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

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

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Animal Ethics on March 19, 2022
Keywords: Animal ethics, Animal Ethics Committee, Animal handling, Animal housing, Animal Welfare, Ethical review, Institutional responsibilities, International

The Linked Original Item was Posted On March, 31 2021

Animal ethics committees don’t generally consider psychological and welfare issues for a project’s researchers and animal handling staff, or the need for strategies to mitigate any such harms.  The suggestion is interesting (especially with regard to junior researchers) but for us it raises two issues: 1. Would personnel admit to needing such assistance, given the impact it could have on their careers?  2. Do Animal Ethics Committees possess appropriate expertise to judge such matters?

Abstract
Animal ethics committees (AECs) typically focus on the welfare of animals used in experiments, neglecting the potential welfare impact of that animal use on the animal laboratory personnel. Some of this work, particularly the killing of animals, can impose significant psychological burdens that can diminish the well-being of laboratory animal personnel, as well as their capacity to care for animals. We propose that AECs, which regulate animal research in part on the basis of reducing harm, can and ought to require that these harms to researchers are reduced as well. The paper starts by presenting evidence of these burdens and their harm, giving some examples showing how they may be mitigated. We then argue that AECs are well placed to account for these harms to personnel and ought to use their power to reduce their occurrence. We conclude by responding to four potential objections: (1) that this problem should be addressed through health and safety administration, not research ethics administration; (2) that the proposal is unjustifiably paternalistic; (3) that these harms to laboratory animal personnel ought to occur, given their treatment of animals; and (4) that mitigating them may lead to worse treatment of research animals.

King, M. & Zohny, H. (2021) Animal researchers shoulder a psychological burden that animal ethics committees ought to address. Journal of Medical Ethics Published Online First: 31 March 2021. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106945
Publisher (Creative Commons): https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/03/30/medethics-2020-106945
Animal researchers shoulder a psychological burden that animal ethics committees ought to address
Animal ethics committees (AECs) typically focus on the welfare of animals used in experiments, neglecting the potential welfare impact of that animal use on the animal laboratory personnel. Some of this work, particularly the killing of animals, can impose significant psychological burdens that can…

Related Reading

(UK) NC3Rs – National Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (Website)

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

(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)

Guidelines to promote the wellbeing of animals used for scientific purposes: The assessment and alleviation of pain and distress in research animals (2008) (NHMRC, et al | May 2008)

(Australia) Leading Queensland cancer researcher Mark Smyth fabricated scientific data, review finds – ABC News (Janelle Miles | January 2022)

(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)

(US & China) US COVID origins report: researchers pleased with scientific approach – Nature (Amy Maxmen | August 2021)

Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 (NHMRC, et al | June 2018)

Of mice and men: why animal trial results don’t always translate to humans – The Conversation (Ri Scarborough & John Zalcberg | August 2017)

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

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