Assessing the animal ethics review process

O. Varga; Peter Sandøe; I.A.S. Olsson

Assessing the animal ethics review process

O. Varga, Peter Sandøe, I.A.S. Olsson

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Climate change and sustainable development : ethical perspectives on land use and food production
Editors	Thomas Potthast, Simon Meisch
Number of pages	6
Place of Publication	Wageningen
Publisher	Wageningen Academic Publishers
Publication date	1 May 2012
Pages	462-467
ISBN (Print)	978-90-8686-197-2
ISBN (Electronic)	978-90-8686-753-0
Publication status	Published - 1 May 2012
Event	EurSAFE 2012 - Tübingen, Germany Duration: 30 May 2012 → 2 Jun 2012

Conference

Conference	EurSAFE 2012
Country/Territory	Germany
City	Tübingen
Period	30/05/2012 → 02/06/2012

Access to Document

Assessing the animal ethics review processFinal published version, 993 KB

Cite this

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

@inproceedings{07f565b81cbe46338b03fefad0b4accb,

title = "Assessing the animal ethics review process",

abstract = "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.",

author = "O. Varga and Peter Sand{\o}e and I.A.S. Olsson",

year = "2012",

month = may,

day = "1",

language = "English",

isbn = "978-90-8686-197-2",

pages = "462--467",

editor = "Thomas Potthast and Simon Meisch",

booktitle = "Climate change and sustainable development",

publisher = "Wageningen Academic Publishers",

address = "Netherlands",

note = "EurSAFE 2012 ; Conference date: 30-05-2012 Through 02-06-2012",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Assessing the animal ethics review process

AU - Varga, O.

AU - Sandøe, Peter

AU - Olsson, I.A.S.

PY - 2012/5/1

Y1 - 2012/5/1

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

T2 - EurSAFE 2012

Y2 - 30 May 2012 through 2 June 2012

ER -