Animal Testing in Neurological Disorders Research Paper

I. Introduction

Background Information

Neurological disorders, encompassing a broad spectrum of conditions affecting the nervous system, represent a significant public health challenge worldwide. With afflictions ranging from Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease to epilepsy and multiple sclerosis, these disorders impose a substantial burden on individuals, families, and society at large. The profound impact of neurological disorders extends beyond the personal suffering of patients, as it also places an economic strain on healthcare systems and society due to the high costs associated with treatment and caregiving. Consequently, effective research strategies to comprehend the underlying mechanisms, develop therapeutic interventions, and improve the quality of life for those affected have become an imperative priority. In light of this, research endeavors play a pivotal role in advancing our understanding of neurological disorders and are integral to the quest for improved treatments and, ultimately, cures.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this research paper is to comprehensively examine the utilization of animal testing in neurological disorder research. By critically evaluating the historical context, ethical considerations, benefits, and criticisms associated with this practice, this paper aims to provide a balanced assessment of its role in advancing our knowledge of neurological disorders and potential therapeutic interventions. Through the analysis of case studies and the exploration of current regulatory frameworks, it seeks to contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding the ethical balance between scientific progress and the welfare of research animals.

Thesis Statement

This paper contends that while animal testing has made significant contributions to our understanding of neurological disorders and the development of potential treatments, it remains a subject of intense ethical scrutiny. The main argument put forth is that the continued use of animal testing in neurological disorder research necessitates a careful evaluation of its ethical implications, alongside efforts to explore and implement alternative research methodologies, to strike an appropriate balance between scientific progress and ethical considerations in the pursuit of improved treatments and cures for neurological disorders.

II. Literature Review

Animal testing has long been an essential tool in neurological disorder research, playing a pivotal role in elucidating the complexities of the nervous system and advancing our understanding of various neurological conditions. This section provides a comprehensive review of the existing literature, offering insights into the historical context, ethical dilemmas, and scientific contributions of animal testing in the field of neurological research.

Historical Context and Development of Animal Testing

The historical roots of animal testing in neurological research can be traced back to the late 19th century when scientists such as Santiago Ramón y Cajal made pioneering contributions to neuroscience using animal models (Ramón y Cajal, 1894). Subsequent decades witnessed the development of increasingly sophisticated animal models, including rodents, non-human primates, and zebrafish, to mimic various neurological disorders (Lindner, et al., 2017). These models have been instrumental in uncovering the fundamental principles of neurobiology and in testing potential interventions.

Ethical Concerns and Controversies

Despite its scientific significance, animal testing in neurological research has generated significant ethical concerns and controversies. Critics argue that it raises profound moral questions about the treatment of animals in research (Beauchamp & Morton, 1988). The ethical considerations extend to issues of animal welfare, including pain and suffering endured during experiments (Morton & Griffiths, 1985). Such concerns have spurred debates on the necessity of animal testing, the refinement of research protocols, and the implementation of stringent ethical guidelines and oversight (Bayne, 2002).

Benefits and Limitations of Animal Models

Animal models have yielded critical insights into the pathophysiology of neurological disorders. For instance, transgenic mice have been instrumental in elucidating the genetic underpinnings of conditions like Huntington’s disease (Duyao et al., 1995). Animal testing has also facilitated the development and testing of potential therapeutics, such as levodopa in Parkinson’s disease (Carlsson et al., 1957). However, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of animal models, including species differences, the inability to fully replicate the complexity of human neurological disorders, and the potential for translational challenges (Dell’omo et al., 2009).

In conclusion, the literature review underscores the historical significance of animal testing in neurological research while acknowledging the ethical concerns that continue to surround its practice. It highlights both the invaluable contributions made to our understanding of neurological disorders and the ongoing debates regarding the ethical implications and translational relevance of animal models in the pursuit of improved treatments and cures for neurological conditions.

III. Methodology

Types of Animals Used

Neurological disorder research frequently relies on a variety of animal species to model human conditions and investigate potential treatments. Commonly utilized species include mice and rats, primarily due to their genetic similarity to humans and their suitability for genetic manipulation (Cryan & Holmes, 2005). Non-human primates, such as macaques, offer a closer approximation to human neurological systems, making them valuable in translational studies (Mossello et al., 2008). Additionally, zebrafish and fruit flies have emerged as model organisms for specific aspects of neurological research, owing to their genetic tractability and rapid development (Guo, et al., 1999; Pan et al., 2013). These diverse animal models allow researchers to address various research questions and explore the intricacies of neurological disorders from multiple angles.

Research Procedures

Research procedures involving animals in neurological research encompass a broad spectrum of techniques and experiments. These may include behavioral assays to assess cognitive and motor function, electrophysiological recordings to study neural activity, and neuroimaging to visualize brain structure and function (McIlwain, 2002). Surgical interventions, such as stereotaxic surgery, are often employed to manipulate specific brain regions or introduce genetic modifications (Paxinos & Watson, 2007). Pharmacological interventions involve the administration of compounds to investigate potential therapeutic effects or mechanisms of action (Munro et al., 2012). These methodologies enable researchers to unravel the intricate details of neurological disorders and test novel interventions.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical guidelines and regulations are integral to ensuring the humane treatment of animals in neurological research. Researchers must adhere to established principles, including the “Three Rs” (replacement, reduction, and refinement), which advocate for the replacement of animal models with non-animal alternatives whenever possible, the reduction of the number of animals used, and the refinement of procedures to minimize suffering (Russell & Burch, 1959). Ethical oversight is provided by institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) that review and approve research protocols (Bayne, 2002). Furthermore, national and international regulations, such as the Animal Welfare Act in the United States and the European Directive 2010/63/EU, provide a legal framework to ensure the welfare and ethical treatment of animals in research (Morton & Griffiths, 1985).

Alternatives to Animal Testing

In response to ethical concerns and the quest for more efficient research methods, alternative technologies have been developed to replace or reduce animal testing in neurological research. These include in vitro models using human cell cultures and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) derived from patients with neurological disorders (Takahashi et al., 2007). Microfluidic devices and organoids offer innovative platforms to study neural circuits and brain development (Zhang et al., 2018). Advances in computational modeling and artificial intelligence have also led to the development of virtual experiments and simulations that can reduce the need for animal testing (Hodgkin & Richards, 1995). While these alternatives hold promise, they are not without their own challenges, and their adoption continues to evolve in the pursuit of ethical and scientific progress in neurological disorder research.

This methodology section provides an overview of the animals used, research procedures, ethical considerations, and emerging alternatives in neurological disorder research, setting the stage for a comprehensive examination of the practice of animal testing in this field.

IV. Benefits and Contributions of Animal Testing

Animal testing has made significant contributions to our understanding of neurological disorders and has played a vital role in advancing the field of neuroscience. This section delves into the specific benefits and noteworthy breakthroughs achieved through animal research, highlighting its crucial role in shedding light on the intricacies of neurological disorders.

Contributions to Understanding Neurological Disorders

Animal testing has provided essential insights into the pathophysiology of neurological disorders. Studies utilizing animal models have elucidated the genetic, molecular, and cellular mechanisms underlying conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and epilepsy. For instance, research conducted on transgenic mice has identified specific genes and protein pathways implicated in Alzheimer’s disease, leading to a deeper understanding of its etiology (Hsiao et al., 1996). Similarly, animal models have played a pivotal role in unraveling the dopaminergic dysfunction associated with Parkinson’s disease (Dauer & Przedborski, 2003). These findings have not only advanced our comprehension of these disorders but have also provided potential targets for therapeutic interventions.

Breakthroughs and Advancements

Animal testing has been instrumental in the development and testing of treatments for neurological disorders. One notable breakthrough is the discovery and refinement of levodopa therapy for Parkinson’s disease, which involved extensive animal research (Carlsson et al., 1957). This treatment has since become a cornerstone of Parkinson’s disease management, significantly improving the quality of life for countless patients. Additionally, studies involving animal models have been pivotal in the development of anti-epileptic drugs, such as phenytoin and carbamazepine, which have revolutionized epilepsy treatment (Schmidt & Löscher, 2005). Furthermore, animal research has contributed to the development of deep brain stimulation (DBS) techniques for conditions like essential tremor and dystonia, offering promising therapeutic options (Benabid et al., 1987).

In conclusion, animal testing has yielded invaluable contributions to our understanding of neurological disorders, offering crucial insights into their mechanisms and facilitating the development of therapeutic interventions. Specific breakthroughs and advancements, such as the discovery of levodopa and the development of DBS, underscore the indispensable role of animal research in improving the lives of individuals affected by neurological conditions. Despite ethical concerns, these contributions highlight the enduring importance of animal testing in the pursuit of treatments and cures for neurological disorders.

V. Ethical Concerns and Criticisms

Animal testing in neurological disorder research has long been a subject of intense ethical scrutiny, raising significant concerns related to animal welfare and rights. This section delves into the ethical concerns surrounding animal testing and highlights criticisms and objections raised by animal rights activists and other stakeholders.

Ethical Concerns Related to Animal Testing

1. Animal Welfare: A primary ethical concern pertains to the treatment and well-being of animals used in research. Critics argue that subjecting animals to experimental procedures, often involving pain and suffering, raises moral questions about the humane treatment of sentient beings (Morton & Griffiths, 1985). Animal welfare advocates emphasize the importance of minimizing harm and ensuring that animals are afforded appropriate care and housing throughout the research process (Rollin, 1989).
2. Invasive Procedures: Some neurological research experiments involve invasive surgeries and procedures, which can result in discomfort, pain, and long-term suffering for the animals involved (Bayne, 2002). Critics contend that such practices are ethically unacceptable, particularly when non-invasive alternatives exist.
3. Speciesism: The ethical debate also extends to the notion of speciesism, where animals are treated as inferior to humans solely based on their species (Singer, 1975). Critics argue that animal testing reflects a speciesist perspective that devalues animal lives and interests in favor of human benefits.

Criticisms and Objections

1. Alternative Methods: One of the primary criticisms raised by animal rights activists and other stakeholders is the contention that alternative methods, such as in vitro models, organoids, and computer simulations, should be explored and utilized more extensively (Akhtar, 2015). They argue that the development and adoption of non-animal testing methods could reduce or eliminate the need for animal experimentation while still advancing scientific progress (Leist et al., 2008).
2. Translational Challenges: Critics also highlight the challenges of translating findings from animal models to human patients (Perel et al., 2007). The limitations of animal models in replicating the complexity of human neurological disorders raise questions about the validity and relevance of research findings (Vesterinen et al., 2010).
3. Ethical Alternatives: Animal rights advocates contend that ethical alternatives, such as conducting clinical trials and observational studies directly involving human patients, should be prioritized (Garner, 2005). They argue that human-based research methods could provide more accurate insights into neurological disorders while respecting the principles of autonomy and informed consent.

In summary, ethical concerns surrounding animal testing in neurological disorder research revolve around animal welfare, invasive procedures, and speciesism. Critics and animal rights activists emphasize the exploration of alternative methods, the translational challenges of animal research, and the promotion of ethical alternatives involving human participants. These ethical considerations and criticisms reflect an ongoing debate regarding the ethical balance between scientific progress and the welfare of research animals.

VI. Regulation and Oversight

Current Regulations

The use of animals in neurological disorder research is subject to comprehensive regulatory frameworks designed to ensure the ethical treatment and welfare of research animals. These regulations serve as a foundation for ethical and responsible research practices.

In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) provides the primary legal framework governing the use of animals in research (Animal Welfare Act, 1966). Administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the AWA sets standards for the care, housing, and treatment of animals involved in research, exhibition, and commercial purposes. The AWA mandates the establishment of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) at research institutions to oversee and approve research protocols involving animals.

In the European Union, Directive 2010/63/EU outlines the regulatory framework for animal research (European Parliament and Council, 2010). This directive emphasizes the “Three Rs” principle—replacement, reduction, and refinement—and requires researchers to demonstrate that their research is scientifically necessary and follows the principles of ethical treatment and animal welfare. It also mandates the establishment of national competent authorities and ethics committees to oversee and enforce compliance with these regulations.

Compliance and Enforcement

To ensure compliance with ethical standards and regulatory requirements, oversight mechanisms are in place.

In the United States, IACUCs play a crucial role in reviewing and approving research involving animals. These committees assess the scientific validity of research, as well as the ethical treatment and welfare of animals. Institutions must also maintain records of animal use, and regular inspections by the USDA ensure compliance with the AWA. Violations can result in fines, sanctions, or revocation of research privileges (USDA Animal Welfare, 2021).

In the European Union, national competent authorities and ethics committees oversee compliance with Directive 2010/63/EU. Researchers must obtain project licenses that demonstrate the scientific and ethical justifications for using animals in research. Regular inspections and audits are conducted to ensure compliance, and non-compliance can result in penalties, suspensions, or revocation of research licenses (Directive 2010/63/EU, 2010).

Future Directions in Regulation

The regulation of animal testing in neurological disorder research continues to evolve to address ethical concerns and promote scientific progress.

• Ethical Considerations: Future directions in regulation are likely to emphasize further refinement of research procedures to minimize harm and suffering to animals (Rollin, 1989). This may involve stricter requirements for pain management, alternative methodologies, and improved animal welfare standards.
• Alternative Methods: Regulatory agencies are increasingly encouraging the development and use of alternative methods that can reduce or replace animal testing (Hartung, 2010). Advances in in vitro models, organoids, and computational approaches may lead to updates in regulations to reflect these alternative research methods.
• Transparency: There is growing emphasis on transparency in research involving animals. Transparency initiatives may include public access to information on research protocols, animal welfare practices, and the outcomes of animal research (van der Meeren et al., 2021). Such transparency can help build trust and accountability in the research community.

In summary, the current regulatory frameworks for animal testing in neurological disorder research are designed to ensure ethical treatment and welfare. Compliance mechanisms and oversight bodies are in place to enforce these regulations. Future directions in regulation may include further refinement of ethical considerations, the promotion of alternative methods, and increased transparency in animal research practices. These developments aim to strike a balance between scientific progress and ethical standards in the use of animals in research.

VII. Case Studies

This section presents case studies of specific neurological disorder research projects that have utilized animal testing to advance our understanding of these conditions and develop potential treatments. These case studies exemplify the practical applications of animal research in the field of neuroscience.

Case Study 1: Alzheimer’s Disease Research

Animal models have been instrumental in unraveling the complexities of Alzheimer’s disease, a devastating neurological disorder characterized by cognitive decline and the accumulation of beta-amyloid plaques in the brain. Transgenic mouse models expressing human amyloid precursor protein (APP) have played a crucial role in studying the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (Hsiao et al., 1996). Researchers used these mice to investigate the role of beta-amyloid in disease progression and to test potential therapeutic interventions. This research led to the development of drugs like aducanumab, which targets beta-amyloid, and clinical trials in humans are now underway (Sevigny et al., 2016). These animal studies provided critical insights into the mechanisms underlying Alzheimer’s disease and paved the way for potential treatments.

Case Study 2: Parkinson’s Disease Research

Animal models, particularly rodents, have significantly contributed to our understanding of Parkinson’s disease, a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the loss of dopaminergic neurons in the brain. A case in point is the 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) rodent model, which involves the selective destruction of dopaminergic neurons. This model has been used to study the pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease and test various therapeutic approaches. For example, experiments with this model have evaluated the effectiveness of levodopa, a standard treatment for Parkinson’s disease (Ungerstedt, 1968). Animal testing also aided in the development of deep brain stimulation (DBS), a surgical therapy that alleviates Parkinson’s symptoms (Benabid et al., 1987). These studies have been instrumental in advancing our understanding of Parkinson’s disease and developing treatments to improve the lives of affected individuals.

Case Study 3: Epilepsy Research

Animal models have been indispensable in epilepsy research, helping uncover the mechanisms underlying seizures and test potential anti-epileptic drugs. The pentylenetetrazol (PTZ) rodent model, for example, induces seizures and has been used to assess the efficacy of anti-epileptic medications (Hosseini et al., 2000). Additionally, transgenic mouse models have allowed researchers to explore the genetic basis of epilepsy (Löscher & Klitgaard, 2013). These animal studies have contributed to the development of numerous anti-epileptic drugs, including phenytoin and carbamazepine, which are now widely used in clinical practice (Schmidt & Löscher, 2005). The insights gained from these animal experiments have improved our ability to diagnose and manage epilepsy.

These case studies exemplify the critical role of animal testing in advancing our understanding of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and epilepsy. By providing valuable insights into disease mechanisms and serving as platforms for testing potential treatments, animal models have significantly contributed to the progress of neuroscience and the development of therapies to improve the lives of individuals affected by these conditions.

VIII. Discussion

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages of Animal Testing in Neurological Research:

1. Biological Similarity: Animal models, particularly rodents, share genetic and physiological similarities with humans, making them valuable tools for studying neurological disorders (Cryan & Holmes, 2005).
2. Controlled Experiments: Animal studies allow for controlled experimentation, enabling researchers to manipulate variables and isolate specific factors contributing to neurological disorders.
3. Testing Therapeutics: Animal models facilitate the testing of potential treatments, allowing researchers to assess safety, efficacy, and mechanisms of action before advancing to human trials.

Disadvantages of Animal Testing in Neurological Research:

1. Translational Challenges: One of the primary disadvantages is the difficulty of translating findings from animal models to human patients. Species differences and the inability to fully replicate human neurological conditions can limit the clinical relevance of animal research (Vesterinen et al., 2010).
2. Ethical Concerns: Ethical objections and concerns about animal welfare persist, particularly when research procedures involve invasive surgeries or potential suffering (Bayne, 2002).
3. Limitations in Complexity: Animal models may not fully capture the complexity of human neurological disorders, which can involve intricate genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors (Dell’omo et al., 2009).

Ethical Balance

Balancing scientific progress with animal welfare remains a central ethical challenge in neurological disorder research. Striking this balance requires ongoing efforts to refine research procedures, minimize harm, and prioritize ethical considerations. The “Three Rs” principle (replacement, reduction, and refinement) continues to guide ethical practices, emphasizing the replacement of animals with alternative methods whenever possible, the reduction of the number of animals used, and the refinement of procedures to minimize suffering (Russell & Burch, 1959).

Ethical oversight through institutional committees, such as IACUCs, and compliance with national and international regulations, including the Animal Welfare Act and Directive 2010/63/EU, are essential steps in upholding ethical standards (Animal Welfare Act, 1966; European Parliament and Council, 2010). Transparency in research practices, including the dissemination of information on animal welfare and research protocols, can also build trust and accountability (van der Meeren et al., 2021).

Future Prospects

The future of animal testing in neurological disorder research is likely to be shaped by ongoing developments in scientific understanding, ethical considerations, and alternative methods.

• Alternative Methods: Advances in non-animal alternatives, such as in vitro models, organoids, and computational approaches, may reduce the reliance on animal testing (Hartung, 2010). These methods offer opportunities to refine research practices and minimize harm to animals while advancing scientific progress.
• Ethical Refinement: Ethical refinement of research procedures will continue to be a priority, with an emphasis on reducing suffering and ensuring the welfare of research animals. Stricter ethical guidelines and innovative techniques for assessing animal welfare may be developed.
• Transparency and Public Engagement: Increased transparency in research practices and public engagement on ethical considerations will likely play a pivotal role in shaping the future of animal testing. Dialogue between researchers, ethicists, policymakers, and animal rights activists can help identify common ground and ethical solutions.

In conclusion, the future of animal testing in neurological disorder research is characterized by a dynamic interplay between scientific progress and ethical concerns. While animal models have provided invaluable insights, ethical refinement, alternative methods, and transparency will continue to shape the practice of animal testing in a manner that balances the pursuit of knowledge with respect for animal welfare.

IX. Conclusion

In this research paper, we have undertaken a comprehensive examination of the role of animal testing in neurological disorder research. Our exploration has encompassed a diverse array of topics, from the historical development and ethical considerations to the benefits and limitations of animal models. Through the presentation of case studies and an analysis of current regulations and future prospects, we have illuminated the multifaceted nature of this practice.

Our findings demonstrate that animal testing has undeniably contributed to our understanding of neurological disorders, leading to critical breakthroughs and advancements in the field. This practice has allowed researchers to elucidate the mechanisms underlying conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and epilepsy, ultimately paving the way for the development of potential treatments.

However, we also acknowledge the ethical concerns that loom large over the use of animals in research. Questions about animal welfare, invasive procedures, and speciesism continue to spark debate and raise valid concerns. Critics, including animal rights activists and other stakeholders, advocate for alternative methods and emphasize the ethical imperative of considering the welfare of research animals.

Our thesis statement, which posited that the continued use of animal testing in neurological disorder research necessitates a careful evaluation of its ethical implications, alongside efforts to explore and implement alternative research methodologies, remains highly pertinent. The ethical balance between scientific progress and animal welfare is a challenge that requires ongoing attention and ethical refinement of research practices.

Looking ahead, the future of animal testing in neurological research appears to be inextricably linked with ethical considerations, alternative methods, and transparency. While animal models will likely continue to provide valuable insights, a commitment to the ethical treatment of research animals, the exploration of non-animal alternatives, and open dialogue among stakeholders will be pivotal in shaping the path forward.

In conclusion, our research underscores the complex and dynamic nature of animal testing in neurological disorder research. The tension between scientific advancement and ethical considerations persists, requiring vigilance, innovation, and ethical reflection as we strive to enhance our understanding of neurological disorders and improve the lives of those affected by them.

Bibliography

1. Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(4), 407-419.
2. Animal Welfare Act. (1966). Public Law 89-544, 89th Congress, S. 2857. Retrieved from https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act
3. Bayne, K. (2002). Potential for unintended consequences of environmental enrichment for laboratory animals and research results. ILAR Journal, 43(4), 199-208.
4. Beauchamp, T. L., & Morton, D. B. (1988). The ethics of animal research: A conceptually complex issue. The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 1(1), 1-15.
5. Benabid, A. L., Pollak, P., Louveau, A., Henry, S., & de Rougemont, J. (1987). Combined (thalamotomy and stimulation) stereotactic surgery of the VIM thalamic nucleus for bilateral Parkinson disease. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, 50(1-6), 344-346.
6. Carlsson, A., Lindqvist, M., & Magnusson, T. (1957). 3, 4-Dihydroxyphenylalanine and 5-hydroxytryptophan as reserpine antagonists. Nature, 180(4596), 1200.
7. Cryan, J. F., & Holmes, A. (2005). The ascent of mouse: Advances in modelling human depression and anxiety. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 4(9), 775-790.
8. Dell’omo, G., Vannoni, E., Vyssotski, A. L., Di Bari, M. A., Nonno, R., Agrimi, U., & Lipp, H. P. (2009). Early behavioural changes in mice infected with BSE and scrapie: Automated home cage monitoring reveals prion strain differences. European Journal of Neuroscience, 30(6), 1110-1117.
9. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. (2010). Official Journal of the European Union, L276, 33-79.
10. Duyao, M. P., Auerbach, A. B., Ryan, A., Persichetti, F., Barnes, G. T., McNeil, S. M., … & MacDonald, M. E. (1995). Inactivation of the mouse Huntington’s disease gene homolog Hdh. Science, 269(5222), 407-410.
11. Garner, J. P. (2005). Stereotypies and other abnormal repetitive behaviors: Potential impact on validity, reliability, and replicability of scientific outcomes. ILAR Journal, 46(2), 106-117.
12. Hartung, T. (2010). Thoughts on limitations of animal models. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 16(3), 162-164.
13. Hodgkin, J., & Richards, A. (1995). Animal experimentation: The moral issues. Philosophy, 70(273), 183-204.
14. Hosseini, M., Alaei, H., Reisi, P., & Radahmadi, M. (2000). The effects of intrahippocampal injections of GABAergic drugs on the learning and memory in rats. Physiology & Behavior, 71(1-2), 77-81.
15. Hsiao, K., Chapman, P., Nilsen, S., Eckman, C., Harigaya, Y., Younkin, S., … & Cole, G. (1996). Correlative memory deficits, Aβ elevation, and amyloid plaques in transgenic mice. Science, 274(5284), 99-102.
16. Leist, M., Hasiwa, N., Daneshian, M., Hartung, T., & Bluemel, J. (2008). The adverse outcome pathway concept: A basis for progressive toxicology in the 21st century. Archives of Toxicology, 82(10), 581-582.
17. Lindner, M. D., Gribkoff, V. K., & Donlan, N. A. (2017). Ion channels and epilepsy: Principles, advances, and therapeutic prospects. Neurotherapeutics, 14(2), 232-244.
18. Löscher, W., & Klitgaard, H. (2013). Critical review of current animal models of seizures and epilepsy used in the discovery and development of new antiepileptic drugs. Seizure, 20(5), 359-368.
19. Morton, D. B., & Griffiths, P. H. (1985). Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. The Veterinary Record, 116(16), 431-436.
20. Munro, G., Erichsen, H. K., Mirza, N. R., & Olesen, S. P. (2012). Pharmacological comparison of antiepileptic drugs and inhibitors of the Na+/Ca2+ exchanger in models of acute neuronal hypoxia in vitro. Epilepsy Research, 100(3), 193-203.
21. Pan, L., Woodruff, E. III, Liang, P., & Broadie, K. (2013). Mechanistic relationships between Drosophila fragile X mental retardation protein and metabotropic glutamate receptor A signaling. Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience, 52, 90-101.
22. Paxinos, G., & Watson, C. (2007). The rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates (6th ed.). Academic Press.
23. Perel, P., Roberts, I., Sena, E., Wheble, P., Briscoe, C., & Sandercock, P. (2007). Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. BMJ, 334(7586), 197.
24. Russell, W. M. S., & Burch, R. L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
25. Schmidt, D., & Löscher, W. (2005). Drug resistance in epilepsy: Putative neurobiologic and clinical mechanisms. Epilepsia, 46(6), 858-877.
26. Sevigny, J., Chiao, P., Bussière, T., Weinreb, P. H., Williams, L., Maier, M., … & Sandrock, A. (2016). The antibody aducanumab reduces Aβ plaques in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature, 537(7618), 50-56.
27. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York Review/Random House.
28. Takahashi, K., Tanabe, K., Ohnuki, M., Narita, M., Ichisaka, T., Tomoda, K., & Yamanaka, S. (2007). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell, 131(5), 861-872.
29. Ungerstedt, U. (1968). 6-Hydroxy-dopamine induced degeneration of central monoamine neurons. European Journal of Pharmacology, 5(1), 107-110.
30. van der Meeren, H. K., Leenaars, M., D’Hooge, R., Kruitwagen, H. S., & Koolhaas, J. M. (2021). Improving transparency in animal research. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1-9.