Animal Research, Accountability, Openness and Public Engagement: Report from an International Expert Forum

In November 2013, a group of international experts in animal research policy (n = 11) gathered in Vancouver, Canada, to discuss openness and accountability in animal research. The primary objective was to bring together participants from various jurisdictions (United States, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom) to share practices regarding the governance of animals used in research, testing and education, with emphasis on the governance process followed, the methods of community engagement, and the balance of openness versus confidentiality. During the forum, participants came to a broad consensus on the need for: (a) evidence-based metrics to allow a “virtuous feedback” system for evaluation and quality assurance of animal research, (b) the need for increased public access to information, together with opportunities for stakeholder dialogue about animal research, (c) a greater diversity of views to be represented on decision-making committees to allow for greater balance and (d) a standardized and robust ethical decision-making process that incorporates some sort of societal input. These recommendations encourage aspirations beyond merely imparting information and towards a genuine dialogue that represents a shared agenda surrounding laboratory animal use.

Download Full-text

Awareness and Decision Making in Professional Ethics

European Psychologist ◽

10.1027//1016-9040.5.1.19 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 19-27 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Ronny Swain

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Professional Ethics ◽

Ethical Decision Making ◽

Code Of Ethics ◽

Professional Autonomy ◽

Ethical Awareness ◽

Ethical Decisions ◽

The Right ◽

Aid Decision

The paper describes the development of the 1998 revision of the Psychological Society of Ireland's Code of Professional Ethics. The Code incorporates the European Meta-Code of Ethics and an ethical decision-making procedure borrowed from the Canadian Psychological Association. An example using the procedure is presented. To aid decision making, a classification of different kinds of stakeholder (i.e., interested party) affected by ethical decisions is offered. The author contends (1) that psychologists should assert the right, which is an important aspect of professional autonomy, to make discretionary judgments, (2) that to be justified in doing so they need to educate themselves in sound and deliberative judgment, and (3) that the process is facilitated by a code such as the Irish one, which emphasizes ethical awareness and decision making. The need for awareness and judgment is underlined by the variability in the ethical codes of different organizations and different European states: in such a context, codes should be used as broad yardsticks, rather than precise templates.

Download Full-text