Decisions about the Use of Animals in Research: Ethical Reflection by Animal Ethics Committee Members

Anthrozoös ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 409-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine A. Schuppli
Keyword(s):  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Ethical Reflection

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.

Standard Operating Procedures for aluminium box, wire cage, and pitfall trapping, handling, and temporary housing of small wild rodents and marsupials

2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Petit ◽  
Helen P. Waudby
Keyword(s):  
Small Mammals ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Standard Operating Procedures ◽  
Wild Rodents ◽  
Temporary Housing ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Standard Operating ◽  
Wire Cage

Many researchers and educators need to provide Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to their Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) for the purpose of trapping, handling, and temporarily housing small mammals. We devised general SOPs that are compatible with most existing ones for Australia and had these SOPs reviewed by a panel of Australian experts. The SOPs may be used as guidelines by researchers who need to provide such protocols to their organisation or AEC, or in teaching.

scholarly journals An Experimental Study of Drug Interactions of Diclofenac with Commonly Used Drugs for Diabetes Mellitus in Rabbits

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 195
Author(s):  
S. Yadav ◽  
S. Singh ◽  
M. K. Sharma ◽  
J. N. Puri ◽  
N. A. Ansari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Metabolic Syndrome ◽  
Drug Interactions ◽  
Blood Sugar ◽  
Metabolic Disorders ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Blood Samples ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Sugar Levels

Insulin, Glibenclamide and Tolbutamide are some of the frequently used drugs for the most common metabolic disorders, diabetes mellitus. Along with hypoglycaemic drugs diabetic patient is exposed to variety of drugs. NSAIDs are one of the commonly used drugs in this metabolic syndrome. When a patient on hypoglycaemic drugs receives NSAIDs there are chances of drug interactions. This study was undertaken in the department of Pharmacology, GSVM medical college, Kanpur (UP) after approval by the institutional animal ethics committee to find out the interaction if any between Diclofenac and three hypoglycaemic drugs i.e. insulin, glibenclamide and tolbutamide.<p>Young healthy rabbits were divided into six groups: five rabbits in each group. First group received Insulin 1 u/kg subcutaneously; second Glibenclamide 0.05 mg/kg orally; third Tolbutamide 40 mg/kg orally; fourth Diclofenac 1mg/kg orally and insulin 1mg/kg s.c. simultaneously; fifth glibenclamide 0.05mg/kg orally at 0 hour and diclofenac 1mg/kg orally at 2 hours and sixth tolbutamide 40mg/kg orally at 0 hour and diclofenac 1mg/kg orally at 2 hours. Blood samples were taken at 0, 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours for blood sugar estimation. Mean blood sugar levels reduced significantly from their fasting levels when insulin, glibenclamide and tolbutamide were administered. However blood sugar levels did not showed any significant changes when diclofenac was administered along with insulin, glibenclamide and tolbutamide in comparison to when insulin, glibenclamide and tolbutamide were given alone. The results showed that diclofenac does not interact with insulin, glibenclamide and tolbutamide on blood sugar levels in rabbits.No Abstract.</p>

What kind of world do we want for tomorrow? The Estates General of Bioethic in France / Quel monde voulons-nous pour demain? Les États généraux de la bioéthique en France

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-324
Author(s):  
Marie-Jo Thiel
Keyword(s):  
Life Sciences ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Global Perspective ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Ethical Reflection ◽  
History Of ◽  
Bioethical Debate ◽  
The Subject ◽  
French People ◽  
Bioethics Laws

In France, the legislator has planned to organize at regular intervals the Estates General of Bioethics (EGB), an opportunity to inform and question the French people on the subject, and the first step (enshrined in the law) of the regular revision of so-called bioethics laws. The spring 2018 edition is proposed under the heading: “What world do we want for tomorrow?” and schedules a revision of the bioethical laws by the end of 2018. It is organized by the National Consultative Ethics Committee for Health and Life Sciences in connection with all eighteen spaces for regional or interregional ethical reflection (ERER). This contribution reviews the history of bioethical debates and legislation in France, then examines the modalities and themes of the current debate, which is still in progress at the time of writing, before concluding with a somewhat distanced reflection on the complexity of the bioethical debate and the importance of not forgetting its so-called global perspective. ---------- En France, le législateur a prévu d’organiser à intervalles réguliers des États généraux de la bioéthique (EGB), occasion d’informer et d’interroger les Français.es sur le sujet, et première étape (inscrite dans la loi) de la révision à intervalles réguliers des lois dites de bioéthique. L’édition du printemps 2018 est proposée sous la rubrique: «Quel monde voulons-nous pour demain?» et prévoit une révision des lois bioéthiques pour la fin 2018. Elle est organisée par le comité consultatif national d’éthique en lien avec l’ensemble des dix-huit Espaces de réflexion éthique regionaux ou inter- regionaux (ERER). Cette contribution revient sur l’historique des débats et législations bioéthiques en France, puis elle examine les modalités et les thèmes du débat actuel toujours en cours à l’heure où cet article est écrit, avant de conclure avec une réflexion quelque peu distanciée sur la complexité du débat bioéthique et l’importance de ne pas oublier sa perspective dite globale.

Animal Ethics in Animal Research

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Rocklinsberg ◽  
Mickey Gjerris ◽  
Anna Olsson
Keyword(s):  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Animal Research
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document