Relevant bibliographies by topics / Animal ethics committees

Academic literature on the topic 'Animal ethics committees'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 10 December 2022
Last updated: 28 January 2023

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Contents

Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Animal ethics committees.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Journal articles on the topic "Animal ethics committees"

1

R. Tidemann, Christopher, and Michael J. Vardon. "Animal Welfare v Wildlife Research?" Pacific Conservation Biology 8, no. 2 (2002): 71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/pc020071.

Full text
Abstract:
In this paper we review difficulties with two recent research proposals to a university animal experimentation ethics committee and two court injunctions, initiated by community groups, purportedly for animal welfare and/or conservation benefits. The common thread in the ethics cases and the court cases is that individuals delayed or prevented actions that were subsequently shown to be in the best interests of animal welfare and/or conservation. We conclude that community groups or individuals, claiming to represent animal welfare and/or conservation, should be accountable for their actions and should be able to demonstrate the factual basis for their decisions, as are scientists and other professionals. Lay individuals seeking appointment to ethics committees, or other committees concerned with animal welfare or scientific experimentation, should have their suitability and credentials to undertake these roles formally reviewed. Ethics committees need to be able to make majority decisions to prevent abuse of process by unscrupulous individuals. We recommend an urgent review of the operation of ethics committees and cognate non-government organizations to resolve the destructive case of Animal Welfare v Wildlife Research.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Verschuere, B., C. Autissier, A. D. Degryse, P. Gallix, B. Gottis, J. Laurent, M. Leinoe, and I. Peyclit. "Ethics committee recommendations for laboratory animals in private research in France." Laboratory Animals 34, no. 3 (July 1, 2000): 236–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367700780384690.

Full text
Abstract:
Complementary to existing legislation, non-public research companies in France have been working together voluntarily within an organization known as Grice (Interprofessional Working Group on Ethics Committees for Laboratory Animals/Groupe de Réflexion Interprofessionnel sur les Comités d'Ethique appliquée à l'animal de laboratoire) with the objective of creating institutional ethics committees in an effort to promote animal welfare and good scientific procedures. Each company's commitment to the creation of these committees has been expressed by signing the Charter. Each ethics committee is composed of at least three members, including one who is not a scientist; a veterinarian is highly desirable. The committee examines all procedures and protocols involving animals and hands down a favourable or unfavourable opinion, or requests improvements, especially concerning animal well-being. Consensual approval of the protocol is an essential requirement before the purchase or allocation of animals. The committee examines every aspect of laboratory animal housing and care, and inspects all temporary or permanent animal housing facilities. Grice will continue its efforts in relation with public research organizations as well as with groups and in other countries whose objectives are in line with its own.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Lunney, Daniel. "Ethics and Australian mammalogy: reflections on 15 years (1991 - 2006) on an Animal Ethics Committee." Australian Mammalogy 34, no. 1 (2012): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/am10010.

Full text
Abstract:
This essay on field mammalogy and research ethics presents my reflections on 15 years as a researcher sitting on an Animal Ethics Committee in New South Wales. It outlines the community debate on animal welfare and the ethics of research on animals, how government has responded, and how wildlife researchers can move forward in this arena. Three schools are identified within the animal protection movement: ‘animal welfare’ holds that it is legitimate to use animals as a resource, so long as that use is ‘necessary’ and the animal’s suffering ‘minimised’; ‘animal liberationists’ are likely to oppose most animal research; the ‘animal rights’ position is firmly abolitionist. The instruments that regulate research involving animals are examined, in particular the New South Wales Animal Research Act 1985, the Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, and Animal Ethics Committees. Examples of ethical dilemmas involving both native and non-native animals are discussed. The debate over animals in research will continue, and it is clear that far more can be gained by engaging in the debate than avoiding it. It is in researchers’ interests to publicly defend the essential role of science in conserving our native fauna, and to conduct our work within a well managed welfare framework.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

MARINOU (Κ. ΜΑΡΙΝΟΥ), K., and I. DONTA (Ι. ΔΟΝΤΑ). "Ethics of experimentation. Ethical review of experimental research protocols." Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society 60, no. 3 (November 20, 2017): 217. http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/jhvms.14928.

Full text
Abstract:
This paper describes a set of principles for the conduct of ethical review regarding experiments carried out on laboratory animals, which is important to be maintained from researchers throughout the whole process, from the initial design of the experimental protocol up to the publication of results in a peer-reviewed journal. Animal use should be justified after thorough examination of the existing validated alternative methods. The ethical review of experimental protocols will very soon become obligatory as the revision of the European Directive 86/609/EEC, regarding the protection and welfare of experimental animals, and the process will be clearly defined. In Greece several ethical committees have already been established in academic and research institutions that review applications submitted by researchers who have to prove that they are aware of all ethical aspects of animal experimentation, including a harm/benefit analysis where special attention to the severity of the procedure is given. Ethical committees are responsible for the initial ethical evaluation of research protocols that plan to use laboratory animals and for ensuring that animal welfare considerations are applied. Ethical committees may comprise experts from various scientific fields, among which the participation of a veterinarian specialized in Laboratory Animal Science and Medicine is considered to be essential. The ethical evaluation process needs to become a vital necessity for all researchers wishing to deal with Laboratory Animal Science and biomedical research.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Tjärnström, Elisabeth, Elin Weber, Jan Hultgren, and Helena Röcklinsberg. "Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees." Animals 8, no. 10 (October 17, 2018): 181. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8100181.

Full text
Abstract:
Ethical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory within the EU and other countries. However, the evaluation process has been subject to criticism, e.g., that the committees are not balanced or democratic enough and that the utilitarian weighting of harm and benefit that is normally prescribed is difficult to carry out in practice. In this study, members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) completed a survey aiming to further investigate the decision-making process. We found that researchers and animal laypersons make significantly different ethical judgments, and hold disparate views on which ethical aspects are the most relevant. Researchers were significantly more content than laypersons with the functioning of the committees, indicating that the ethical model used suited their preferences better. We argue that in order to secure a democratic and proper ethical evaluation, the expectations of a scientific discourse must be acknowledged, while giving room for different viewpoints. Further, to fulfil the purpose of the project evaluations and meet public concern, the functions of the different AEC member categories need to be clarified. We suggest that one way of achieving a more thorough, balanced and inclusive ethical evaluation is to allow for more than one model of ethical reasoning.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Watanabe, Mirian, Cassiane Dezoti da Fonseca, and Maria de Fatima Fernandes Vattimo. "Instrumental and ethical aspects of experimental research with animal models." Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP 48, no. 1 (February 2014): 177–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0080-623420140000100023.

Full text
Abstract:
Experimental animal models offer possibilities of physiology knowledge, pathogenesis of disease and action of drugs that are directly related to quality nursing care. This integrative review describes the current state of the instrumental and ethical aspects of experimental research with animal models, including the main recommendations of ethics committees that focus on animal welfare and raises questions about the impact of their findings in nursing care. Data show that, in Brazil, the progress in ethics for the use of animals for scientific purposes was consolidated with Law No. 11.794/2008 establishing ethical procedures, attending health, genetic and experimental parameters. The application of ethics in handling of animals for scientific and educational purposes and obtaining consistent and quality data brings unquestionable contributions to the nurse, as they offer subsidies to relate pathophysiological mechanisms and the clinical aspect on the patient.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Wickens, S. "A Guide for Lay Members of Animal Ethics Committees." Animal Welfare 16, no. 4 (November 2007): 523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600027457.

Full text
Abstract:
This brief guide (see details below) gives an overview of Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) and the role of the lay member in these. In particular, it seeks to reassure concerns that lay members, especially those lacking experience in the area, may have about their importance and legitimacy in the ethical review process. After detailing the role of AECs under New Zealand legislation as it relates to the use of animals in research, testing and teaching, the guide then highlights four factors: independence, public representation, animal advocacy and the possession of a fresh perspective as the most important elements contributed by lay members to the review process. What follows is the now customary explanation of the principle of the 3Rs and how they underline the human use of animals in science and teaching, and then helpful suggestions as to questions and issues that a lay member should consider when assessing a proposal. Finally, a short glossary of terms and references are given. As a guide, it acts as a useful introduction for lay members, but anyone seeking to fulfill this role to the best of their abilities will want to utilise the references given to better understand the issues and concerns more deeply.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Jörgensen, Svea, Johan Lindsjö, Elin M. Weber, and Helena Röcklinsberg. "Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden." Animals 11, no. 3 (March 5, 2021): 708. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11030708.

Full text
Abstract:
The use of animals in research entails a range of societal and ethical issues, and there is widespread consensus that animals are to be kept safe from unnecessary suffering. Therefore, harm done to animals in the name of research has to be carefully regulated and undergo ethical review for approval. Since 2013, this has been enforced within the European Union through Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. However, critics argue that the directive and its implementation by member states do not properly consider all aspects of animal welfare, which risks causing unnecessary animal suffering and decreased public trust in the system. In this pilot study, the ethical review process in Sweden was investigated to determine whether or not the system is in fact flawed, and if so, what may be the underlying cause of this. Through in-depth analysis of 18 applications and decisions of ethical reviews, we found that there are recurring problems within the ethical review process in Sweden. Discrepancies between demands set by legislation and the structure of the application form lead to submitted information being incomplete by design. In turn, this prevents the Animal Ethics Committees from being able to fulfill their task of performing a harm–benefit analysis and ensuring Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (the 3Rs). Results further showed that a significant number of applications failed to meet legal requirements regarding content. Similarly, no Animal Ethics Committee decision contained any account of evaluation of the 3Rs and a majority failed to include harm–benefit analysis as required by law. Hence, the welfare may be at risk, as well as the fulfilling of the legal requirement of only approving “necessary suffering”. We argue that the results show an unacceptably low level of compliance in the investigated applications with the legal requirement of performing both a harm–benefit analysis and applying the 3Rs within the decision-making process, and that by implication, public insight through transparency is not achieved in these cases. In order to improve the ethical review, the process needs to be restructured, and the legal demands put on both the applicants and the Animal Ethics Committees as such need to be made clear. We further propose a number of improvements, including a revision of the application form. We also encourage future research to further investigate and address issues unearthed by this pilot study.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Hagelin, Joakim, Jann Hau, and Hans-Erik Carlsson. "The refining influence of ethics committees on animal experimentation in Sweden." Laboratory Animals 37, no. 1 (January 1, 2003): 10–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367703762226656.

Full text
Abstract:
Mandatory scrutiny of projects by animal ethics committees was introduced in Sweden in 1979. The present study investigated the minutes of meetings held between 1989 and 2000 at which consideration of applications for experimental work in animals resulted in requests for modification ( n = 3607). 18.1% of the applications received were approved only after modifications. The majority of the changes requested may be classified as 'Refinement'. The most common requests were for improvement of project design, euthanasia method and housing and husbandry. There was a relative increase in modifications requested by the committees related to anaesthesia, choice of licensed supervisor and the need for licenses or informed consent from animal owners during the period investigated. There was a relative decrease in modifications related to euthanasia, housing and husbandry, and general endpoint assertions. The results suggest that the work of the committees may be perceived as an ongoing process, since several of the applications for which modification was requested were projects that had been approved on a previous occasion but were now up for renewal. In order to have maximal influence on the refinement of scientific protocols it is important that the scientists in the committees are continuously updated on developments in laboratory animal science.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Muñoz Sastre, Maria Teresa, Paul Clay Sorum, and Etienne Mullet. "Mapping French Laypeople’s Views on Nonhuman Animal Experimentation." Society & Animals 28, no. 3 (December 19, 2018): 272–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341577.

Full text
Abstract:
Abstract French positions regarding nonhuman animal experimentation were examined. A total of 163 participants were presented with 72 vignettes depicting an experimental protocol. They were composed according to a five-factor design: (a) the fate of the animal (e.g., was sacrificed for the purpose of further analyses), (b) environment in which the animal was raised, (c) main objective of the experiment (purely theoretical vs. therapeutic), (d) degree of pain inflicted, and (e) species involved (rabbit, coyote, or chimpanzee). Through cluster analysis of participants’ acceptability judgments, six qualitatively different positions were found. Four had already been described by observation of the functioning of animal ethics committees: Animals have Rights, Ethics in the name of Animals, Ethics in the name of Patients, and Ethics in the name of Science. Female participants held the Animals-have-Rights position three times more often than males. Male participants held an Ethics-in-the-name-of-Science position four times more often than females.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
More sources

Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Animal ethics committees"

1

Senate, University of Arizona Faculty. "Faculty Senate Minutes May 1, 2017." University of Arizona Faculty Senate (Tucson, AZ), 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/625406.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Burns, Karina Monique. "Contemporary Perspectives on the Development of Australia’s Animal Research Regulation." Thesis, 2022. https://hdl.handle.net/2440/136562.

Full text
Abstract:
This thesis considers historical and current practices in Australian animal research. I address: (i) considerations in animal model choice; (ii) Australian regulatory structures in animal research; (iii) transparency in Australian animal research; and (iv) transnational comparisons of these themes. I review the literature on Australian animal research regulation from historical and contemporary perspectives and then situate my research questions within their global and historical context by reviewing the history of animal use in experimentation. In a case study considering animal model choice, I review research in psychology using Australian marsupials in the place of standard model organisms. The primary aim is to evaluate the nature of studies choosing to use marsupial species. I am interested in how animal model choice is influenced by different factors such as the research question, the suitability of the animal to a research environment, and how the animal is framed in broader society. This discussion demonstrates that there are useful experimental models amongst Australia’s marsupial species. I address changes in Australian regulatory structures around animal research through the framework of The Code1, which guides Australian legislation on animal research. Replacement as a construct is considered here as a vehicle of change, with regulation and practice moving away from traditional animal models and exploring alternatives, motivated by ethical concerns and the need for better translation to human clinical outcomes. I emphasise the importance of the Australian Government and public supporting the development of alternatives to animal models. I argue that transparency is a vital element of the scientific process, and this is particularly true for research that makes instrumental use of animals. I appraise the processes Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) undertake in reviewing and approving applications for animal research. I respond to a claim that these committees do not reject projects by conducting a quantitative analysis of application outcomes in a sample of Australian AECs. I conclude, based on this research, that changes relating to transparency should be implemented within the AEC process to ensure public trust. A transnational comparison of the themes that emerged through the discussion of historical and current practices in Australian animal research frames the discussion around how Australia may be different. I discuss the state of transparency in the US, the UK, Canada and Europe, comparing the extent to which this has been made a priority. I then evaluate and compare the processes and structures in place for the review and approval of animal research in these jurisdictions. Australia has fallen behind other countries in implementing transparency within the regulatory structures of animal research, and in supporting the development and validation of alternative non-animal models. I present concluding statements in relation to Australia’s current regulation of animal research and the state of animal research transparency. I also discuss the future of animal research in light of claims that the translation of animal research to human outcomes is poor; emerging non-animal research models become crucial from a practical standpoint, and there is a need for greater government investment.
Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, School of History, 2022
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Schuppli, Catherine Anne. "The role of the animal ethics committee in achieving humane animal experimentation." Thesis, 2004. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/15844.

Full text
Abstract:
Institutional Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) are the principal means of ensuring the ethical use of animals in research in many countries, yet we understand very little about how they function and how effective they are in implementing policy and achieving their stated aims. To answer these questions, an ethnographic study involving participant observation and in-depth interviews with 28 members of four university AECs in western Canada was carried out. The major focus of protocol review by committee members was reducing harm to animals, with limited focus on the ethical justification of research despite this being stressed in policy as a goal of AECs. In part, this may be due to confusion over the relation between AEC review and scientific peer review by granting agencies, with some members believing that ethical justification is decided by scientific peer review. Members were also unclear on the distinction between the different elements that go into decisions about ethical justification. Use of costbenefit assessment, although prescribed by policy, did not cover the various other decisionmaking approaches that members described using (e.g. moral intuition). Comments by members identified several factors that could hinder application of the Three Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement); these include an incomplete understanding of the concepts, different interpretations of harm, and different beliefs about the moral significance of pain and suffering. Moreover, some ethical issues do not lend themselves to the utilitarian thinking underlying the Three Rs. Independence of the AEC from the institution (as required by policy) may not be realized because of the predominance of institutional scientists on AECs, recruitment of affiliated community members, and the potentially intimidating atmosphere for community members. Also, policy is unclear about the role of the community member. AEC effectiveness could be improved by clarifying the role of the community member, the relation between AEC and scientific peer review, and the elements of cost-benefit assessments, by expanding policy to acknowledge the various issues and approaches used in decision-making, identifying standards for assessing AEC performance, and expanding the Three Rs to respond to the range of views and values that enter into decisions by AEC members.
Land and Food Systems, Faculty of
Graduate
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

McCanna, David. "Development of Sensitive In Vitro Assays to Assess the Ocular Toxicity Potential of Chemicals and Ophthalmic Products." Thesis, 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/4338.

Full text
Abstract:
The utilization of in vitro tests with a tiered testing strategy for detection of mild ocular irritants can reduce the use of animals for testing, provide mechanistic data on toxic effects, and reduce the uncertainty associated with dose selection for clinical trials. The first section of this thesis describes how in vitro methods can be used to improve the prediction of the toxicity of chemicals and ophthalmic products. The proper utilization of in vitro methods can accurately predict toxic threshold levels and reduce animal use in product development. Sections two, three and four describe the development of new sensitive in vitro methods for predicting ocular toxicity. Maintaining the barrier function of the cornea is critical for the prevention of the penetration of infections microorganisms and irritating chemicals into the eye. Chapter 2 describes the development of a method for assessing the effects of chemicals on tight junctions using a human corneal epithelial and canine kidney epithelial cell line. In Chapter 3 a method that uses a primary organ culture for assessing single instillation and multiple instillation toxic effects is described. The ScanTox system was shown to be an ideal system to monitor the toxic effects over time as multiple readings can be taken of treated bovine lenses using the nondestructive method of assessing for the lens optical quality. Confirmations of toxic effects were made with the utilization of the viability dye alamarBlue. Chapter 4 describes the development of sensitive in vitro assays for detecting ocular toxicity by measuring the effects of chemicals on the mitochondrial integrity of bovine cornea, bovine lens epithelium and corneal epithelial cells, using fluorescent dyes. The goal of this research was to develop an in vitro test battery that can be used to accurately predict the ocular toxicity of new chemicals and ophthalmic formulations. By comparing the toxicity seen in vivo animals and humans with the toxicity response in these new in vitro methods, it was demonstrated that these in vitro methods can be utilized in a tiered testing strategy in the development of new chemicals and ophthalmic formulations.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Books on the topic "Animal ethics committees"

1

Forsman, Birgitta. Research ethics in practice: The animal ethics committees in Sweden 1979-1989. Göteborg: Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg, Centre for Research Ethics, 1993.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Jennings, Maggy. Ethics committees for laboratory animals: A basis for their composition and function. Horsham, West Sussex: RSPCA, 1994.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

National Institutes of Health (U.S.), ed. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee guidebook. [Bethesda, Md.?]: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 1992.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

India. Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals, ed. Standard operating procedures for Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC). New Delhi: Animal Welfare Division, Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2010.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Lawrence, Podolsky M., and Lukas Victor S, eds. The care and feeding of an IACUC: The organization and management of an institutional animal care and use committee. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1999.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Balzer, Philipp. Menschenwürde vs. Würde der Kreatur: Begriffsbestimmung, Gentechnik, Ethikkommissionen. Freiburg: K. Alber, 1998.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Committee on the Use of Animals in Research (U.S.), National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), and Institute of Medicine (U.S.), eds. Science, medicine, and animals. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1991.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Ethical Issues in Biomedical Sciences: Animals in Research and Education (Conference) (1992 London, England). Ethical issues in biomedical sciences: Animals in research and education : proceedings of a national conference by the Institute of Biology's Biomedical Sciences and Education Divisional Committees, in collaboration with the British Toxicology Society held in London, October 1992. London: Institute of Biology, 1993.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

United, States Congress House Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Science Research and Technology. Alternatives to animal use in research and testing: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology of the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, second session, May 6, 1986. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1986.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Petrie, Whitney Kayla, and Sonja Lea Wallace. Care and Feeding of an IACUC: The Organization and Management of an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Second Edition. Taylor & Francis Group, 2015.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
More sources

Book chapters on the topic "Animal ethics committees"

1

Jones, Menna, Rodrigo Hamede, and Hamish McCallum. "The Devil is in the detail: conservation biology, animal philosophies and the role of animal ethics committees." In Science Under Siege, 79–88. P.O. Box 20, Mosman NSW 2088, Australia: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.7882/fs.2012.040.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Gannon, William L., Rebecca Dunlop, Anthony Hawkins, and Jeanette A. Thomas. "Collecting, Documenting, and Archiving Bioacoustical Data and Metadata." In Exploring Animal Behavior Through Sound: Volume 1, 87–110. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97540-1_3.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractThe best practices for conducting bioacoustical research are described in this chapter. Ethical considerations, including the need for research integrity, animal ethics (e.g., in the USA, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, IACUC) approvals, and data management and archiving are discussed. Suggestions for conducting a bioacoustical study in the laboratory, field, and captivity are described, including designing a data sheet. Recommendations for carrying out playback studies, a special type of bioacoustical study, are also provided. Finally, the importance of historical data, properly logging the details of a recording, documenting equipment specifications, and correctly storing analog and digital acoustic data are summarized.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Staaf Larsson, B., L. J. Keeling, and E. Hjerpe. "Statistics on crimes committed to animals and changes in the animal welfare control in Sweden." In The ethics of consumption, 528–33. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-784-4_84.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Fischer, Bob. "Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees." In Animal Ethics, 137–50. Routledge, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351052023-9.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Dresser, Rebecca. "Putting the Ethical Principles into Practice." In Principles of Animal Research Ethics, edited by Larry Carbone, 69–78. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/med/9780190939120.003.0004.

Full text
Abstract:
Beauchamp and DeGrazia introduce a framework of core values and principles for animal research studies that is more comprehensive than the leading alternative—Russell and Burch’s Three-Rs scheme of replacing, refining, and reducing laboratory animal use. Beauchamp and DeGrazia’s principles flesh out both social benefit requirements and animal welfare values. I recommend changes that would make their framework a real force in the conduct of animal research. One positive change would be a requirement to increase the diversity of institutional committee membership. A better scientific review system would substantially improve assessments of the justification of research studies. Existing government provisions on animal research direct committees to consider scientific quality but fail to provide the tools for doing so. Setting limits on the number of animals allowed in research is another needed policy change.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Carbone, Larry. "The Potential and Impacts of Practical Application of Beauchamp and DeGrazia’s Six Principles." In Principles of Animal Research Ethics, edited by Larry Carbone, 45–60. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/med/9780190939120.003.0002.

Full text
Abstract:
This commentary focuses on the potential and impacts of practically engaging Beauchamp and DeGrazia’s six principles of animal research ethics in industry, government, and academic laboratories. Specifically addressed is how veterinarians can and should work closely with Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) in employing the principles to assess ways of improving our understanding of animals’ health, welfare, and desires. By contrast to the Russell and Burch Three-Rs model, Beauchamp and DeGrazia’s principles would substantially change how human benefits are balanced against animal harms and how pain medications are intentionally withheld from animals. Following these principles would also improve harm–benefit evaluations, requiring a stronger assessment of social benefit.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

de Greeve, P., and W. de Leeuw. "Ethics Committees in Europe — An Overview." In Handbook of Animal Models of Infection, 13–18. Elsevier, 1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-012775390-4/50142-1.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

DeGrazia, David, and Tom L. Beauchamp. "Principles of Animal Research Ethics." In Principles of Animal Research Ethics, 5–42. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/med/9780190939120.003.0001.

Full text
Abstract:
The centerpiece section of this book on animal research ethics presents a new moral framework of general principles. It is preceded in the front matter by a preamble that explains the overall project in the book as well as in the sections specifically on the six principles. The centerpiece section first discusses the essential place of ethical justification in the animal research arena and then presents the framework of three principles of social benefit and three principles of animal welfare. Next it examines both the critical role played by ethics committees in a well-functioning system of ethical review of animal research and the idea of scientific necessity as a justification for harming animal subjects. The section closes with an analysis of the influential Three-Rs framework, as presented in Russell and Burch’s Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Despite the Three Rs’ important advance in the promotion of animal welfare, it does not adequately address the costs and benefits of animal research to human beings and lacks a comprehensive program of animal-subjects protection.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Kalman, Rony, I. Anna S. Olsson, Claudio Bernardi, Frank van den Brook, Aurora Brønstad, Istran Gyertyan, Aavo Lang, Katerina Marinou, and Walter Zeller. "Ethical Evaluation of Scientific Procedures: Recommendations for Ethics Committees." In The COST Manual of Laboratory Animal Care and Use, 101–29. CRC Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b13591-5.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Shamoo, Adil E., and David B. Resnik. "The Use of Animals in Research." In Responsible Conduct of Research, 208–28. Oxford University Press, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197547090.003.0010.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter provides a brief history of animal research and examines the ethical arguments for and against animal experimentation. It discusses the animal rights views of Peter Singer and Tom Regan and considers some morally significant similarities and differences between animals and humans. The chapter also discusses oversight systems for animal research, including federal and state laws, institutional animal care and use committees, and animal research accrediting agencies. This chapter describes some principles for the ethical treatment of animal in research, such as the “three Rs”—reduction, replacement, and refinement—as well as some ethical dilemmas scientists face when they work with animals.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Conference papers on the topic "Animal ethics committees"

1

Vinnari, M., and E. Vinnari. "14. Representing non-human animals: committee composition and agenda." In 14th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-869-8_14.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
You might also be interested in the extended bibliographies on the topic 'Animal ethics committees' for particular source types:
Journal articles Books
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography