MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4412578017 · doi:10.1111/ejn.70201

CARE Competition “Exploring the Necessity of Animal Experiments”

2025· editorial· en· W4412578017 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christelle Baunez

Notice bibliographique

RevueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2025
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineVeterinary
ThématiqueAnimal testing and alternatives
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCompetition (biology)PsychologyData scienceNeuroscienceComputer scienceBiologyEcology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Within FENS, the CARE committee was originally created to better inform the neuroscientific community and homogenize the actions taken to improve animal well-being in our research and apply the 3Rs (Refine, Reduce, Replace). In parallel, however, the actions taken against animal use in research forced the European parliament to take action and re-evaluate animal experimentation. As CARE committee, we have thus engaged in activities to better coordinate with other organizations (such as EARA [European Association on Research using Animals], EBC [European Brain Council], CAR of SFN) to meet and inform politicians, the public, and the scientific community at large, regarding the continued need to use animals in research. Our message is that animal experiments are an essential part of progress in neuroscience and are being done with great responsibility and maximal care to reduce harm and improve well-being, in line with the 3Rs. In neuroscience, nonanimal methods currently complement animal experiments, as each model offers unique strengths for addressing different aspects of research questions. However, phasing out animal research remains on the agenda and it is important that the next generation of scientists is prepared to take responsibility and advocate for the use of animals in brain research for as long as necessary. In order to make this generation of scientists share their reflections about this often highly emotional topic, the CARE committee launched a writing competition under the motto: “Why do we still need animal research in neurosciences?”. Two categories of assays could be submitted “scientific assays” or “literary assays”. The call for participation was launched via the FENS newsletter, our CARE webpage (https://www.fens.org/about-fens/our-organisation/fens-committees/care-committee) and various social media platforms (Facebook, X, LinkedIn etc.). A total of 43 entries were received from 23 different countries as diverse as Canada, India, Nigeria, Denmark, Ireland, and so on. All members of CARE acted as member of the jury and all converged towards the same impression that all assays reflected a deep thinking and a great sense of responsibility from each participant. One winner and two runners-up of each category have been nominated and are published in the FENS official journal EJN as a special issue. The two winners also received a €500 prize, and their text was highlighted at the FENS Forum 2024 in Vienna. The winner of the best scientific assay is Cassandre Vielle (current PhD student in ethology at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; holder of a PhD in Neurosciences from Aix-Marseille University, France). She has written an assay on the use of animals in drug-addiction research and how it could be improved for better translatability towards human patients suffering from addiction. The winner of the literary assay is Ivan Montiel (current post-doc at Institut Pasteur, Paris, France). He has written an assay entitled “Beyond the Use: The Paradox of Scientific Animal Utilization” in which he describes the difficult guilty feelings after his mice were sacrificed, while wandering around in the Paris streets, leaving the Institut Pasteur. We will also have the opportunity to discover the runners-up of each category. For the scientific essay, Ana Isabel Guimarães, a Master student from University of Porto, Portugal, explores the disadvantages of animal models and considers alternatives in a balanced way. Ingvild Bjerke, PhD student from University of Oslo, Norway, suggests in her essay that we change our routines to increase data-sharing and reuse in order to reduce the number of animals used. Finally, the two runners-up of the literary essays are Lene-Marlen Wessel, Master's student from University of Copenhagen, Denmark, who took alternating perspectives of a laboratory rat and a student on the day of sacrifice to lead us to a moving discussion on “useful death”. The second runner-up of the literary category is Rand Suleimann, Master's student from the University of Dresden, Germany, who places a young neurobiologist in front of her professor, questioning her about animal use in her research and then initiating a complete change in her research. Because all these questions raised by young scientists are timely and require deep thought, we can only encourage you to read these essays and motivate your early-career collaborators to think about the need of animals in neuroscience research and consider participation in the next competition in 2026 for the FENS Forum in Barcelona. The author declares no conflicts of interest. The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/ejn.70201.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,262
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,213
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,262
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,909

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,2620,213
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,003
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0170,033
Communication savante0,0150,010
Science ouverte0,0120,023
Intégrité de la recherche0,0280,040
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0230,008

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,200
Tête enseignante GPT0,396
Écart entre enseignants0,197 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceMême sujetAnimal testing and alternativesTravaux en français237 207