the workshop was to assemble a diverse group with experience across a variety of POLEs (e.g., wildlife field sites, farms, fisheries, veterinary clinics, zoos) to explore the practical, ethical, and regulatory challenges of conducting research at POLEs. While consensus was not sought, nor reached on every point of discussion, we collectively identified five key areas that we propose require further discussion and attention. These relate to: (1) support and training; (2) ethical review; (3) cultures of care, particularly in nonregulated research outside of the laboratory; (4) the setting of boundaries; and (5) statistics and transparency. The workshop generated robust discussion and thereby highlighted the value of focusing on the unique challenges posed by POLEs, and the need for further opportunities for exchanging experiences and sharing best practice relating to research projects outside of the laboratory in the UK and elsewhere.

Citing Articles

Animal research, ethical boundary-work, and the geographies of veterinary expertise.

Anderson A, Hobson-West P Trans Inst Br Geogr. 2024; 48(3):491-505.

PMID: 38505469 PMC: 10946936. DOI: 10.1111/tran.12594.


Edge cases in animal research law: Constituting the regulatory borderlands of the UK's Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act.

Palmer A, Message R, Greenhough B Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2021; 90:122-130.

PMID: 34624694 PMC: 8667871. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.09.012.


Out of the laboratory, into the field: perspectives on social, ethical and regulatory challenges in UK wildlife research.

Palmer A, Greenhough B Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2021; 376(1831):20200226.

PMID: 34176324 PMC: 8237164. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0226.

References
1.
Lucke J . Recognised veterinary practice. Vet Rec. 2007; 161(23):795. View

2.
Sikes R, Paul E . Fundamental differences between wildlife and biomedical research. ILAR J. 2013; 54(1):5-13. DOI: 10.1093/ilar/ilt015. View

3.
Palmer A, Reynolds S, Lane J, Dickey R, Greenhough B . Getting to grips with wildlife research by citizen scientists: What role for regulation?. People Nat (Hoboken). 2021; 3(1):4-16. PMC: 7116685. DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10151. View

4.
Greenhough B, Roe E . Exploring the Role of Animal Technologists in Implementing the 3Rs: An Ethnographic Investigation of the UK University Sector. Sci Technol Human Values. 2018; 43(4):694-722. PMC: 6027776. DOI: 10.1177/0162243917718066. View

5.
Laber K, Kennedy B, Young L . Field studies and the IACUC: protocol review, oversight, and occupational health and safety considerations. Lab Anim (NY). 2006; 36(1):27-33. DOI: 10.1038/laban0107-27. View