Corporate report

Animals in Science Committee and Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body Hub Workshop (accessible)

Published 10 November 2023

The AWERB Hub workshop was convened and held under the aegis of the ASC’s AWERB Subgroup. The views summarised in this report are those expressed by attendees of the workshop, and do not necessarily represent the views of the ASC. This report is not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, a policy statement or a work plan.

Introduction

1. The ninth Animals in Science Committee (ASC) and Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB) Hubs Workshop was convened on 20 April 2023 via a virtual platform.

2. The aim of the day was to enable attendees to share and discuss: Culture of Care, the NC3Rs self-assessment tool and the role of the AWERB in its use, and Retrospective reviews and assessments.

3. More than 80 individuals attended the workshop. The attendees included the Chairs and/or their nominated representatives and AWERB members from a variety of roles and backgrounds. Also in attendance were the members of the ASC AWERB Subgroup (SG), facilitating the event, and the ASC Secretariat. The workshop was Chaired by Dr Sally Robinson (ASC AWERB SG) with presentations from Prof. Beth Greenhough (University of Oxford), Dr Jessica Eddy (the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs)) and Prof. Clare Stanford (ASC AWERB SG). The agenda for the day can be found at Annex A.

4. This report sets out the key points and findings from the day. Presentations provided at the workshop have been made available to attendees to allow circulation within their Hubs.

Culture of Care

5. The AWERB SG Chair welcomed Prof Beth Greenhough of Oxford University, who was also a member of an interdisciplinary Animal Research Nexus. The focus of this topic was a training resource developed by the Nexus called ‘Care-full Stories’ which used scripts to promote and reflect on the ‘Culture of Care’ in animal research. A link to the presentation and scenarios can be found in Annex B.

6. Beth gave a short introductory presentation covering :

• What is a ‘Culture of Care’?
• Background on the creation of ‘Care-full stories’
• How to access and use the resource.

7. At the end of the presentation two scenarios that were about AWERB review of replacement were read by volunteers from the ASC AWERB SG. The two scripts gave, first, an example of a negative interaction followed by a positive interaction between an AWERB Chair, lay person and Scientist.

8. Following the script reading, the attendees were split into five breakout groups, each of which was led by a facilitator from the ASC AWERB SG. Each group was given the following set of questions to focus the discussion:

• What is the responsibility of the Animal Welfare Ethical Review Body in promoting the replacement of animals in research?
• What questions can members ask about replacement?
• How can scientists improve and demonstrate their engagement with finding replacements for the use of animals in their work?

9. Breakout groups’ feedback on the focus questions is summarised below.

What is the responsibility of the Animal Welfare Ethical Review Body in promoting the replacement of animals in research?

• A responsibility of the AWERB is to explore what process the applicant has followed to be on top of what has been happening in the field of replacement in relation to their research, which Scenario two gave a good example of this doing.
• If a validated non-animal alternative is mentioned and achievable, the AWERB should create an environment to ensure the applicant can source it and use it.
• It was agreed that it is difficult to capture all the information on replacement and roughly only half of the AWERB representatives at the workshops felt they were able to address the subject directly within an AWERB meeting.
• Essential that the Named Information Officer (NIO) is involved in drafting PPL applications before they get to the AWERB as it should be through that mechanism that the issue of replacement is raised, and the applicant asked to address the replacement question.
• If possible, institutions should make funds available to follow possible replacement approaches.
• It was suggested that AWERBs should arrange scheduled updates with applicants during the lifetime of a licence, as five years is a long time in the field of replacements and advances are ongoing.
• Circulating NC3Rs newsletters to scientists and highlighting any funding opportunities to encourage engagement in replacement opportunities.

What questions can members ask about replacement?

• It was noted that it can often be difficult to challenge an applicant on replacement options as the AWERB members may not have the right background of knowledge or training.
• A suggested idea was for AWERBs to ask the question ‘What replacements have been looked for and discounted?’ and subsequently capturing that information to share with future project licence applicants where applicable.
• SharePoint could be used to enable AWERBs to comment collaboratively on a shared document, enabling the scientist to respond ahead of the meeting to any questions raised. This would provide more time at the AWERB meeting to probe deeper into topics such as replacement.
• Questions asked by members would probably depend on the quality of information supplied about replacement, just quoting a URL weblink is not sufficient. The AWERB should review some evidence much like the second scenario described in Annes B.
• In many cases AWERBs deal with applications that essentially continue a programme of work from a previous licence. In those cases, the internal review mechanisms ought to help feed into questions on replacement such as asking if there have been any advances in replacement since the last application.

How can scientists improve and demonstrate their engagement with finding replacements for the use of animals in their work?

• It was felt that often, scientists undersell themselves and don’t think about informing AWERBs about the background work they have undertaken as part of their research, as they may not believe this to be  relevant. It is important to reinforce the importance of creating an environment where scientists are encouraged to share what in-vitro work they already undertake, which assists in setting the foundation for the in-vivo work.
• An example provided by an attendee was to have a 3Rs subgroup which invited guests to provide presentations on alternatives and replacements. Scientists could then share that information more widely within their institution.
• Applicants should document in their application what meetings/actions they have taken to inform themselves of new alternatives and replacement options.

10. The session closed with the Chair thanking Prof. Greenhough for her presentation and highlighting how useful the ‘Care-full Stories’ scenarios would be in encouraging more positive interactions.

NC3Rs Self-Assessment Tool: The Role of the AWERB

11. The Chair welcomed Dr Jessica Eddy, a Regional Programme Manager from the NC3Rs. Dr Eddy joined the workshop to provide attendees with a presentation on the 3Rs self-assessment tools: The role of the AWERB. This tool was designed to support both research groups and research institutions to track their 3Rs activities. The presentation can be found in Annex C which has been provided as a separate document.

12. The presentation covered the following topics:

• Putting the 3Rs into practice
• The role of the AWERB in supporting the 3Rs
• Assessing your institution’s 3Rs landscape
• Demonstration of the 3Rs self-assessment tools
• Why should AWERBs be encouraging the use of the tools at their institutions?
• Actioning Feedback from the institutional tool
• Developing a 3Rs strategy

13. At the end of the presentation attendees were invited to ask any questions, the following points were raised by attendees and discussed with the presenter. Attendees felt that the presentation was very informative and provided useful tips on how to use the tools effectively and provided the following feedback.

• Some attendees had previously used the self-assessment tools and asked if they had been updated following initial user feedback. This was raised due to the attendees and colleagues feeling that the majority of the recommendations that they were given weren’t suitable for the situation or size of their particular institution.
• There was an overall feeling of disappointment upon completion of the assessment as even in their strongest areas, institutions were scored as only ‘Fair’.
• Dr Eddy advised that the NC3Rs continuously considers user feedback and ways to improve the tools, making them more user friendly. It was also noted that ‘Fair’ is actually a very good score, however the NC3Rs was considering rebranding the scoring system to reflect the feedback more appropriately.

14. The session closed with the Chair thanking Dr Eddy for her presentation.

Retrospective assessment and Retrospective review

15. The final session of the day was presented by AWERB SG member Prof. Clare Stanford. Prof Stanford introduced the session with a brief background to the subject before the attendees were split into breakout groups. The aim of the session was to facilitate discussion on two tasks of an AWERB:

• Follow the development and outcome of projects carried out in the establishment, considering the effect on the animals used (retrospective review); and to identify and advise on elements that could further contribute to the 3Rs.

• Assist with the retrospective assessment of relevant projects carried out at their establishment.

16. The AWERB SG provided a set of four questions for the attendees to consider in breakout groups. These questions were designed to explore how AWERBs manage these tasks and how learning and 3Rs advances are disseminated and implemented more widely within establishments.

17. Following the breakout session, attendees re-joined the main meeting and a representative from each group presented the main points and feedback from their discussion.

How does your AWERB conduct a) retrospective review and b) retrospective assessment? Are the processes similar or different? Please explain the similarities or differences.

• There is a wide variety of review frequency between establishments, some carrying out interim reviews, some at the end of the licence, and some only if the Home Office requests a review.
• Some organisations retrospectively review each individual study which can inform on the 3Rs on a regular basis.
• It was felt that the focus of the retrospective assessment is most commonly on the 5 questions set out by the Home Office.
• Most establishments use standard forms with presentations from researchers on occasion when conducting their reviews.

How does your AWERB ensure there is wider dissemination of 3Rs advances highlighted in retrospective review or retrospective assessment? a) within your establishment b) more widely outside of the establishment.

• Newsletters and information cascading – disseminating information on good practice with an informal process, however it was noted that due to the new Home Office auditing system, a more formal approach would be more appropriate. For example, asking recipients to confirm they have read and understood any important updates circulated.
• Publication of an establishment’s progress with the wider science community – an example of this is encouraging technicians to submit posters to meetings such as the NC3Rs or ICT Congress. Establishments could support this by providing guidance on how to write papers and how to get a technical bulletin published.
• Sharing information at the regional AWERB Hub meetings.
• Some establishments do not wait for reviews but instead share information on improvements as and when they are realised.
• It was noted that dissemination of good practice was easier at smaller establishments.
• Annual meetings where the Project Licence holder must present a 3-slide presentation of progress.

How does your AWERB actively implement establishment wide good practice that is highlighted through retrospective review/retrospective assessment? Please share an example.

• Establishment 3Rs day – 3Rs related information and 3Rs improvements introduced, facilitating an exchange of knowledge amongst all the licence holders including personal licence holders.
• Group targeting – knowledge exchange between specific groups.
• Reviews of previous projects – this feedback can then be fed into the development of the new project.
• Role of named persons – Specifically NIO’s, their involvement in the process is important for feeding forward any good learning’s and information from the reviews.
• AWERB set standards – having requirements that should be complied with, and if not, then a justification needs to be documented.
• When a new refinement was identified it was then implemented on every licence where appropriate.

Is there anything your AWERB would like to achieve to deal with the points raised in the questions, but would find difficult for some reason? What are the constraints?

Goals

• Compliance – making sure colleagues did fill out the forms correctly and provide the right information.

Constraints

• Funding for training and 3Rs related activities
• Ensuring adequate processes are in place to ensure that any 3Rs advances are properly captured, disseminated, and having impact.
  • Available resources and time pressures.
  • Commercial restraints on dissemination.
  • Scientists are often still wary of the dangers posed from animal rights activism.

18. Prof. Stanford thanked the participants for their thoughts and feedback, noting the success of the breakout groups in gathering information, and highlighting some of the points raised in the feedback session.

Final thoughts and Feedback

19. The Chair thanked everyone for joining the workshop and contributing to the afternoon. Attendees were invited to submit feedback to the ASC Secretariat or to the Chair directly, specifically on:

• Suggestions for future workshop topics.
• Suggestions on ways the workshop could be improved.
• How useful participants found the workshop topics.

20. Participants were informed that the slides from the day would be shared, and a report written and published on the Animals in Science Committee website, along with the AWERB Knowledge Hub.

Annex A

Animals in Science Committee AWERB Hubs Workshop

20 April 2023 - 13:00 – 16:00

13.00 - 13.05	Welcome, Introductions and Workshop Protocol	Sally Robinson
13.05 - 14.00	Culture of Care	Beth
Greenhough
14.00 - 14.45	NC3Rs Self-Assessment Tool: The Role of the AWERB	Dr Jessica Eddy (NC3Rs)
14.45 - 15.00	Break
15.00 - 15.50	Retrospective assessment and Retrospect Review	Clare Stanford
15.50 - 16.00	Final thoughts and feedback	Sally Robinson

Annex B

Scenario one

Chair             Thank you for introducing your application, Dr Smith. Now let’s go round the table and see whether there are any questions for you. Dave, let’s start with you.

LM                  Thank you… well I thought the Non Technical Summary was clear and it looks like an important project to me. I just had a couple of

questions. One is how did you decide on the tumour size? It looks a bit big to me, won’t it be uncomfortable?

Scientist       It has to reach that size so that it can metastase…

LM                Metastase?

Scientist            Spread through the body. The project is about developing treatments for cancers that have spread, as it says in the Non Technical Summary.

LM                      Oh… OK. Also when it asks how you searched for replacements, it’s just got the URL to a website, what does that mean?

Scientist             That’s a 3Rs database

LM                      So… how does that work?

Scientist            (sounding irritated) I looked on this database for an alternative, and there weren’t any that I could use.

LM                      Oh… is that the only option to look for a replacement?

Scientist            It isn’t possible to replace animals in this project, it needs a whole animal with a functioning immune system. This is research into metastatic breast cancer! The British Research Council wouldn’t have funded this project if it wasn’t using the best methodology.

LM                      Oh, um…

Scientist            Look, we really need to move on now

LM                      But I hadn’t finished…!

Scientist            Sorry, we need to keep to time. Who’s giving the NACWO report?

Scenario two

Scientist            OK, let’s just make sure everyone has been able to comment that wants to… any more questions, going round the table?

LM                      Yes please… can I ask you about how you searched for replacements?

Scientist            Sure!

LM                      I don’t understand why you can replace one part of the protocol and not another. Why is that?

Scientist           Well, some aspects are easier to replace than others. The part of the protocol I could replace involved assessing how the compound will pass through layers of cells in the lung, and we can actually do that with a lung-on-a-chip now. I’d been keeping an eye on that

technology, looking at the literature and talking to colleagues, and I’m pleased to say we are now able to replace animals in that part.

LM                      That’s really good, thanks. So why can’t you use the lung-on-a-chip for the other protocols then?

Scientist             It’s a bit complicated to explain …

Chair                  It’s important though, and we’ve got time so please go ahead.

Scientist        OK. So the European Commission has got a website that lists databases of replacement alternatives, and I look through those three or four times a year to see what’s been added. There’s one on non- animal models for respiratory tract diseases and there are some really promising technologies in there, but when you’re trying to develop gene therapy for cystic fibrosis you have to take into account how the gene you’re adding might be expressed in the whole person. So at the moment I do still need whole animals. But I keep in touch with the institute that develops the organs-on-chips and there’s also a group in the US that’s starting to trial gene therapy in organoids – we’re going to meet up at an international conference soon and see how we can maybe work together. I think this is going to be a step by step process, but I do want to use human cells and tissues instead of animals wherever I can. I’ll need more training in some of the new techniques though.

Chair                  Well that’s one of the AWERB’s functions – to help make sure you all receive the training you need. Barbara, are you happy with that response?

LM                     Yes, thank you. And please can we have a discussion some time about how the University supports scientists who need training and support around alternatives?

Chair                 Good idea – let’s include it at the next awayday.

Scientist            If you like, I could come and give you more detail about how I got the funding and training to use the lung-on-a-chip?

Chair                  Great, thank you!