Guidelines for the ethical use of animals in applied ethology studies

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Volumn 81, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 291-305

  Sherwin, Chris M ^a   Christiansen, Stine B ^b   Duncan, Ian J ^c   Erhard, Hans W ^d   Lay Jr , Don C ^e   Mench, Joy A ^f   O'Connor, Cheryl E ^g   Carol Petherick, J ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

^d SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^e PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g LANDCARE RESEARCH   (New Zealand)

^h DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Applied ethology; Behaviour; Ethics; Guidelines; Welfare

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL WELFARE;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0037414573     PISSN: 01681591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00288-5     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Bateson, P., 1986. When to experiment on animals. New Scientist 1496, 30-32.
2. Bateson, P., 1991. Assessment of pain in animals. Anim. Behav. 42, 827-839.
3. Chiarotti, F., Puopolo, M., 2000. Refinement in hehavioural research: a statistical approach. In: Balls, M., van Zeller, A.-M., Halder, M. (Eds.), Progress in Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 1222-1238.
4. Christiansen, S.B., Sandoe, P., 2000. Ethics in animal behaviour and welfare research. In: Ramos, A., Pinheiro, L.C., Machado F., Hotzel, M.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th International Congress on ISAE, Florianopolis, Brazil, 17-20 October 2000. p. 88.
5. Cuthill, I., 1991. Field experiments in animal behaviour: methods and ethics. Anim. Behav. 42, 1007-1014.
6. De Cock Buning, T., Theune, E., 1994. A comparison of three models for ethical evaluation of proposed animal experiments. Anim. Welf. 3, 107-128.
7. Driscoll, J.W., Bateson, P., 1988. Animals in behavioural research. Anim. Behav. 36, 1569-1574.
8. Hunt, P., 1980. Experimental choice. In: The Reduction and Prevention of Suffering in Animal Experiments. RSPCA, Horsham, UK, pp. 63-75.
9. Kirkwood, J.K., Sainsbury, A.W., 1996. Ethics of interventions for the welfare of free-living wild animals. Anim. Welf. 5, 235-243.
10. McConway, K., 1992. The number of subjects in animal behaviour experiments: is Still still right? In: Dawkins, M.S., Gosling, L.M. (Eds.), Ethics in Research on Animal Behaviour. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 35-38.
11. Mench, J.A., 2000. Refinement in behavioural research. In: Balls, M., van Zeller, A.-M., Halder, M. (Eds.), Progress in Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 1213-1221.
12. Morton, D.M., Griffiths, P.H.M., 1985. Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. Vet. Rec. 116, 431-436.
13. Nicol, C.J., Pope, S.J., 1993. Food deprivation during observation reduces social learning in hens. Anim. Behav. 45, 193-196.
14. Porter, D.G., 1992. Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 356, 101-102.
15. Russell, W.M.S., Burch, R.L., 1959. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen, London, UK.
16. Sherwin, C.M., 2001. Can invertebrates suffer? Or how robust is argument-by-analogy? Anim. Welf. 10 (Suppl.), 103-118.
17. Still, A.W., 1982. On the number of subjects used in animal behaviour experiments. Anim. Behav. 30, 873-880.