Animal Welfare Considerations and Ethical Oversight of the Use of Animals in Psychiatric Research

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy L. Pritt ◽  
Shari Birnbaum
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Animal Use ◽  
The Cost

Ethical issues arise with the use of animals in psychiatric and clinical neuroscience research due to the potential physical or psychological effects imposed on the animals, with the ethical debate focusing on the “cost-benefit” analysis of the animal use where cost is defined as animals experiencing negative events, either physical or emotional. The use of the cost-benefit analysis model combined with considerations for animal welfare that serve both to decrease any potential harm to the animal and increase benefits to human and animal health is a useful model for the ethical review and subsequent institutional approval of animal use. Recent mandates and the ongoing development of animal welfare science in the field of laboratory animal science allow institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) and other similar oversight committees and regulatory authorities world-wide effectively to construct and monitor research that balances cost with benefits at the institutional level.

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.

Limitations to Productivity

1994 ◽  
Vol 1994 ◽  
pp. 61-61
Author(s):  
A.J.F. Webster
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Animal Science ◽  
Gross Efficiency ◽  
Physiological Capacity ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Livestock Systems

Productivity in livestock systems is closely correlated with gross efficiency. Improving efficiency by increasing productivity is an honourable pursuit since it minimises waste; not least the waste of animals through disease, infertility or simply the inability to provide food in excess of maintenance. By this (limited) definition the limits to productivity in any system are defined only by the quality of feed available and the genetic and physiological capacity of the animal to convert it into food for man. However, the approach to the limit is asymptotic, i.e. subject to the law of diminishing returns. Until recently most Animal Science has been directed towards marginal improvements in productivity but we now recognise the need to broaden our objectives to include quality of life criteria, such as environmental protection and animal welfare. My remit is to consider how to incorporate a proper concern for animal welfare into the assessment of limits to productivity,or more precisely, the cost/benefit analysis of marginal responses to increased intensity of production.

Hostile Takeovers and Anti-takeover Defenses in the Russian Corporate Market

2007 ◽  
pp. 70-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Demidova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Hostile Takeovers ◽  
Russian Market ◽  
Takeover Defenses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
European Markets

This article analyzes definitions and the role of hostile takeovers at the Russian and European markets for corporate control. It develops the methodology of assessing the efficiency of anti-takeover defenses adapted to the conditions of the Russian market. The paper uses the cost-benefit analysis, where the costs and benefits of the pre-bid and post-bid defenses are compared.

What's it Worth? Improving Surface Water Quality

1999 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 153-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. H. Newsome ◽  
C. D. Stephen
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Surface Water ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Surface Water Quality ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Many countries are investing in measures to improve surface water quality, but the investment programmes for so doing are increasingly becoming subject to cost-benefit analysis. Whilst the cost of control measures can usually be determined for individual improvement schemes, there are currently no established procedures for valuing the benefits attributable to improved surface water quality. The paper describes a methodology that has been derived that now makes this possible.

scholarly journals Economic Analysis of the Use of VCS2000 for Pork Carcass Meat Yield Grading in Korea

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1297
Author(s):  
Juntae Kim ◽  
Hyo-Dong Han ◽  
Wang Yeol Lee ◽  
Collins Wakholi ◽  
Jayoung Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Net Present Value ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Feed Consumption ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Labor Costs ◽  
Meat Yield ◽  
The Cost

Currently, the pork industry is incorporating in-line automation with the aim of increasing the slaughtered pork carcass throughput while monitoring quality and safety. In Korea, 21 parameters (such as back-fat thickness and carcass weight) are used for quality grading of pork carcasses. Recently, the VCS2000 system—an automatic meat yield grading machine system—was introduced to enhance grading efficiency and therefore increase pork carcass production. The VCS2000 system is able to predict pork carcass yield based on image analysis. This study also conducted an economic analysis of the system using a cost—benefit analysis. The subsection items of the cost-benefit analysis considered were net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and benefit/cost ratio (BC ratio), and each method was verified through sensitivity analysis. For our analysis, the benefits were grouped into three categories: the benefits of reducing labor costs, the benefits of improving meat yield production, and the benefits of reducing pig feed consumption through optimization. The cost-benefit analysis of the system resulted in an NPV of approximately 615.6 million Korean won, an IRR of 13.52%, and a B/C ratio of 1.65.

scholarly journals Beyond the Stern Review: Lessons from a risky venture at the limits of the cost–benefit analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 68 (10) ◽  
pp. 2479-2484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Charles Hourcade ◽  
Philippe Ambrosi ◽  
Patrice Dumas
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Stern Review ◽  
The Cost

Inferring age from otolith measurements: a review and a new approach

2004 ◽  
Vol 61 (7) ◽  
pp. 1269-1284 ◽  
Author(s):  
RIC Chris Francis ◽  
Steven E Campana
Keyword(s):  
Simulation Experiment ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
New Method ◽  
Population Parameters ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Mixture Analysis ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Individual Fish ◽  
The Cost

In 1985, Boehlert (Fish. Bull. 83: 103–117) suggested that fish age could be estimated from otolith measurements. Since that time, a number of inferential techniques have been proposed and tested in a range of species. A review of these techniques shows that all are subject to at least one of four types of bias. In addition, they all focus on assigning ages to individual fish, whereas the estimation of population parameters (particularly proportions at age) is usually the goal. We propose a new flexible method of inference based on mixture analysis, which avoids these biases and makes better use of the data. We argue that the most appropriate technique for evaluating the performance of these methods is a cost–benefit analysis that compares the cost of the estimated ages with that of the traditional annulus count method. A simulation experiment is used to illustrate both the new method and the cost–benefit analysis.

Drug costs and treatment choices: a DTB symposium

1993 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 41-44
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Drug Costs ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Treatment Choices ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Service Managers

The relationship between drug costs and treatment choices was the subject of the first annual Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin symposium held in March 1993.* In a time of severe financial constraints for the NHS it is important that the money available is well spent. In the case of treatment that means the benefits must be worth the cost. There is, however, no agreed way of deciding when a particular health benefit to an individual is worth the cost to the NHS. Drug prices are easier to measure and more consistent than the prices of other treatments, and may be more amenable to cost-benefit analysis. Treatment choices are made primarily by doctors but with critical input from patients, pharmacists, nurses and health service managers. In this article we give an overview of the symposium at which speakers described ways in which drug costs and treatment choices were tackled in general practice (Ann McPherson, John Howie), in hospital (Dorothy Anderson), in clinical research and audit (Iain Chalmers, Alison Frater), by consumers (Anna Bradley), by health economists (Mike Drummond) and by government (Joe Collier). We also take into account points raised in discussion by the participants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document