Search

To ascertain attitudes to resourcing, collaboration and publication in toxicology, a survey was developed and distributed to British Toxicology Society (BTS) members. The survey comprised 14 questions with 5 response options (strongly agree; agree; conflicted; disagree; strongly disagree) and a free text box. One hundred completed surveys were received by the cut-off date for data analysis. Unsurprisingly, 60% of participants disagreed or strongly disagreed that toxicology research is adequately funded in the UK; only 12% agreed with this statement. A similar proportion of participants (53%) disagreed with the statement that funding councils give equal opportunity to toxicology whereas 31% were conflicted on this point. An overwhelming 97% of respondents agreed that collaboration is important in driving toxicology research whereas only 38% agreed that competition is important. When this question was broadened out beyond the discipline of toxicology, a similar profile was seen suggesting that participants held similar views on toxicology versus other types of research. Many respondents were conflicted regarding the role of competition both in toxicology and in other research disciplines. Free text comments suggested that some competition is good to drive quality but can be counterproductive when competing for limited resources. Most participants were in favour of making toxicology research data openly available (86%) and in favour of open access publication (89%) although there were reservations about the cost of open access. Many (60%) thought the current system of peer review is fair but 65% also supported the idea of double-blind peer review (where both reviewer and author are anonymized). Others suggested a step in the opposite direction towards increased transparency (revealing and holding reviewers to account) would be preferable. Overall, there was a broad theme in free text responses that the need for experienced toxicologists has increased at a time when training and investment in the discipline has declined. However, not all respondents held that view with some noting that toxicology both as a research and as an applied discipline is strong within the UK scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From animal research through adverse events in clinical trials to health scares around food contamination, toxicology has frequently been a focus of scientific and societal concern. As these concerns shift with each new drug, new technology or public health scare, how can toxicology stay current, relevant and ethical? Two of the biggest ethical challenges in pharmaceutical toxicology are the use of animals in testing and the high safety-related attrition rates in new drug development. Both of these require progress in the discipline that will only be driven by research funding. Yet, very little is invested in these two fields compared with investment in new efficacy models, new disease targets and new technologies. How can this be addressed? Here, we explore current paradigms in toxicology that may have the potential for perceived or actual unethical ramifications. We discuss the underpinnings of such practices and make recommendations for change around peer review, resourcing, transparency and data sharing. These ideas build on the analysis presented in the 2004 Paton Prize lecture (Purchase, 2004) where issues around conflict of interest (COI), collaboration and competition in the context of ethical behaviours were highlighted. These areas are clearly relevant to many aspects of scientific research but here we focus on toxicology and specifically toxicology in the pharmaceutical industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]