Decisions about the use of animals in research: Ethical reflection by animal ethics committee members

Anthrozoos

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 409-425

  Schuppli, Catherine A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Animal ethics committees; Decision making; Ethics review; Harm benefit analysis; Interviews

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; RESEARCH WORK;

CANADA;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 80054752818     PISSN: 08927936     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2752/175303711X13159027359980     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. APC. 2003. Review of Cost-Benefit Assessment in the Use of Animals in Research. Report of the Cost-Benefit Working Group of the Animal Procedures Committee. London: Home Office, Communication Directorate.
2. Bowd, A. D. 1997. The educative role of an animal care committee in Canada: A case study. Animal Welfare 6: 309-315.
3. CCAC. 1993. Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council on Animal Care.
4. CCAC. 1997. CCAC Guide to Protocol Review. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council on Animal Care.
5. CCAC. 2006. Terms of Reference for Animal Care Committees. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council on Animal Care.
6. de Cock Buning, T. and Theune, E. 1994. A comparison of three models for ethical evaluation of proposed animal experiments. Animal Welfare 3: 107-128.
7. Delpire, V. C., Mepham, T. B. and Balls, M. 1999. A proposal for a new ethical scheme addressing the use of laboratory animals for biomedical purposes. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 27: 869-881.
8. Dresser, R. 1989. Developing standards in animal research review. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 194: 1184-1191.
9. European Biomedical Research Association. 2010. Laboratory animal research legislation in Sweden. Accessed on August 28, 2010.
10. FELASA. 2007. Principles and practice in ethical review of animal experiments across Europe: Summary of the report of a FELASA working group on ethical evaluation of animal experiments. Laboratory Animals 41: 143-160.
11. Galvin, S. L. and Herzog, H. A. 1992. The ethical judgment of animal research. Ethics and Behavior 2: 263-286.
12. Graham, K. 2002. A study of three IACUCs and their views of scientific merit and alternatives. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5: 75-81.
13. Hagelin, J., Hau, J. and Carlsson, H. E. 2003. The refining influence of ethics committees on animal experimentation in Sweden. Laboratory Animals 37: 10-18.
14. Ideland, M. 2009. Different views on ethics: How animal ethics is situated in a committee culture. Journal of Medical Ethics 35: 258-261.
15. Klein, G. 1998. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge: MIT Press.
16. LeCompte, J. J. and Schensul, M. D. 1999. Designing and conducting ethnographic research. In Ethnographer's Toolkit, Vol. 1, 240, ed. J. J. LeCompte and M. D. Schensul. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira.
17. Mellor, D. J. and Reid, C. S. 1994. Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. In Improving the Well-Being of Animals in the Research Environment, 3-18, ed. R. M. Baker, G. Jenkin and D. J. Mellor. Glen Osmond, Australia: ANZCCART.
18. Orlans, B. F. 1997. Ethical decision making about animal experiments. Ethics and Behavior 7: 163-171.
19. Plous, S. and Herzog, H. 2001. Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research. Science 293: 608-609.
20. Porter, D. G. 1992. Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 356: 101-102.
21. Prentice, E. D., Crouse, D. A. and Mann, M. D. 1992. Scientific merit review: The role of the IACUC. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research News 34: 15-19.
22. Russell, W. M. S. and Burch, R. L. 1959. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen.
23. Schuppli, C. A. 2007. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 294-301.
24. Schuppli, C. A. and Fraser, D. 2005. The interpretation and application of the Three Rs by animal ethics committee members. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 33: 1-14.
25. Slovic, P. 2006. Affect, reason, risk and rationality. Newsletter of the European Working Group Multicriteria for Decisions 3: 1-5.
26. Smith, J. A. and Boyd, K. M. 1991. Lives in Balance. The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Stafleu, F. R., Baarda, B. D., Heeger, F. R. and Beynen, A. C. 1993. The influence of animal discomfort, human interest and scientific quality on the ethical acceptability of a projected animal experiment as assessed with questionnaires. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 21: 129-137.
28. Stafleu, F. R., Heeger, F. R. and Beynen, A. C. 1989. A case study on the impact of clinically-observed abnormalities in mice with gallstones on the ethical admissibility of a projected experiment with gallstonebearing mice. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 17: 101-108.
29. Stafleu, F. R., Tramper, R., Vorstenbosch, J. and Joles, J. A. 1999. The ethical acceptability of animal experiments: A proposal for a system to support decision-making. Laboratory Animals 33: 295-303.
30. US National Institutes of Health. 2010. Peer review process: Grants Process of the Office of Extramural Research. Accessed on August 28, 2010.
31. Verschuere, B., Autissier, C., Degryse, A. D., Gallix, P., Gotti, B., Laurent, J., Leinot, M. and Peyclit, I. 2000. Ethics committee recommendations for laboratory animals in private research in France. Laboratory Animals34: 236-243.