{"title":"A study on ethical review processes of local ethics committees for animal experimentation in Türkiye.","authors":"Burcu Erdoğan Boz, R Tamay Başağaç Gül","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2487502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In Türkiye, as in other countries, ethical committee approval is mandatory for all animal experimentation. While legal regulations provide a framework for these committees, they often lack specific guidance for studies conducted outside of laboratory settings or involving non-laboratory animals. This deficiency, coupled with variations in committee composition and insufficient expertise among members, frequently results in inconsistent evaluations of similar research proposals.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to investigate inconsistencies in ethical evaluations of animal research proposals by local ethics committees for animal experimentation and identify weaknesses in the current approval process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To assess the issue, five hypothetical projects-involving Merino sheep, Ankara goats, Hatay mountain gazelles, domestic cats, and animal tissues-were submitted to 37 randomly selected ethics committees. The feedback received was analysed to identify inconsistencies and areas of weakness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis revealed significant challenges in the evaluation of projects requiring project-based approval, those involving regulated procedures, wild species, multi-center studies, and animal tissues. Many committees demonstrated an inadequate understanding of relevant legislation, species-specific considerations, and procedures performed outside laboratories.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This lack of standardization and carelessness in evaluations underscore the urgent need for enhanced training and more stringent guidelines for ethics committee members. The article concludes with proposed solutions aimed at standardizing project evaluation processes and improving the consistency and quality of ethical review.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2487502","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In Türkiye, as in other countries, ethical committee approval is mandatory for all animal experimentation. While legal regulations provide a framework for these committees, they often lack specific guidance for studies conducted outside of laboratory settings or involving non-laboratory animals. This deficiency, coupled with variations in committee composition and insufficient expertise among members, frequently results in inconsistent evaluations of similar research proposals.
Objective: This study aims to investigate inconsistencies in ethical evaluations of animal research proposals by local ethics committees for animal experimentation and identify weaknesses in the current approval process.
Methods: To assess the issue, five hypothetical projects-involving Merino sheep, Ankara goats, Hatay mountain gazelles, domestic cats, and animal tissues-were submitted to 37 randomly selected ethics committees. The feedback received was analysed to identify inconsistencies and areas of weakness.
Results: The analysis revealed significant challenges in the evaluation of projects requiring project-based approval, those involving regulated procedures, wild species, multi-center studies, and animal tissues. Many committees demonstrated an inadequate understanding of relevant legislation, species-specific considerations, and procedures performed outside laboratories.
Conclusion: This lack of standardization and carelessness in evaluations underscore the urgent need for enhanced training and more stringent guidelines for ethics committee members. The article concludes with proposed solutions aimed at standardizing project evaluation processes and improving the consistency and quality of ethical review.
期刊介绍:
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results.
The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science.
All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.