- Email: [email protected]
Increased efficiency in use of laboratory animals
the production schedule coupled with problems with our printers (since replaced), publication would be in the October or November issue. He did not say then that he wanted to withdraw his letter. In July Chalmers asked again about the correspondence but his letter was more concerned with comments on systematic reviews that I had made at the British Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. His letter, marked personal, lay unopened until I returned from holiday in August. I reiterated the information given by our managing editor 2 months previously. Chalmers’ response was to ask that his letter be withdrawn, but by then it was in press. When Chalmers asked why his letter had been published I replied that it was “my understanding that a letter received by the Journal becomes the property of the Journal . . . Editorially we felt that your letter was a valuable contribution to the debate concerning systematic reviews . . . I am sorry if publishing your letter has upset you in any way but . . . we published it with the best of intentions, for the benefit of our readers.” Medical journals publish peerreviewed scientific and clinical research. Until they transfer copyright, authors have every right to withdraw a paper at any stage and for whatever reason—such as concerns about the analysis of the data, acquisition of new data, or disputes over authorship. But a letter to our journal offering an opinion or criticism is not refereed; nor is there copyright transfer and proofs are not sent. Chalmers knows this; until 1992 he was an assistant editor of the Journal and at that time did not object to these arrangements. This episode demonstrates the kangaroo court of the internet, here the WAME website. Are we entering a nightmare world where an individual (here an editor) can be accused, tried, and found guilty without even knowing the charges? Franz Kafka warned of this breach of the rights of an individual. John M Grant British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 27 Sussex Place, Regent’s Park, L o n d o nN W 1 4R G,UK 1 2
Anon. Below the fold. Lancet 1999; 353: 509. Gardosi J. Systematic reviews: insufficient evidence on which to base medicine. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 1–5.
In March, 1998, I submitted a response to a commentary in the January, 1998, issue of the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. A month later, the editor told me that his decision would be communicated “in due course”. By June I had heard nothing, so I telephoned the Journal. When the managing editor said that my letter was likely to be published “in the autumn” I suggested that this delay defeated the purpose of a correspondence column. A m o n t h after that, because further evidence relevant to my response had been p u b l i s h e d , 1 I sent in an updated version. 5 months after I had first submitted my letter John Grant wrote to tell me that he had decided to publish but not until 11 months after publication of the commentary to which I was responding. By return of post I suggested that this was pointless and asked him to remove my letter from his publishing schedule. When I asked why the Journal had published my withdrawn submission the response was that “a letter received by the Journal becomes the property of the Journal”. This seemed to ride roughshod over the rights of authors so I asked if Grant’s views were shared by members of WAME. No-one supported his position. If scientific journals are to facilitate debate, responses to published articles must be handled efficiently and in an unbiased way. The B M J’s rapid response system and the comments and criticisms system within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2 are examples of recent efforts to take advantage of electronic media to promote both more responsive biomedical publishing and more open debate. Grant claims that, despite the fact that I had not signed any copyright release form, my letter was his property, and that he was therefore free to publish it three months after I had asked him not to. Had this happened to a submission I had made to The Lancet, my court of appeal would have been that journal’s ombudsman.3 Perhaps a similar facility should be provided by the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology for its authors.
2
3
Bero L. Electronic peer review of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Paper presented at the Conference on Peer Review and Global Communications (Prague, Sept 21, 1997). Horton R. The journal ombudsperson: a step toward scientific press oversight. JAMA 1998; 280: 298–99.
Increased efficiency in use of laboratory animals Sir—Politically influential groups advocate a reduction in the number of animals used in biomedical research. In the Fifth Environmental Action Programme of the European Union, an amendment stated that at a national level the number of laboratory animals should be reduced by 50% within the European Union by 2000.1 The amendment was noted by the Council of Ministers, and has not been adopted by the European Union. No conclusion was reached at a follow-up conference in Brussels, Belgium, in 1997. The participating scientists were not enthusiastic about the proposed general reduction and argued that the objective should be to reduce the number of animals per project rather than to impose an overall reduction.2 We agree that it is inappropriate to aim for a general reduction in the number of research animals, because a reduction would not only affect present research but also preclude the opportunity to address new research areas. Fewer animals for research might also result in a drain on the European biomedical science community, including the pharmaceutical industry, causing an undesirable transfer of competence and employment opportunities from Europe to the USA and elsewhere. The ethical focus should be on the quality of research conducted and securing maximum welfare of animals. We should be reducing the number of animals used within each project, thereby making best use of each animal, and ensuring that any defined geographical area is not restricted by a quota, irrespective of its research needs.
Iain Chalmers UK Cochrane Centre, Summertown Pavilion, Middle Way, Oxford OX2 7LG, UK ( e-mail: [email protected])
Iain Chalmers’ reply 1
Sir—Debate is important in advancing knowledge, and a key role of correspondence columns in scientific journals is to provide a forum for such debate.
THE LANCET • Vol 353 • April 3, 1999
Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen T, Tugwell P, Moher M, Moher D. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998; 2 8 0 : 278–80.
Average number of mice and rats used in research per published study in UK from 1989–90 to 1996–97
1191
The aim of our study was to analyse how efficiently animals have been used in biomedical research in the UK during the 1990s. We compiled the numbers of published studies in which mice or rats were used for 1990–97, and obtained the number of mice and rats used in research per year (80–85% of all animals) from official statistics.3 We divided the number of studies published in a year by the number of mice and rats used in the previous year, thereby accounting for the lag time between experiment and publication. The number of mice and rats used per published study fell by 32% between 1989–90 and 1996–97 (figure). Most research by the biomedical industry is unpublished. However, we find no reason to assume that the trend should be different. We believe that the reduction achieved is a result of refinement in laboratory animal research conditions, such as improvement in experimental design, quality of animals, and rigorous characterisation and standardisation of the animals and their environment. The scientific community has accomplished an increase in inner efficiency in the use of laboratory animals in research during the past decade. J Hagelin, H-E Carlsson, *J Hau Department of Physiology, Division of Comparative Medicine, University of Uppsala, BMC, Box 570, SE-75123 Uppsala, Sweden ( e-mail: [email protected]) 1
Towards sustainability: a European Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development. Luxembourg: Directorate General XI of the Commission, 1992. 2 Hau J. Workshop: science and academia. Presented at the Target 2000 reducing animal experiments by 50% conference. Brussels, April, 1997. 3 Home Office. Statistics of scientific procedures on living animals. London: Stationery Office, 1989–1996.
Pollution and health Sir—In the Lifeline of Jan 2,1 Harvard clinical epidemiologist Robert Fletcher gives his greatest fear as “destruction of the good earth by toxins, nuclear waste, or simply too many people”. However, as interest in the human health effects of environmental pollution has increased in the past few years, the number of papers on this subject in general medical journals has peaked and lately been in decline. A survey of the past 7 years of all editions of The Lancet, BMJ, CMAJ, The New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA reviewed the relation between industrial pollution and human health (see www.salu.net/gh; accessed
1192
Number of papers on industrial pollution and health in five medical journals, 1992–98
on Feb 17, 1999). This survey revealed the distribution of the number of articles on the subject that were published in 1992–98 in these five medical journals and is shown in the table. What accounts for this decline? One possible explanation lies in the recent collapse of government funding for environmental programmes in some jurisdictions. For example, the operating budget of the Minstry of Environment of the Province of Ontario2 shows a decline congruent with and beginning 1 year before the descending limb of the curve in the table. Physicians interested in research on the relation between environmental pollution and human health should be aware that for some reason fewer papers on the subject have been published in the general medical journals, a trend which itself is of concern. A C Goddard-Hill 450 Dundas Street East, Belleville, Ontario K8N 1E9, Canada (e-mail: alban/[email protected]) 1 Lifeline: R Fletcher. Lancet 1999; 353: 80. 2 Mittelstaedt M. Environmental protection thinning. Globe and Mail, Aug 19, 1997.
European Commission funding of research Sir—It is unfortunate that the critical report on the conduct of the Commissioners of European Commission was published in the same week as the first call for proposals for research funding under the Fifth Framework Programme. In particular, most criticism was directed at Madame Cresson, the Commissioner in Directorate-General XII (D-G XII) who is responsible for research and part of the Fifth Framework Programme. A tragic consequence would be biomedical researchers being dissuaded from applying for research funding to D-G
XII because of the suggestion that all is not well in Brussels In 1997 I was chairman of the expert committee that reviewed cardiovascular applications to the Fourth Framework Programme. My experience is relevant because I was able to observe closely the day-to-day working of those who administered the allocation of research funds in D-G XII. The process of selection of applications was rigorous, open, fair, and democratic. Each application was peer reviewed by at least four referees. The process was independently audited as it proceeded. Any borderline cases or contradictory gradings were debated openly by a committee of 50 experts. If consensus could not be achieved a vote was taken. European Commission funded research is important in the building of stronger European science and medicine. I believe that applicants for funding need have no fear that they will be treated unfairly. John Martin Centre for Vascular Biology and Medicine, Department of Medicine, University College London, London, London W1P 9LN, UK ( e-mail [email protected])
Safe cycling Sir—Last year you published our report on subcapsular liver haematomas caused by bar ends in mountain-bike crashes.1 This publication was followed by a broad and extensive response from the local and international press in various newspapers and journals. All German cycling magazines and many other popular sports and lifestyle magazines published our recommendations. Even Time magazine, Newsweek, and the world’s largest cycling publication, Bicycling, referred to your report. Our recommendations were followed by the industrial factories, and most of the dangerous bar ends vanished from the market. As a result of this broad response, in 1998 we observed only one case of a subcapsular liver haematoma, despite an increase in the number of mountain-bike accidents. This result represents a tremendous success in trauma reduction made possible by The Lancet. There are not many publications that have had such an immediate and distinct impact on saving costs and lives. *Hermann Nehoda, Katherine Hourmont, Boris W Hochleitner Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Innsbruck, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria (e-mail: [email protected]) 1
Nehoda H, Hochleitner BW. Subcapsular liver haematomas caused by bar ends in mountainbike crashes. Lancet 1998; 351: 342.
THE LANCET • Vol 353 • April 3, 1999
Anon. Below the fold. Lancet 1999; 353: 509. Gardosi J. Systematic reviews: insufficient evidence on which to base medicine. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 1–5.
In March, 1998, I submitted a response to a commentary in the January, 1998, issue of the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. A month later, the editor told me that his decision would be communicated “in due course”. By June I had heard nothing, so I telephoned the Journal. When the managing editor said that my letter was likely to be published “in the autumn” I suggested that this delay defeated the purpose of a correspondence column. A m o n t h after that, because further evidence relevant to my response had been p u b l i s h e d , 1 I sent in an updated version. 5 months after I had first submitted my letter John Grant wrote to tell me that he had decided to publish but not until 11 months after publication of the commentary to which I was responding. By return of post I suggested that this was pointless and asked him to remove my letter from his publishing schedule. When I asked why the Journal had published my withdrawn submission the response was that “a letter received by the Journal becomes the property of the Journal”. This seemed to ride roughshod over the rights of authors so I asked if Grant’s views were shared by members of WAME. No-one supported his position. If scientific journals are to facilitate debate, responses to published articles must be handled efficiently and in an unbiased way. The B M J’s rapid response system and the comments and criticisms system within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2 are examples of recent efforts to take advantage of electronic media to promote both more responsive biomedical publishing and more open debate. Grant claims that, despite the fact that I had not signed any copyright release form, my letter was his property, and that he was therefore free to publish it three months after I had asked him not to. Had this happened to a submission I had made to The Lancet, my court of appeal would have been that journal’s ombudsman.3 Perhaps a similar facility should be provided by the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology for its authors.
2
3
Bero L. Electronic peer review of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Paper presented at the Conference on Peer Review and Global Communications (Prague, Sept 21, 1997). Horton R. The journal ombudsperson: a step toward scientific press oversight. JAMA 1998; 280: 298–99.
Increased efficiency in use of laboratory animals Sir—Politically influential groups advocate a reduction in the number of animals used in biomedical research. In the Fifth Environmental Action Programme of the European Union, an amendment stated that at a national level the number of laboratory animals should be reduced by 50% within the European Union by 2000.1 The amendment was noted by the Council of Ministers, and has not been adopted by the European Union. No conclusion was reached at a follow-up conference in Brussels, Belgium, in 1997. The participating scientists were not enthusiastic about the proposed general reduction and argued that the objective should be to reduce the number of animals per project rather than to impose an overall reduction.2 We agree that it is inappropriate to aim for a general reduction in the number of research animals, because a reduction would not only affect present research but also preclude the opportunity to address new research areas. Fewer animals for research might also result in a drain on the European biomedical science community, including the pharmaceutical industry, causing an undesirable transfer of competence and employment opportunities from Europe to the USA and elsewhere. The ethical focus should be on the quality of research conducted and securing maximum welfare of animals. We should be reducing the number of animals used within each project, thereby making best use of each animal, and ensuring that any defined geographical area is not restricted by a quota, irrespective of its research needs.
Iain Chalmers UK Cochrane Centre, Summertown Pavilion, Middle Way, Oxford OX2 7LG, UK ( e-mail: [email protected])
Iain Chalmers’ reply 1
Sir—Debate is important in advancing knowledge, and a key role of correspondence columns in scientific journals is to provide a forum for such debate.
THE LANCET • Vol 353 • April 3, 1999
Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen T, Tugwell P, Moher M, Moher D. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998; 2 8 0 : 278–80.
Average number of mice and rats used in research per published study in UK from 1989–90 to 1996–97
1191
The aim of our study was to analyse how efficiently animals have been used in biomedical research in the UK during the 1990s. We compiled the numbers of published studies in which mice or rats were used for 1990–97, and obtained the number of mice and rats used in research per year (80–85% of all animals) from official statistics.3 We divided the number of studies published in a year by the number of mice and rats used in the previous year, thereby accounting for the lag time between experiment and publication. The number of mice and rats used per published study fell by 32% between 1989–90 and 1996–97 (figure). Most research by the biomedical industry is unpublished. However, we find no reason to assume that the trend should be different. We believe that the reduction achieved is a result of refinement in laboratory animal research conditions, such as improvement in experimental design, quality of animals, and rigorous characterisation and standardisation of the animals and their environment. The scientific community has accomplished an increase in inner efficiency in the use of laboratory animals in research during the past decade. J Hagelin, H-E Carlsson, *J Hau Department of Physiology, Division of Comparative Medicine, University of Uppsala, BMC, Box 570, SE-75123 Uppsala, Sweden ( e-mail: [email protected]) 1
Towards sustainability: a European Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development. Luxembourg: Directorate General XI of the Commission, 1992. 2 Hau J. Workshop: science and academia. Presented at the Target 2000 reducing animal experiments by 50% conference. Brussels, April, 1997. 3 Home Office. Statistics of scientific procedures on living animals. London: Stationery Office, 1989–1996.
Pollution and health Sir—In the Lifeline of Jan 2,1 Harvard clinical epidemiologist Robert Fletcher gives his greatest fear as “destruction of the good earth by toxins, nuclear waste, or simply too many people”. However, as interest in the human health effects of environmental pollution has increased in the past few years, the number of papers on this subject in general medical journals has peaked and lately been in decline. A survey of the past 7 years of all editions of The Lancet, BMJ, CMAJ, The New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA reviewed the relation between industrial pollution and human health (see www.salu.net/gh; accessed
1192
Number of papers on industrial pollution and health in five medical journals, 1992–98
on Feb 17, 1999). This survey revealed the distribution of the number of articles on the subject that were published in 1992–98 in these five medical journals and is shown in the table. What accounts for this decline? One possible explanation lies in the recent collapse of government funding for environmental programmes in some jurisdictions. For example, the operating budget of the Minstry of Environment of the Province of Ontario2 shows a decline congruent with and beginning 1 year before the descending limb of the curve in the table. Physicians interested in research on the relation between environmental pollution and human health should be aware that for some reason fewer papers on the subject have been published in the general medical journals, a trend which itself is of concern. A C Goddard-Hill 450 Dundas Street East, Belleville, Ontario K8N 1E9, Canada (e-mail: alban/[email protected]) 1 Lifeline: R Fletcher. Lancet 1999; 353: 80. 2 Mittelstaedt M. Environmental protection thinning. Globe and Mail, Aug 19, 1997.
European Commission funding of research Sir—It is unfortunate that the critical report on the conduct of the Commissioners of European Commission was published in the same week as the first call for proposals for research funding under the Fifth Framework Programme. In particular, most criticism was directed at Madame Cresson, the Commissioner in Directorate-General XII (D-G XII) who is responsible for research and part of the Fifth Framework Programme. A tragic consequence would be biomedical researchers being dissuaded from applying for research funding to D-G
XII because of the suggestion that all is not well in Brussels In 1997 I was chairman of the expert committee that reviewed cardiovascular applications to the Fourth Framework Programme. My experience is relevant because I was able to observe closely the day-to-day working of those who administered the allocation of research funds in D-G XII. The process of selection of applications was rigorous, open, fair, and democratic. Each application was peer reviewed by at least four referees. The process was independently audited as it proceeded. Any borderline cases or contradictory gradings were debated openly by a committee of 50 experts. If consensus could not be achieved a vote was taken. European Commission funded research is important in the building of stronger European science and medicine. I believe that applicants for funding need have no fear that they will be treated unfairly. John Martin Centre for Vascular Biology and Medicine, Department of Medicine, University College London, London, London W1P 9LN, UK ( e-mail [email protected])
Safe cycling Sir—Last year you published our report on subcapsular liver haematomas caused by bar ends in mountain-bike crashes.1 This publication was followed by a broad and extensive response from the local and international press in various newspapers and journals. All German cycling magazines and many other popular sports and lifestyle magazines published our recommendations. Even Time magazine, Newsweek, and the world’s largest cycling publication, Bicycling, referred to your report. Our recommendations were followed by the industrial factories, and most of the dangerous bar ends vanished from the market. As a result of this broad response, in 1998 we observed only one case of a subcapsular liver haematoma, despite an increase in the number of mountain-bike accidents. This result represents a tremendous success in trauma reduction made possible by The Lancet. There are not many publications that have had such an immediate and distinct impact on saving costs and lives. *Hermann Nehoda, Katherine Hourmont, Boris W Hochleitner Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Innsbruck, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria (e-mail: [email protected]) 1
Nehoda H, Hochleitner BW. Subcapsular liver haematomas caused by bar ends in mountainbike crashes. Lancet 1998; 351: 342.
THE LANCET • Vol 353 • April 3, 1999