Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample
2.2. Data Collection
PHS Policy [17] | Animal Welfare Act [18] |
---|---|
Five members, including:
| Three members, including:
|
2.3. Data Organization
3. Results and Discussion
Scientists | Veterinarians | Non-scientists | Nonaffiliated members | Undesignated members | Is chair a scientist? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Baylor College of Medicine | 23 | 2 | 1(1) ** | 1 | 0 | Y |
2. Columbia University Health Sciences | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | Y |
3. Duke University | 21 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | N |
4. Emory University | 16 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | Y |
5. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center | 3 | 1 | 1(1) ** | 2 | 2# | Y |
6. Johns Hopkins University | 15 | 3 | 1(1) ** | 2 | 0 | Y |
7. Mass General Hospital | 26 | 7 | 1(1) ** | 2 | 0 | Y |
8. Scripps Research Institute | 6 | 2 | 1(1)** | 1 | 0 | Y |
9. Stanford University | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | Y |
10. University of Alabama at Birmingham | 11 | 4 | 3 | 0 β | 0 | Y |
11. University of California, Los Angeles | 12 | 2 | 1(2) ** | 2 | 1# | Y |
12. University of California, San Diego | 14 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | Y |
13. University of California, San Fran | 6 | 2 | 0(1) ** | 2 | 1# | Y |
14. University of Michigan at Ann Arbor | 10 | 2 | 2(2) ** | 2 | 0 | Y |
15. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities | 13 | 1 | 0(1) ** | 1 | 3# | Y |
16. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill | 7 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | Y |
17. University of Pennsylvania | 10 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 0 | Y |
18. University of Pittsburgh at Pittsburgh | 30 | 4 | 1(1) ** | 2 | 0 | Y |
19. University of Wisconsin, Madison † | 48 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 5Y/1N† |
20. Vanderbilt University | 24 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | Y |
21. Washington University | 12 | 2 | 0(1) ** | 2 | 1# | Y |
x- Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School | 10 | 2 | 0(2) ** | 2 | 5 | Y |
x- University of Washington | 1 | 4 | 1(3) ** | 3 | 7 | N |
x- Yale University | 9 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Y |
4. Conclusions
Conflict of Interest
References
- Holden, C. A pivotal year for lab animal welfare. Science 1986, 232, 147–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dresser, R. Community representatives and nonscientists on the IACUC: What difference should it make? ILAR J. 1999, 40, 29–33. [Google Scholar]
- Forsman, B. Research Ethics in Practice: The Animal Ethics Committees in Sweden 1979–1989; Centre for Research Ethics,The Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg: Gothenburg, Sweden, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Graham, K. A study of three IACUCs and their views of scientific merit and alternatives. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2002, 5, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Houde, L.; Dumas, C.; Lerous, T. Animal ethical evaluation: An observational study of Canadian IACUCs. Ethics Behav. 2003, 13, 333 –350. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Ideland, M. Different views on ethics: How animal ethics is situated in a committee culture. J. Med. Ethics 2009, 35, 258–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Orlans, B.F. Community members on animal review committees. In In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation; Orlans, B.F., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 99–117. [Google Scholar]
- Schuppli, C.A. Decisions about the use of animals in research: Ethical reflection by animal ethics committee members. Anthrozoos 2011, 24, 400–425. [Google Scholar]
- Schuppli, C.A.; Fraser, D. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. J. Med. Ethics 2007, 33, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hagelin, J.; Hauu, J.; Carlsson, H.E. The refining influence on animal experimentation in Sweden. Lab. Anim. 2003, 37, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Plous, S.; Herzog, H. Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research. Science 2001, 293, 608–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Audit Report: APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities; Report No.: 33002-3-SF. U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General-Western Region: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005. Available online: http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-03-SF.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2012).
- USDA Employee Survey on the Effectiveness of IACUC Regulations; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Riverdale, MD, USA, 2000. Available online: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/iacuc/iacucaugust.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2012).
- Violation Summary (1 October 2006-30 September 2007); U.S. Department of Agriculture: Riverdale, MD, USA, 2008. Available online: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/violations/2007violations.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2012).
- Bayne, K.; Brown, P.; Petervary, N. Top 10 Deficiencies from the Perspective of USDA, OLAW, and AAALAC. In Proceedings of the PRIM&R 2011 IACUC Conference, 31 March–1 April 2011; Chicago, IL, USA.
- NIH Awards by Location and Organization. Available online: http://report.nih.gov/award/organizations.cfm?ot= (accessed on 25 January 2012).
- Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals; US Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. Available online: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2012).
- Animal Care Resource Guide Policies: Institutional Official and IACUC Membership (Policy # 15); U.S. Department of Agriculture: Riverdale, MD, USA, 2011. Available online: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/policy/Policy%20Manual%2003-25-2011.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2012).
- Goodman, J.R.; Borch, C.A.; Cherry, E. American attitudes toward animal testing 2001-2011. ALTEX 2011, 28, 168. [Google Scholar]
- Rose, M.; Chave, L.; Johnson, P. Public participation in decisions relating to the use of animals for scientific purposes: A review of 20 years experience in Australia. AATEX 2007, 14, 193–196. [Google Scholar]
- Maintenance of Properly Constituted IACUCs; Report No.: 97-03. National Institutes of Health: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1997. Available online: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/dc97-3.htm (accessed on 25 January 2012).
- Gomez, L.M.; Conlee, K.M.; Stephens, M.L. Noncompliance with Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: An Exploratory Analysis. JAAWS 2010, 13, 123–136. [Google Scholar]
© 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Hansen, L.A.; Goodman, J.R.; Chandna, A. Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions. Animals 2012, 2, 68-75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2010068
Hansen LA, Goodman JR, Chandna A. Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions. Animals. 2012; 2(1):68-75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2010068
Chicago/Turabian StyleHansen, Lawrence A., Justin R. Goodman, and Alka Chandna. 2012. "Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions" Animals 2, no. 1: 68-75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2010068
APA StyleHansen, L. A., Goodman, J. R., & Chandna, A. (2012). Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions. Animals, 2(1), 68-75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2010068