Literature DB >> 15000096

Animal ethical evaluation: an observational study of Canadian IACUCs.

Lise Houde1, Claude Dumas, Therese Leroux.   

Abstract

Three Canadian institutional animal care and use committees were observed over a 1-year period to investigate animal ethical evaluation. While each protocol was evaluated, the observer collected information about the final decision, the type of protocol (research vs. teaching), and the category of invasiveness. The observer also wrote down verbatim all verbal interventions, which were coded according to the following categories: scientific, technical, politics, human analog, reduction, refinement, and replacement. The data revealed that only 16% of the comments were devoted to the 3 explicit ethical categories (i.e., reduction, refinement, and replacement) and that most of the comments were technical. However, the analysis revealed that ethical concerns were implicit in both scientific and technical language, or some of the scientific and technical comments had an impact on the ethical treatment of animals. The results are discussed in relation to previous nonobservational research that identified potential pitfalls and bias in animal ethical evaluation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Canadian Council on Animal Care; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 15000096     DOI: 10.1207/S15327019EB1304_2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ethics Behav        ISSN: 1050-8422


  8 in total

1.  Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?

Authors:  Jerald Silverman; Charles W Lidz; Jonathan Clayfield; Alexandra Murray; Lorna J Simon; Louise Maranda
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions.

Authors:  Madeline L Budda; Stacy L Pritt
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 1.232

3.  Decision Making and the IACUC: Part 1- Protocol Information Discussed at Full-Committee Reviews.

Authors:  Jerald Silverman; Charles W Lidz; Jonathan C Clayfield; Alexandra Murray; Lorna J Simon; Richard G Rondeau
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.232

4.  Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers' views on the Three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement.

Authors:  Nicole Fenwick; Peter Danielson; Gilly Griffin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Critical Analysis of Assessment Studies of the Animal Ethics Review Process.

Authors:  Orsolya Varga
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 2.752

6.  Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions.

Authors:  Lawrence A Hansen; Justin R Goodman; Alka Chandna
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 2.752

7.  Evaluation of animal models of neurobehavioral disorders.

Authors:  F Josef van der Staay; Saskia S Arndt; Rebecca E Nordquist
Journal:  Behav Brain Funct       Date:  2009-02-25       Impact factor: 3.759

8.  Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden.

Authors:  Svea Jörgensen; Johan Lindsjö; Elin M Weber; Helena Röcklinsberg
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 2.752

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.