Examining compliance with ethical standards for animal research: is there a need for refinement? A qualitative study from northern Europe

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-191
Author(s):  
Aurora Brønstad ◽  
Peter Sandøe
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Core Values ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Northern European ◽  
Animal Use

Ethical guidelines for research on animals such as the 3Rs (Replacing, Reducing, Refining) and positive harm-benefit evaluations are anchored in EU Directive 2010/63. In this qualitative study we investigated how ethical guidelines interact and/or compete with other considerations when animal research is planned. Four focus groups consisting mainly of researchers involved in animal use were conducted in four Northern European countries and findings were analysed thematically with the support of NVIVO. Practical issues and the importance of doing good science were dominant topics. Practical issues could not easily be separated from the goal of good science. Participants expressed concerns which accord with the core-values of the 3Rs, but in one group they explicitly referred to the 3Rs as a concept. Conflicts between reductions in animal numbers and the risk of creating unreliable results were addressed. They also criticized the practice of using more animals to improve statistical figures to get results published in highly ranked journals – a finding we believe is new. The main conclusion of this study is that ethical values could not easily be separated from the goal of producing good science. Whereas policy makers seem to expect researchers to explicitly take ethical considerations into account, we found that their ethical thinking is mainly manifested as an implicit part of methodology and design. We don’t see this as a problem as long as the underlying core values are implicitly respected, or promoted, in the relevant experimental practice.

Putting the Ethical Principles into Practice

2020 ◽  
pp. 69-78
Author(s):  
Rebecca Dresser
Keyword(s):  
Policy Change ◽  
Laboratory Animal ◽  
Social Benefit ◽  
Core Values ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Committee Membership ◽  
Animal Use ◽  
Research Studies

Beauchamp and DeGrazia introduce a framework of core values and principles for animal research studies that is more comprehensive than the leading alternative—Russell and Burch’s Three-Rs scheme of replacing, refining, and reducing laboratory animal use. Beauchamp and DeGrazia’s principles flesh out both social benefit requirements and animal welfare values. I recommend changes that would make their framework a real force in the conduct of animal research. One positive change would be a requirement to increase the diversity of institutional committee membership. A better scientific review system would substantially improve assessments of the justification of research studies. Existing government provisions on animal research direct committees to consider scientific quality but fail to provide the tools for doing so. Setting limits on the number of animals allowed in research is another needed policy change.

scholarly journals Perspectives and ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results: a qualitative study of genomics researchers in Uganda

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Ochieng ◽  
Betty Kwagala ◽  
John Barugahare ◽  
Erisa Mwaka ◽  
Deborah Ekusai-Sebatta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Genomic Research ◽  
Return Of Results ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Genomics Research ◽  
Genetics And Genomics ◽  
Clinically Significant

Abstract Background The return of genetics and genomics research results has been a subject of ongoing global debate. Such feedback is ethically desirable to update participants on research findings particularly those deemed clinically significant. Although there is limited literature, debate continues in African on what constitutes appropriate practice regarding the return of results for genetics and genomics research. This study explored perspectives and ethical considerations of Ugandan genomics researchers regarding the return of genetics and genomics research results. Methods This was a qualitative study that employed in-depth interviews. Thirty participants were purposively selected based on their expertise as genomics researchers in Uganda. Data were analysed through content analysis along the main themes of the study using a comprehensive thematic matrix, to identify common patterns arising from the narratives. NVivo software 12 was used to support data analysis. Results The return of genetics and genomics research results was generally acceptable to researchers, and some indicated that they had previously returned individual or aggregate results to participants and communities. The main reasons cited for sharing research results with participants included their clinical utility, actionability and overall benefit to society. Ethical considerations for appropriate return of results included a need for effective community engagement, genetic counselling prior to disclosure of the results, adequate informed consent, and proper assessment of the implications of, or consequences of returning of results. However, the approaches to return of results were perceived as unstandardized due to the lack of appropriate regulatory frameworks. Conclusions The return of genetic and genomic research results is generally acceptable to researchers despite the lack of appropriate regulatory frameworks. Ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results are highly divergent, hence the need for national ethical guidelines to appropriately regulate the practice.

scholarly journals Perspectives and ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results: a qualitative study of genomics researchers in Uganda

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Ochieng ◽  
Betty Kwagala ◽  
John Barugahare ◽  
Erisa Mwaka ◽  
Deborah Ekusai-Sebatta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Return Of Results ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
Genomics Research ◽  
Genetics And Genomics

Abstract Background: Return of genetics and genomics research results has been a subject of ongoing global debate on what constitutes socially acceptable and ethical approaches for sharing individual and aggregate genomic results with participants. Such feedback to research participants is an ethical requirement to update participants on results related to the study particularly those that are deemed significant. Although there is limited literature, debate continues in the African setting on what constitutes appropriate practice regarding return of results for genetics and genomics research.The study explored the perspectives and ethical considerations of genomics researchers for return of genetics and genomics research results in a Ugandan setting.Methods: This was a qualitative study of researchers in Uganda using semi-structured interview schedules for In-depth interviews. The researchers were purposively selected based on their active involvement in conducting genetics and genomics research in the country. A total of 30 researchers participated in the study and were interviewed on their perspectives and ethical considerations for the return of genetics and genomics research results. Data were analysed through content analysis along the main themes of the study. Content analysis was conducted using a comprehensive thematic matrix, to identify common patterns arising from the narratives. QSR International NVivo software was used to support data analysis. Findings: Return of genetics and genomics research results was generally acceptable to genomics researchers and some researchers had either returned individual or aggregate results. The main reasons for sharing results included actionability, benefits and the clinical utility of the results to the participants. Ethical considerations for appropriate return of results included a need for effective community engagement, genetic counselling prior to disclosure of the results, adequate informed consent and proper assessment of the implications of, or consequences of returning of results. However, the approaches to return of results is not standardised due to lack of ethics and regulatory guidelines to govern the practice in the country.Conclusion: Return of genetics and genomics research results to participants is generally acceptable to genomics researchers and several researchers have returned either individual or aggregate results. Ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results are numerous though their application is not regulated due to lack of appropriate local ethical guidelines.

scholarly journals Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) — a multi-actor qualitative study on success in science

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Past ◽  
Research Students

Abstract Background Success shapes the lives and careers of scientists. But success in science is difficult to define, let alone to translate in indicators that can be used for assessment. In the past few years, several groups expressed their dissatisfaction with the indicators currently used for assessing researchers. But given the lack of agreement on what should constitute success in science, most propositions remain unanswered. This paper aims to complement our understanding of success in science and to document areas of tension and conflict in research assessments. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting. Results Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series, with the current paper focusing on what defines and determines success in science. Respondents depicted success as a multi-factorial, context-dependent, and mutable construct. Success appeared to be an interaction between characteristics from the researcher (Who), research outputs (What), processes (How), and luck. Interviewees noted that current research assessments overvalued outputs but largely ignored the processes deemed essential for research quality and integrity. Interviewees suggested that science needs a diversity of indicators that are transparent, robust, and valid, and that also allow a balanced and diverse view of success; that assessment of scientists should not blindly depend on metrics but also value human input; and that quality should be valued over quantity. Conclusions The objective of research assessments may be to encourage good researchers, to benefit society, or simply to advance science. Yet we show that current assessments fall short on each of these objectives. Open and transparent inter-actor dialogue is needed to understand what research assessments aim for and how they can best achieve their objective. Study Registration osf.io/33v3m.

Recruiting Palliative Patients for a Large Qualitative Study: Some Ethical Considerations and Staff Dilemmas

EXPLORE ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Tan ◽  
Anne Wilson ◽  
Ian Olver ◽  
Christopher Barton
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Palliative Patients

Responsible Science and Research Animal Use

ILAR Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Patricia V Turner ◽  
R Wayne Barbee
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Animal Science ◽  
Scientific Excellence ◽  
Experimental Planning ◽  
Animal Use ◽  
Animal Care ◽  
Science And Research ◽  
Ethical Oversight ◽  
Animal Handlers

Abstract This issue of the ILAR Journal focuses on the topic of responsible science as it relates to animal research. We start with the concept of the scientist as a responsible citizen and then move through multiple phases of research including careful experimental planning, reporting, and incorporation of laboratory animal science. The work of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or animal ethical/oversight body in reviewing both animal use and contributing to scientific excellence is explored. Additional topics include protection of animal handlers from multiple experimental hazards, use of agricultural animals and wildlife studies, regulatory ambiguities, and harmonization of animal research. Rounding out the issue is a discussion of how animal care and use programs can enhance animal welfare while mitigating regulatory burden, and our responsibility to clearly communicate the ethical use of animals in advancing biomedical research. A deeper understanding of these topics can assist scientists in simultaneously advancing their research and animal welfare.

scholarly journals Ethics of Location-Based Data in Crisis Situations

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Alan M. MacEachren
Keyword(s):  
Crisis Response ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Data Share ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Remotely Sensed Imagery ◽  
Do No Harm ◽  
Share Data ◽  
Crisis Situations

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> This presentation will provide an overview of a Workshop-based effort on ethics in location-based, organized by the Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights, and Law Program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). More specifically, the AAAS organized three workshops during 2017 and 2018 directed to exploring the ethical implications of collecting, analysing, and acting upon location-based data in crisis situations &amp;ndash; “Developing Ethical Guidelines and Best Practices for the Use of Volunteered Geographic Information and Remotely Sensed Imagery in Crisis Situations.”. The outcome of those workshops and follow up efforts was a document detailing principles and guidelines with the objective of empowering crisis response actors to use location-based data responsibly and ethically.</p><p> On behalf of all those involved, as a Participant in all three workshops and a AAAS Fellow, I will present an overview of the results of this effort. The presentation will outline the five principles developed and provide examples of their motivation and use:</p><ol><li>Do No Harm: Identify and minimize potential risk, particularly as they may affect the vulnerability of individuals and populations</li><li>Define Your Purpose: Ensure action is mission-driven and goal-oriented</li><li>Do Good Science: Employ scientifically rigorous and responsible methods</li><li>Collaborate and Consult: Engage with local partners</li><li>Give Access to Your Data: Share data openly, when safe and practicable</li></ol><p> The presentation will also reflect on (a) the specific relevance of this effort and its outcome for the international cartographic community and (b) our obligation as academic/professional cartographers to address the dual challenges of leveraging locational data cartographically to support crisis management and humanitarian efforts while also guarding against misuse of the data collected and map generated. I will conclude by reflecting on my experience in working with a diverse, interdisciplinary, international group on this hard problem.</p></p>

scholarly journals Charting our Course: A Review of Stephen Andrew’s Searching for an Autoethnographic Ethic

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janie Copple
Keyword(s):  
Relational Ethics ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Research Tools

This review critiques Stephen Andrew’s proposed method for applying ethical guidelines to autoethnographic research. Andrew argues that although extant autoethnographic literature attends to a variety of ethical considerations (i.e., relational ethics, reflexivity in research, tools for ethical writing), explicit analytical guidelines are lacking. Using excerpts from personal autoethnographies, Andrew illustrates his conception for an autoethnographic ethic leaving readers with practical tools and resonant narratives.

Prison education: a Northern European wicked policy problem?

2020 ◽  
pp. 273-292
Author(s):  
Gerry Czerniawski
Keyword(s):  
Low Cost ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Prison Education ◽  
Job Skills ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Policy Problem ◽  
Northern European ◽  
Job Skills Training ◽  
Evidenced Based ◽  
Policy Problems

‘Wicked policy problems’ are defined as complex, not fully understood by policy makers, highly resistant to change and seemingly immune to any evidence likely to bring about change for the better. Policy, in the case of prison education, is not necessarily driven by what works and is often not evidenced-based. It is increasingly positioned by political expediency and the signalling of politicians’ ‘toughness on crime’. In this chapter I look at three distinctly different prison education systems in Northern Europe; in England, Germany and Norway. I examine the extent to which discourses associated with both the marketisation of education and penal populism have influenced the construction and facilitation of prison education in all three countries. Finally, I argue that, to varying degrees, the reconstruction of prison ‘education’ into low-cost job skills training contributes to the domination of policies that speak more to public moral panic and the need to cut the economic costs of welfare than to the rehabilitation of prisoners.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document