Book contents
- Animal Ethics in Animal Research
- Animal Ethics in Animal Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Notes on the Authors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Research Ethics
- 2 The Ethical Perspective
- 3 The 3Rs and Good Scientific Practice
- 4 Applying Ethical Thinking and Social Relevance
- 5 Regulation and Legislation: Overview and Background
- 6 Public Involvement: How and Why?
- 7 The Future of Animal Research: Guesstimates on Technical and Ethical Developments
- Index
- References
3 - The 3Rs and Good Scientific Practice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 October 2017
Book contents
- Animal Ethics in Animal Research
- Animal Ethics in Animal Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Notes on the Authors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Research Ethics
- 2 The Ethical Perspective
- 3 The 3Rs and Good Scientific Practice
- 4 Applying Ethical Thinking and Social Relevance
- 5 Regulation and Legislation: Overview and Background
- 6 Public Involvement: How and Why?
- 7 The Future of Animal Research: Guesstimates on Technical and Ethical Developments
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Animal Ethics in Animal Research , pp. 15 - 40Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
APC (Animal Procedures Committee). (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. Home Office, Communication Directorate, London.Google Scholar
Button, K.S. Ioannidis, J.P.A. Mokrysz, C. Nosek, B.A. Flint, J. Robinson, E.S.J. & Munafo, M.R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14: 365–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CCAC (Canadian Council on Animal Care). (1991). CCAC policy statement on: categories of invasiveness in animal experiments. http://www.ccac.ca/en_/standards/policies/policy-categories_of_invasiveness (accessed 12 December 2016).Google Scholar
Duncan, I.J.H. Fraser, D. (1997). Understanding animal welfare. In Appleby, M.C. & Hughes, B.O. (eds.), Animal welfare. Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Dwan, K. Altman, D.G. Arnaiz, J.A. Bloom, J. Chan, A-W. Cronin, E. Decullier, E. Easterbrook, P.J. von Elm, E. Gamble, C. Ghersi, D. Ioannidis, J.P.A. Simes, J. Williamson, P.R. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE, 3:e3081.Google Scholar
EurActive. (2013). Third successful citizens’ petition calls for end to animal testing. http://www.euractiv.com/pa/third-successful-citizens-petiti-news-531404 (accessed 12 December 2016).Google Scholar
European Commission. (2012). Working document on a severity assessment framework. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/Endorsed_Severity_Assessment.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016).Google Scholar
European Commission. (2013a). Examples to illustrate the process of severity classification, day-to-day assessment and actual severity assessment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/examples.pdf (accessed January 2017).Google Scholar
European Commission. (2013b). Seventh report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0859 (accessed 12 December 2016).Google Scholar
Franco, N.H. (2013). Animal experiments in biomedical research: A historical perspective. Animals, 3: 238–273.Google Scholar
Franco, N.H. & Olsson, I.A.S. (2012). ‘How sick must your mouse be?’ – An analysis of the use of animal models in huntington’s disease research. Atla-Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 40: 271–283.Google Scholar
Gama Sosa, M. De Gasperi, R. Elder, G. (2012). Modeling human neurodegenerative diseases in transgenic systems. Human Genetics, 131: 535–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honess, P. & Wolfensohn, S. (2010). The extended welfare assessment grid: A matrix for the assessment of welfare and cumulative suffering in experimental animals. Atla-Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 38: 205–212.Google Scholar
Ito, R. Takahashi, T. Katano, I. & Ito, M. (2012). Current advances in humanized mouse models. Cellular & Molexular Immunology, 9: 208–214.Google Scholar
Katz, D.M. Berger-Sweeney, J.E. Eubanks, J.H. Justice, M.J. Neul, J.L. Pozzo-Miller, L. Blue, M.E. Christian, D. Crawley, J.N. & Giustetto, M. (2012). Preclinical research in Rett syndrome: Setting the foundation for translational success. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 5: 733–745.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). (2005). Committee on Applications of Toxicogenomics to Cross-Species Extrapolation. Application of Toxicogenomics to Cross-Species Extrapolation: A Report of a Workshop. Washington DC. National Academies Press (US).Google Scholar
Olsson, I.A.S. (2010). Measuring welfare. In Mills, D.S., Marchant-Forde, J.N., McGereevy, P.D., Morton, D.B., Nicol, C.J., Phillips, C.J.C., Sandøe, P. & Swaisgood, R.R. (eds.), Encyclopedia of applied animal behaviour and welfare. Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing, pp. 407–408.Google Scholar
Olsson, I.A.S. Franco, N.H. Weary, D.M. Sandøe, P. (2011). The 3Rs principle – mind the ethical gap! ALTEX, 29: 333–336.Google Scholar
Pound, P. Bracken, M.B. (2014). Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? TheBMJ, 348.Google Scholar
Richardson, C.A. & Flecknell, P.A. (2005). Anaesthesia and post-operative analgesia following experimental surgery in laboratory rodents: Are we making progress? Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: ATLA, 33: 119–127.Google Scholar
Russell, W. & Burch, R. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Sena, E.S. van der Worp, H.B. Bath, P.M.W. Howells, D.W. & Macleod, M.R. (2010). Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. Plos Biology, 8: e1000344.Google Scholar
Shultz, L.D. Brehm, M.A. Garcia, J.V. & Greiner, D.L. (2012). Humanized mice for immune system investigation: Progress, promise and challenges. Nature Reviews Immunology, 12: 786–798.Google Scholar
Smith, J.A. & Boyd, K.M. (1991). Lives in the balance: The ethics of using animals in biomedical research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J.A. van den Broek, F.A.R. Martorell, J.C. Hackbarth, H. Ruksenas, O. & Zeller, W. (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
Spangenberg, E.M. & Keeling, L.J. (2016). Assessing the welfare of laboratory mice in their home environment using animal-based measures – a benchmarking tool. Laboratory Animals, 50: 30–38.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2014). Product Development Under the Animal Rule: Guidance for Industry. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm399217.pdf (Accessed 2016-12-12).Google Scholar
van der Worp, H.B. de Haan, P. Morrema, E. & Kalkman, C.J. (2005). Methodological quality of animal studies on neuroprotection in focal cerebral ischaemia. Journal of Neurology, 252: 1108–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varga, O.E. Zsíros, N. & Olsson, I.A. (2015). Estimating the predictive validity of diabetic animal models in rosiglitazone studies. Obesity Reviews, 16: 498–507.Google Scholar
WellcomeTrust. (2015). Statement supporting European Directive 2010/63/EU’ on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stop-vivisection-initiative-joint-statement-mar15.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016).Google Scholar
Wolfensohn, S. Sharpe, S. Hall, I. Lawrence, S. Kitchen, S. & Dennis, M. (2015). Refinement of welfare through development of a quantitative system for assessment of lifetime experience. Animal Welfare, 24: 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). (2014). Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 25th Ed. ISBN of volume I: 978-92-95108-01-1 Chapter 7.1, Article 7.1.1. http://www.oie.int/en/international-standard-setting/terrestrial-code/Google Scholar
Yeates, J.W. (2010). Death is a welfare issue. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 23: 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar