PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9587894

Ethics training for laboratory animal users.

Abstract

In the UK, all applicants for licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 must receive training in ethical aspects of laboratory animal use. There is, however, considerable uncertainty about the aims, suitable content and most appropriate means of delivery of such training. In this review a series of aims for licensee training in ethics are proposed, the key content is described and possible approaches to delivering such training are critically evaluated. Ethics training, it is argued, should: (i) be rooted in practice, focusing on the practical application of the Act to licensees' own work and encouraging them to take all possible steps to reduce or resolve any moral conflicts which the work entails; (ii) promote discussion, encouraging licensees to challenge their own views and critically appraise their work; and (iii) provide the necessary theoretical background to inform and stimulate such discussion. A variety of means of generating discussion and a range of practical considerations are explored.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J A Smith, M Jennings. 1998. Ethics training for laboratory animal users.. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367798780600061

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

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↗