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
What was that say
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

When journals don’t meet their ethical guidelines, will anyone hold them accountable? – Retraction Watch (Janine McCarthy | March 2023)

Posted by Connar Allen in Animal Ethics on March 27, 2023
Keywords: Animal handling, Animal Research Ethics, Animal Welfare, Good practice, Institutional responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On March 17, 2023

Scientist with rabbit and cosmetic product in chemical laboratory, closeup. Animal testing

Public attention to the use of animals in research is on the rise, and with good reason. As scientists, we have a responsibility to avoid using animals in our work whenever possible. Not only does this prevent needless suffering and waste of resources, it also leads to better science, because findings from animal experiments often fail to hold up in humans. If studies can be conducted ethically with human subjects, tissues, or organs, they should not use animals.

Animal ethics in research is generally founded on the principle that we should refine, reduce and replace the use of animals in research whenever possible.  Arguably, the degree of public support for such research owes much to our adherence to this principle.  Many journals in this space mouth belief and support for this fundamental principle for the ethical conduct of animal research.  This Retraction Watch piece looks at circumstances when research journals fail to live up to their stated beliefs.  Such behaviour runs the risk of undermining public support.

On paper, some journals appear to clear this bar. In reality, however, they fall short of carrying out their ethical responsibility: We see many examples, especially in journals in the nutrition field, of published research that was conducted in animals but could have been carried out in humans or using human-relevant methods.

For example, a recent study fed monkeys Western- and Mediterranean-style diets to produce information about the diets’ effects on human mood and behavior. Another experiment used pigs to evaluate how diets rich in fruits and vegetables can improve human microbiome health.

This should give pause to the National Library of Medicine (NLM). When deciding if a journal merits inclusion in MEDLINE, the leading bibliographic database for life sciences, NLM may look at whether the journal’s ethical policies align with best practices and how well individual articles adhere to those policies.

Consider the journal Nutrients, which published the studies cited above. In our view, it has a particularly bad record of accepting studies with egregious violations of ethical norms when it comes to experiments on animals. Nutrients’ own guidelines require the “replacement of animals by alternatives wherever possible.” However, the journal, and others like it, continuously publishes research using animals to study human nutrition when alternatives exist – and better ones at that.

When journals don’t meet their ethical guidelines, will anyone hold them accountable?
Janine McCarthy Public attention to the use of animals in research is on the rise, and with good reason. As scientists, we have a responsibility to avoid using animals in our work whenever possible…

Related Reading

(US) Exclusive: Musk’s Neuralink faces federal probe, employee backlash over animal tests – Reuters (Rachael Levy | December 2022)

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

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

(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)

The science of animal behavior and welfare: challenges, opportunities, and global perspective (Resource: Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde | May 2015)

(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)

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)

(Australia) Findings from probe into ‘shocking’ NSW university training program laid bare – news.com.au (Catie McLeod | December 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