Literature DB >> 28903820

Considerations When Writing and Reviewing a Higher Education Teaching Protocol Involving Animals.

Tracy H Vemulapalli1, Shawn S Donkin2, Timothy B Lescun3, Peggy A O'Neil4, Patrick A Zollner5.   

Abstract

The targeted use of animals in teaching at institutions of higher learning is fundamental to educating the next generation of professionals in the biologic and animal sciences. As with animal research, universities and colleges that use animals in teaching are subject to regulatory oversight. Instructors must receive approval from their IACUC before using animals in their teaching. However, the questions asked on many institutions' animal care and use protocol (ACUP) are often geared more toward the use of animals for research. These questions may not be wholly appropriate in evaluating a teaching protocol; some questions are not applicable (for example, power analysis to justify animal numbers) whereas other important questions may be missing. This article discusses the issues surrounding the rationale for animal use in teaching; it also proposes a framework that instructors and IACUC members alike can use when writing and reviewing teaching ACUP. We hope this framework will help to ensure the most appropriate IACUC review of the ethical use of animals in higher education.

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28903820      PMCID: PMC5605173     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci        ISSN: 1559-6109            Impact factor:   1.232


  47 in total

1.  A comparison of surgical training with live anesthetized dogs and cadavers.

Authors:  L G Carpenter; D L Piermattei; M D Salman; E C Orton; A W Nelson; D D Smeak; P B Jennings; R A Taylor
Journal:  Vet Surg       Date:  1991 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.495

2.  A comparison of interactive videodisc instruction with live animal laboratories.

Authors:  A L Fawver; C E Branch; L Trentham; B T Robertson; S D Beckett
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1990-12

3.  Predictors of employer satisfaction: technical and non-technical skills.

Authors:  Jared A Danielson; Tsui-Feng Wu; Amanda J Fales-Williams; Ryan A Kirk; Vanessa A Preast
Journal:  J Vet Med Educ       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.027

4.  The use of dogs in medical and veterinary training: understanding and approaching student uneasiness.

Authors:  Arnold Arluke
Journal:  J Appl Anim Welf Sci       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.440

Review 5.  The future: taking veterinary laparoscopy to the next level.

Authors:  Boel Fransson
Journal:  J Feline Med Surg       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.015

6.  Service learning: Priority 4 Paws mobile surgical service for shelter animals.

Authors:  Lynetta J Freeman; Nancy Ferguson; Annette Litster; Mimi Arighi
Journal:  J Vet Med Educ       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 1.027

7.  Assessment of learning styles of undergraduate medical students using the VARK questionnaire and the influence of sex and academic performance.

Authors:  Rathnakar P Urval; Ashwin Kamath; Sheetal Ullal; Ashok K Shenoy; Nandita Shenoy; Laxminarayana A Udupa
Journal:  Adv Physiol Educ       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.288

8.  Determinants of adoption and euthanasia of shelter dogs spayed or neutered in the university of california veterinary student surgery program compared to other shelter dogs.

Authors:  Jaime Clevenger; Philip H Kass
Journal:  J Vet Med Educ       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.027

9.  The transition from veterinary student to practitioner: a "make or break" period.

Authors:  Marg L Gilling; Timothy J Parkinson
Journal:  J Vet Med Educ       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.027

10.  Veterinary student responses to learning activities that enhance confidence and ability in pig handling.

Authors:  John Cavalieri
Journal:  J Vet Med Educ       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.027

View more
  1 in total

1.  Alternatives in Education-Rat and Mouse Simulators Evaluated from Course Trainers' and Supervisors' Perspective.

Authors:  Melanie Humpenöder; Giuliano M Corte; Marcel Pfützner; Mechthild Wiegard; Roswitha Merle; Katharina Hohlbaum; Nancy A Erickson; Johanna Plendl; Christa Thöne-Reineke
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 2.752

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.