Page 0015

15

Examples of activities that can impact on the use of animals and the work of the ERB

The work of groups that consider specific aspects of animal care and use, such as:

 institutional animal users" groups; animal house management/policy committees; animal care staff discussion

forums; on-going project review carried out by project teams and involving animal care staff

 internal or external audits of standards of animal care and welfare.

These activities can all have positive impacts on both animal welfare and science and are likely to form part of

an institutional ERB's activities.

Activities that drive research directions and thus the animal research that is done, such as:

 review of research proposals and on-going projects by funding bodies

 research priority-setting by government, funding bodies, academic institutions and industry

 audits of research quality, carried out by internal or external assessors.

The outcomes of these activities clearly have impacts on whether and how animals are used. However, their

focus is on scientific quality and priorities, and/or commercial applications; and they vary as to whether, and

in what detail, they consider animal use and associated welfare and ethical issues.

The work of a national Inspectorate or authorising body, which might include:

 visits to inspect animal facilities and check compliance with the relevant legislation

 meetings with animal users and/or animal care staff to discuss their work and provide advice

 in some countries, formal review and authorisation of project applications once they have been considered

by the institutional ERB. For example, in the UK the Home Office inspectorate advises the Home Secretary

[government minister] whether or not to grant project licences, after applications have been considered by

a local Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body.

Processes that review the results of animal research, including:

 editorial peer review prior to publication in journals or other media

 other reviews, for example, by scientific peers or senior management within the institution, externally at

conferences and/or by the bodies that fund the work.

These processes can affect animal use in a number of ways, e.g. an editor may require replication of

a study before publication, or certain experimental methods or approaches may be required to meet

reviewers" expectations.

Index

  1. Page 0001
  2. Page 0002
  3. Page 0003
  4. Page 0004
  5. Page 0005
  6. Page 0006
  7. Page 0007
  8. Page 0008
  9. Page 0009
  10. Page 0010
  11. Page 0011
  12. Page 0012
  13. Page 0013
  14. Page 0014
  15. Page 0015
  16. Page 0016
  17. Page 0017
  18. Page 0018
  19. Page 0019
  20. Page 0020
  21. Page 0021
  22. Page 0022
  23. Page 0023
  24. Page 0024
  25. Page 0025
  26. Page 0026
  27. Page 0027
  28. Page 0028
  29. Page 0029
  30. Page 0030
  31. Page 0031
  32. Page 0032
  33. Page 0033
  34. Page 0034
  35. Page 0035
  36. Page 0036
  37. Page 0037
  38. Page 0038
  39. Page 0039
  40. Page 0040
  41. Page 0041
  42. Page 0042
  43. Page 0043
  44. Page 0044
  45. Page 0045
  46. Page 0046
  47. Page 0047
  48. Page 0048
  49. Page 0049
  50. Page 0050
  51. Page 0051
  52. Page 0052
  53. Page 0053
  54. Page 0054
  55. Page 0055
  56. Page 0056
  57. Page 0057
  58. Page 0058
  59. Page 0059
  60. Page 0060
  61. Page 0061
  62. Page 0062
  63. Page 0063
  64. Page 0064

powered by PageTiger