地方伦理委员会对基耶病毒动物实验的伦理审查程序研究。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Burcu Erdoğan Boz, R Tamay Başağaç Gül
{"title":"地方伦理委员会对<s:1>基耶病毒动物实验的伦理审查程序研究。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:与其他国家一样,在日本,伦理委员会的批准是所有动物实验的强制性要求。虽然法律法规为这些委员会提供了一个框架,但它们往往缺乏对在实验室环境之外进行的或涉及非实验室动物的研究的具体指导。这一缺陷,加上委员会组成的差异和成员之间的专门知识不足,经常导致对类似研究建议的评价不一致。目的:本研究旨在调查地方动物实验伦理委员会对动物研究提案伦理评估的不一致性,并找出当前审批过程中的弱点。方法:为了评估这一问题,五个假设项目——涉及美利奴绵羊、安卡拉山羊、哈塔伊山瞪羚、家猫和动物组织——被提交给随机选择的37个伦理委员会。对收到的反馈进行了分析,以查明不一致之处和薄弱之处。结果:该分析揭示了需要基于项目审批的项目评估面临的重大挑战,这些项目涉及监管程序、野生物种、多中心研究和动物组织。许多委员会表现出对相关立法、特定物种的考虑和在实验室之外执行的程序的了解不足。结论:在评估中缺乏标准化和粗心,迫切需要加强对伦理委员会成员的培训和更严格的指导方针。文章最后提出了旨在规范项目评估过程和提高伦理审查的一致性和质量的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A study on ethical review processes of local ethics committees for animal experimentation in Türkiye.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信