Статті в журналах з теми "Animal ethics committees"
Щоб переглянути інші типи публікацій з цієї теми, перейдіть за посиланням: Animal ethics committees.
Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями
Ознайомтеся з топ-50 статей у журналах для дослідження на тему "Animal ethics committees".
Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.
Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.
Переглядайте статті в журналах для різних дисциплін та оформлюйте правильно вашу бібліографію.
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
11
Ashby, M., and A. Menache. "The composition of animal ethics committees needs to change." BMJ 345, no. 13 2 (November 13, 2012): e7627-e7627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7627.
Повний текст джерела
12
SCOTT, LR, and PD CARTER. "The role of veterinarians on animal experimentation ethics committees." Australian Veterinary Journal 74, no. 4 (October 1996): 309–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1996.tb13785.x.
Повний текст джерела
13
Alexius Borgström, Katarina. "Animal Experiment Regulations as a Part of Public Law." European Public Law 15, Issue 2 (April 1, 2009): 197–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/euro2009015.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This article describes the Swedish rules about experiments on animals and the function of the Swedish animal ethics experimentation committees. A small survey of the rules about experiments on animals in Norway, Denmark, Finland, England and Wales, and the EU, is included. The Swedish rules on animal experimentation are examined in order to see how their form and functions relate to theories about different kinds of decision making in public law. The extents to which the rules agree with the aims of the law and with existing normative patterns are also examined. The difficulties to handle the ethical weighting between the importance of the experiment and the suffering of the animals are discussed.
14
Nordgren, A., and H. Röcklinsberg. "Genetically modified animals in research: an analysis of applications submitted to ethics committees on animal experimentation in Sweden." Animal Welfare 14, no. 3 (August 2005): 239–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600029407.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThe use of genetically modified (GM) animals in biomedical research has increased during recent years and its ethical aspects have been subject to ongoing academic discussion. In order to reinforce this discussion, we analysed applications submitted to animal ethics committees in Sweden during 2002. The aim was to investigate the researchers' statements concerning the production and use of GM animals, as well as the committees' assessments of the applications. For our analysis, we constructed an analytic form. In part, we included the questions and categories of the mandatory application form, noting for example species, degree of severity regarding pain and distress, the management of pain, and endpoints. In addition, we included our own specific questions and categories, and classified the applications accordingly. In particular we focused on the methods of GM animal production and on the expected clinical symptoms attributable to genetic modification and experimental use. Our analysis, which was partly quantitative and partly qualitative, revealed that applications were often approved by the committees despite containing insufficient information regarding ethically relevant aspects, that the arguments for using GM animals were often unclear, and that some applicants indicated awareness of possible unintentional welfare effects attributable to genetic modification. In more than 36% of the applications, obvious or minor clinical symptoms attibutable to genetic modification were expected. However, we also noted that many applicants emphasised that certain GM animals were to be used without the expectation that the animals would display any clinical symptoms. This was obviously viewed as an ethical advantage.
15
ANDERSON, WARWICK P., and MICHAEL A. PERRY. "Australian Animal Ethics Committees: We Have Come a Long Way." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8, no. 1 (January 1999): 80–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0963180199801121.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Twenty years ago, Australian biomedical researchers took the first steps along a pathway toward common ground with opponents of the use of animals in science. Leaders of Australian medical research at that time saw the necessity of established science facing the ethical and political challenges that a revived antivivisectionist movement was mounting in the late 1970s and the 1980s.
16
Carvalho, Constança, Augusta Gaspar, Andrew Knight, and Luís Vicente. "Ethical and Scientific Pitfalls Concerning Laboratory Research with Non-Human Primates, and Possible Solutions." Animals 9, no. 1 (December 29, 2018): 12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9010012.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Basic and applied laboratory research, whenever intrusive or invasive, presents substantial ethical challenges for ethical committees, be it with human beings or with non-human animals. In this paper we discuss the use of non-human primates (NHPs), mostly as animal models, in laboratory based research. We examine the two ethical frameworks that support current legislation and guidelines: deontology and utilitarianism. While human based research is regulated under deontological principles, guidelines for laboratory animal research rely on utilitarianism. We argue that the utilitarian framework is inadequate for this purpose: on the one hand, it is almost impossible to accurately predict the benefits of a study for all potential stakeholders; and on the other hand, harm inflicted on NHPs (and other animals) used in laboratory research is extensive despite the increasing efforts of ethics committees and the research community to address this. Although deontology and utilitarianism are both valid ethical frameworks, we advocate that a deontological approach is more suitable, since we arguably have moral duties to NHPs. We provide suggestions on how to ensure that research currently conducted in laboratory settings shifts towards approaches that abide by deontological principles. We assert that this would not impede reasonable scientific research.
17
Ramalli Jr., Edvaldo Luiz, Wanli Ho, Mônica Alves, and Eduardo Melani Rocha. "Progress in animal experimentation ethics: a case study from a Brazilian medical school and from the international medical literature." Acta Cirurgica Brasileira 27, no. 9 (September 2012): 659–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0102-86502012000900012.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
PURPOSE: This study describes in Brazil and in the global biomedical community the time course of the development of animal research welfare guidelines. METHODS: The database of the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirao Preto (EC/FMRP-USP), Brazil, was surveyed since its inception in 2002 as the regulations became more stringent to provide better protection of animal research welfare at this institution. Medline database was evaluated to identify the number of publications in the period between 1968 and 2008 that used research animals and were in compliance with established ethics guidelines. RESULTS: The EC/FMRP-USP evaluated 979 projects up until 2009. Most of the applications came from Department of Physiology and the most frequently requested species was the rat. In 2004, national research funding agencies started to request prior approval from institutional review ethics committees prior to application review and this requirement became federal law in Brazil in 2008. The analysis of international publications revealed a relative reduction in studies involving research animals (18% in 1968 to 7.5% in 2008). CONCLUSIONS: The present work showed that in the last four decades major changes occurred in the guidelines dictating use of research animals occurred and they are being adopted by developing countries. Moreover, animal welfare concern in the scientific community preceded the introduction of journal guidelines for this purpose. Furthermore, in Brazil it was anticipated that laws were needed to protect animal research welfare from being not upheld.
18
Budda, Madeline L., and Stacy L. Pritt. "Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions." Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 59, no. 6 (November 1, 2020): 656–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.30802/aalas-jaalas-20-000077.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
IACUCs serve a critical role in animal care and use programs, ensuring that institutions which use animals in research and teaching do so responsibly and humanely. This role is defined in part by federal regulations, policies, and guidelines that prescribe the establishment and function of these committees. Often, IACUC administrators are expected to evaluate IACUC performance to ensure that committees execute these functions effectively, and in a manner that is suitable to the institution. However, methods for IACUC performance evaluation have not been well described in the peer-reviewed literature. To address this deficit, we conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE to identify methods that have been used to assess IACUCs. The scope of this review was intentionally broad to capture evaluation methods used by other institutional committees with similar responsibilities in overseeing research conduct, including animal ethics committees (AECs), institutional biosafety committees (IBCs), and institutional review boards (IRBs). Over 100 publications that included empirical evaluation methods were identified, although only 17 evaluated IACUCs in the United States. A substantial number of the studies used qualitative methods, such as surveys or questionnaires, interviews, and observations. The IACUC functions and characteristics most often assessed in the 17 publications included components of the protocol review processes and committee membership. We compiled this information to offer IACUC administrators a source of methodologies that can be incorporated into quality improvement and IACUC performance evaluation efforts. We also suggest ways in which organizations may evaluate IACUCs using methods described in the literature for other types of committees.
19
E. Dyson, Susan, and Michael C. Calver. "The value of Animal Ethics Committees for wildlife research in conservation biology - an Australian perspective." Pacific Conservation Biology 9, no. 2 (2003): 86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/pc030086.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
ANIMAL Ethics Committees evaluate research proposals according to the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (NHMRC 1997). All Australian universities, the CSIRO, many agencies controlled by the states and other organizations adhere to the specifications. The 1997 revision of the Code of Practice explicitly broadened its scope from laboratory animals to include field-based ecological studies, such as those conducted by conservation biologists. However, in defining an animal as "any live non-human vertebrate" invertebrates are excluded by the Code.
20
Fenwick, N., E. Ormandy, C. Gauthier, and G. Griffin. "Classifying the severity of scientific animal use: a review of international systems." Animal Welfare 20, no. 2 (May 2011): 281–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600002761.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractSeverity classification systems (ie pain scales, categories of invasiveness, degrees of severity etc) are used to classify the adverse effects experienced by animals used for scientific purposes. Currently, eleven countries use severity classification systems. These systems have developed in various ways, depending on each country's process for overseeing the use of animals in science, as well as the particular aspects emphasised by those individuals who have championed their implementation. Severity classification serves four main purposes: as a tool to assist animal ethics committees in ethical review; education of animal users about concepts for humane animal experimentation; provision of data to inform the public about scientific animal use; and provision of data to inform national policies. At a time when the newly accepted European Union Directive will make the reporting of severity data mandatory, we review the characteristics of international severity classification systems and how they have evolved; analyse the effectiveness of some systems; and identify emerging challenges for severity classification.
21
Rickard, M. D. "The use of animals in research: counting the costs and the benefits." Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, no. 11 (2004): 1079. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/ea03233.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes requires Animal Ethics Committees to assess the merits of any research proposal involving the use of sentient animals. As part of that assessment they should make a judgment as to whether or not the costs to the welfare of the experimental animals are outweighed by the benefits of the predicted experimental outcome (i.e. conduct a cost–benefit analysis). This paper describes one approach that has been proposed to assist Animal Ethics Committees to take all factors into account when making this judgment. When agricultural animals are used in research the potential benefits are usually measured in terms of improved health and welfare or increased productivity when the research outcomes are applied to other animals reared in agricultural enterprises. When the aim of a project is to improve the health and welfare of the animals (i.e. ‘animal benefit’), the benefits are usually obvious and counting the cost is straightforward even if the impact on the animals under experimentation is quite extreme (e.g. death as an unavoidable endpoint in a vaccination experiment). Where the benefits accrue solely in terms of increased productivity or economic gain (i.e. ‘human benefit’), then balancing the costs and the benefits can be more problematical because people’s personal beliefs and their orientation towards animal welfare influence their assessment. Economists indicate that it is not increased productivity per se that generates value but consumption. Therefore, consumer perceptions of any adverse impact that gains in productivity have on the welfare of farmed animals can play a significant role in determining the ultimate benefit (value) of a particular piece of research with the sole aim to increase production and economic gain. This paper will explore some postulated relationships between productivity and animal welfare which could influence consumer preferences and hence the cost–benefit analysis.
22
Carbone, Larry. "Do “Prey Species” Hide Their Pain? Implications for Ethical Care and Use of Laboratory Animals." Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 2, no. 2 (October 14, 2020): 216–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/25889567-bja10001.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract Accurate pain evaluation is essential for ethical review of laboratory animal use. Warnings that “prey species hide their pain,” encourage careful accurate pain assessment. In this article, I review relevant literature on prey species’ pain manifestation through the lens of the applied ethics of animal welfare oversight. If dogs are the species whose pain is most reliably diagnosed, I argue that it is not their diet as predator or prey but rather because dogs and humans can develop trusting relationships and because people invest time and effort in canine pain diagnosis. Pain diagnosis for all animals may improve when humans foster a trusting relationship with animals and invest time into multimodal pain evaluations. Where this is not practical, as with large cohorts of laboratory mice, committees must regard with skepticism assurances that animals “appear” pain-free on experiments, requiring thorough literature searches and sophisticated pain assessments during pilot work.
23
Dahlöf, Carl. "Ethical considerations in biomedical research: A personal view." Cephalalgia 33, no. 8 (May 13, 2013): 507–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0333102412468674.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Premise Ethical considerations are made when an experiment is planned and take a regulatory system of moral principles into account. Discussion Ethical considerations should first and foremost be made in order to protect the individual subject/animal from being exposed to any unethical and perhaps even illegal intervention and to ensure that the experimental conditions used are appropriate. Summary The main role of research ethics committees is to assess the scientific and ethical aspects of submitted protocols and follow up the trial until its closure.
24
Wiles, Siouxsie. "There is more to the 3Rs than Replacement: Reduction and Refinement in animal experimentation." Biochemist 36, no. 3 (June 1, 2014): 34–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1042/bio03603034.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
According to Wikipedia, the earliest references to animal experimentation appear in Greek writings of the 2nd and 4th Century BC1. Needless to say, we have come a long way in the intervening years. Animal experimentation is now regulated by law in many countries. ‘Animal ethics committees’, typically made up of lay people, scientists and vets, are required to undertake a cost–benefit analysis for proposed projects, weighing up the likely benefit to society against any harm and suffering animals may experience. Furthermore, the ethical framework first described by William Russell and Rex Burch in their seminal 1959 publication2 – the so-called 3Rs: the use of non-animal methods to achieve the same scientific goals (replacement), or where this is not possible, that researchers use methods which cause the minimum pain and suffering (refinement) while also obtaining the best information possible from the fewest number of animals (reduction) – is now also a legal requirement in many countries. Thanks in part to initiatives such as the UK's National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), recent years have seen a massive increase in the number of techniques developed which aim to replace the use of animals in research, teaching and testing, an achievement which should be celebrated.
25
Schuppli, Catherine A., and David Fraser. "The Interpretation and Application of the Three Rs by Animal Ethics Committee Members." Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 33, no. 5 (October 2005): 487–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026119290503300511.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The Three Rs form the basis of review of animal-use protocols by Animal Ethics Committees (AECs), but little research has examined how AECs actually interpret and implement the Three Rs. This topic was explored through in-depth, open-ended interviews with 28 members of AECs at four Canadian universities. In describing protocol review, AEC members rarely mentioned the Three Rs, but most reported applying some aspects of the basic concepts. Comments identified several factors that could impede full application of the Three Rs: incomplete understanding of the Three Rs (especially Refinement), trust that researchers implement Replacement and Reduction themselves, belief by some members that granting agency review covers the Three Rs, focus on sample size rather than experimental design to achieve Reduction, focus on harm caused by procedures to the exclusion of housing and husbandry, and lack of consensus on key issues, notably on the nature and moral significance of animal pain and suffering, and on whether AECs should minimise overall harm to animals. The study suggests ways to achieve more consistent application of the Three Rs, by providing AECs with up-to-date information on the Three Rs and with access to statistical expertise, by consensus-building on divisive issues, and by training on the scope and implementation of the Three Rs.
26
Duzanski, Anderson Do Prado, Ana Paula Millet Evangelista dos Santos, Mariza Fordellone Rosa Cruz, Emília De Paiva Porto, Petrônio Pinheiro Porto, Marcos Augusto Alves da Silva, Ellen De Souza Marquez, and Carlos Frederico Gitsio Klier T. da Silva. "Sentiency, bioethics and animal welfare: concepts that need to be discussed in higher education to change the teaching and researching paradigm." Semina: Ciências Agrárias 36, no. 6 (December 9, 2015): 4031. http://dx.doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2015v36n6p4031.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This study investigated the knowledge of students of Veterinary Medicine and Biological Sciences of the State University of Northern Paraná, Campus Luiz Meneghel, on the ethical and legal guidelines of animal experimentation, as well as the possibility of substitute methods for using sentient animals in classes and scientific practices. The research involved 162 freshman students and graduating students, aged 17 to 32 years. The students responded to the questionnaire containing objective and subjective questions, and the answers were analysed by descriptive statistics. It was observed that 87% of the students were unaware of the concept of the “3Rs” and 81.5% did not know the existence of alternative methods that can replace the use of live animals in studies. In addition, only 24.7% of respondents reported they had studied “bioethics” before graduation. However, 94.3% and 96.2% of the students from veterinary medicine and biological sciences, respectively, considered it important to insert animal welfare and bioethics in the curriculum of such courses. The results demonstrated that the ethical and statutory guidelines that rule the use of animals in scientific experiments and in classes are unknown even among senior students and there is still great resistance to the exclusion of animal models. Thus, it is important that animal welfare and bioethics remain in the curriculum in higher education through the insertion of such subjects, even as elective courses that aim to work with methodologies and innovative strategies in synergistic action with ethics committees for animal use, which are responsible for analysing, guiding and supervising the relevance of animal use in education and research. Therefore, the curriculum will be able to achieve rationalization in the use of animal models, the sustainable and “humanitarian” development of teaching and research, and the training of more conscious and ethical professionals, perceptions that must be achieved through a national education curriculum.
27
Hansen, Lawrence Arthur. "Institution animal care and use committees need greater ethical diversity." Journal of Medical Ethics 39, no. 3 (November 6, 2012): 188–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100982.
Повний текст джерела
28
de Cock Buning, Tj, and E. Theune. "A Comparison of Three Models for Ethical Evaluation of Proposed Animal Experiments." Animal Welfare 3, no. 2 (May 1994): 107–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600016614.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThree recently developed and published schemes to evaluate the acceptability of proposed animal experiments are discussed and compared: The model developed at the request of the Dutch Veterinary Public Health Chief Inspectorate by the Department of Animal Problems of Leiden University (the ‘Dutch Model’);The model proposed by the Canadian, David G Porter (the ‘Porter model’);The model developed by the British Institute of Medical Ethics, published in ‘Lives in the Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research’ (the ‘IME model’).It is concluded that the Porter model, although compact, does not have an acceptable level of discrimination; nor does it provide the researcher with any pragmatic tools to optimize the research design. The other models appear to be quite adequate for the different purposes for which they were developed. The Dutch model was developed to guide the evaluation procedure at the level of local institution-based committees (ie internal evaluation by colleagues), whereas the IME model will serve the professional officers of the United Kingdom Home Office Inspectorate (ie external evaluation).Finally, the pragmatic consequences of the three models are discussed with respect to two hypothetical cases.
29
Kolar, Roman. "A survey concerning the work of ethics committees and licensing authorities for animal experiments in Germany." ALTEX 24, no. 4 (2007): 326–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.14573/altex.2007.4.326.
Повний текст джерела
30
BEAUCHAMP, TOM L., and DAVID B. MORTON. "The Upper Limits of Pain and Suffering in Animal Research." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24, no. 4 (September 14, 2015): 431–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0963180115000092.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract:The control of risk and harm in human research often calls for the establishment of upper limits of risk of pain, suffering, and distress that investigators must not exceed. Such upper limits are uncommon in animal research, in which limits of acceptability are usually left to the discretion of individual investigators, institutions, national inspectors, or ethics review committees. We here assess the merits of the European Directive 2010/63/EU on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes and its accompanying instruments, such as guides and examples. These documents present a body of legislation governing animal research in the European Union. We argue that the directive supplies a promising approach, but one in need of revision. We interpret the directive’s general conception of upper limits and show its promise for the establishment of high-quality policies. We provide a moral rationale for such policies, address the problem of justified exceptions to established upper limits, and show when causing harm is and is not wrongful. We conclude that if the standards we propose for improving the directive are not realized in the review of research protocols, loose and prejudicial risk-benefit assessments may continue to be deemed sufficient to justify morally questionable research. However, a revised EU directive and accompanying instruments could have a substantial influence on the ethics of animal research worldwide, especially in the development of morally sound legal frameworks.
31
Araujo, F. R. C., and R. L. Paixão. "Humane endpoint in mice by Brazilian researchers in the vaccine sector." Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia 71, no. 2 (April 2019): 500–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-4162-10524.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
ABSTRACT The application of a humane endpoint (HE) for mice in vaccine trials and further challenging tasks with lethal samples is necessary to reduce or prevent pain and suffering in these animals, and is a refinement of the 3R policy enforced for animal testing in both national and international scenarios. In order to investigate the application of HE in Brazil, researchers from the vaccine sector have answered a questionnaire about their research profile, their usage of HE and their knowledge of its defining criteria, monitoring of animals, staff training, and euthanasia methods employed. The main results revealed that researchers failed to recognise the very concept of HE as well as when to apply it. In addition, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) failed upon giving their approval to the trials. HE is an important refinament of animal testing policy, and these results highlight the need for a clear pre-established definition of when and how it should be implemented in order to ensure more effective application. Furthermore, it is important to clarify the ethics involved and the commitment of both the research teams and IACUCs to animal welfare.
32
de Boo, MJ, AE Rennie, HM Buchanan-Smith, and CFM Hendriksen. "The interplay between replacement, reduction and refinement: considerations where the Three Rs interact." Animal Welfare 14, no. 4 (November 2005): 327–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600029651.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractRussell and Burch's Three Rs principle of replacement, reduction and refinement offers a useful concept for the scientific and ethical evaluation of the use of animals in scientific procedures. Replacement, reduction and refinement are often considered separately, but when applied, one of the Three Rs may have a positive or negative effect on one or both of the other Rs. This paper explores the interplay between the Three Rs and provides examples where the Three Rs have a positive interaction and where they are in conflict with each other. For example, all Three Rs positively interact in the use of cell cultures, but validation studies of replacement techniques may initially increase the numbers of animals used; therefore replacement and reduction are in conflict. Several models of cost-benefit analyses, used by animal ethics committees to justify or reject animal experimentation, contain elements such as quality and significance of the research, the credibility of the research group and the discomfort caused to the animals. Although these models consider the Three Rs, each R is considered independently of the others. Consequently, moral dilemmas may arise when reviewing proposals in which the Three Rs conflict. Currently there is no legal guidance relating to the prioritisation of the Three Rs, but guidance is required to facilitate their use. For example, does a significant reduction in animal numbers justify increased individual suffering? Moral justifications deserve more attention when considering the Three Rs in general, and when considering the application of one or more Rs to a procedure, to a protocol, or to the wider research programme.
33
Kinikoğlu, Oğuzcan, Yağmur Ö. Güven, and Bekir B. Kilboz. "Publication and Citation Analysis of Medical Doctors’ Residency Master’s Theses Involving Animal Experiments on Rats in Turkey." Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 48, no. 1 (January 2020): 23–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261192920907226.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The number of non-human animals used in research has increased in line with advances in medical technology, although it has previously been shown that these experiments demonstrate poor human utility. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of animal studies on rats that were performed as part of medical doctors’ residency master’s theses prepared in Turkey between January 2006 and December 2015. The number of thesis-derived published papers from each year, as well as the subsequent citation rate of these papers, was determined. Results from 34% of the 656 analysed studies (226/656) were published as papers in PubMed-indexed journals. These 226 studies got 1803 subsequent citations in total. Citation counts were statistically significantly different in 2009 and 2010, as compared to 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015. Previous studies showed that the usual main objective for carrying out animal studies in Turkey was the preparation of a thesis or the furthering of an academic career (i.e. personal self-interest). In the current study, the publication rate and the number of subsequent citations of these thesis-derived papers were both low, and thus, the contribution of these animal studies to scientific progress is doubtful. It is recommended that institutional research ethics committees should be much more highly selective in approving the use of animals for the purposes of student thesis preparation.
34
Cooper, C. E., K. Vernes, and T. Cooper. "Fate of wild-caught Antechinus flavipes released after physiological experiments." Australian Mammalogy 31, no. 2 (2009): 143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/am09013.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Animals may be released into the wild for introduction, translocation or rehabilitation programs. Often, released animals do not survive or reproduce as well as wild conspecifics. Another circumstance whereby animals may be released is the return to the wild of research subjects, and although these animals may be expected to fare better than those from introduction, translocation or rehabilitation programs, there is little information regarding their subsequent survival and reproduction. We examine here the survivorship and reproductive success of five (one male, four female) yellow-footed antechinus (Antechinus flavipes) released back into the wild after being held in captivity for approximately one week for physiological experiments. Three of the four female Antechinus were recaptured after release and, on inspection, all three had 10 pouch young. Survivorship after release of antechinus held in captivity (0.75) was not different from the population as a whole, which ranged between 0.5 and 1.0. We therefore present unequivocal evidence that Antechinus released into the wild after physiological experiments can successfully survive and reproduce. This information is important for wildlife managers and animal ethics committees when considering the fate of ex-research animals.
35
Houde, Lise, Claude Dumas, and Thérèse Leroux. "Ethics: Views from IACUC Members." Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 37, no. 3 (July 2009): 291–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026119290903700311.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) members were interviewed on various ethical matters, including ethics, animal ethics, science and ethics, and the use of animals in research, in order to explore their implicit ethical framework. The results revealed that IACUC members entertain rich and diverse beliefs about ethics, that are part of an implicit ethical framework which relates to different domains of knowledge, such as biology (differences between human and animals), psychology (e.g. affective relationships with pets), and so on. The results also revealed that IACUC members hold quite a restrictive view on both animal ethics and animal use in research, and that they apply implicit ethical notions, such as respect and justice, to some elements (e.g. ethical rules) of the explicit ethical framework they are provided with when performing ethical evaluations of animal use. The study suggests that IACUC members should be provided with more up-to-date information on topics such as animal ethics and animal use in research.
36
Eom, Junho, and Chris M. Wood. "A less invasive system for the direct measurement of ventilation in fish." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 77, no. 12 (December 2020): 1870–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2020-0177.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Most previous systems for quantifying ventilatory flow in fish involve prior anesthesia and difficult surgery to sew or glue membranes to the animal, which are undoubtedly stressful. By modification of the original “van Dam box” design and incorporation of an electromagnetic blood flow probe, we have developed a less invasive system that avoids these problems and provides breath-to-breath measurements of ventilatory flow in real time. The fish can be quickly moved in and out of the apparatus, facilitating repeated measurements on the same animal after different treatments. We have used the system to document the hyperventilatory and hypoventilatory responses to environmental hypoxia and hyperoxia, respectively, in both ∼400-g trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and 10-g goldfish (Carassius auratus); the method is easily adaptable to fish of other sizes. Separate experiments on trout have demonstrated that responses to these treatments in buccal pressure amplitude, breathing frequency, and ventilation index are not altered by the attachments used in the apparatus. This less invasive methodology may prove more acceptable to animal ethics committees.
37
Cabaret, Jacques, and Ludivine Fortin. "Varying Degrees of Animal Reification by Stakeholders in Experimental Research." Animals 12, no. 2 (January 13, 2022): 190. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12020190.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The attitude towards animals in research depends on both the role of the stakeholder and their personal characteristics. Most studies on the subject have been carried out on stakeholders from biomedical research institutes with comparatively few sociological studies on stakeholders from agricultural research centers. Previous findings suggest that animal caretakers at agricultural research centers felt undervalued by the hierarchy, and that animal reification was present in the sector. This may indicate that a lack of consideration for the animal subjects correlates with an inadequate sensitivity towards humans. Since these findings were published twenty years ago, there has been an increasing emphasis on the importance and actions of ethics committees in research, animal welfare bodies, and public concern for animals, which may have impacted the current perspective. To better understand current degrees of animal reification amongst stakeholders of agricultural research, we conducted semi-directive interviews at a leading agricultural research institute in France (INRAE). The interviews targeted both animal caretakers and researchers who were involved in the study of infectious diseases in livestock, or the behavior of horses and quails. After having transcribed the recorded interviews into text, semi-automatized analyses were carried out to categorize them into distinct groups, from which the most characteristic words and sentences were extracted. Three groups of stakeholders were identified: (i) animal caretakers involved in invasive infectious disease research; (ii) animal caretakers involved in behavioral research; and (iii) researchers. The findings show that animal caretakers felt acknowledged by their hierarchy. It is possible the increased skill criteria for people recruited into this position over the years, combined with greater prospects for continuous learning and development in the profession, may have fostered a more respectful regard across the hierarchy. The animal caretakers clearly expressed that their primary objective was to successfully execute the research protocols and that the animals were viewed as prototypes for research, with which they could, on occasion, develop a bond with. The bond was more important for animal caretakers involved in behavioral studies than for those involved in the study of infectious diseases, where invasive biological sampling and restraining of the animals is required. Researchers prioritized the procurement of robust data to test hypotheses, analyze phenomena, and publish their results. Their concern for the animals rather reflected the views of the general public opposed to thought-out personal opinions on the matter; this is possibly due to their comparatively limited interaction with the animals. They considered the animals in abstract terms that were indicative of reification. This study concludes that animal reification is still present, albeit to varying degrees amongst the stakeholders.
38
Kessel, Steven T., and Nigel E. Hussey. "Tonic immobility as an anaesthetic for elasmobranchs during surgical implantation procedures." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72, no. 9 (September 2015): 1287–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2015-0136.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Tonic immobility is a widely used technique for the surgical implantation of acoustic tags in elasmobranchs (sharks, skates, and rays), yet it is still not broadly recognised as an acceptable procedure by many regulatory bodies, animal care committees, and even journal ethics standards. To highlight its regular use and applicability as a field procedure, a literature search was conducted on the anaesthetic technique adopted for all existing elasmobranch-focused acoustic telemetry papers, up to 31 December 2013. A total of 57 studies were identified that contained relevant details on surgical methodological procedures. Of these, the majority of studies (43, or 75.4%) employed tonic immobility, while 10 (17.6%) used general chemical anaesthetic and 4 (7%) used local chemical anaesthetic. These studies identify that tonic immobility provides an effective anaesthetic for surgical implantation in elasmobranchs, as it offers several benefits over chemical anaesthetics, both from a practical and from an animal welfare perspective. Practically, rapid induction and recovery optimizes the surgical procedure, desirable under often complex field conditions, where general chemical anaesthetics prolong duration and administration is often unfeasible because of the size of study animals. Benefits over chemical anaesthetic for animal welfare include no risk of overdose, no uptake of chemicals to body tissues, minimal disruption to respiration, thereby reducing potential for negative sublethal impacts that influence postrelease behaviour, and immediate and full recovery. Given these benefits and its long-standing use in field studies, it is recommended that tonic immobility be recognised as an acceptable anaesthetic technique for surgical procedures on elasmobranchs.
39
Moriyama, Mitsuaki, Yasunori Nishimura, Ryosuke Kurebayashi, Tomoki Minamihata, Kenji Kawabe, Katsura Takano, and Yoichi Nakamura. "Acetate Suppresses Lipopolysaccharide-stimulated Nitric Oxide Production in Primary Rat Microglia but not in BV-2 Microglia Cells." Current Molecular Pharmacology 14, no. 2 (December 31, 2020): 253–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874467213666200420101048.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Aims: To show that acetate attenuates neuroinflammatory responses in activated microglia. Background: Dietary acetate supplementation alleviates neuroglial activation in a rat model of neuroinflammation induced by intraventricular administration of lipopolysaccharide (LPS). However, the precise mechanism(s) underlying the anti-inflammatory effect of acetate is not fully understood. Objective: To determine whether acetate has inhibitory effects on LPS-induced neuroinflammatory responses in microglia. Methods: We examined LPS-stimulated nitric oxide (NO) production in primary rat microglia and BV-2 cells. Protein expression of inducible NO synthase (iNOS) was determined by western blot analysis. The intracellular generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and glutathione (GSH) were also evaluated. Results: In primary microglia, acetate decreased LPS-stimulated NO production in a dose-dependent manner, reaching significance at greater than 10 mM, and cell viability was not affected. Acetate suppressed LPS-induced expression of iNOS protein concomitantly with the decrease in NO. The LPS-induced increase in intracellular ROS production was attenuated by acetate. In addition, acetate prevented LPSinduced reduction of GSH. Notably, such suppressive effects of acetate on NO and ROS production were not observed in BV-2 cells. Conclusion: These findings suggest that acetate may alleviate neuroinflammatory responses by attenuating NO and ROS production in primary microglia but not in BV-2 cells. Other: All animals received humane care and the animal protocols used in this study were approved by the Ethics Committees for Animal Experimentation.
40
Cooper, Christine E. "Southern brown bandicoots can be successfully returned to the wild after physiological experiments." Wildlife Research 38, no. 1 (2011): 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/wr10144.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Context The poor survivorship of animals released into the wild for translocation, reintroduction or rehabilitation may be cited as a reason not to release experimental animals, but there is only limited information available on the fate of ex-research animals returned to the wild. Aims This study tested the hypothesis that there is no difference in the recapture of bandicoots used for physiological experiments and control bandicoots. Methods Six adult male bandicoots were trapped and maintained in captivity for three weeks for physiological experiments, then released at the capture site. Sixteen other bandicoots were captured and released immediately. Seven weeks after the release of the bandicoots used for physiological studies, follow-up trapping was carried out, and the survival, body mass and distance moved of recaptured bandicoots was recorded. Key results Survivorship did not differ statistically between bandicoots used for physiological experiments and control bandicoots, with five of six experimental bandicoots (83%) and 11 of 16 control bandicoots (69%) recaptured. Bandicoots used for physiological experiments lost a significantly greater proportion of body mass than control animals, but this occurred in captivity, not after release. The distance between recaptures for both groups (0–224 m) was consistent with previously published observations. Conclusions My results suggest that bandicoots maintained in captivity for non-invasive physiological experiments can be successfully released, with survivorship at least as high as that of control animals. Implications This study provides researchers, wildlife managers, and animal ethics committees with information to assist with making judgements concerning the fate of ex-research animals.
41
Leenaars, Marlies, Bart Savenije, Anne Nagtegaal, Lilian van der Vaart, and Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga. "Assessing the Search for and Implementation of the Three Rs: A Survey among Scientists." Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 37, no. 3 (July 2009): 297–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026119290903700312.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
A survey among scientists into the current practice of searching for Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (Three Rs) alternatives, highlights the gap between the statutory required need to apply the Three Rs concept whenever possible and the lack of criteria for searching for Three Rs alternatives. A questionnaire was distributed to 342 scientists (Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations [FELASA] Category C and B individuals), of which 67 responded. These scientists are customers of the Central Animal Laboratory of Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre. The results indicate that there is room for improvement in searching effectively for the Three Rs: skills in searching biomedical databases for Three Rs alternatives are limited, knowledge of specialised Three Rs databases is very limited, and satisfaction on the availability and accessibility of Three Rs information is low. None of the respondents allocate budget for a specific Three Rs alternatives search, although 50% do spend, on average, two hours engaged in this search for each application to their animal ethics committees. The majority of the respondents expressed the wish that the search for alternatives could be easier and less time consuming, and prefer to achieve this through the service offered by specialists at the Central Animal Laboratory. On the basis of the results from the questionnaire, the 3R Research Centre was established, with the aim of providing services and support for bio-medical scientists, to improve the search for, and subsequent implementation of, the Three Rs.
42
Wahyuwardani, Sutiastuti, S. M. Noor, and B. Bakrie. "Animal Welfare Ethics in Research and Testing: Implementation and its Barrier." Indonesian Bulletin of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 30, no. 4 (December 28, 2020): 211. http://dx.doi.org/10.14334/wartazoa.v30i4.2529.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Animals have an important role in research and testing to improve human and animal health. Animal usage must be balanced between science and ethical values of animal welfare. This paper discusses the role of IACUC, the implications of animal welfare for research, animal ethical clearance and obstacles in the implementation of animal welfare. Institution of Animal Care Use Committee (IACUC) has an important role to ensure that researcher has animal ethical clearance before conducting research and testing. Research and testing using animal should comply with ethical principles: respect, beneficiary and justice; 3Rs principles: Replacement, Reduction, Refinement and 5F/Freedom: freedom from hunger and thirst, heat and discomfort, pain, trauma and disease, fear and stress and expressing behavior naturally. The application of animal ethics clearance in Indonesia in research using animals is compulsary in various institutions, However thera are several barriers in its implementation, Those are: not all research institutions have IACUC, lack of awareness of researchers to apply for animal ethical clearance, reluctant to IACUC requirements, lack of facilities animals that meet animal welfare requirements and lack of competence in animal handling according to animal welfare.
43
Pastor-Campos, Alberto. "ElxEtica: XII Meeting of the Universities and Public Research Organizations Ethics Committees Network (RCE) took place in Elche (Spain) on 5–6 May 2022." Laboratory Animals 56, no. 4 (August 2022): 401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00236772221111891.
Повний текст джерела
44
Schuppli, Catherine A. "Decisions about the Use of Animals in Research: Ethical Reflection by Animal Ethics Committee Members." Anthrozoös 24, no. 4 (December 2011): 409–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303711x13159027359980.
Повний текст джерела
45
Britt, David. "Animal Ethical Committees." Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 22, no. 3 (May 1994): 141–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026119299402200301.
Повний текст джерела
46
Andrews, Russel D., Robin W. Baird, John Calambokidis, Caroline E. C. Goertz, Frances M. D. Gulland, Mads Peter Heide-Jorgensen, Sascha K. Hooker, et al. "Best practice guidelines for cetacean tagging." IWC Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 20, no. 1 (January 1, 2019): 27–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.47536/jcrm.v20i1.237.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Animal-borne electronic instruments (tags) are valuable tools for collecting information on cetacean physiology, behaviour and ecology, and forenhancing conservation and management policies for cetacean populations. Tags allow researchers to track the movement patterns, habitat use andother aspects of the behaviour of animals that are otherwise difficult to observe. They can even be used to monitor the physiology of a taggedanimal within its changing environment. Such tags are ideal for identifying and predicting responses to anthropogenic threats, thus facilitating thedevelopment of robust mitigation measures. With the increasing need for data best provided by tagging and the increasing availability of tags, suchresearch is becoming more common. Tagging can, however, pose risks to the health and welfare of cetaceans and to personnel involved in taggingoperations. Here we provide ‘best practice’ recommendations for cetacean tag design, deployment and follow-up assessment of tagged individuals,compiled by biologists and veterinarians with significant experience in cetacean tagging. This paper is intended to serve as a resource to assist tagusers, veterinarians, ethics committees and regulatory agency staff in the implementation of high standards of practice, and to promote the trainingof specialists in this area. Standardised terminology for describing tag design and illustrations of tag types and attachment sites are provided, alongwith protocols for tag testing and deployment (both remote and through capture-release), including training of operators. The recommendationsemphasise the importance of ensuring that tagging is ethically and scientifically justified for a particular project and that tagging only be used toaddress bona fide research or conservation questions that are best addressed with tagging, as supported by an exploration of alternative methods.Recommendations are provided for minimising effects on individual animals (e.g. through careful selection of the individual, tag design and implantsterilisation) and for improving knowledge of tagging effects on cetaceans through increased post-tagging monitoring.
47
Wensley, Sean, Vicki Betton, Nicola Martin, and Emma Tipton. "Advancing animal welfare and ethics in veterinary practice through a national pet wellbeing task force, practice-based champions and clinical audit." Veterinary Record 187, no. 8 (June 12, 2020): 316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.105484.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
BackgroundVeterinary animal welfare advocacy can be undertaken at individual, community, national and international levels. The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), a veterinary charity with 48 Pet Hospitals UK-wide, created a consultative staff network to put an explicit organisational focus on animal welfare–focused veterinary practice.MethodsPDSA created a national internal committee—a Pet Wellbeing Task Force—composed of veterinary staff representatives. Together with recruited hospital-based Champions who serve as a focus for animal welfare and ethics within their clinical teams, the resulting staff network has described a vision of animal welfare and ethics within companion animal veterinary practice, with accompanying practice-level actions. These actions have formed the basis for national clinical audit, repeated three times since 2013.ResultsThe audit, alongside targeted interventions, has driven organisational change (eg, new policies), led to measurable improvements in pet wellbeing (eg, improved pain assessment and management) and stimulated collaborative practice-based research with universities.ConclusionA dedicated staff network has facilitated organisation-wide communication on animal welfare and ethics; offered a safe space to raise and discuss animal welfare and ethical issues; and fostered leadership, by working towards model veterinary practice with respect to animal welfare and ethics, with benefits for pet patients, staff and the wider veterinary and veterinary nursing professions.
48
Zulu, Victor Chisha, Michelo Syakalima, and Joseph Ali. "Ethical dimensions of zoonotic disease research: Perspectives of traditional livestock keepers in Zambia." Wellcome Open Research 7 (August 3, 2022): 201. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17962.1.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Background: With the increase in zoonotic disease research using livestock belonging to traditional livestock keepers (LKs) as research subjects, careful attention to both animal and livestock keeper interests is critically important in Zambia and other similar contexts. Methods: The study aimed to explore ethics-related challenges during zoonotic disease research among LKs where their livestock are included as research subjects. The study was implemented in the Southern province of Zambia in July 2020. Three focus group discussions (FGDs) involving 30 adult male LKs living in livestock-wildlife interface areas where zoonotic diseases are likely to occur, were carried out. The FGDs were done in the local language and audio recorded. Thematic analysis was done using field notes and translated and transcribed recorded interviews. Results: The study found that trust between the researchers and LKs when their livestock are used as research subjects was very cardinal and depended on the continual presence of the local veterinary assistant (VA) during the conduct of research. Conclusions: The LKs could be considered a vulnerable population when their livestock were used as research subjects as, being resource poor, they were looking to researchers to provide benefits yet not fully understanding the research, and thus did not worry so much about consent procedures, bringing into question the validity of the oral consent obtained. The study also found that opportunities to strengthen trust and enhance the research experience could be exploited by researchers conducting research that is locally relevant and desired, being aware of procedural preferences for entering into livestock keeping communities, adequate disclosure of research procedures, respecting conventions and traditional cultural beliefs, and returning results of research. The findings of this study can be used by both researchers as they carry-out zoonotic disease research and by Research Ethics Committees.
49
Bowd, A. D. "The Educative Role of an Animal Care Committee in Canada: A Case Study." Animal Welfare 6, no. 4 (November 1997): 309–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600020029.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractAnimal Care Committees (ACCs) in Canada operate within guidelines established by the Canadian Council on Animal Care, an autonomous advisory and supervisory body sponsored by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. ACCs are established to ensure appropriate, humane use of animals in research and teaching, including the adoption of valid alternatives. Their role includes an educative responsibility: to ensure that both ACC members and scientists using animals are acquainted with the ethical issues surrounding animal use and principles relating to refinement of techniques, reduction of numbers used and replacement where possible.Strategies employed by one university ACC consistent with these aims are described and evaluated. Qualitative and quantitative data are presented derived from participant observation by the author as an ACC member, committee protocols, minutes and other records and a survey of animal users ‘ perceptions of the role and value of the ACC. Results indicated a relatively low level of familiarity with ethical principles relating to the humane treatment of animals, although regulations governing housing and care were well known.
50
Collins, Teresa, Amelia Cornish, Jennifer Hood, Chris Degeling, Andrew Fisher, Rafael Freire, Susan Hazel, et al. "Importance of Welfare and Ethics Competence Regarding Animals Kept for Scientific Purposes to Veterinary Students in Australia and New Zealand." Veterinary Sciences 5, no. 3 (July 14, 2018): 66. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci5030066.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Veterinarians are in a strong position of social influence on animal-related issues. Hence, veterinary schools have an opportunity to raise animal health and welfare standards by improving veterinary students’ animal welfare and ethics (AWE) education, including that related to animals used for scientific purposes. A survey of 818 students in the early, mid, and senior stages of their courses at all eight veterinary schools across Australia and New Zealand was undertaken on their first day of practice (or Day One Competences) to explore how veterinary students viewed the importance of their competence in the management of welfare and ethical decision-making relating to animals kept for scientific purposes. From highest to lowest, the rankings they assigned were: Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) Procedures or Requirements; 3Rs (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction); Humane Endpoints; Euthanasia; “What Is a Research Animal?”; and Conscientious Objections. Female students rated Conscientious Objections, Humane Endpoints, and Euthanasia significantly higher than male students did across the three stages of study. The score patterns for these three variates showed a trend for the male students to be more likely to score these topics as extremely important as they advanced through the course, but female students’ scores tended to decline slightly or stay relatively stable. No gender differences emerged for the three variates: 3Rs (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction); AEC Procedures or Requirements; and “What Is a Research Animal?”. This study demonstrates that understandings of the regulatory and normative frameworks are considered most important in animal welfare and ethics competence in veterinary students. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to investigate what importance veterinary students place on their competence regarding animals kept for scientific purposes.