scholarly journals Moving Beyond the Absence of Pain and Distress: Focusing on Positive Animal Welfare

ILAR Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia V Turner
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Affective States ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
Robust Measures ◽  
Positive Animal ◽  
Research Animal

Abstract For many years, researchers, veterinarians, animal ethics committees, and regulators have focused on minimizing pain and distress as a primary goal of refinement when working with animals in science. More recent publications as well as a shift in animal ethics and public opinion have emphasized promotion of positive affective states, culminating in the concept of positive animal welfare. Robust measures are required to know when positive animal welfare states are occurring, and a number of measures are proposed and discussed. Regardless of whether there are newer methods available that focus exclusively on measuring positive affective states, consistent consideration of research animal behavioral programs, refinement, and adopting periodic stand-alone animal welfare assessments for all species involved will help to push the care and practices of research animals towards an increased focus on positive animal welfare.

The use of animals in research: counting the costs and the benefits

2004 ◽  
Vol 44 (11) ◽  
pp. 1079 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. D. Rickard
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Economic Gain ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

The Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes requires Animal Ethics Committees to assess the merits of any research proposal involving the use of sentient animals. As part of that assessment they should make a judgment as to whether or not the costs to the welfare of the experimental animals are outweighed by the benefits of the predicted experimental outcome (i.e. conduct a cost–benefit analysis). This paper describes one approach that has been proposed to assist Animal Ethics Committees to take all factors into account when making this judgment. When agricultural animals are used in research the potential benefits are usually measured in terms of improved health and welfare or increased productivity when the research outcomes are applied to other animals reared in agricultural enterprises. When the aim of a project is to improve the health and welfare of the animals (i.e. ‘animal benefit’), the benefits are usually obvious and counting the cost is straightforward even if the impact on the animals under experimentation is quite extreme (e.g. death as an unavoidable endpoint in a vaccination experiment). Where the benefits accrue solely in terms of increased productivity or economic gain (i.e. ‘human benefit’), then balancing the costs and the benefits can be more problematical because people’s personal beliefs and their orientation towards animal welfare influence their assessment. Economists indicate that it is not increased productivity per se that generates value but consumption. Therefore, consumer perceptions of any adverse impact that gains in productivity have on the welfare of farmed animals can play a significant role in determining the ultimate benefit (value) of a particular piece of research with the sole aim to increase production and economic gain. This paper will explore some postulated relationships between productivity and animal welfare which could influence consumer preferences and hence the cost–benefit analysis.

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

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.

Assessing the Search for and Implementation of the Three Rs: A Survey among Scientists

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlies Leenaars ◽  
Bart Savenije ◽  
Anne Nagtegaal ◽  
Lilian van der Vaart ◽  
Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga
Keyword(s):  
Laboratory Animal ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Animal Science ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
European Laboratory ◽  
The Three Rs ◽  
Laboratory Animal Science

A survey among scientists into the current practice of searching for Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (Three Rs) alternatives, highlights the gap between the statutory required need to apply the Three Rs concept whenever possible and the lack of criteria for searching for Three Rs alternatives. A questionnaire was distributed to 342 scientists (Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations [FELASA] Category C and B individuals), of which 67 responded. These scientists are customers of the Central Animal Laboratory of Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre. The results indicate that there is room for improvement in searching effectively for the Three Rs: skills in searching biomedical databases for Three Rs alternatives are limited, knowledge of specialised Three Rs databases is very limited, and satisfaction on the availability and accessibility of Three Rs information is low. None of the respondents allocate budget for a specific Three Rs alternatives search, although 50% do spend, on average, two hours engaged in this search for each application to their animal ethics committees. The majority of the respondents expressed the wish that the search for alternatives could be easier and less time consuming, and prefer to achieve this through the service offered by specialists at the Central Animal Laboratory. On the basis of the results from the questionnaire, the 3R Research Centre was established, with the aim of providing services and support for bio-medical scientists, to improve the search for, and subsequent implementation of, the Three Rs.

Mapping French Laypeople’s Views on Nonhuman Animal Experimentation

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-290
Author(s):  
Maria Teresa Muñoz Sastre ◽  
Paul Clay Sorum ◽  
Etienne Mullet
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Animal Experimentation ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Experimental Protocol ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
Factor Design ◽  
Acceptability Judgments

Abstract French positions regarding nonhuman animal experimentation were examined. A total of 163 participants were presented with 72 vignettes depicting an experimental protocol. They were composed according to a five-factor design: (a) the fate of the animal (e.g., was sacrificed for the purpose of further analyses), (b) environment in which the animal was raised, (c) main objective of the experiment (purely theoretical vs. therapeutic), (d) degree of pain inflicted, and (e) species involved (rabbit, coyote, or chimpanzee). Through cluster analysis of participants’ acceptability judgments, six qualitatively different positions were found. Four had already been described by observation of the functioning of animal ethics committees: Animals have Rights, Ethics in the name of Animals, Ethics in the name of Patients, and Ethics in the name of Science. Female participants held the Animals-have-Rights position three times more often than males. Male participants held an Ethics-in-the-name-of-Science position four times more often than females.

The value of Animal Ethics Committees for wildlife research in conservation biology - an Australian perspective

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Dyson ◽  
Michael C. Calver
Keyword(s):  
Conservation Biology ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Laboratory Animals ◽  
Ecological Studies ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
Australian Universities

ANIMAL Ethics Committees evaluate research proposals according to the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (NHMRC 1997). All Australian universities, the CSIRO, many agencies controlled by the states and other organizations adhere to the specifications. The 1997 revision of the Code of Practice explicitly broadened its scope from laboratory animals to include field-based ecological studies, such as those conducted by conservation biologists. However, in defining an animal as "any live non-human vertebrate" invertebrates are excluded by the Code.

Australian Animal Ethics Committees: We Have Come a Long Way

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
WARWICK P. ANDERSON ◽  
MICHAEL A. PERRY
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees

Twenty years ago, Australian biomedical researchers took the first steps along a pathway toward common ground with opponents of the use of animals in science. Leaders of Australian medical research at that time saw the necessity of established science facing the ethical and political challenges that a revived antivivisectionist movement was mounting in the late 1970s and the 1980s.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document