Decisions about the Use of Animals in Research: Ethical Reflection by Animal Ethics Committee Members

References

• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Bowd, A. D. 1997. The educative role of an animal care committee in Canada: A case study. Animal Welfare 6: 309–315.
   Google Scholar
• CCAC. 1993. Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council on Animal Care.
   Google Scholar
• CCAC. 1997. CCAC Guide to Protocol Review. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council on Animal Care.
   Google Scholar
• CCAC. 2006. Terms of Reference for Animal Care Committees. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council on Animal Care.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Dresser, R. 1989. Developing standards in animal research review. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 194: 1184–1191.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• European Biomedical Research Association. 2010. Laboratory animal research legislation in Sweden. <http://www.ebra.org/sweden+1_17.htm/> Accessed on August 28, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Galvin, S. L. and Herzog, H. A. 1992. The ethical judgment of animal research. Ethics and Behavior 2: 263–286.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Ideland, M. 2009. Different views on ethics: How animal ethics is situated in a committee culture. Journal of Medical Ethics 35: 258–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, G. 1998. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Orlans, B. F. 1997. Ethical decision making about animal experiments. Ethics and Behavior 7: 163–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plous, S. and Herzog, H. 2001. Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research. Science 293: 608–609.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, D. G. 1992. Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 356: 101–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, W. M. S. and Burch, R. L. 1959. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Schuppli, C. A. 2007. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 294–301.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Slovic, P. 2006. Affect, reason, risk and rationality. Newsletter of the European Working Group Multicriteria for Decisions 3: 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. A. and Boyd, K. M. 1991. Lives in Balance. The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• US National Institutes of Health. 2010. Peer review process: Grants Process of the Office of Extramural Research. <http://www.grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm> Accessed on August 28, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• 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 Animals 34: 236–243.
   Google Scholar