Translational Research: When "One Health" Becomes "One Literature"

While translational research is beginning to blur the lines between different medical disciplines, the species barrier remains firmly in place. Despite the “One Health” approach gaining momentum amid the current pandemic, the divide between veterinary and medical research persists. One solution would be to envision a scientific literature that is less compartmentalized and more interconnected, under the banner of “One Literature,” for the benefit of both physicians and those involved in veterinary medicine.   While veterinary medicine offers an increasing number of clinically relevant spontaneous models of human diseases in pets, the divide between human medicine and veterinary medicine limits the benefits for each field. Even as these models converge with the concept of translational medicine, the traditional boundaries of biomedical literature continue to reinforce the separation between animal health and human health. Through their systems of organization, citation, and publication, scientific journals contribute to maintaining this disconnect between species. To facilitate communication among researchers, physicians, and veterinarians, the “One Health” paradigm should be extended to the literature to raise awareness among the various professional communities about shared topics, thereby bringing scientific communities together and encouraging collaboration.  

The Contrast Between Veterinary and Medical Literature

Scientific journals are often limited to a single discipline, clearly defined in a bibliometric study or meta-analysis. However, their boundaries are less clear in the context of species-specific research or clinical studies. Yet these categorical silos—which may seem more than arbitrary (whether imposed by our own frame of reference or by an indexer)—can have serious consequences, notably hindering a healthy and creative cross-fertilization of knowledge. The categorization of veterinary and medical literature often imposes boundaries that do not always align with the intended scientific objectives. Publication silos sometimes act as a barrier to the translation of basic research into clinical practice and to new ways of thinking. Similarly, scientific journals unconsciously contribute to these restrictions by relying on reviewers whose expertise rarely extends beyond the scientific context in which they specialize. Whether in one direction or the other, communities may be reluctant to cross the imaginary line between research on animals and humans, despite the obvious benefits. Because of their comparative training—and also because medical research often underpins advances in animal health—veterinarians are often more curious about the research conducted by physicians. Some consult, cite, and publish in medical journals. Physicians and researchers, on the other hand, are generally less familiar with veterinary journals and are, as a result, generally less aware of the existence of comparative pathology—and, above all, of the potential of studying diseases in animals. Yet the veterinary literature is replete with studies capable of enriching our understanding of human diseases, and with fewer regulatory constraints. Medical and surgical advances in animals can precede those in humans. For example, the regeneration of the mandibular bone in dogs using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) served as a springboard for the development of methods to reconstruct the human jaw. Failing to take the global literature into account can therefore limit one’s thinking, leading to omissions or errors.    

“One Health” in the Literature

Despite this divide between the two fields, progress is being made in practice toward recognizing and strengthening the links between the veterinary and medical literature. Under the “One Health” banner—which has taken on particular significance in the current pandemic context—veterinarians, researchers, and physicians have no choice but to organize, come together, and collaborate. Launched in the early 2000s, the One Health initiative champions the concept that animal health, human health, and environmental health are inextricably linked and that the expertise of all health professionals is essential to solving problems and advancing research. This initiative therefore promotes integrated, systemic, and unified actions in public health, animal health, and environmental health at the local, national, and global levels. This multisectoral approach applies to the design and implementation of programs, policies, legislation, and research in which multiple sectors communicate and collaborate to improve public health outcomes. And the shift in the paradigm of scientific literature can no longer be ignored. Consequently, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) has officially welcomed publishers of veterinary medicine into its organization. This decision has highlighted the parallel spheres of veterinary and medical publishing, practice, and policy (peer review, manuscript types, conflicts of interest, guidelines). Veterinary publishers have also participated in roundtables on biosecurity and dual-use research organized by the Office of Biotechnology Activities at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States. And since 2006, the National Library of Medicine’s Literature Selection and Review Committee has included a veterinarian among its team of physicians, nurses, dentists, scientists, and experts. Another important milestone was the BVA’s decision to partner with the BMJ Group to publish its journals, partly based on synergies between human physicians and veterinarians. As a result, human physicians and veterinarians are collaborating and publishing together more than ever before. Common specialties are emerging, including translational research, comparative oncology, and research on zoonoses. The number of articles co-authored by medical and veterinary researchers rose from one per year in 2000 to nine in 2011. Several shared diseases have directly benefited from this connection. For example, research articles presenting spontaneous canine non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a translational model for human lymphoma have tripled since 2000, greatly enriched by comparative research. These collaborations have transformed communication between the two communities, unified biomedical terminology, and strengthened co-citations in veterinary and medical journals.    

“One Health” Becomes “One Literature”

The “One Literature” concept is simply an extension of the “One Health” approach. It unifies scientific publications, citations, and the organization of scientific journals by breaking down contextual barriers between veterinary and medical literature and facilitating the exchange of knowledge and collaborative approaches that benefit translational research. To achieve this, the concept challenges indexers to group specialized veterinary journals within relevant medical specialties, focusing on similarities rather than differences. Similarly, publishers are urged to involve both veterinary and medical experts in the peer review process to provide scientific expertise that has been lacking until now. However, the research offers a word of caution. It is important to encourage a cross-disciplinary perspective on the data, while remaining aware of its limitations. While veterinary science has much to learn from human medicine—and vice versa—not everything should be accepted at face value. We must not lump everything together, but rather know how to select the appropriate tools and information. Animal models are never perfect, and the predictive value of the results must always be interpreted with caution. The translational utility for certain cancers is clear, but not all naturally occurring human diseases necessarily have spontaneous counterparts in pets. Coronary heart disease, strokes, and Parkinson’s disease, for example, have no equivalents in animals. Similarly, the metabolism of certain drugs is not identical. Although animal studies have the potential to inform human clinical trials, at present, many veterinary clinical trials are not designed to inform human clinical trials and lack several crucial features, such as sufficient statistical power, a double-blind randomized methodology, or control groups of adequate size. It is therefore essential to know how to interpret the collected data and to remain aware of these differences when extrapolating from them. With these factors in mind, the flow of information can easily transcend the traditional boundaries of disciplines and species within the scientific literature. Open access and other innovations in digital publishing will help deconstruct and unravel the highly contextualized world of traditional biomedical scientific journals, bringing together new communities of scientists. In the near future, “One Literature” will have replaced today’s rigid concepts to fully capitalize on the essential link between animal health and human health.