Assessing the animal ethics review process
Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Article in proceedings › Research › peer-review
Standard
Assessing the animal ethics review process. / Varga, O.; Sandøe, Peter; Olsson, I.A.S.
Climate change and sustainable development : ethical perspectives on land use and food production. ed. / Thomas Potthast; Simon Meisch. Wageningen : Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2012. p. 462-467.Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Article in proceedings › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - GEN
T1 - Assessing the animal ethics review process
AU - Varga, O.
AU - Sandøe, Peter
AU - Olsson, I.A.S.
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - Although animal experiments play an important role in biomedical research, their use is ethically challenging. Primarily in Europe, North America and Australasia ethics committees are set up to control the animal use in science. Project approval is usually decided on a case-by-case basis with focus on ensuring that the animals are caused a minimum of harm relative to the possibility of achieving beneficial results. Even though rules in this area are reasonably uniform there seems to be significant room for differences, individual and culturally based, between ethics committees concerning how the rules are applied. Our aim was to conduct a review of empirical studies of the different kinds of animal ethics committees in order to clarify what is known about their operation and highlight information which is missing in their evaluation. Our main findings are that there is a significant variation in process and outcomes of decision-making at individual and group levels which cause inconsistency between decisions. Different approaches have been suggested to improve the reliability of ethical review but no evidence to support any of them. More empirical studies are needed.
AB - Although animal experiments play an important role in biomedical research, their use is ethically challenging. Primarily in Europe, North America and Australasia ethics committees are set up to control the animal use in science. Project approval is usually decided on a case-by-case basis with focus on ensuring that the animals are caused a minimum of harm relative to the possibility of achieving beneficial results. Even though rules in this area are reasonably uniform there seems to be significant room for differences, individual and culturally based, between ethics committees concerning how the rules are applied. Our aim was to conduct a review of empirical studies of the different kinds of animal ethics committees in order to clarify what is known about their operation and highlight information which is missing in their evaluation. Our main findings are that there is a significant variation in process and outcomes of decision-making at individual and group levels which cause inconsistency between decisions. Different approaches have been suggested to improve the reliability of ethical review but no evidence to support any of them. More empirical studies are needed.
M3 - Article in proceedings
SN - 978-90-8686-197-2
SP - 462
EP - 467
BT - Climate change and sustainable development
A2 - Potthast, Thomas
A2 - Meisch, Simon
PB - Wageningen Academic Publishers
CY - Wageningen
Y2 - 30 May 2012 through 2 June 2012
ER -
ID: 38431298