A study of three IACUCs and their views of scientific merit and alternatives

Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 75-81

  Graham, Karen ^a,b  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL CARE; ANIMAL WELLBEING; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL WELFARE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONHUMAN; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; ANIMAL; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; ANIMAL WELFARE; BIOETHICS; ETHICS; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; METHODOLOGY; PAIN; PERSONNEL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT;

ANIMALIA;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMAL WELFARE; ANIMALS; ANIMALS, LABORATORY; BIOETHICAL ISSUES; ETHICAL REVIEW; INTERVIEWS; PAIN; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 0037646060     PISSN: 10888705     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0501_7     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Animal Welfare Information Center. (2000, June 21). Policies - Alternatives to painful procedures. Retrieved February 24, 2001, from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/policy/policy12.pdf
2. Borkowski, G., Hunter, A, Field, K, & Sischo, W. M.(1997). Institutional animal care and use committees: A survey covering 10 years of experience. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science, 36, 42-45.
3. Donnelley, S. (1990). Section 2. Animals in science: The justification issue. Hastings Center Report, 20, 8-14.
4. Goldentyer, B., Willems, R., Roberts, N., & Ratzow, K. (2000, April). USDA employee survey on the effectiveness of IACUC regulations. Retrieved February 7, 2001, from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/iacucaugust.pdf
5. Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2143 (1985).
6. Plous, S., & Herzog, H. (2001). Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research. Science, 293, 608-609.