Ethics: Views from IACUC Members

Abstract

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) members were interviewed on various ethical matters, including ethics, animal ethics, science and ethics, and the use of animals in research, in order to explore their implicit ethical framework. The results revealed that IACUC members entertain rich and diverse beliefs about ethics, that are part of an implicit ethical framework which relates to different domains of knowledge, such as biology (differences between human and animals), psychology (e.g. affective relationships with pets), and so on. The results also revealed that IACUC members hold quite a restrictive view on both animal ethics and animal use in research, and that they apply implicit ethical notions, such as respect and justice, to some elements (e.g. ethical rules) of the explicit ethical framework they are provided with when performing ethical evaluations of animal use. The study suggests that IACUC members should be provided with more up-to-date information on topics such as animal ethics and animal use in research.

Keywords

animal care and use committee animal ethics animal research ethics implicit ethical knowledge

References

Canadian Council on Animal Care (2000). Terms of Reference for Animal Care Committees, 9p. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Council on Animal Care.

NHMRC (1997). Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, 6th edition, 73 pp. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council.

Allen

(ed.) (2000). U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Welfare Regulations. In Information Resources for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (1985–1999). AWIC Resource series No. 7, pp. 17–56. Beltsville, MD, USA: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Welfare Information Center. Available at: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/IACUC/usdareg.htm (Accessed 10.03. 09).

Russell

W.M.S.

& Burch

R.L.

(1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238 pp. London, UK: Methuen.

Houde

, Dumas

& Leroux

(2003). Animal ethical evaluation: An observational study of Canadian IACUCs. Ethics & Behavior 13, 333–350.

Birke

& Michael

(1995). Raising the profile of welfare: Scientists and their use of animals. Anthrozoös 8, 90–99.

Thomson

(1999). Critical Reasoning in Ethics, 214 pp. London, UK: Routledge.

Johnson-Laird

P.N.

(1988). The Computer and the Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science, 448 pp. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.

Galvin

S.L.

& Herzog

H.A.

(1992). The ethical judgment of animal research. Ethics & Behavior 2, 263–286.

10.

Schuppli

C.A.

& Fraser

(2005). The interpretation and application of the Three Rs by animal ethics committee members. ATLA 33, 487–500.

11.

Valdez-Martinez

, Turnbull

, Garduno-Espinosa

& Porter

J.D.H.

(2006). Descriptive ethics: A qualitative study of local research ethics committees in Mexico. Developing World Bioethics 2, 95–105.

12.

Garner

(2005). Animal Ethics, 224 pp. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.

13.

Walker

R.L.

(2006). Human and animal subjects of research: The moral significance of respect versus welfare. Theoretical Medicine & Bioethics 27, 305–331.

14.

Barnard

(2007). Ethical regulation and animal science: Why animal behaviour is special. Animal Behaviour 74, 5–13.

15.

Saucier

D.A.

& Cain

M.E.

(2006). The foundations of attitudes about animal research. Ethics & Behavior 16, 117–133.

16.

Arluke

(1992). Trapped in a guilt cage. New Scientist, April 4, 33–35.

17.

Arluke

(1990). Uneasiness among laboratory technicians. Lab Animal 19, 20–39.