Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:08:06.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2017

Vaughan Monamy
Vaughan Monamy
Affiliation:
Australian Catholic University, North Sydney
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Animal Experimentation
A Guide to the Issues
 , pp. 110 - 122
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, M.H., Hassanisadi, M., Jalali-Heravi, M., Ghafourian, T., Cain, W.S. and Cometto-Muniz, J.E. 2003. Draize rabbit eye test compatibility with eye irritation thresholds in humans: a quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis. Toxicological Sciences 76: 384–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adams, R. 1977. The Plague Dogs. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Akhtar, A. 2015. The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24: 407–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs 1989. Council report on animals in research. Journal of the American Medical Association 261: 3602–3606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Animal Welfare Committee 2007. National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines for the Generation, Breeding, Care, and Use of Genetically Modified and Cloned Animals for Scientific Purposes. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
Anon. 1992. Scientific procedures on living animals, cited in Porter, D.G. Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 356: 101–102.Google Scholar
Ashall, V. and Millar, K. 2014. Endpoint matrix: a conceptual tool to promote consideration of the multiple dimensions of humane endpoints. Alternatives to Animal Experimentation 31: 209–213.Google ScholarPubMed
Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour 2012. Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Animal Behaviour 83: 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching 2013. Ethical guidelines for students in laboratory classes using animals or animal tissues. www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/docs/aust-ethical-guide2013.pdf.Google Scholar
Australian Government, Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare 1989. Animal Experimentation. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Bacon, F. 1605/2001. The Advancement of Learning (1605), Gould, S.J. (ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Bailey, K.R., Rustay, N.R. and Crawley, J.N. 2006. Behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout mice: practical concerns and potential pitfalls. ILAR Journal 47: 124–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, K.C. and Dettmer, A.M. 2016. The well-being of laboratory non-human primates. American Journal of Primatology doi:10.1002/ajp.22520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcombe, J.P., Barnard, N.D. and Sandusky, C. 2004. Laboratory routines cause animal stress. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 43: 42–51.Google ScholarPubMed
Balls, M. 1990. Recent progress toward reducing the use of animal experimentation in biomedical research. In Garattini, S. and van Bekkum, D.W. (eds.), The Importance of Animal Experimentation for Safety and Biomedical Research, pp. 223–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battye, J. 1994. Ethics and animal welfare - where do we go from here? In Baker, R.M., Mellor, D.J. and Nicol, A.M. (eds.) Animal Welfare in the Twenty-First Century: Ethical, Educational and Scientific Challenges, pp. 3–10. Adelaide: ANZCCART.Google Scholar
Baumans, V., Coke, C., Green, J., Moreau, E., Morton, D., Patterson-Kane, E., Reinhardt, A., Reinhardt, V. and Van Loo, P. (eds.) 2007. Making Lives Easier for Animals in Research Labs. Washington DC: Animal Welfare Institute. www.awionline.org/pubs/LAREF/LAREF-bk.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bayne, K. and Würbel, H. 2014. The impact of environmental enrichment on the outcome variability and scientific validity of laboratory animal studies. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties (Paris) 33: 273–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayne, K., Ramachandra, G.S., Rivera, E.A. and Wang, J. 2015. The evolution of animal welfare and the 3Rs in Brazil, China, and India. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 54: 181–191.Google ScholarPubMed
Behrens, K.G. 2014. Genetic modification (GMOs): Animals. In ten Have, H. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics, pp. 1–10. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_209-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M. (ed.) 2013. Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benassi, L., Bertazzoni, G. and Seidenari, S. 1999. In vitro testing of tensides employing monolayer cultures: a comparison with results of patch tests on human volunteers. Contact Dermatitis 40: 38–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benison, S. 1970. In defense of medical research. Harvard Medical, Alumni Bulletin 44: 16–23.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1789/1970. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. In Burns, J.H. and Hart, H.L.A. (eds.), The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol. 2.1. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Bernard, C. 1865/1957. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, trans. Greene, H.C., 1957. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Bilbo, S.D. and Nelson, R.J. 2001. Behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout animals: a cautionary tale. Lab Animal 30: 24–29.Google ScholarPubMed
Birch, C. 1993. Regaining Compassion for Humanity and Nature. Kensington: New South Wales University Press, pp. 86–96.Google Scholar
Bliss, M. 1982. The Discovery of Insulin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Brabazon, J. 1976. Albert Schweitzer: A Biography. London: Victor Gollancz.Google Scholar
Britt, D. 1984. Ethics, ethical committees and animal experimentation. Nature 311: 503–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bronowski, J. 1956. Science and Human Values, revised edition 1965. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Brown, M.J. and Murray, K.A. 2006. Phenotyping of genetically engineered mice: humane, ethical, environmental, and husbandry issues. ILAR Journal 47: 118–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruce, D. and Bruce, A. 2003. Genetic engineering and animal welfare. In Armstrong, S.J. and Botzler, R.G. (eds.), The Animal Ethics Reader, pp. 313–322. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buehr, M., Hjorth, J.P. and Hansen, A.K. 2003. Genetically modified laboratory animals – what welfare problems do they face? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6: 319–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burden, N., Sewell, F. and Chapman, K. 2015. Testing chemical safety: what is needed to ensure the widespread application of non-animal approaches? PLOS Biology 13(5) e1002156. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calisi, R.M. and Bentley, G.E. 2009. Lab and field experiments: are they the same animal? Hormones and Behavior 56: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callicott, J.B. 1989. In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, A. 1989. Cited in Animal Experimentation, Australian Government, Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
CIOMS and ICLAS, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) 2012. International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals. www.cioms.ch.Google Scholar
Clark, S.R.L. 1984. The Moral Status of Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, S.R.L. 1997. Animals and Their Moral Standing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cloutier, S., Panksepp, J. and Newberry, R.C. 2012. Playful handling by caretakers reduces fear of humans in the laboratory rat. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 140: 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordelli, E., Fresegna, A.M., D’Alessio, A., Spano, M., Villani, P. and Pacchierotti, F. 2007. A new in vitro method to assess DNA damage in sperm as an alternative to animal testing in reproductive toxicology. Toxicology Letters 172: S76. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2007.05.218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottingham, J. 1978. A brute to the brutes?: Descartes’ treatment of animals. Philosophy 53: 551–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranefield, P.F. 1974. The Way In and the Way Out: François Magendie, Charles Bell, and the Roots of the Spinal Nerves. New York: Futura.Google Scholar
Cressey, D. 2011. Animal research: battle scars. Nature 470: 452–453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crettaz von Roten, F. 2012. Public perceptions of animal experimentation across Europe. Public Understanding of Science 22: 691–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtright, A., Rosser, M., Goh, S. Keown, B., Wagner, E., Sharifi, J., Raible, D.W. and Dhaka, A. 2015. Modeling nociception in zebrafish: a way forward for unbiased analgesic discovery. PloS One 10(1): e0116766. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daneshian, M., Busquet, F., Hartung, T. and Leist, M. 2015. Animal use for science in Europe. Alternatives to Animal Experimentation 32: 261–274.Google ScholarPubMed
Darwin, C. 1859/2009. On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1871/2004. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1881/1985. The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms. Facsimile of the first edition reprinted by the University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Daston, G., Knight, D.J., Schwarz, M., Gocht, T., Thomas, R.S., Mahony, C. and Whelan, M. 2015. SEURAT: Safety evaluation ultimately replacing animal testing – recommendations for future research in the field of predictive toxicology. Archives of Toxicology 89: 15–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, J. (ed.) 2012a. Replacing Animal Models: A Practical Guide to Creating and Using Culture-based Biomimetic Alternatives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, J. 2012b. Potential advantages of using biomimetic alternatives. In Davies, J. (ed.) Replacing Animal Models: A Practical Guide to Creating and Using Culture-based Biomimetic Alternatives, pp. 3–11. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denton, D. 1993. The Pinnacle of Life: Consciousness and Self-Awareness in Humans and Animals. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. 1637/1984. Discours de la Méthode, trans. Curtis, D. London: Grant and Cutler.Google Scholar
Dewhurst, D. 2008. Is it possible to meet the learning objectives of undergraduate pharmacology classes with non-animal models? Alternatives to Animal Testing and Experimentation 14: 207–212.Google Scholar
Di Marco, P.N., Howell, J.McC. and Dorling, P.R. 1984. Bovine glycogenosis type II. Biochemical and morphological characteristics of skeletal muscle in culture. Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology 10: 379–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Draize, J.H., Woodward, G. and Calvery, H.O. 1944. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapy 82: 377–390.Google Scholar
Duckworth, W.L.H., Lyons, M.C. and Towers, B. (eds.) 1962. Galen, On Anatomical Procedures: The Later Books. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eisemann, C.H., Jorgensen, W.K., Merritt, D.J., Rice, M.J., Cribb, B.W., Webb, P.D. and Zalucki, M.P. 1984. Do insects feel pain? - A biological view. Experientia 40: 164–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elwood, R.W. 2011. Pain and suffering in invertebrates? ILAR Journal 52: 175–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enders, J.F., Weller, T.H. and Robbins, F.C. 1949. Cultivation of the Lansing strain of poliomyelitis virus in cultures of various human embryonic tissue. Science 109: 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2009. EC Regulation No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. In Official Journal of the European Union. Brussels: EC, 2009, pp. 52–59.Google Scholar
European Commission 2010. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. In Official Journal of the European Union. Brussels: EC, 2010, pp. 33–79.Google Scholar
European Commission 2013. Animals Used for Scientific Purposes. 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://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/reports_en.htm.Google Scholar
Feng, W., Dai, Y., Mou, L., Cooper, D.K.C., Shi, D. and Cai, Z. 2015. The potential of the combination of CRISPR/Cas9 and pluripotent stem cells to provide human organs from chimaeric pigs. International Journal of Molecular Science 16: 6545–6556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, J.A. 1987. Taking sympathy seriously: a defense of our moral psychology toward animals. Environmental Ethics 9: 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleetwood, G., Chlebus, M., Coenen, J., Dudoignon, N., Lecerf, C., Maisonneuve, C. and Robinson, S. 2015. Making progress and gaining momentum in global 3Rs efforts: how the European pharmaceutical industry is contributing. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 54: 192–197.Google ScholarPubMed
Flemming, A.H. 1984. Ethical Considerations, cited in US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1986, Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education, p. 74. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Flexner, S. and Lewis, P.A. 1909. The transmission of acute poliomyelitis to monkeys. Journal of the American Medical Association 53(20): 1639. doi:10.1001/jama.1909.92550200027002g.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FRAME Toxicity Committee 1991. Animals and alternatives in toxicology: present status and future prospects. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 19: 116–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, N.H. 2013. Animal experiments in biomedical research: a historical perspective. Animals 3: 238–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franco, N.H. and Olsson, I.A.S. 2014. Scientists and the 3Rs: attitudes to animal use in biomedical research and the effect of mandatory training in laboratory animal science. Laboratory Animals 48: 50–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franco, N.H., Correia-Neves, M. and Olsson, I.A.S. 2012. How “humane” is your endpoint?—Refining the science-driven approach for termination of animal studies of chronic infection. PLoS Pathogens 8(1): e1002399. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1002399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, A. 2007. Human-nonhuman animal relationships in Australia: an overview of results from the first national survey and follow-up case studies 2000–2004. Society and Animals 15: 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, R.D. 1975. Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
French, R.D. 1978. Animal experimentation: historical aspects. In Reich, W.T. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, Vol. 1, pp. 75–79. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
French, R.D. 1999. Dissection and Vivisection in the European Renaissance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Galen, , 1956. On Anatomical Procedures, trans. Singer, C. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Galvin, S.L. and Herzog, H.A. 1998. Attitudes and dispositional optimism of animal rights demonstrators. Society and Animals 6: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, K., Büttner, D., Döhler, K., Friedel, R., Lindena, J. and Trautschold, I. 1980. Stress response of rats to handling and experimental procedures. Laboratory Animals 14: 267–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaughen, S. (ed.) 2005. Animal Rights: Contemporary Issues Companion. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.Google Scholar
Gauthier, C. and Griffin, G. 2005. Using animals in research, testing and teaching. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties 24: 735–745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerner, I., Liebsch, M. and Spielmann, H. 2005. Assessment of the eye irritating properties of chemicals by applying alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye test: the use of QSARs and in vitro tests for the classification of eye irritation. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 33: 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, J.R. and Sanders, C.R. 2011. In favor of tipping the balance: animal rights activists in defense of residential picketing. Society and Animals 19: 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gott, M. and Monamy, V. 2004. Ethics and transgenesis: towards a policy framework incorporating intrinsic objections and societal perceptions. Alternative to Laboratory Animals 32, Supplement 1A: 391–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, D.M. 2016. Methods for measuring pain in laboratory animals. Lab Animal 45: 99–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, L., Hopkinson, P., Jennings, G. and Jenner, F.A. 1971. Period of adjustment of rats used for experimental studies. Nature 232: 135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, G.E., Laher, F., Lazarus, E., Ensoli, B. and Corey, L. 2016. Approaches to preventative and therapeutic HIV vaccines. Current Opinion in Virology 17: 104–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, D. and Tolba, R.H. 2015. Ethics in animal-based research. European Surgical Research 55: 43–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruen, L. 1991. Animals. In Singer, P. (ed.), A Companion to Ethics, pp. 343–353. Oxford: Blackwell Reference.Google Scholar
Gruen, L. 2011. Ethics and Animals: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruen, L. 2014. The Moral Status of Animals, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Zlatan, E.N. (ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/moral-animal/.Google Scholar
Guillén, J., Prins, J.B., Smith, D. and Degryse, A.D. 2014. The European framework on research animal welfare regulations and guidelines. In Guillén, J. (ed.), Laboratory Animals: Regulations and Recommendations for Global Collaborative Research, pp. 117–188. New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakkinen, P.J. and Green, D.K. 2002. Alternatives to animal testing: information resources via the internet and world wide web. Toxicology 173: 3–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harmon, T.M., Fisher, K.A., McGlynn, M.G., Stover, J., Warren, M.J., Teng, Y. and Näveke, A. 2016. Exploring the potential health impact and cost-effectiveness of AIDS vaccine within a comprehensive HIV/AIDS response in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146387. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartung, T. 2011. From alternative methods to a new toxicology. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics 77: 338–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, W. 1628/1978. Exercitatio anatomica de motu cordis et sanguinis in animalibus: being a facsimile of the 1628 Francofurti edition, together with the Keynes English translation of 1928. Birmingham, AL: Classics of Medicine Library.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, J.C. and Koh, L.P. 2016. Best practice for minimising unmanned aerial vehicle disturbance to wildlife in biological field research. Current Biology 26: R404-R405 doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.04.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoggatt, J., Hoggatt, A.F., Tate, T.A., Fortman, J. and Pelus, L.M. 2016. Bleeding the laboratory mouse: not all methods are equal. Experimental Hematology 44: 132–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooijmans, C.R., Tillema, A., Leenaars, M. and Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. 2010. Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed. Laboratory Animals 44: 170–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howell, J.McC., Dorling, P.R. and Cook, R.D. 1983. Generalized glycogenosis type II. Comparative Pathology Bulletin 15: 2–4.Google Scholar
Hubrecht, R.C. 2014. The Welfare of Animals Used in Research: Practice and Ethics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hubrecht, R.C. and Kirkwood, J. (eds.) 2010. The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals, eighth edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, C.W. 1962. Man and Beast. London: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.Google Scholar
Humphrey, N.K. 1983. Consciousness Regained: Chapters in the Development of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Infield, L. 1963. Immanuel Kant: Lectures on Ethics. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Jackson, S.J., Andrews, N., Ball, D., Bellantuono, I., Gray, J., Hachoumi, L., Holmes, A., Latcham, J., Petrie, A., Potter, P., Rice, A., Ritchie, A., Stewart, M., Strepka, C., Yeoman, M. and Chapman, K. 2016. Does age matter? The impact of rodent age on study outcomes. Laboratory Animals doi:10.1177/0023677216653984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joffe, A.R., Bara, M., Anton, N. and Nobis, N. 2016. The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America. BMC Medical Ethics 17: 17 doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0100-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jung, K., Lee, S., Jang, W., Jung, H., Heo, Y., Park, Y., Bae, S., Lim, K. and Seok, S. 2014. KeraSkinTM_VM: a novel reconstructed human epidermis model for skin irritation tests. Toxicology in Vitro 28: 742–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kar, S. and Roy, K. 2014. Quantification of contributions of molecular fragments for eye irritation of organic chemicals using QSAR study. Computers in Biology and Medicine 48: 102–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kew, O. 2012. Reaching the last one per cent: progress and challenges in global polio eradication. Current Opinion in Virology 2: 188–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W.J., Cuthill, I.C., Emerson, M. and Altman, D.G. 2010. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PloS Biology 8(6): e1000412. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilkenny, C., Parsons, N., Kadyszewski, E., Festing, M.F.W., Cuthill, I.C., Fry, D., Hutton, J. and Altman, D.G. 2009. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PloS One 4(11): e7824. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchell, R.L. and Erickson, H.H. 1983. Introduction. In Kitchell, R.L. and Erickson, H.H. (eds.), Animal Pain: Perception and Alleviation, p. vii. Bethesda: American Physiological Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, A. 2007. The effectiveness of humane teaching methods in veterinary education. Alternatives to Animal Testing and Experimentation 24: 91–109.Google ScholarPubMed
Knight, A. 2008. 127 million non-human vertebrates used worldwide for scientific purposes in 2005. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36: 494–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, A. 2011. The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lairmore, M.D. and Ilkiw, J. 2015. Animals used in research and education, 1966–2016: evolving attitudes, policies, and relationships. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 42: 425–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langley, G. 1989. Plea for a sensitive science. In Langley, G. (ed.), Animal Experimentation: The Consensus Changes, pp. 193–218. Oxford: MacMillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, G., Noveck, R. and Burt, T. 2013. Microdosing and drug development: past, present and future. Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism and Toxicology 9: 817–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leahman, J., Latter, J. and Clemence, M. 2014. Attitudes to Animal Research in 2014: A Report by Ipsos MORI for the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. London: Ipsos MORI, Social Research Institute.Google Scholar
Lederer, S.E. 1987. The controversy over animal experimentation in America, 1880–1914. In Rupke, N.A. (ed.), Vivisection in Historical Perspective, pp. 236–258. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindsjö, J., Fahlman, A. and Törnqvist, E. 2016. Animal welfare from mouse to moose – implementing the principles of the 3Rs in wildlife research. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 52(2) Suppl.: S65-S77 doi:10.7589/52.2S.S65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linzey, A. 1989. Reverence, responsibility and rights. In Paterson, D. and Palmer, M. (eds.), The Status of Animals: Ethics, Education and Welfare, pp. 20–50. Oxford: CABI.Google Scholar
Linzey, A. and Clarke, P.A.B. 2004. Animal Rights: A Historical Anthology. Irvington, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Littin, K.E. 2010. Animal welfare and pest control: meeting both conservation and animal welfare goals. Animal Welfare 19: 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maehle, A-H. and Tröhler, U. 1987. Animal experimentation from antiquity to the end of the eighteenth century: attitudes and arguments. In Rupke, N.A. (ed.), Vivisection in Historical Perspective, pp. 14–47. London: Croom-Helm.Google Scholar
Manning, H. 1887/1934. Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster on Vivisection. London: Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection. Republished Melbourne.Google Scholar
Mather, J.A. 2011. Philosophical background of attitudes toward and treatment of invertebrates. ILAR Journal 52: 205–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medina, L.V., Coenen, J. and Kastello, M.D. 2015. Global 3Rs efforts – making progress and gaining momentum. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 54: 115–118.Google ScholarPubMed
Mellor, D.J. 2015a. Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63: 9–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mellor, D.J. 2015b. Positive animal welfare states and reference standards for welfare assessment. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63: 17–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mellor, D.J. 2016. Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond the “five freedoms” towards “a life worth living.” Animals 6: 21. doi:10.3390/ani6030021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, D., Patterson-Kane, K. and Stafford, K.J. 2009. The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miles, A., Berthet, A., Hopf, N.B., Gilliet, M., Raffoul, W., Vernez, D. and Spring, P. 2014. A new alternative method for testing skin irritation using a human skin model: a pilot study. Toxicology in Vitro 28: 240–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, A. 2001. How to measure welfare of transgenic farm animals. Proceedings of a workshop, The Welfare of Transgenic Animals, p. 20. Adelaide: ANZCCART.Google Scholar
Moberg, G.P. 2000. Biological response to stress: implications for animal welfare. In Moberg, G.P. and Mench, J.A. (eds.), The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic Principles and Implications for Animal Welfare, pp. 1–22. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monamy, V. 2007. Hot iron branding of seals and sea lions: why the ban will remain. Australian Veterinary Journal 85: 485–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monamy, V. and Gott, M. 2001. Practical and ethical considerations for students conducting ecological research involving wildlife. Austral Ecology 26: 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, D.B. 2000. A systematic approach for establishing humane endpoints. ILAR Journal 41: 80–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, D.B. and Griffiths, P.H.M. 1985. Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. Veterinary Record 116: 431–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukerjee, M. 1997. Trends in animal research. Scientific American 276: 86–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nash, R.F. 1990. The Rights of Nature. Sydney: Primavera Press.Google Scholar
National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) 2012. Guide to the Preparation of Codes of Ethical Conduct. www.mpi.govt.nz/protection-and-response/animal-welfare/animals-in-research-testing-teaching/.Google Scholar
National Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research 2006. NC3Rs Guidelines: Non-Human Primate Accommodation, Care and Use. London: National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. www.nc3rs.org.uk/non-human-primate-accommodation-care-and-use.Google Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council 1990. Strategies for Minimising the Numbers of Animals used in Research Projects. Canberra: Australian Government Printer.Google Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council 2013. Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, eighth edition. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council.Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health 2005. Enrichment for Non-Human Primates. Washington DC: Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/Enrichment_for_Nonhuman_Primates.pdf.Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health 2015. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Bethesda, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspolicylabanimals.pdf.Google Scholar
National Research Council 1985. Models for Biomedical Research: A New Perspective. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council 1988. Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2008. Recognition and Alleviation of Distress in Laboratory Animals. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, eighth edition, Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2016. Genome Editing: An Ethical Review. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
OECD 2012. Fish Toxicity Testing Framework. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 171 ENV/JM/MONO(2012)16. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
Orlans, F.B. 1993. In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ormandy, E.H. and Schuppli, C.A. 2014. Public attitudes toward animal research: a review. Animals 4: 391–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ormandy, E.H., Dale, J. and Griffin, G. 2011. Genetic engineering of animals: ethical issues, including welfare concerns. Canadian Veterinary Journal 52: 544–550.Google ScholarPubMed
Ormandy, E.H., Schuppli, C.A. and Weary, D.M. 2012. Factors affecting people’s acceptance of the use of zebrafish and mice in research. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 40: 321–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osterrieder, S.K., Kent, C.S., Anderson, C.J.R., Parnum, I.M. and Robinson, R.W. 2015. Whisker spot patterns: a noninvasive method of individual identification of Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea). Journal of Mammalogy 96: 988–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, R.M.A. and Browne, W.J. 2014. The place of experimental design and statistics in the 3Rs. ILAR Journal 55: 477–485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paton, W.D.M. 1993. Man and Mouse: Animals in Medical Research, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, E., Sikes, R.S., Beaupre, S.J. and Wingfield, J.C. 2015. Animal welfare policy: implementation in the context of wildlife research – policy review and discussion of fundamental issues. ILAR Journal 56: 312–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, P. 2007. The ethics of animal research: a UK perspective. ILAR Journal 48: 42–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, M.T. and Sechzer, J.A. 1989. Animal Research and Ethical Conflict: An Analysis of the Scientific Literature 1966–1986. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pifer, L., Shimizu, K. and Pifer, R. 1994. Public attitudes toward animal research: some international comparisons. Society and Animals 2: 95–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plint, A.C., Moher, D., Morrison, A., Schulz, K., Altman, D.G., Hill, C. and Gaboury, I. 2006. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Medical Journal of Australia 185: 263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poling, A., Schlinger, H., Starin, S. and Blakely, E. 1990. Psychology: A Behavioral Overview. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, D.G. 1992. Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 356: 101–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poumay, Y. and Coquette, A. 2007. Modelling the human epidermis in vitro: tools for basic and applied research. Archives of Dermatological Research 298: 361–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Regan, T. 1981. Animal rights and animal experimentation. In Basson, M.D. (ed.), Rights and Responsibilities in Modern Medicine, pp. 69–83. New York: Alan R. Liss.Google Scholar
Regan, T. 1982. All That Dwell Therein: Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Regan, T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Regan, T. 1985. The case for animal rights. In Singer, P. (ed.), In Defense of Animals, pp. 13–26. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Regan, T. 1990. The struggle for animal rights. In Clarke, P.A.B. and Linzey, A. (eds.), Political Theory and Animal Rights, pp. 176–186. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Regan, T. and Singer, P. (eds.) 1976. Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Remfry, J. 1987. Ethical aspects of animal experimentation. In Tuffery, A.A. (ed.), Laboratory Animals: An Introduction for New Experimenters, pp. 5–19. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Riordan, S.M., Heruth, D.P., Zhang, L.Q. and Ye, S.Q. 2015. Application of CRISPR/Cas9 for biomedical discoveries. Cell & Bioscience 5: 33. doi:10.1186/s13578-015-0027-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodd, R. 1990. Biology, Ethics and Animals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rollin, B.E. 1981. Animal Rights and Human Morality. New York: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Rolston, H. 1988. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, M. and Adams, D. 1989. Evidence for pain and suffering in other animals. In Langley, G. (ed.), Animal Experimentation: The Consensus Changes, pp. 42–71. Oxford: MacMillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfield, L.C. 1940. From Beast-Machine to Man-Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, J. 2015. Research: animals. Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_373-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, M. 1986. Animals and Man. The Romanes Lecture for 1984–85. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rowan, A.N. 1984. Of Mice, Models and Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Rowan, A.N. and Rollin, B.E. 1983. Animal research - for and against: a philosophical, social, and historical perspective. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 27: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
RSPCA and LASA 2015. Guiding Principles on Good Practice for Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies. A report by the RSPCA Research Animals Department and LASA Education, Training and Ethics Section. (Jennings, M., ed.).Google Scholar
Rubin, S.A. 2011. Toward replacement of the monkey neurovirulence test in vaccine safety testing. Procedia in Vaccinology 5: 261–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupke, N.A. 1987. Introduction. In Rupke, N.A. (ed.), Vivisection in Historical Perspective, pp. 1–13. London: Croom-Helm.Google Scholar
Russell, W.M.S. and Burch, R.L. 1959/1992. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: UFAW.Google Scholar
Rutherford, K.M.D. 2002. Assessing pain in animals. Animal Welfare 11: 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryder, R.D. 1975. Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research. London: Davis-Poynter.Google Scholar
Ryder, R.D. 2000. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism, second edition. Oxford: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
Sagan, C. and Druyan, A. 1992. Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: A Search for Who We Are. Sydney: Random House.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, A. 1936. Indian Thought and Its Development. London: Adam and Charles Black.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, A. 1955. Civilization and Ethics, third edition. London: Adam and Charles Black.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, A. 1966. My Life and Thought: An Autobiography. London: Unwin Books.Google Scholar
Selye, H. 1975. The Stress of Life, second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Selye, H. 1976. Stress in Health and Disease. Boston: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Seruggia, D. and Montoliu, L. 2014. The new CRISPR-Cas system: RNA-guided genome engineering to efficiently produce any desired genetic alteration in animals. Transgenic Research 23: 707–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L. and Marler, P. 1980. Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210: 801–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaw, G.B. 1912. The Uselessness of the Vivisection Inspector. London: British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.Google Scholar
Shugg, W. 1968a. Humanitarian attitudes in the early animal experiments of the royal society. Annals of Science 24: 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugg, W. 1968b. The Cartesian beast-machine in English literature (1663–1750). Journal of the History of Ideas 29: 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikes, R.S. and Bryan, J.A. II. 2015. Institutional animal care and use committee considerations for the use of wildlife in research and education. ILAR Journal 56: 335–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikes, R.S. and the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists 2016. 2016 guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. Journal of Mammalogy 97: 663–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, C.J. 1957. A Short History of Anatomy from the Greeks to Harvey, second edition. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1978. Animal experimentation: philosophical perspectives. In Reich, W.T. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, Vol. 1, pp. 79–83. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1979. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1990. Animal Liberation, second edition. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1993. Practical Ethics, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 2011. Practical Ethics, third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, P., Schimenti, J.C. and Bolcun-Filas, E. 2015. A mouse geneticist’s practical guide to CRISPR applications. Genetics 199: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, J.A. and Boyd, K.M. (eds.) 1991. Lives in the Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Smyth, D.H. 1978. Alternatives to Animal Experiments. London: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Sneddon, L.U., Elwood, R.W., Adamo, S.A. and Leach, M.C. 2014. Defining and assessing animal pain. Animal Behaviour 97: 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, M.L. 1986. Maternal Deprivation Experiments in Psychology: A Critique of Animal Models. Jenkinstown, PA: The American Anti-Vivisection Society.Google Scholar
Stephens, M.L. and Mak, N.S. 2014. History of the 3Rs in toxicity testing: from Russell and Burch to 21st century toxicology. In Allen, D.G. and Waters, M.D. (eds.), Reducing, Refining and Replacing the Use of Animals in Toxicity Testing, pp. 1–43. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. 1990. Laboratory animal welfare. In Leavett, E.S. (ed.), Animals and their Legal Rights, pp. 66–105. Washington DC: Animal Welfare Institute.Google Scholar
Stone, M. 1989. Cited in Animal Experimentation, Australian Government, Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Swami, V., Furnham, A. and Christopher, A.N. 2008. Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 49: 269–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tannenbaum, J. and Bennett, B.T. 2015. Russell and Burch’s 3Rs then and now: the need for clarity in definition and purpose. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 54: 120–132.Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, K., Gordon, N., Langley, G. and Higgins, W. 2008. Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36: 327–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Townsend, P. and Morton, D.B. 1995. Laboratory animal care policies and regulations: United Kingdom. ILAR Journal 37: 68–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsunoda, M., Kido, T., Mogi, S., Sugiura, Y., Miyajima, E., Kudo, Y., Kumazawa, T. and Aizawa, Y. 2014. Skin irritation to glass wool or continuous glass filaments as observed by a patch test among human Japanese volunteers. Industrial Health 52: 439–444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, J. 1980. Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain and Humanity in the Victorian Mind. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyebkhan, G. 2003. Declaration of Helsinki: the ethical cornerstone of human clinical research. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology 69: 245–247.Google ScholarPubMed
UK Home Office 2007. Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2006. London: The Stationery Office. www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-of-scientific-procedures-on-living-animals-great-britain-2006.Google Scholar
UK Home Office 2014a. Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2013. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/327854/spanimals13.pdf.Google Scholar
UK Home Office 2014b. Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291350/Guidance_on_the_Operation_of_ASPA.pdf.Google Scholar
UK Home Office 2015. The Harm-Benefit Analysis Approach: New Project Licence Applications. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/487914/Harm_Benefit_Analysis__2_.pdf.Google Scholar
UK Home Office 2016. Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2015. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/537708/scientific-procedures-living-animals-2015.pdf.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture 2013. Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations. www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/Animal%20Care%20Blue%20Book%20-%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment 1986. Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Use of Fishes in Research Committee 2013. Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
van der Ploeg, A.T. and Reuser, A.J.J. 2008. Pompe’s disease. Lancet 372: 1342–1353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voltaire, , 1764/1962. Philosophical Dictionary, pp. 112–113, trans. Gay, P. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wade, N. 1978. New vaccine may bring man and chimpanzee into tragic conflict. Science 200: 1027–1030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, P.D. 1992. Humane treatment of animals does not mean treating animals as humans. In Kuchel, T.R., Rose, M. and Burrell, J. (eds.), Animal Pain: Ethical and Scientific Perspectives, pp. 1–12. Adelaide: ACCART.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. and Richmond, J. 2005. Regulation of animal experimentation in the United Kingdom. School Science Review 87 (319): 85–89.Google Scholar
Waugh, C. and Monamy, V. 2016. Opposing lethal wildlife research when non-lethal methods exist: scientific whaling as a case study. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 7: 231–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, J.M. 1972. Psychological factors in stress and disease. Scientific American 226: 104–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, D.J., Playle, L.C., Enser, W.E., Flecknell, P.A., Gardiner, M.A., Holland, J., Howard, B.R., Hubrecht, R., Humphreys, K.R., Jackson, I.J., Lane, N., Maconochie, M., Mason, G., Morton, D.B., Raymond, R., Robinson, V., Smith, J.A. and Watt, N. 2006. Assessing the welfare of genetically altered mice. Laboratory Animals 40: 111–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, J.R. 2014. A brief history of the development of diabetes medications. Diabetes Spectrum 27 : 82–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittaker, A.L. and Howarth, G.S. 2014. Use of spontaneous behaviour measures to assess pain in laboratory rats and mice: how are we progressing? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 151: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wick, P. Chortarea, S., Guenat, O.T., Roesslein, M., Stucki, J.D., Hirn, S., Petri-Fink, A. and Rothen-Rutishauser, B. 2015. In vitro-ex vivo model systems for nanosafety assessment. European Journal of Nanomedicine 7: 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickens, S.M. 2007. Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: A Chronicle of Eighty Years of Service. London: UFAW.Google Scholar
Wise, S.M. 2000. Rattling the Cage: Towards Legal Rights for Animals. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
Wise, S.M. 2002. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
Wolfensohn, S. and Lloyd, M. 2013. Handbook of Laboratory Animal Management and Welfare, fourth edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wong, J. 1995. Laboratory animal care policies and regulations: Canada. ILAR Journal 37: 57–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organisation. 2015. Global Health Observatory Data. www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden_disease/life_tables/situation_trends/en/.Google Scholar
Yum, S., Woo, S., Lee, A., Won, H. and Kim, J. 2014. Hydra, a candidate for an alternative model in environmental genomics. Molecular and Cellular Toxicology 10: 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Hsieh, J. and Zhu, H. 2014. Profiling animal toxicants by automatically mining public bioassay data: a big data approach for computational toxicology. PloS One 9(6): e99863. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, F., Fu, F., Cheng, Y., Wang, C., Zhao, Y. and Gu, Z. 2016. Organ-on-a-chip systems: microengineering to biomimic living systems. Small 12: 2253–2282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, H., Kim, M., Zhang, L. and Sedykh, A. 2014. Computers instead of cells: computational modelling of chemical toxicity. In Allen, D.G. and Waters, M.D. (eds.), Reducing, Refining and Replacing the Use of Animals in Toxicity Testing, pp. 163–182. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Vaughan Monamy, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney
  • Book: Animal Experimentation
  • Online publication: 16 March 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316678329.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Vaughan Monamy, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney
  • Book: Animal Experimentation
  • Online publication: 16 March 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316678329.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Vaughan Monamy, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney
  • Book: Animal Experimentation
  • Online publication: 16 March 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316678329.011
Available formats
×