The composition of animal ethics committees needs to change

BMJ ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 345 (nov13 2) ◽  
pp. e7627-e7627 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ashby ◽  
A. Menache
Keyword(s):  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees

Assessing the Search for and Implementation of the Three Rs: A Survey among Scientists

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlies Leenaars ◽  
Bart Savenije ◽  
Anne Nagtegaal ◽  
Lilian van der Vaart ◽  
Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga
Keyword(s):  
Laboratory Animal ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Animal Science ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
European Laboratory ◽  
The Three Rs ◽  
Laboratory Animal Science

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.

Mapping French Laypeople’s Views on Nonhuman Animal Experimentation

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-290
Author(s):  
Maria Teresa Muñoz Sastre ◽  
Paul Clay Sorum ◽  
Etienne Mullet
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Animal Experimentation ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Experimental Protocol ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
Factor Design ◽  
Acceptability Judgments

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.

The value of Animal Ethics Committees for wildlife research in conservation biology - an Australian perspective

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Dyson ◽  
Michael C. Calver
Keyword(s):  
Conservation Biology ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Laboratory Animals ◽  
Ecological Studies ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
Australian Universities

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.

The use of animals in research: counting the costs and the benefits

2004 ◽  
Vol 44 (11) ◽  
pp. 1079 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. D. Rickard
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Economic Gain ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

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.

Ethical Considerations for Common Mouse Models of Cancer (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed Mohammad Kazem Aghamir Sr ◽  
Fatemeh Khatami ◽  
Mahan Asadian Sr ◽  
Rahil Mashhadi ◽  
Behta Pakseresht Keshavarz
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Mouse Models ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Environmental Changes ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Complete Analysis ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
Mouse Models Of Cancer

BACKGROUND Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) are concerning possibilities for public participation in the regulation of animal research. AECs are accountable for approving and monitoring research within Accredited Animal Research Establishments (AARE) (https://www.animalethics.org.au/animal-ethics-committees). In the way of making mouse models of cancer, several new considerations should be mentioned before the study design. OBJECTIVE To consider both personnel and animal welfare decisions at each stage of making mouse models of cancer, it is essential to have comprehensive information on the animal models. METHODS Three main cancer models are including; chemically induced mouse models, genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), xenograft nude mice, and Avatar. Some genetic changes in GEMMs are passing through next generations and not only do they have pain and suffering but also, they impose some environmental changes on mice. RESULTS Several phenotypes are required regarding the target of tumor model that expressed research are typically wisely investigated, but those that have an influence on the animal's welfare but have little or no effect on the disease procedure are often less carefully considered. CONCLUSIONS Complete analysis and regulations of animal welfare can offer beneficial information for researchers. This information is similarly essential to allow members of the institutional animal care and use committee to make necessary cost: benefit ethical review of animal studies. CLINICALTRIAL Not Applicable

Australian Animal Ethics Committees: We Have Come a Long Way

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
WARWICK P. ANDERSON ◽  
MICHAEL A. PERRY
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees

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.

scholarly journals Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees

Animals ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Tjärnström ◽  
Elin Weber ◽  
Jan Hultgren ◽  
Helena Röcklinsberg
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Ethical Reasoning ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Animal Testing ◽  
Ethical Evaluation ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
The Eu

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.

scholarly journals Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 708
Author(s):  
Svea Jörgensen ◽  
Johan Lindsjö ◽  
Elin M. Weber ◽  
Helena Röcklinsberg
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Application Form ◽  
Legal Requirement ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review Process

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document