Animal Studies Commons^™

Animal Research, Accountability, Openness And Public Engagement: Report From An International Expert Forum, Elisabeth H. Ormandy, Daniel M. Weary, Katarina Cvek, Mark Fisher, Kathrin Herrmann, Pru Hobson-West, Michael Mcdonald, William Milsom, Margaret Rose, Andrew Rowan, Joanne Zurlo, Marina A.G. Von Keyserlingk

Andrew N. Rowan, DPhil

In November 2013, a group of international experts in animal research policy (n = 11) gathered in Vancouver, Canada, to discuss openness and accountability in animal research. The primary objective was to bring together participants from various jurisdictions (United States, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom) to share practices regarding the governance of animals used in research, testing and education, with emphasis on the governance process followed, the methods of community engagement, and the balance of openness versus confidentiality. During the forum, participants came to a broad consensus on the need for: (a) evidence-based metrics to …

A Review Of The Institute Of Medicine’S Analysis Of Using Chimpanzees In Biomedical Research, Robert C. Jones, Ray Greek

Robert C. Jones, PhD

We argue that the recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine’s 2011 report, Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity, are methodologically and ethically confused. We argue that a proper understanding of evolution and complexity theory in terms of the science and ethics of using chimpanzees in biomedical research would have had led the committee to recommend not merely limiting but eliminating the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research. Specifically, we argue that a proper understanding of the difference between the gross level of examination of species and examinations on finer levels can shed light on important methodological …

Noncompliance With Public Health Service (Phs) Policy On Humane Care And Use Of Laboratory Animals: An Exploratory Analysis, Leah M. Gomez, Kathleen Conlee, Martin Stephens

Martin Stephens, PhD

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a major biomedical research-funding body in the United States. Approximately 40% of NIH-funded research involves experimentation on nonhuman animals (Monastersky, 2008). Institutions that conduct animal research with NIH funds must adhere to the Public Health Service (PHS) care and use standards of the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW, 2002a). Institutions deviating significantly from the PHS’s animal care and use standards must report these incidents to the NIH’s OLAW. This study is an exploratory analysis of all the significant deviations reported by animal-research facilities to OLAW during a 3-month period. The study identifies …

Psychology And Its Animal Subjects, Kenneth J. Shapiro

Kenneth J. Shapiro, PhD

By way of introducing Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PsyETA) to readers of the journal, I have been asked to make some comments about the organization and, from a personal point of view, to suggest some of my own positions and views.

Interests And Harms In Primate Research, Nathan Nobis

Nathan M. Nobis, PhD

The article discusses the moral issues on primate research in reference to the moral defenses by Sughrue and colleagues. It states that Sughrue and colleagues have claimed to provide equal examination of the primate stroke research's ethics. It mentions that the promise to straighten out a number of ethical arguments in favor and against primate research was not fulfilled. Several moral arguments are presented in response to Sughrue and colleagues' moral defense for animal experimentation.

Evaluation Of Awarded Grant Applications Involving Animal Experimentation, Michael W. Fox, M. Andrea Ward, Andrew N. Rowan

Andrew N. Rowan, D.Phil.

The potential benefits of animal research are accepted by most. However, painstaking care must be applied to the approach and design of the research to ensure the best possible chance of achieving the research objectives and to minimize both physical and psychological distress to the animals. Consideration should be given not only to transport and housing conditions, but also to practices used in the laboratory. Adequate reasons must also be given as to why the research is necessary. Public concern over the use and care of laboratory animals in biomedical programs contributed to the passage of the Animal Welfare Act …

Scientists And Animal Research: Dr. Jekyll Or Mr. Hyde?, Andrew N. Rowan

Andrew N. Rowan, DPhil

Why is the public so sensitive about the use of a few tens of millions of animals in research when they do not object to killing hundreds of millions of pigs and cows and billions of chickens for our meat diet? Why is animal research considered so bad despite the public's high opinion of science (and scientists)? Perhaps it is the image of the scientist as an objective and cold individual who deliberately inflicts harm (pain, distress, or death) on his (the public image is usually male) innocent animal victims that arouses so much horror and concern. This paper does …

Prolonged Pain Research In Mice: Trends In Reference To The 3rs, Jonathan Balcombe, Hope Ferdowsian, Lauren Briese

Jonathan Balcombe, PhD

This literature review documents trends in the use of mice in prolonged pain research, defined herein as research that subjects mice to a source of pain for at least 14 days. The total amount of prolonged pain research on mice has increased dramatically in the past decade for the 3 pain categories examined: neuropathic, inflammatory, and chronic pain. There has also been a significant rise in the number of prolonged mouse pain studies as a proportion of all mouse studies and of all mouse pain studies. The use of transgenic mice has also risen significantly in prolonged pain research, though …

Cancerous Contradictions: The Mis-Regulation Of Human Carcinogens Based On Animal Data, Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe

Jonathan Balcombe, PhD

The regulation of human exposures to potential carcinogens constitutes society’s most important use of animal carcinogenicity data. However, for environmental contaminants of greatest U.S. concern, we found that in most cases (58.1%; 93/160) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considered the animal data inadequate to support a classification of probable human carcinogen or noncarcinogen.

The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is a leading international authority on carcinogenicity assessments. For chemicals lacking human exposure data (the great majority), IARC classifications of identical chemicals were significantly more conservative than EPA classifications (p