Ethics and Australian mammalogy: reflections on 15 years (1991 - 2006) on an Animal Ethics Committee

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Lunney
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
South Wales

This essay on field mammalogy and research ethics presents my reflections on 15 years as a researcher sitting on an Animal Ethics Committee in New South Wales. It outlines the community debate on animal welfare and the ethics of research on animals, how government has responded, and how wildlife researchers can move forward in this arena. Three schools are identified within the animal protection movement: ‘animal welfare’ holds that it is legitimate to use animals as a resource, so long as that use is ‘necessary’ and the animal’s suffering ‘minimised’; ‘animal liberationists’ are likely to oppose most animal research; the ‘animal rights’ position is firmly abolitionist. The instruments that regulate research involving animals are examined, in particular the New South Wales Animal Research Act 1985, the Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, and Animal Ethics Committees. Examples of ethical dilemmas involving both native and non-native animals are discussed. The debate over animals in research will continue, and it is clear that far more can be gained by engaging in the debate than avoiding it. It is in researchers’ interests to publicly defend the essential role of science in conserving our native fauna, and to conduct our work within a well managed welfare framework.

scholarly journals Assessment of the societal and individual preferences for fertility treatment in Australia: study protocol for stated preference discrete choice experiments

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e020509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willings Botha ◽  
Natasha Donnolley ◽  
Marian Shanahan ◽  
Georgina M Chambers
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Fertility Treatment ◽  
Individual Preferences ◽  
South Wales ◽  
The University

IntroductionIn Australia, societal and individual preferences for funding fertility treatment remain largely unknown. This has resulted in a lack of evidence about willingness to pay (WTP) for fertility treatment by either the general population (the funders) or infertile individuals (who directly benefit). Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment (SPDCE) approach has been suggested as a more appropriate method to inform economic evaluations of fertility treatment. We outline the protocol for an ongoing study which aims to assess fertility treatment preferences of both the general population and infertile individuals, and indirectly estimate their WTP for fertility treatment.Methods and analysisTwo separate but related SPDCEs will be conducted for two population samples—the general population and infertile individuals—to elicit preferences for fertility treatment to indirectly estimate WTP. We describe the qualitative work to be undertaken to design the SPDCEs. We will use D-efficient fractional experimental designs informed by prior coefficients from the pilot surveys. The mode of administration for the SPDCE is also discussed. The final results will be analysed using mixed logit or latent class model.Ethics and disseminationThis study is being funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant AP1104543 and has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC 17255) and a fertility clinic’s ethics committee. Findings of the study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at various conferences. A lay summary of the results will be made publicly available on the University of New South Wales National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit website. Our results will contribute to the development of an evidence-based policy framework for the provision of cost-effective and patient-centred fertility treatment in Australia.

The Ian Clunies Ross Animal Research Laboratory, Prospect, New South Wales

Nature ◽  
1960 ◽  
Vol 187 (4742) ◽  
pp. 980-982
Author(s):  
IAN W. McDONALD
Keyword(s):  
Research Laboratory ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
South Wales

scholarly journals Moral Convictions and Meat Consumption—A Comparative Study of the Animal Ethics Orientations of Consumers of Pork in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 329
Author(s):  
Thomas B. Lund ◽  
Sigrid Denver ◽  
Jonas Nordström ◽  
Tove Christensen ◽  
Peter Sandøe
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Latent Profile Analysis ◽  
Profile Analysis ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Animal Protection

Background: The relationship between animal ethics orientations and consumer demand for meat with high standards of animal welfare, and the way this relationship plays out in different countries, is not well understood. Using pork as a case study, this comparative study aims to identify the animal ethics orientations that drive purchases of welfare meat in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden. Methods: Cross-sectional questionnaire data from representative samples of approximately 1600 consumers in each country were collected. A segmentation of pork consumers (using latent profile analysis) was carried out. Results: In all three countries, two subgroups were concerned about farm animal welfare: the first subgroup was driven by animal rights values; the second subgroup by animal protection values, where the main principle was that “it is all right to use animals as long as they are treated well”. Other consumer groups are less concerned about farm animal welfare and display little or no preference for welfare pork. Conclusions: In all three countries, dual demand for welfare pork exists. The findings of this study can be used, among others, to understand the marketability of enhanced welfare animal products and the potential for market-driven animal welfare improvements.

Ethical Considerations for Common Mouse Models of Cancer (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed Mohammad Kazem Aghamir Sr ◽  
Fatemeh Khatami ◽  
Mahan Asadian Sr ◽  
Rahil Mashhadi ◽  
Behta Pakseresht Keshavarz
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Mouse Models ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Environmental Changes ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Complete Analysis ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
Mouse Models Of Cancer

BACKGROUND Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) are concerning possibilities for public participation in the regulation of animal research. AECs are accountable for approving and monitoring research within Accredited Animal Research Establishments (AARE) (https://www.animalethics.org.au/animal-ethics-committees). In the way of making mouse models of cancer, several new considerations should be mentioned before the study design. OBJECTIVE To consider both personnel and animal welfare decisions at each stage of making mouse models of cancer, it is essential to have comprehensive information on the animal models. METHODS Three main cancer models are including; chemically induced mouse models, genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), xenograft nude mice, and Avatar. Some genetic changes in GEMMs are passing through next generations and not only do they have pain and suffering but also, they impose some environmental changes on mice. RESULTS Several phenotypes are required regarding the target of tumor model that expressed research are typically wisely investigated, but those that have an influence on the animal's welfare but have little or no effect on the disease procedure are often less carefully considered. CONCLUSIONS Complete analysis and regulations of animal welfare can offer beneficial information for researchers. This information is similarly essential to allow members of the institutional animal care and use committee to make necessary cost: benefit ethical review of animal studies. CLINICALTRIAL Not Applicable

scholarly journals Assessing societal and offender perspectives on the value of offender healthcare: a stated preference research protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e024899
Author(s):  
Stella Nalukwago Settumba ◽  
Marian Shanahan ◽  
Georgina, M Chambers ◽  
Peter Schofield ◽  
Tony Butler
Keyword(s):  
Stated Preference ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Aboriginal Health ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Violent Offender ◽  
Offender Treatment ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Economic Methods

IntroductionThe increasing burden that offenders place on justice and health budgets necessitates better methods to determine the benefits of and value society places on offender programmes to guide policy regarding resource allocation. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how economic methods will be used to determine the strength of preferences and value of violent offender treatment programmes from the perspectives of offenders, their families and the general population.Methods and analysisTwo stated preference economic methods, discrete choice experiment (DCE) and contingent valuation (CV), will be used to assess society’s and offenders' value of treatment programmes. The mixed methods process involves a literature review and qualitative methods to derive attributes and levels for the DCE and payment card values for the CV. Consensus building approaches of voting, ranking and the Delphi method will be used to further refine the findings from the qualitative phase. Attributes and their levels will be used in a D-efficient Bayesian experimental design to derive choice scenarios for the development of a questionnaire that will also include CV questions. Finally, quantitative surveys to assess societal preferences and value in terms of willingness to pay will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for this study was obtained from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Human Research Ethics Committee, Corrective Services New South Wales Ethics Committee and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council ethics committee. The findings will be made available on the Kirby Institute UNSW website, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.

scholarly journals Aboriginal Human Research Ethics Committees ensuring culturally appropriate research

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Finlay ◽  
V Keed ◽  
D Kelly ◽  
M Cashman ◽  
S Green
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Indigenous People ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Medical Research Council ◽  
New South ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Culturally Appropriate ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
South Wales

Abstract Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Australia's Indigenous peoples, make up three percent of the population of Australia. Like many other Indigenous peoples in colonised countries, they suffer the worst health and social status of any population group. Australian Indigenous people have a lower life expectancy (8.6 years lower for men and 7.8 years for women) compared with other Australians (ABS 2018a). The reasons for the poorer health outcomes are complex and include historical, political and social factors (AIHW 2015a). The health disparity has driven a high number of research projects with a focus on Australian Indigenous people or mainstream research projects where Australian Indigenous people are overrepresented. Given the uniqueness of Australian Indigenous cultures as well as the historical, political and social context, in 1998, the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales (AH&MRC) established an Australian Indigenous-specific human research ethics committee (HREC). The AH&MRC is the Indigenous peak health body of New South Wales. This presentation will outline the role and benefit of the AH&MRC HREC as a specialised HREC. The AH&MRC HREC is fully constituted and registered under the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The NHMRC is the leading expert body in health and medical research in Australia and develops health research guidelines. The AH&MRC HREC is one of three AHRECs in Australia. The AH&MRC Ethics Committee not only guarantees that research is conducted ethically but also ensures research involving Indigenous people is undertaken in a culturally appropriate manner. One of the key elements required by the AH&MRC is that researchers consult Indigenous communities across all stages of the project from the design, implementation, analysis and write up. The AH&MRC HREC is essential, ensuring the research is of benefit to the Indigenous community in NSW and is conducted in a culturally safe manner. Key messages Specialised Indigenous human resarch ethics committees are vital to enuring research is culturally appropriate. Spscialised human resarch ethics committees can be of benefit for other disctinct populations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document