scholarly journals Why IACUCs Need Ethicists

ILAR Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Nobis
Keyword(s):  
Animal Research ◽  
Animal Care

Abstract Some animal research is arguably morally wrong, and some animal research is morally bad but could be improved. Who is most likely to be able to identify wrong or bad animal research and advocate for improvements? I argue that philosophical ethicists have the expertise that makes them the likely best candidates for these tasks. I review the skills, knowledge, and perspectives that philosophical ethicists tend to have that makes them ethical experts. I argue that, insofar as Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees are expected to ensure that research is ethical, they must have philosophical ethicists as members.

scholarly journals 344 The Ag Guide serves as a primary standard for animal scientists and AAALAC accreditation of Ag research programs

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. 71-72
Author(s):  
Janeen Salak-Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Primary Standard ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Accreditation Program ◽  
Agricultural Animal ◽  
Animal Care

Abstract Institutions that engage in animal research and production must ensure that high standards of animal care and use meet expectations of society while being ethical stewards of the animals they use in research. In order to achieve engagement in best practices, the Ag Guide is the most appropriate standard for assessing agricultural animals used in research and teaching. The Ag Guide minimizes the potential to overuse performance standards while enhancing the ability to appropriately address specific performance-derived exceptions to situations for which they have been validated. The primary objectives of the standards established in the Ag Guide are well-aligned with the goals of the AAALAC International accreditation program. The Ag Guide provides scientifically-sound, performance-based approaches to animal care and housing, which meet the expectations of AAALAC’s accreditation program. AAALAC provides a third-party peer review of all facets of the animal care and use program that serves as an effective mechanism to ensure institutions meet the standards of the Ag Guide. The process is designed to help identify the strengths and weaknesses of the program to ensure high-quality scientific outcomes and a high level of animal welfare. AAALAC accreditation program for agricultural animal research program is built on the cornerstone of the Ag Guide standards and connects science and responsible animal care. AAALAC accreditation promotes a comprehensive, institutionally supported program with a commitment to continuous improvement, humane and ethical animal care resulting in high-quality animal welfare, and scientific validity. AAALAC takes the position that, in accredited programs, the housing and care for agricultural animals should meet the standards that prevail on a high-quality, well-managed farm and the Ag Guide serves as this foundation. Therefore, the use of the Ag Guide for agricultural animal programs ensures a review that is based on science, professional judgment, and the best interests of the animal.

scholarly journals Foreword and Introduction to This Issue on Contemporary Safety Topics in Animal Research

ILAR Journal ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-126
Author(s):  
John Bradfield ◽  
Esmeralda Meyer ◽  
John N Norton
Keyword(s):  
Occupational Health ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Occupational Health And Safety ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
The Status ◽  
Safety Considerations ◽  
Animal Care ◽  
Health And Well Being

Abstract Institutions with animal care and use programs are obligated to provide for the health and well-being of the animals, but are equally obligated to provide for safety of individuals associated with the program. The topics in this issue of the ILAR Journal, in association with those within the complimentary issue of the Journal of Applied Biosafety, provide a variety of contemporary occupational health and safety considerations in today’s animal research programs. Each article addresses key or emerging occupational health and safety topics in institutional animal care and use programs, where the status of the topic, contemporary challenges, and future directions are provided.

Responsible Science and Research Animal Use

ILAR Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Patricia V Turner ◽  
R Wayne Barbee
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Animal Science ◽  
Scientific Excellence ◽  
Experimental Planning ◽  
Animal Use ◽  
Animal Care ◽  
Science And Research ◽  
Ethical Oversight ◽  
Animal Handlers

Abstract This issue of the ILAR Journal focuses on the topic of responsible science as it relates to animal research. We start with the concept of the scientist as a responsible citizen and then move through multiple phases of research including careful experimental planning, reporting, and incorporation of laboratory animal science. The work of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or animal ethical/oversight body in reviewing both animal use and contributing to scientific excellence is explored. Additional topics include protection of animal handlers from multiple experimental hazards, use of agricultural animals and wildlife studies, regulatory ambiguities, and harmonization of animal research. Rounding out the issue is a discussion of how animal care and use programs can enhance animal welfare while mitigating regulatory burden, and our responsibility to clearly communicate the ethical use of animals in advancing biomedical research. A deeper understanding of these topics can assist scientists in simultaneously advancing their research and animal welfare.

Animal Research Pathology: Regulatory and Safety Considerations

ILAR Journal ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
J M Wallace ◽  
R L Trundy
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Species ◽  
Hazardous Materials ◽  
Principal Investigator ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Laboratory Personnel ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
Safety Considerations ◽  
Animal Care

Abstract Animal research pathology encompasses a wide array of procedures and may involve work with a variety of animal species and hazards. To protect laboratory personnel and ensure data integrity, pathologists must be familiar with the activities performed in their laboratories and the applicable regulatory and safety requirements. Failure to address issues proactively may result in exposure of personnel to hazardous materials and/or collection of data in a manner that does not conform to animal welfare or quality control standards. This manuscript provides a brief introduction to important animal research pathology regulatory and safety considerations. The importance of close communication between the principal investigator, pathologist, laboratory personnel, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and institutional safety office/experts is emphasized and a mechanism for improving communication is discussed.

The Three Rs of Animal Research: What they Mean for the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and Why

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 549-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard J. Curzer ◽  
Gad Perry ◽  
Mark C. Wallace ◽  
Dan Perry
Keyword(s):  
Animal Research ◽  
Animal Care ◽  
The Three Rs

Painism: Some Moral Rules for the Civilized Experimenter

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
RICHARD D. RYDER
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Environmental Enrichment ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Research Techniques ◽  
Proper Training ◽  
Alternative Research ◽  
Moral Rules ◽  
Animal Care

One of the barriers between ordinarily compassionate animal researchers and pro-animal ethicists is that the ethicists are usually seen as asking for far too much. They are perceived as demanding the complete abandonment of careers. In consequence, the ethicist is often ignored. Ethicists rarely give clear-cut rules to animal researchers as to how they can continue in animal research while at the same time adopting an increasingly moral approach. The purpose of this paper is to provide some rules to help the animals by aiding conscientious researchers who are not (yet) in a position to give up their careers entirely. These are ethical rules and not, therefore, in quite the same category as Russell and Burch's “three Rs” (replacement, refinement, and reduction) or the proposal that experimenters should seek proper training and retraining in animal care, and in the skills of euthanasia, anaesthesia, and analgesia. Nor are ethical rules quite the same as the requirement that all experimenters should acquaint themselves with the latest techniques for improving the animals' quality of life (such as the techniques of environmental enrichment, for example) or the need to keep themselves up to date in alternative research techniques that do not use animals. All these steps are of great importance and should be taken in addition to the ethical rules I propose.

Compassion Fatigue in Laboratory Animal Personnel during the COVID‑19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E Thurston ◽  
Goldia Chan ◽  
Lisa A Burlingame ◽  
Jennifer A Jones ◽  
Patrick A Lester ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Compassion Fatigue ◽  
Laboratory Animal ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Institutional Changes ◽  
Professional Lives ◽  
Stress Isolation ◽  
Animal Community ◽  
Related Stress ◽  
Animal Care

Compassion Fatigue (CF) is commonly observed in professions associated with human and animal care. The COVID-19 pandemic compelled laboratory animal research institutions to implement new work practices in order to maintain essential animal care operations. These modifications ranged from shift changes to last-resort measures, such as culling animal colonies, to accommodate reduced staffing. Such changes could cause personnel to experience increased stress, isolation, and helplessness—all of which can increase CF risk. In the current study, 200 persons involved with animal research completed an online survey to gauge whether CF among laboratory animal personnel had increased during the pandemic. The survey examined professional quality of life, self-assessed levels of CF, institutional changes, perceived changes in animal welfare, and institutional measures intended to alleviate CF. A total of 86% of participants had experienced CF at some point in their career, with 41% experiencing a CF event (new or worsening symptoms of CF) during the pandemic. In addition, 90% of participants who reported a CF event also reported subsequent effects on their personal or professional lives. Health, employment, and animal-related stress that arose due to the pandemic were all found to influence CF scores significantly. Although 96% of respondents were considered essential workers, 67% did not feel as valued for their work as other essential personnel. Furthermore, 88% of personnel responsible for the euthanasia of healthy animals who experienced a CF event reported that CF also affected their personal life, professional life, or both, and 78% responded that interventions from internal CF programs or leadership did not help to alleviate symptoms of CF. The COVID-19 pandemic and resultant institutional changes will likely have lasting effects on persons and organizations. By determining and subsequently mitigating sources of CF, we can better assist the laboratory animal community during future crises.

The Potential and Impacts of Practical Application of Beauchamp and DeGrazia’s Six Principles

2020 ◽  
pp. 45-60
Author(s):  
Larry Carbone
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Social Benefit ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Pain Medications ◽  
Animal Research Ethics ◽  
Animal Care

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document