One Health: perspectives on ethical issues and evidence from animal experiments

Zoonoses constitute more than 60% of all known infectious diseases and 75% of emerging infectious diseases. Their impact is not monitored, prevented and treated in an integrated way. The efficacy of therapeutic interventions for zoonotic diseases is deemed to be comparable across species with scientifically valid results originating from a range of animal experiments. Ethical obligations limit the number of animals used in experiments as well as reduce repetition of studies. The evidence based on randomized controlled trails and systematic reviews for the effectiveness of health care interventions is often inconclusive. Subjecting human volunteers to risk in the absence of scientifically valid results from animal experiments is unethical. The One Health concept is a comparative, clinical approach directed towards zoonoses which present challenges to research workers and clinicians. Optimal health for all-One Health-should be underpinned by ethically conducted research in animals or humans and the results should be complementary to both

impact of abuse and historical perspective of medical ethics: a moral foundation for human research

Medical ethics play an increasingly important role in the practice of medicine and in medical research. Since the time of the Nuremberg trials, medical ethics has expanded and now it involves every aspect of medicine and research. There was no historical perspective of medical ethics in relation to medical and research abuse and to new development in the medical field. A historical overview of the development of medical ethics, its response to recent medical advances and its relationship to the abuse of medical research. Electronic searches of the major databases and handsearching of relevant journals and publications to identify ethics guidelines appropriate for this study were conducted in March to May 2008. Guidelines were reviewed from Charles Babbage [1782-1871] till the advent of cloning. The dates of initiation of each guideline and the rationale for its development were recorded. Most of the medical ethic guidelines have evolved in response to the abuse of research, malpractice, and to discoveries or advances in medicine. Overzealous physicians who were subservient to dictators or government of absolute power have contributed more than any other group to the abuse of research and consequently to the ethics. Next were those physicians who had little or no regard to patient or animal welfare. Physicians and pharmaceutical companies who were driven by profit constitute the third group of abusers. Scientific inaccuracy in publication, fraud, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism contributed to the abuse which sparked the development of ethical guidelines in research publication. The majority of ethics guidelines have been developed in response to abuses in the practice of medicine, research, publication and recent advances in medicine

Health research priority setting in developing countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region: partnering with the Cochrane Collaboration

Healthcare research in the Eastern Mediterranean Region [EMR] is fragmented and often weak. A coordinated approach is required to strengthen and focus efforts. Given the low resource base, priority-setting is an essential component. Healthcare policy and programmes in the EMR should be underpinned by reliable evidence of "what works for whom and why", with special attention to the health needs of the disadvantaged. Collaboration with international health research organizations, such as The Cochrane Collaboration, is essential and would provide an opportunity to examine evidence, prioritize knowledge areas, and identify research gaps

comparison of hand searching versus EMBASE searching of the Bahrain medical bulletin to identify reports of randomized controlled trial

The aim of this study is to identify reports of randomized controlled trials by hand searching the Bahrain Medical Bulletin and to determine the added value of the hand searching in minimizing the effects of indexing bias. All issues of the BMB were searched by hand from cover to cover for reports of trials. These were classified as randomized controlled trials [RCTs] or controlled clinical trials [CCTs] according to the Cochrane eligibility criteria. Photocopies of the bibliographic details and of the pages describing the study design of the reports identified were sent to the UK Cochrane Centre for verification and submission to the US Cochrane Center for publication in CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library. EMBASE and CENTRAL were also searched to identify if the reports found by the handsearch were already included in either of these databases. Sixteen trials out of 395 articles were identified, 12 RCTs and 4 CCTs. The added value of the handsearch in relation to EMBASE was 13 of the 16 [81%], and that for CENTRAL was 8 of 16 [50%]. Handsearching provides a valuable and unique contribution from the Arab region to the global effort by the Cochrane Collaboration. The handsearching of this journal, should help reviewers to minimize the effects of publication bias by providing reports of trials not previously identified. The handsearching has also ensured that reports of trials will not remain 'buried' because of indexing bias