DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20192645

Assessment of knowledge and attitude towards alternative to animal experimentation in research and education among interns and post graduate medical students in a teaching hospital, Tamilnadu, India

P. Sivagami, R. Kavitha

Abstract


Background: Use of animals for various purposes like food, transportation, pets, sports, recreation and companionship is as old as the human beings itself. Animals also serve as a tool for education, research, medical procedures, toxicological screening, for several decades. Since pain, distress and death of animals occur commonly during scientific experiments, various guidelines have been proposed and posed many restrictions over the experimental use of animals.

To assess the knowledge and attitude towards alternative to animal experimentation in research and education among interns and postgraduate medical students in a teaching hospital.

Methods: A cross sectional study was carried out by self-administered questionnaire among interns (92) and postgraduate medical students (53) in a teaching hospital in July 2018. The data was analysed by descriptive statistics and expressed in percentage.

Results: Among 145 participants, interns 92 (63.4%), postgraduates 53 (36.6%). 70.2% interns and 68.8% postgraduates had adequate knowledge about alternative animal experimentation and 67% and 67.1% of interns and postgraduates had knowledge about animal experiments. 69.4% interns and 68.8% postgraduates had positive attitude towards alternative animal experimentation.83.8% interns and 70.9% postgraduates were agreed to have various barriers to alternative animal experimentation.

Conclusions: Majority of interns and postgraduates have appreciable knowledge of alternative to animal experimentation, but their attitude is scarce. It is imperative to incorporate continuous training through workshops for budding medical professionals to provide innovative scientific knowledge in research and education towards alternative to animal experimentation.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Giacomotto J, S├ęgalat L. High-throughput screening and small animal models, where are we?. Br J Pharmacol. 2010;160(2):204-16.

Hendriksen CF. Three Rs achievements in vaccinology. AATEX. 2007;14:575-9.

Hendriksen CF. Replacement, reduction and refinement alternatives to animal use in vaccine potency measurement. Expert Rev. 2009;8(3):313-22.

Culabbar Committee on use of laboratory animals in biomedical and behavioral research, national research council and institute of medicine. Use of laboratory animals in biomedical and behavioral research,1988.

Baumans, V. Science-based assessment of animal welfare: laboratory animals. Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties. 2005;24(2):503.

Rusche B. The 3Rs and animal welfare-conflict or the way forward. Altex. 2003;20(1):63-76.

Rollin BE. Toxicology and new social ethics for animals. Toxicol Pathol. 2003;31(1):128-31.

Balls M. Replacement of animal procedures: alternatives in research, education, and testing Lab Animals. 1994;28(3):193-211.

Russel WM, Burch RL. The principles of human experimental technique (1959). Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW). Herts, UK: Potters Bar. 1992;238.

Kimber I, Pitchowski JS, Betts CJ, Cumberbatch M, Baskatter DA, Dearman RJ. Alternative approaches to the identification and characterization of chemical allergens. Toxicol InVitro. 2001;15(4-5):307-12.

Lloyd-Evans E, Morgan AJ, He X, Smith DA, Elliot-Smith E, Sillence DJ. Niemann-Pick disease type C1 is a sphingosine storage disease that causes deregulation of lysosomal calcium. Nature Medicine. 2008;14(11):1247-55.

De Silva O, Basketter DA, Barratt MD, Corsini E, Cronin MT, Das PK, et al. Alternative methods for skin sensitization testing. Atla Nottingham. 1996;24:683-706.

Ranganatha N, Kuppast IJ A review on alternatives to animal testing methods in drug development. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2012;4(5):28-32.

Zurlo J, Rudacille D, Goldberg AM. The three Rs: the way forward. Environ. Health Perspect. 1996;104(8):878-80.

Balls M. Future improvements: replacement in vitro methods. ILAR J. 2002; 43(1):S69-S73.

Gipson I, Sugrue S. Cell biology of the corneal epithelium. In: Albert D, Jakobiec F, eds.Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology. Saunders WB, Philadelphia;1994:4-6.

Foreman DM, Pancholi S, Jarvis Evans J, McLeod D, Boulton ME. A simple organ culture model for assessing the effects of growth factor on corneal re-epitheliazation. Exp Eye Res. 1996;62(5):555-64.

Vedani A. Computer-aided drug design: an alternative to animal testing in the pharmacological screening. Altex. 1991;8(1):39-60.

Knight A, Bailey J, Balcombe J. Animal carcinogenicity studies: alternatives to the bioassay. Atla Nottingham. 2006;34(1):39.

Matthews EJ, Contrera JF. A new highly specific method for predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using enhanced MCASE QSAR-ES software. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1998;28(3):242-64.

Dewhurst DG, Hardcastle J, Hardcastle PT, Stuart E. Comparison of a computer simulation program and a traditional laboratory practical class for teaching the principles of intestinal absorption. Am J Physiol. 1994 Dec;267(6):S95.

Sharma D, Malhotra P. A comparison of computer assisted learning and practical experiment for undergraduate medical students in pharmacology curriculum-a questionarrie based study conducted in a medical college of North India. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2016;5(6):2581-4.

Tatiane MD, Patricia GG, Colegio EC. Student knowledge about the use of animals in scientific research . 2018;26(2):235-44.

Taruna S, Suman, Juhi K. Use of computer assisted learning as an alternative to animal experimental pharmacological teaching-students opinion. JK sci. 2016;18(2):116.