PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7804639

Monsanto's computer animal proposal system (CAPS).

C K Russell·F X Buckingham·R Daniels·L Bertan·P Fetty·D Klein
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Regulations and standards must include the minimum requirements with respect to veterinary care, sanitation, handling, feeding, and housing. Part 1 of the Animal Welfare Act regulations was amended to update, clarify, and expand the list of definitions of terms and standards. Section 9 CFR, Part 1, contains definitions and deals with animal welfare, animal housing, dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, and humane animal handling. The subjects in 9 CFR, Part 2, pertain to licensing, registration, identification of animals, records, institutional animal care and use committees, and adequate veterinary care. Animal welfare, humane animal handling, pets, transportation, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements are the subjects listed in 9 CFR, Part 3.

Explore related subjects

Animal WelfareAnimalsClinical Laboratory Information SystemsComputer Communication NetworksFacility Regulation and ControlModels, OrganizationalJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C K Russell, F X Buckingham, R Daniels, L Bertan, P Fetty, D Klein. 1994. Monsanto's computer animal proposal system (CAPS).. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7804639/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature for controlled studies comparing learning outcomes of traditional methods that require the terminal use of animals (eg, dissection, live-animal surgery, and live-animal laboratory demonstrations) with outcomes obtained with alternative teaching methods. DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY POPULATION: Controlled studies published between 1996 and 2004. PROCEDURES: PubMed was searched with the following keywords, used alone and in combination: educational alternatives, nonlethal teaching methods, veterinary alternatives, medical education, and nonterminal animal use. Cited references of retrieved reports were reviewed to identify additional reports. Reports were selected for review only if a comparison group was included. RESULTS: 17 studies that were randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized trials that included a comparison group were identified. Five involved veterinary students, 3 involved medical students, 6 involved university undergraduate students, and 3 involved high school biology students. Sample size ranged from 14 to 283 students. Eleven studies appeared to be randomized, parallel-group trials, 4 involved comparative groups to which participants were not randomly assigned or for which the randomization process was not clear, 1 was a 2-period crossover study, and 1 involved a retrospective review of grades. In all 17 studies reviewed, results associated with the alternative method of instruction were not significantly different from or superior to results associated with the conventional method. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the number of controlled studies identified was small, the results seem to support more widespread adoption of alternative teaching methods in biomedical education.

Animal Welfare↗