Replacement, Reduction and Refinement in
animal experimentation
More Knowledge with Fewer Animals
2011: Kick-off ZonMw grant program MKMD
Program goals:
• Development of innovative 3R
methods
• Implementation of new and existing 3R methods
More Knowledge with Fewer Animals
General program conditions:
• Multi-disciplinary research
• Collaboration between relevant stakeholders
• Chain involvement
• Publication of all project results, open access, synthesis of evidence (SR)
• Implementation of results
More Knowledge with Fewer Animals
Program structure:
• Flexible, set up in modules
• Modules to be commissioned by
different parties
• First three modules have been
commissioned:
Animal-Free Research
Techniques
Amendement 21
New Module: in development
Module Animal-Free Research Techniques
Focus on Replacement
• Research projects (3.3 M€)
Cancer and other human
diseases
Public-private partnerships
Multi-disciplinary collaborations
• Follow-up ASAT2010 projects
(0.8M€)
• Implementation projects
Module Amendment 21 (2012-2014)
Focus on 3R knowledge infrastructure
• Publication of negative results
and stimulating the use of the
‘Gold Standard Publication
checklist’ (or ‘ARRIVE
guidelines’)
• Synthesis of Evidence in animal
experimentation (Systematic
Reviews)
Module Amendment 21
Publication of negative results involving animal studies Target group: ZonMw project leaders
• Additional financial support to publish negative results
• Open access
• ‘Gold Standard Publication Checklist’/ARRIVE
Aim: more awareness of the importance of publishing meaningful negative results (bias in literature, repetition of experiments)
Call open September!
Module Amendment 21
Synthesis of evidence of animal experimentation (Systematic Reviews)
Target group: researchers considering animal studies (mandatory for MKMD project leaders)
• Synthesis of evidence (SR) workshops (about six)
• Continued support for workshop participants
• Additional training for a few workshop participants
Call open on invitation March 2012
Systematic Reviews obligatory within ZonMw program: Health Care Efficiency Research (HCER)
Health Care Efficiency Research (HCER)
Actively promotes research on recognition, assessment
and implementation of cost-effective interventions and
fosters generalisation of knowledge
• Clinical research in patients
• Structural programme (1999)
Why a systematic review?
To identify knowledge gap / added value of proposed research
Systematic overview: • what’s already known on (cost-)effectiveness of intervention / implementationstrategy under study
• currently ongoing studies on similar subject
Optional: input for powercalculation (effectsize)
Quality item for reviewers
How do you judge the systematic review?
Consider:
• selection of search terms;
• all relevant databases included;
• selection of papers;
• do you miss any references relevant to this specific
proposal?
• are the conclusions of the systematic review justified?