Page 0038

38

Points to consider during retrospective review

Assessing actual versus predicted harms and benefits and informing future work

 Have the researchers explained progress with the project so far, and is it as anticipated?

 Are the actual adverse effects on the animals, and the numbers used, in line with predictions? Has the ERB

explored the reasons for any differences and proposed actions if adverse effects are greater than expected?

 Do the research team and the ERB feel that the particular animal models and study designs are still the

most appropriate for achieving the aims of the project?

 Has the ERB discussed with the research team whether there are any recent developments in science or

technology that could influence the future direction or conduct of the work, especially any developments

that might help to avoid or replace the use of animals in some or all of the project, or cause less suffering?

 Have any wider ethical issues arisen during the project (e.g. concerns about use of particular species or

in work carried out in association with research teams abroad), and what steps does the institution plan to

take to respond to these issues in future?

Enhancing implementation of the 3Rs

 Has the review process revealed any additional possibilities for implementing the 3Rs in the project

(e.g. refinement of housing and husbandry or experimental procedures, or experimental design)? If so,

have appropriate actions been agreed within the research team?

 Is everyone satisfied that welfare monitoring systems and processes are working well and that humane

end-points are as refined as possible?

 Has the supply and use of animals been balanced so that none are wasted?

 Have any special housing and care needs arisen? If so, how have these been addressed?

 Are there examples of good practice or implementation of the 3Rs that it would be beneficial to communicate

to other research teams either internally or externally?

Optimising project management

 Are the researchers, animal care staff and others satisfied that facilities for procedures and animal housing

and care are still appropriate for the work? Are there any difficulties that need addressing?

 Does there seem to be good communication between the animal care staff, veterinarians and the

researchers working on the project particularly regarding any concerns between animal care and scientific

staff? Has the ERB helped to address these?

 Has the review process identified any additional needs for staff training or supervision?

 Has the ERB helped to identify and plan for any future amendments to the project authorisation?

 Have there been any particular developments or lessons learnt that should be communicated to others in

the institution?

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