Community representatives and nonscientists on the IACUC: What difference should it make?

ILAR Journal

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 29-33

  Dresser, Rebecca ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 8344240536     PISSN: 10842020     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ilar.40.1.29     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Animal Welfare Act. 1995. 7 CFR, sections 2131-2159.
2. Health Research Extension Act. 1985. PL 99-158, section 495.
3. Mukerjee M. February 1997. Trends in animal research. Sci Am 86-93.
4. Nerlich G. June 1997. The point of lay descriptions. ANZCCART News 10(2):7.
5. NRC [National Research Council]. 1996. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
6. Obrink K. 1982. Swedish law on laboratory animals. In: Dodds WJ, Orlans FB, editors. Scientific Perspectives on Animal Welfare. New York: Academic Press, p 55-58.
7. Orlans FB. 1993. In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Perry M. March 1997. Review of the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. ANZCCART News 10(1):1-3.
9. PHS [Public Health Service]. 1986. Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
10. Robb JW. 1993. The role and value of the unaffiliated member and the nonscientist member of the institutional animal care and use committee. ILAR News 35:50-53.
11. Silverman J. May 1997. Do pressure and prejudice influence the IACUC? Lab Anim 26:23-25.
12. Theran P. May 1997. The SCAWIACUC survey: Part II: The unaffiliated member. Lab Anim 26:31-32.
13. Welborn RF. Spring 1992. The potential for the institutional animal committee. HSUS News 14-15.