Anna Olsson

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Reduction vs Refinement • Repetitive use of animals when not part of the same protocol • The benefit of Reduction compared with the additional cost in Refinement • The level of the total burden (including possible non-recovery from first intervention) • Total duration plus recovery interval Review of previous projects – harm evaluation • Information about animal welfare / animal harm in previous projects potentially very useful in hte evaluation of future projects using similar approaches • Information not found in existing literature • Committees with retrospective review process can do this internally • Central database for information transfer across committees 6/7/2009 14
Ensuring scientific validity • Scientific validity critical for ethical acceptability • Most committees do not address • Assumed ensured through funding • But not all work funded through peerreviewed applications • Funding application often not detailed enough Ensuring scientific validity • Concurrent scientific application (assuming ethics is evaluated by somebody else) and ethics application (assuming science is evaluated by somebody else) means harm is not weighed against benefits • Evaluation for funding should include overall ethics assessment • Ethics committee should evaluate details 6/7/2009 15
Page 1 and 2: Ethics review of animal-based resea
Page 3 and 4: Checklist for ethics reviews • De
Page 5 and 6: Replacement • Is there a precise
Page 7 and 8: Refinement • Is there a descripti
Page 9 and 10: Limited benefit as a reason to deny
Page 11 and 12: Responsibility and authority: human
Page 13: Reduction and standardization • S
Page 17 and 18: Appropriate level of review • The

Anna Olsson

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?