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
6 - Public Involvement: How and Why?
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. 91 - 138Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Aldhous, P., Coghlan, A. & Copley, J. (1999). Animal experiments-where do you draw the line?: let the people speak. New Scientist, 162: 26.Google Scholar
AXLR8. (2015). EU-funded 3Rs research. http://www.axlr8.eu/eu-funded-3rs-research/ (accessed 7 May 2015).Google Scholar
Bovenkerk, B., Brom, F. W. & van Den Bergh, B. J. (2002). Brave new birds: The use of ‘animal integrity’ in animal ethics. Hastings Center Report, 32: 16–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corrado, M., Rowley, H. & Evans, M. (2010). Views on animal experimentation. Ipsos MORI. https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/sri-views-on-animal-experimentation-2010.pdf (accessed, 12 December 2016).Google Scholar
European Commission. (2015a). EU Citizens’ Initiative. http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome (accessed 12 December 2016).Google Scholar
European Commission. (2015b). Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Stop Vivisection’. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/vivisection/en.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016).Google Scholar
Special Eurobarameter 442. doi:10.2875/884639.Google Scholar
Gjerris, M. (2015). Willed blindness: A discussion of our moral shortcomings in relation to animals. Jornal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28: 517–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M. & Oliveira, A. (2014). Moral disengagement in harmful but cherished food practices? An exploration into the case of meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27: 749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R. (1964). Animal machines: The new factory farming industry. London: Vincent Stuart Publishers.Google Scholar
Herzog, H., Rowan, A. N. & Kossow, D. (2001). Social attitudes and animals,. In Salem, D. J. & Rowan, A. N. (eds.), The state of the animals (pp. 55–69). Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.Google Scholar
Kleveland, L. (2005). Platforms and Funds for Alternatives to Animal Experimentation. A report from The Norwegian Reference Centre for Laboratory Animal Science & Alternatives, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo, Norway. http://oslovet.norecopa.no/platform/report/ecopaplatforms.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016).Google Scholar
Leaman, J., Latter, J. & Clemence, M. (2014). Attitudes to animal research in 2014. A report by Ipsos MORI for the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/sri_BISanimalresearch_NONTRENDreport.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016).Google Scholar
Lund, T. B. (2011). Painful dilemmas. PhD thesis. Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen. p.159.Google Scholar
Lund, T. B., Lassen, J. & Sandøe, P. (2012). Public attitude formation regarding animal research. Anthrozoös, 25: 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, T. B., Mørkbak, M. R., Lassen, J. & Sandøe, P. (2014). Painful dilemmas: A study of the way the public’s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits. Public Understanding of Science, 23: 428–444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meijboom, L. B. F. & Stassen, E. N. (eds.). (2016). The end of animal life: A start for ethical Debate. Ethical and societal considerations on killing animals. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Press.Google Scholar
National Centre for the Replacement Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3RC). (2014). Annual report. London. http://nc3rs.org.uk/annualreport2014/.Google Scholar
National Centre for the Replacement Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3RC). (2015). Responsibility in the use of animals in bioscience research: Expectations of the major research council and charitable funding bodies. https://www.mrc.ac.uk/publications/browse/responsibility-in-the-use-of-animals-in-research/ (accessed 12 December 2016).Google Scholar
Nielsen, A. P., Lassen, J. & Sandøe, P. (2004). Involving the public – participatory methods and democratic ideals. Global Bioethics, 17: 191–201.Google Scholar
Nielsen, A. P., Lassen, J. & Sandøe, P. (2007). Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20: 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, A. P. & Sandøe, P. (2007). Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20: 13–35.Google Scholar
Röcklinsberg, H., Gamborg, C. & Gjerris, M. (2014). A case for integrity: Gains from including more than animal welfare in animal ethics committee deliberations. Laboratory Animals, 48: 61–71.Google Scholar
Röcklinsberg, H. (2015). Lay persons involvement and public interest. Ethical assessment in animal ethics committees in Sweden. The Swedish Transition Process of the EU Directive 2010/63/EU With Regard to Harm-Benefit Analysis in Animal Ethics Committees. ALTEX Proceedings, 4(1): 45–48.Google Scholar
Rollin, B. E. (2006). The regulation of animal research and the emergence of animal ethics: A conceptual history. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27: 285–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25: 3–29.Google Scholar
Schuppli, C. A. (2011). Decisions about the use of animals in research: Ethical reflection by animal ethics committee members. Anthrozoös, 24: 409–425.Google Scholar
van Asselt Marjolein, B. & Rijkens-Klomp, N. (2002). A look in the mirror: Reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change, 12: 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vapnek, J. & Chapman, M. (2010). Legislative and regulatory options for animal welfare. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization for the United Nations.Google Scholar
Vieira de Castro, A. C. & Olsson, I. A. (2015). Does the goal justify the methods? Harm and benefit in neuroscience research using animals. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 19: 47–78.Google Scholar
von Roten, F. C. (2009). European attitudes towards animal research overview and consequences for science. Science Technology & Society, 14: 349–364.Google Scholar