Effects of environmental enrichment on survivorship, growth, sex ratio and behaviour in laboratory maintained zebrafish Danio rerio.

Environmental enrichment involves increasing the complexity of a fish's environment in order to improve welfare. Researchers are legally obliged to consider the welfare of laboratory animals and poor welfare may result in less robust data in experimental science. Laboratory zebrafish Danio rerio are usually kept in bare aquaria for ease of husbandry and, despite being a well-studied species, little is known about how laboratory housing affects their welfare. This study shows that environmental enrichment, in the form of the addition of gravel substratum and plants into the tank, affects survivorship, growth and behaviour in laboratory-maintained D. rerio. Larvae reared in enriched tanks had significantly higher survivorship compared with larvae reared in bare tanks. Effects of the tank conditions on growth were more variable. Females from enriched tanks had a higher body condition than females maintained in bare tanks, but intriguingly this was not the case for males, where the only difference was a more variable body condition in males maintained in bare tanks. Sex ratio in the rearing tanks did not differ between treatments. Resource monopolisation was higher for fish in enriched tanks than for those in bare tanks. Fish from enriched tanks displayed lower levels of behaviours associated with anxiety compared with fish from bare tanks when placed into a novel environment. Thus, this study demonstrates differences in welfare for D. rerio maintained under different environmental conditions with enhancements in welfare more commonly associated with tank enrichment.

Beyond compliance: harmonising research and husbandry practices to improve experimental reproducibility using fish models.

Reproducibility in animal research is impacted by the environment, by husbandry practices in the laboratory and by the animals' provenance. These factors, however, are often not adequately considered by researchers. A disconnect between researchers and animal care staff can result in inappropriate housing and husbandry decisions for scientific studies with those animals. This is especially the case for the research in neuro-behaviour, epigenetics, and the impact of climate change, as heritable phenotypic, behavioural or physiological changes are known to result from the animals' environmental housing, husbandry, provenance and prior experience. This can lead to greater variation (even major differences) in data outcomes among studies, driving scientific uncertainties. Herein, we illustrate some of the endpoints measured in fish studies known to be intrinsically linked to the environment and husbandry conditions and assess the significance of housing and husbandry practice decisions for research adopting these endpoints for different fish species. We highlight the different priorities and challenges faced by researchers and animal care staff and how harmonising their activities and building greater understanding of how husbandry practices affect the fish will improve reproducibility in research outcomes. We furthermore illustrate how improving engagement between stakeholders, including regulatory bodies, can better underpin fish husbandry decisions and where researchers could help to drive best husbandry practices through their own research with fish models.

A new approach to grant review assessments: score, then rank.

BACKGROUND: In many grant review settings, proposals are selected for funding on the basis of summary statistics of review ratings. Challenges of this approach (including the presence of ties and unclear ordering of funding preference for proposals) could be mitigated if rankings such as top-k preferences or paired comparisons, which are local evaluations that enforce ordering across proposals, were also collected and incorporated in the analysis of review ratings. However, analyzing ratings and rankings simultaneously has not been done until recently. This paper describes a practical method for integrating rankings and scores and demonstrates its usefulness for making funding decisions in real-world applications. METHODS: We first present the application of our existing joint model for rankings and ratings, the Mallows-Binomial, in obtaining an integrated score for each proposal and generating the induced preference ordering. We then apply this methodology to several theoretical "toy" examples of rating and ranking data, designed to demonstrate specific properties of the model. We then describe an innovative protocol for collecting rankings of the top-six proposals as an add-on to the typical peer review scoring procedures and provide a case study using actual peer review data to exemplify the output and how the model can appropriately resolve judges' evaluations. RESULTS: For the theoretical examples, we show how the model can provide a preference order to equally rated proposals by incorporating rankings, to proposals using ratings and only partial rankings (and how they differ from a ratings-only approach) and to proposals where judges provide internally inconsistent ratings/rankings and outlier scoring. Finally, we discuss how, using real world panel data, this method can provide information about funding priority with a level of accuracy in a well-suited format for research funding decisions. CONCLUSIONS: A methodology is provided to collect and employ both rating and ranking data in peer review assessments of proposal submission quality, highlighting several advantages over methods relying on ratings alone. This method leverages information to most accurately distill reviewer opinion into a useful output to make an informed funding decision and is general enough to be applied to settings such as in the NIH panel review process.

Gender-based homophily in collaborations across a heterogeneous scholarly landscape.

In this article, we investigate the role of gender in collaboration patterns by analyzing gender-based homophily-the tendency for researchers to co-author with individuals of the same gender. We develop and apply novel methodology to the corpus of JSTOR articles, a broad scholarly landscape, which we analyze at various levels of granularity. Most notably, for a precise analysis of gender homophily, we develop methodology which explicitly accounts for the fact that the data comprises heterogeneous intellectual communities and that not all authorships are exchangeable. In particular, we distinguish three phenomena which may affect the distribution of observed gender homophily in collaborations: a structural component that is due to demographics and non-gendered authorship norms of a scholarly community, a compositional component which is driven by varying gender representation across sub-disciplines and time, and a behavioral component which we define as the remainder of observed gender homophily after its structural and compositional components have been taken into account. Using minimal modeling assumptions, the methodology we develop allows us to test for behavioral homophily. We find that statistically significant behavioral homophily can be detected across the JSTOR corpus and show that this finding is robust to missing gender indicators in our data. In a secondary analysis, we show that the proportion of women representation in a field is positively associated with the probability of finding statistically significant behavioral homophily.

Improving zebrafish laboratory welfare and scientific research through understanding their natural history.

Globally, millions of zebrafish (Danio rerio) are used for scientific laboratory experiments for which researchers have a duty of care, with legal obligations to consider their welfare. Considering the growing use of the zebrafish as a vertebrate model for addressing a diverse range of scientific questions, optimising their laboratory conditions is of major importance for both welfare and improving scientific research. However, most guidelines for the care and breeding of zebrafish for research are concerned primarily with maximising production and minimising costs and pay little attention to the effects on welfare of the environments in which the fish are maintained, or how those conditions affect their scientific research. Here we review the physical and social conditions in which laboratory zebrafish are kept, identifying and drawing attention to factors likely to affect their welfare and experimental science. We also identify a fundamental lack knowledge of how zebrafish interact with many biotic and abiotic features in their natural environment to support ways to optimise zebrafish health and well-being in the laboratory, and in turn the quality of scientific data produced. We advocate that the conditions under which zebrafish are maintained need to become a more integral part of research and that we understand more fully how they influence experimental outcome and in turn interpretations of the data generated.

NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores.

Previous research has found that funding disparities are driven by applications' final impact scores and that only a portion of the black/white funding gap can be explained by bibliometrics and topic choice. Using National Institutes of Health R01 applications for council years 2014-2016, we examine assigned reviewers' preliminary overall impact and criterion scores to evaluate whether racial disparities in impact scores can be explained by application and applicant characteristics. We hypothesize that differences in commensuration-the process of combining criterion scores into overall impact scores-disadvantage black applicants. Using multilevel models and matching on key variables including career stage, gender, and area of science, we find little evidence for racial disparities emerging in the process of combining preliminary criterion scores into preliminary overall impact scores. Instead, preliminary criterion scores fully account for racial disparities-yet do not explain all of the variability-in preliminary overall impact scores.