科学价值审查:IACUC的作用。

ILAR news Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI:10.1093/ILAR.34.1-2.15
E. Prentice, D. Crouse, Michael D. Mann
{"title":"科学价值审查:IACUC的作用。","authors":"E. Prentice, D. Crouse, Michael D. Mann","doi":"10.1093/ILAR.34.1-2.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the most contentious issues facing each federally mandated institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) is scientific merit review. To what extent, if any, should the IACUC review animal research proposals for scientific merit? Certainly, no reputable scientist would deny the validity of the ethical imperative that all animal research should be scientifically and ethically justified. In the past, however, scientists may have planned and conducted animal experiments in relative isolation with little pre- or post-experimental ethical accountability. The value and humaneness of animal research was generally assumed regardless of the source of funding and whether or not the research was reviewed by peers. The use of animals in research was largely a matter of individual conscience rather than discussion and debate. Contrary to the rhetoric of the animal rights movement, there is no evidence that this led to a significant amount of unjustified animal experimentation. Admittedly, there are cases of research with questionable merit and incidents of animal abuse in the name of science (Rowan, 1984), but these are extremely rare given the tremendous volume of animal research. Now, of course, researchers and institutions are not permitted to operate in an environment devoid of accountability for the humane care and use of laboratory animals.","PeriodicalId":73337,"journal":{"name":"ILAR news","volume":"34 1-2 1","pages":"15-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ILAR.34.1-2.15","citationCount":"28","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scientific merit review: the role of the IACUC.\",\"authors\":\"E. Prentice, D. Crouse, Michael D. Mann\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ILAR.34.1-2.15\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the most contentious issues facing each federally mandated institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) is scientific merit review. To what extent, if any, should the IACUC review animal research proposals for scientific merit? Certainly, no reputable scientist would deny the validity of the ethical imperative that all animal research should be scientifically and ethically justified. In the past, however, scientists may have planned and conducted animal experiments in relative isolation with little pre- or post-experimental ethical accountability. The value and humaneness of animal research was generally assumed regardless of the source of funding and whether or not the research was reviewed by peers. The use of animals in research was largely a matter of individual conscience rather than discussion and debate. Contrary to the rhetoric of the animal rights movement, there is no evidence that this led to a significant amount of unjustified animal experimentation. Admittedly, there are cases of research with questionable merit and incidents of animal abuse in the name of science (Rowan, 1984), but these are extremely rare given the tremendous volume of animal research. Now, of course, researchers and institutions are not permitted to operate in an environment devoid of accountability for the humane care and use of laboratory animals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ILAR news\",\"volume\":\"34 1-2 1\",\"pages\":\"15-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ILAR.34.1-2.15\",\"citationCount\":\"28\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ILAR news\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ILAR.34.1-2.15\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ILAR news","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ILAR.34.1-2.15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

摘要

每个联邦授权的机构动物护理和使用委员会(IACUC)面临的最具争议的问题之一是科学价值审查。IACUC应该在多大程度上(如果有的话)审查动物研究提案的科学价值?当然,没有一个著名的科学家会否认所有动物研究都应该在科学和道德上得到证明的道德要求的有效性。然而,在过去,科学家们可能在相对孤立的情况下计划和进行动物实验,几乎没有实验前或实验后的道德责任。动物研究的价值和人道性通常被认为与资金来源无关,也与研究是否经过同行评审无关。在研究中使用动物在很大程度上是个人良心的问题,而不是讨论和辩论。与动物权利运动的言论相反,没有证据表明这导致了大量不合理的动物实验。诚然,也有一些值得怀疑的研究案例和以科学的名义虐待动物的事件(Rowan, 1984),但考虑到动物研究的巨大数量,这些都是极其罕见的。现在,当然,研究人员和机构不允许在一个缺乏对实验动物的人道关怀和使用负责任的环境中工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scientific merit review: the role of the IACUC.
One of the most contentious issues facing each federally mandated institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) is scientific merit review. To what extent, if any, should the IACUC review animal research proposals for scientific merit? Certainly, no reputable scientist would deny the validity of the ethical imperative that all animal research should be scientifically and ethically justified. In the past, however, scientists may have planned and conducted animal experiments in relative isolation with little pre- or post-experimental ethical accountability. The value and humaneness of animal research was generally assumed regardless of the source of funding and whether or not the research was reviewed by peers. The use of animals in research was largely a matter of individual conscience rather than discussion and debate. Contrary to the rhetoric of the animal rights movement, there is no evidence that this led to a significant amount of unjustified animal experimentation. Admittedly, there are cases of research with questionable merit and incidents of animal abuse in the name of science (Rowan, 1984), but these are extremely rare given the tremendous volume of animal research. Now, of course, researchers and institutions are not permitted to operate in an environment devoid of accountability for the humane care and use of laboratory animals.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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