LABORATORY ANIMAL CARE AND THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS

The Lancet ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 325 (8433) ◽  
pp. 880
Author(s):  
Philip Churchward
The Lancet ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 325 (8435) ◽  
pp. 985
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Slaney

2021 ◽  
pp. 002367722110192
Author(s):  
Lazara Martínez-Muñoz

The absence, in many nations, of appropriate and corresponding legislation for the protection of experimental animals as well as continual management education programs, significantly affects the inclusion and recognition of experimental results, worldwide. For more than a decade, researchers from Latin American countries have unsuccessfully struggled to get proper legislation. Until today, not many effective results have been seen. After reviewing previous literature and carefully analyzing the available methodologies and practical examples, this paper aims at redesigning the actions and strategies of the members of the research facilities to implement an effective laboratory animal care and use program, and permit the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) accreditation, independent of national legislative network .This paper also suggests a domestic working method for the teamwork to assume international harmonized legislation, through the application of the Five Disciplines stated by Senge, as methodological process linked with laboratory animal science as scientific background.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
April M. Clayton ◽  
James Hayes ◽  
George W. Lathrop ◽  
Nathaniel Powell

Introduction: Laboratory animal facilities aim to provide excellence in animal care and welfare and support scientific research. Critical to these goals is to ensure a safe work environment for personnel comprising veterinary and animal care, laboratory research, and maintenance staff. Objective: Thus, performing occupational risk assessments allows for evaluation of risks from identified hazards associated with a variety of tasks ongoing in laboratory animal facilities. Methods: Herein, we present the development of an occupational risk assessment tool purposed to capture the dynamics of work performed in laboratory animal facilities, calculate and prioritize identified risks associated with procedures and processes, and inform and evaluate risk mitigations. Results: We also discuss a risk assessment for refining sharps use in nonhuman primate husbandry and care to demonstrate the utility of this tool to improve occupational safety in our animal facility. Conclusion: This tool and framework evolve into a holistic occupational risk management system that identifies, evaluates, and mitigates occupational risks; determines risk acceptability; consistently ensures communication and consultation with frontline personnel, stakeholders, senior leadership, and subject matter experts in biosafety, science, and animal care and welfare; and continuously strives to improve and enhance the operations of laboratory animal facilities.


1994 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-144
Author(s):  
Julian McAllister Groves

AbstractRegulations surrounding laboratory animal care have tried to address aspects of an image of laboratory animal cruelty publicized by animal rights activists. This image of cruelty, however, is not consistent with the experiences of those charged with the day-to-day care of laboratory animals. This article examines the incongruities between the public image of cruelty to animals in laboratories as promoted by animal rights activists, and the experiences of laboratory animal care staff who apply and enforce laboratory animal care regulations. In doing so, the article illuminates why regulations surrounding laboratory animal care are difficult to comply with on the part of the policy enforcers, and are continuously contested by both animal rights activists and animal research personnel.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document