National Research Council Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Distress in Laboratory Animals. Recognition and alleviation of distress in laboratory animals. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2008.
Google Scholar
National Research Council Committee on recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals. Recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
Google Scholar
Rollin BE. Animal research: a moral science. EMBO Rep. 2007;8(6):521–5.
Article
Google Scholar
Robert B. Lives in the balance: utilitarianism and AR. In: Garrett JR, editor. The ethics of animal research: exploring the controversy. USA: MIT; 2012. p. 81–105.
Google Scholar
Matthews RAJ. Medical progress depends on animal models- doesn’t it? J R Soc Med. 2008;101(2):95–8.
Article
Google Scholar
Bara M, Joffe AR. The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science. Annals Intensive Care. 2014;4:26.
Article
Google Scholar
Killkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MFW, Cuthill IC, Fry D, et al. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One. 2009;4(11):e7284.
Article
Google Scholar
Sena E, van der Worp B, Howells D, Macleod M. How can we improve the preclinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends Neurosci. 2007;30:433–9.
Article
Google Scholar
Baginskait J. Scientific Quality Issues in the Design and Reporting of Bioscience Research: A Systematic Study of Randomly Selected Original In Vitro, In Vivo and Clinical Study Articles Listed in the PubMed Database. In CAMARADES Monogr 2012. [http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/camarades/files/Camarades%20Monograph%20201201.pdf ].
Baker D, Lidster K, Sottomayor A, Amor S. Two years later: journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(1):e1001756.
Article
Google Scholar
Bara M, Joffe AR. The ethical dimension in published animal research in critical care: the public face of science. Crit Care. 2014;18(1):R15.
Article
Google Scholar
Carbone L. Pain in laboratory animals: the ethical and regulatory imperatives. PLoS One. 2011;6:e21578.
Article
Google Scholar
Scott S, Kranz JE, Cole J, Lincecum JM, Thompson K, Kelly N, et al. Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS. Amyotroph Lateral Scler. 2008;9:4–15.
Article
Google Scholar
Steward O, Popovich PG, Dietrich WD, Kleitman N. Replication and reproducibility in spinal cord injury research. Exp Neurol. 2012;233:597–605.
Article
Google Scholar
Horrobin DF. Modern biomedical research: an internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2:151–4.
Article
Google Scholar
Pippin JJ. AR in medical sciences: seeking a convergence of science, medicine, and animal law. South Texas Law Rev. 2013;54:469–511.
Google Scholar
Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Phil Ethics Humanities Med. 2009;4:2.
Article
Google Scholar
Pound P, Bracken MB. Is AR sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ. 2014;348:g3387.
Article
Google Scholar
Dyson A, Singer M. Animal models of sepsis: why does preclinical efficacy fail to translate to the clinical setting. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(Suppl):S30–7.
Article
Google Scholar
Opal SM, Patrozou E. Translational research in the development of novel sepsis therapeutics: logical deductive reasoning or mission impossible? Crit Care Med. 2009;37(Suppl):S10–5.
Article
Google Scholar
Fink MP. Animal models of sepsis. Virulence. 2013;5(1):143–53.
Article
Google Scholar
Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP, Bruno Jr A, Connors JJ, Demaerschalk BM, et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44:870–947.
Article
Google Scholar
Sutherland BA, Minnerup J, Balami JS, Arba F, Buchan AM, Kleinschnitz C. Neuroprotection for ischemic stroke: translation from the bench to the bedside. Int J Stoke. 2012;7:407–18.
Article
Google Scholar
Akhtar AZ, Pippin JJ, Sandusky CB. Animal models of spinal cord injury: a review. Rev Neurosci. 2009;19:47–60.
Google Scholar
Domingo A, Al-Yahya AA, Asiri Y, Eng JJ, Lam T. A systematic review of the effects of pharmacological agents on walking function in people with spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:865–79.
Article
Google Scholar
Xiong Y, Mahmood A, Chopp M. Animal models of traumatic brain injury. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14:128–42.
Article
Google Scholar
Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531–3.
Article
Google Scholar
Hutchinson L, Kirk R. High drug attrition rates- where are we going wrong? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8:189.
Article
Google Scholar
Ransohoff RM. Animal models of multiple sclerosis: the good, the bad and the bottom line. Nat Neurosci. 2012;15:1074–7.
Article
Google Scholar
Geerts H. Of mice and men: bridging the translational disconnect in CNS drug discovery. CNS Drugs. 2009;23(11):915–26.
Article
Google Scholar
Hatziioannou T, Evans DT. Animal models for HIV/AIDS research. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:852–67.
Article
Google Scholar
Holmes AM, Solari R, Holgate ST. Animal models of asthma: value, limitations and opportunities for alternative approaches. Drug Discov Today. 2011;16(15–16):659–70.
Article
Google Scholar
Pammolli F, Magazzini L, Riccaboni M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:428–38.
Article
Google Scholar
DiMasi JA, Feldman L, Seckler A, Wilson A. Trends in risks associated with new drug development: success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther (St Louis, MO, U S). 2010;87(3):272–7.
Article
Google Scholar
Fourches D, Barnes JC, Day NC, Bradley P, Reed JZ, Tropsha A. Chemoinformatics analysis of assertions mined from literature that describe drug-induced liver injury in different species. Chem Res Toxicol. 2010;23:171–83.
Article
Google Scholar
Hartung T. Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature. 2009;460:208–12.
Article
Google Scholar
Knight A. The costs and benefits of animal experiments. UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
Book
Google Scholar
Card JW, Fikree H, Haighton LA, Lee-Brotherton V, Wan J, Sangster B. Lack of human tissue-specific correlations for rodent pancreatic and colorectal carcinogens. Reg Toxicol Pharm. 2012;64:442–58.
Article
Google Scholar
Knight A, Bailey J, Balcombe J. Animal carcinogenicity studies: 1. Poor human predictivity. Altern Lab Anim. 2006;34:19–27.
Google Scholar
Greek R, Shanks N, Rice MJ. The history and implications of testing thalidomide on animals. J Philos Sci Law. 2011;11:1–32. http://jpsl.org/archives/history-and-implications-testing-thalidomide-animals/.
Article
Google Scholar
Ipsos MOR. Views on the use of animals in scientific research. Dept for Business Innovation & Skills; 2012. [file:///C:/DOCUME ~ 1/arijoffe/LOCALS ~ 1/Temp/1512_sri-BIS_animal_research_2012_final_report_September_published_final.pdf]
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)- a meta-data driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.
Article
Google Scholar
Burns KEA, Duffett M, Kho ME, Meade MO, Adhikari NKJ, Sinuff T, et al. A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. CMAJ. 2008;179(3):245–52.
Article
Google Scholar
European Commission. Eurobarometer: science and technology report: European Commission, June 2010: 60–64. [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_en.pdf]
CrettazvonRoten F. European attitudes towards animal research: overview and consequences for science. Sci Technol Soc. 2009;14(2):349–64.
Article
Google Scholar
Goodman JR, Borch CA, Cherry E. Mounting opposition to vivisection. Contexts. 2012;11(2):68–9.
Article
Google Scholar
Masterton M, Renberg T, Sporrong SK. Patients’ attitudes towards animal testing: ‘To conduct research on animals is, I suppose, a necessary evil’. BioSocieties. 2014;9:24–41.
Article
Google Scholar
Knight S, Vrij A, Bard K, Brandon D. Science versus human welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use. J Soc Issues. 2009;65(3):463–83.
Article
Google Scholar
Ormandy EH, Schuppli CA, Weary DM. Public attitudes toward the use of animals in research: effects of invasiveness, genetic modification and regulation. Anthropozoos. 2013;26(2):165–84.
Article
Google Scholar
Macnaghten P. Animals in their nature: a case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology. 2004;38(3):533–51.
Article
Google Scholar
Hobson-West P. Ethical boundary-work in the animal research laboratory. Sociology. 2012;46(4):749–663.
Article
Google Scholar
Hobson-West P. The role of ‘public opinion’ in the UK animal research debate. J Med Ethics. 2010;36:46–9.
Article
Google Scholar
Hobson-West P. What kind of animal is the ‘Three Rs’? ATLA. 2009;37(Suppl2):95–9.
Google Scholar
Greek R, Rice MJ. Animal models and conserved processes. Theor Biol Med Model. 2012;9:40.
Article
Google Scholar
Greek R, Hansen LA. Questions regarding the predictive value of one evolved complex adaptive system for a second: exemplified by the SOD1 mouse. Progress Biophysics Mol Biol. 2013;113:231–53.
Article
Google Scholar
Ahn AC, Tewari M, Poon C, Phillips RS. The limits of reductionism in medicine: could systems biology offer an alternative? PLoS Med. 2006;3(6):e208.
Article
Google Scholar
Mazzocchi F. Complexity in biology. EMBO Rep. 2008;9(1):10–4.
Article
Google Scholar
Wagner A. Causality in complex systems. Biol Philos. 1999;14:83–101.
Article
Google Scholar
Seok J, Warren S, Cuenca AG, Mindrinos MN, Baker HV, Xu W, et al. Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:3507–12.
Article
Google Scholar
Gentile LF, Nacionales DC, Lopez C, Vanzant E, Cuenca A, Cuenca AG, et al. A better understanding of why murine models of trauma do not recapitulate the human syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(6):1406–13.
Article
Google Scholar
Brawand D, Soumillon M, Necsulea A, Julien P, Csardi G, Harrigan P, et al. The evolution of gene expression levels in mammalian organs. Nature. 2011;478:343–8.
Article
Google Scholar
Varki NM, Strobert E, Dick Jr EJ, Benirschke K, Varki A. Biomedical differences between human and nonhuman hominids: potential roles for uniquely human aspects of sialic acid biology. Annual Rev Pathol Mechanisms Dis. 2011;6:365–93.
Article
Google Scholar
Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(6):e1000412.
Article
Google Scholar
Institute for Laboratory Animal Research: National Research Council. Guidance for the Description of Animal Research in Scientific Publications. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2011.
Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care in Science. CCAC Guidelines on: Animal use Protocol Review. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Animal Care; 1997 http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Protocol_Review.pdf.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Casella SL, Kennedy AT, Larson RJ. Press releases by academic medical centers: not so academic? Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:613–8.
Article
Google Scholar
Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ntzani EE, Ioannidis JPA. Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. Am J Med. 2003;114:477–84.
Article
Google Scholar
Hackam DG, Redelmeier DA. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA. 2006;296(14):1731–2.
Article
Google Scholar
Knight A. Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor contributions to human healthcare. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2008;3(2):89–96.
Article
Google Scholar