Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:48:55.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Three Models for Ethical Evaluation of Proposed Animal Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

Tj de Cock Buning  and
E Theune
Tj de Cock Buning*
Affiliation:
On Ethics, Alternatives and History of Animal Experimentation, Department of Animal Problems, Faculty of Medicine, PO Box 9606, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
E Theune
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Philosophy, Wageningen Agricultural University
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Three recently developed and published schemes to evaluate the acceptability of proposed animal experiments are discussed and compared:

  1. The model developed at the request of the Dutch Veterinary Public Health Chief Inspectorate by the Department of Animal Problems of Leiden University (the ‘Dutch Model’);

  2. The model proposed by the Canadian, David G Porter (the ‘Porter model’);

  3. The model developed by the British Institute of Medical Ethics, published in ‘Lives in the Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research’ (the ‘IME model’).

It is concluded that the Porter model, although compact, does not have an acceptable level of discrimination; nor does it provide the researcher with any pragmatic tools to optimize the research design. The other models appear to be quite adequate for the different purposes for which they were developed. The Dutch model was developed to guide the evaluation procedure at the level of local institution-based committees (ie internal evaluation by colleagues), whereas the IME model will serve the professional officers of the United Kingdom Home Office Inspectorate (ie external evaluation).

Finally, the pragmatic consequences of the three models are discussed with respect to two hypothetical cases.

Keywords

animal experimentationanimal welfarecost benefit analysesethical decision models
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , May 1994 , pp. 107 - 128
Copyright
© 1994 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Footnotes

1

This paper is based on an oral presentation given at the International Academy of Animal Welfare Sciences workshop Laboratory Animal Welfare Research - Legislation and the 3Rs; Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London, 11-13 September 1992

References

Dresser, R 1989 Developing standards in animal research review. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 194 No 9: 1184–1191Google Scholar
Morton, D B and Griffiths, P H M 1985 Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and a hypothesis for assessment. Veterinary Record 116: 431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, D G 1992 Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 356: 101–102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, W M S and Burch, R L 1959 The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen & Co Ltd: LondonGoogle Scholar
Smith, J A and Boyd, K M 1991 Lives in the Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research. Oxford University Press: OxfordGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theune E P and de Cock Buning Tj 1991 Grenzen aan dierexperimenteel onderzoek. Toetsingsprocedure. Dierproefvraagstukken RUL: LeidenGoogle Scholar
Theune E P and de Cock Buning Tj 1993 Assessing interests. An operational approach. In Hicks E K (ed) Science and the Human-Animal Relationship pp 143–160. SISWO: AmsterdamGoogle Scholar