Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Opinion: Hold Animal Use Committees Accountable for Their Failures – The Scientist (Lisa Jones-Engel | July 2022)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Animal Ethics on August 28, 2022
Keywords: Animal ethics, Animal Ethics Committee, Animal Welfare, Ethical review, Institutional responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On July 27, 2022

A gray laboratory mouse with an immunological plate, a syringe and vials. Concept - testing of drugs, vaccines, laboratory animals, humanity, genetic studies.

Editor’s note: This opinion article is a response to “Opinion: Time to Take Animal Rights Harassment More Seriously” by Jim Newman of Americans for Medical Progress.

Trust is the foundation for ethical treatment of animals in research.” This was the response that I received in an email from a longstanding member of the University of Washington Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), on which I also served, after another bruising public meeting. I had raised pointed questions to principal investigators about uncontrolled variables in their proposed experiments, the impact their studies would have on animal welfare and husbandry, and whether the harms inflicted upon the animals were justified by the presumed benefits to humans.

This discussion about animal welfare, animal ethics committees and the discharge public trust, is very much a rip in the frame of the approach in the United States.  Nonetheless, it raises important questions for other jurisdictions.  Are committees checking applications for bureaucratic compliance or are they genuinely discharging the public trust?  We need a process to test this involves public input and oversight.

That member said that I was confused about the role, function, and responsibilities of the IACUC and that the “internal decision processes within the OAW [Office of Animal Welfare] are not appropriate within a public forum.” The member expected me to trust in the integrity, morality, and objectivity of the principal investigators, veterinarians, and institutions; and trust the animal oversight bodies.

I no longer serve on the University of Washington (UW) IACUC. I could no longer ignore that the IACUC was violating the public’s trust.

The existence of IACUCs was mandated by the US Congress in amendments it made to the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (AWA) in 1985 in response to public outrage stemming from exposés of animal abuse in academic biomedical research laboratories funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). IACUCs are charged with ensuring institutional compliance with federal animal welfare regulations and guidelines and with reviewing, approving, and monitoring all experimental use of animals at their facilities. While IACUCs derive their regulatory authority from the AWA, their nascence is directly tied to the public’s demand for increased oversight of animal use. This is particularly critical as public opposition to the use of animals for experimentation is growing and IACUC oversight hasn’t proven to be a panacea for this growing concern. One of the biggest complaints that critics have about IACUCs is that they have been turned into what they were not intended to be: committees predominantly occupied with technical and bureaucratic details rather than oversight bodies assuring the welfare and ethical use of animals in research, teaching, and toxicity testing.

Opinion: Hold Animal Use Committees Accountable for Their Failures
As a former committee member who now advises PETA, I believe that claims that the identities of committee members must be kept secret to protect their safety are unfounded.

Related Reading

(Australia) Ethics guide details how researchers should work with wildlife – Times Higher Education (John Ross | July 2022)

(Europe) The Science and Ethics of Turning Octopuses into ‘Lab Rats’ – EuroScientist (Mićo Tatalović | February 2022)

AHRECS and Animal Ethics

(US) Members Of University Research Committee Jointly File Lawsuit Against University Of Washington – Seattle Medium (February 2022)

ANZCCART Fact Sheets (September 2020)

(Nigeria) LAS around the globe: Animal care culture – from cultural and institutional norm, responsibility, and support standpoints (Papers: James O Fajemiroye | January 2022)

(UK) Animal researchers shoulder a psychological burden that animal ethics committees ought to address (Papers: Mike King & Hazem Zohny | March 2021)

(Europe) Ethical Review of Animal Research and the Standards of Procedural Justice: A European Perspective (Tomasz Pietrzykowski | July 2021)

Principles and guidelines for the care and use of non-human primates for scientific purposes (NHMRC | September 2016)

Best practice methodology in the use of animals for scientific purposes 2017 (Updated July 2018), (NHMRC, et al | July 2018)

Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes (NHMRC, et al | June 2021)

(US) Leading breeder of beagles for research slammed by animal welfare inspectors – Science (Meredith Wadman | November 2021)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A diverse group discussing a topic

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in