By the early 1960s the global scientific community recognized the concept of animal welfare in research, and since then there has been a increased policy and scrutiny on how we use animals in research. This focus, however, often involved the replacement of animals and/or the humane treatment of animals used in laboratory research. In vitro methods are increasingly called upon in toxicology for screening, to establish modes of action and safety thresholds. However, those methods cannot take the place of environmental contaminant and biological effects monitoring with wildlife. While large mammals are often sedated and tissue samples are collected in similar ways to how we collect samples from humans, smaller wild animals and fish species are still largely sacrificed in the name of science.
One might argue that the end justifies the means, however in cases of threatened and endangered species, or in environments where populations are already under stress due to the presence of contaminants it seems very hypocritical and short-sighted to sacrifice wild animals. Even in cases of large mammals like whales, it is stressful and invasive to obtain a tissue biopsy for research.
With advancements in toxicogenomic methods and non-invasive genomic assay techniques such as eDNA, non-targeted analyses for proteins and metabolites in biofluids, and cellular level RNAseq, we now have the ability to collect more information from minimal amounts of biological samples than we could from sacrificing a whole animal in the past. Now, more than ever, there is little justification for the use of lethal animal methods in environmental toxicology.
This research topic will consider manuscripts that use cutting-edge non-lethal or non-invasive methods for environmental contaminant and health monitoring, as well as review articles that discuss and explore areas for improvement in non-lethal wildlife sampling and/or the ethical considerations which field ecotoxicologists can use to asses and improve their current field sampling practices.
By the early 1960s the global scientific community recognized the concept of animal welfare in research, and since then there has been a increased policy and scrutiny on how we use animals in research. This focus, however, often involved the replacement of animals and/or the humane treatment of animals used in laboratory research. In vitro methods are increasingly called upon in toxicology for screening, to establish modes of action and safety thresholds. However, those methods cannot take the place of environmental contaminant and biological effects monitoring with wildlife. While large mammals are often sedated and tissue samples are collected in similar ways to how we collect samples from humans, smaller wild animals and fish species are still largely sacrificed in the name of science.
One might argue that the end justifies the means, however in cases of threatened and endangered species, or in environments where populations are already under stress due to the presence of contaminants it seems very hypocritical and short-sighted to sacrifice wild animals. Even in cases of large mammals like whales, it is stressful and invasive to obtain a tissue biopsy for research.
With advancements in toxicogenomic methods and non-invasive genomic assay techniques such as eDNA, non-targeted analyses for proteins and metabolites in biofluids, and cellular level RNAseq, we now have the ability to collect more information from minimal amounts of biological samples than we could from sacrificing a whole animal in the past. Now, more than ever, there is little justification for the use of lethal animal methods in environmental toxicology.
This research topic will consider manuscripts that use cutting-edge non-lethal or non-invasive methods for environmental contaminant and health monitoring, as well as review articles that discuss and explore areas for improvement in non-lethal wildlife sampling and/or the ethical considerations which field ecotoxicologists can use to asses and improve their current field sampling practices.
