Faculty outlook toward animal experiments in post-graduate medical education.

Animal Experiments (AE) are fundamental in the training of almost all pharmacology-related post-graduate courses.1 However, research studies have questioned their human applicability, toxicological utility, and validity. Other limitations like their exorbitant costs, difficulty in procurement of animals, strict regulations, and reservations about animal ethics by animal rights organizations and students have also been observed.2 Moreover, newer opportunities and requirements in the pharmaceutical industry and clinical research organizations3 and recent trends in areas like pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, pharmacovigilance, rational pharmacotherapeutics1 have thrown AE out of focus. Faculty perceptions have a strong influence on the curriculum followed and help in improvising the diverse post-graduate curricula followed in different medical colleges of India.1 Though studies have explored the students’ and faculty perceptions of use of animals in undergraduate medical education,4 the faculty perceptions regarding use of animals in post-graduate training have not been looked into. Thus, it was deemed essential to assess the perceptions of the medical faculty about various aspects of AE in post-graduate medical education (PGME). A cross-sectional survey was carried out among the pharmacology faculty in South India following institutional ethical committee approval. Faculty members from medical colleges, selected by convenience sampling method in the four southern states of India (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh), took part in the study. The questionnaires with explanations of the objectives and instructions for filling were sent through post to the consenting faculty maintaining full confidentiality. A structured questionnaire with closed-ended statements, determined through multiple focus group discussions with six pharmacologists (who themselves used AE in their teaching) and review of literature, was used to collect the data. Two professors in the subject, a medical education expert, and a sociopsychologist validated the content of the questionnaire and ensured that the statements in the questionnaire addressed all the study objectives. After pilot testing on a group of five pharmacology faculty members, the face-validated questionnaire finally contained 27 statements. Some negative statements were introduced into the questionnaire and the statements were jumbled up in their order to circumvent answering bias. The questionnaire was divided into the following five domains: