{"title":"Abstracts from the Seventh International Workshop on Immune-deficient Animals.","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/ilar.34.1-2.S1","DOIUrl":"10.1093/ilar.34.1-2.S1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73337,"journal":{"name":"ILAR news","volume":"34 1-2","pages":"S1-S36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793031/pdf/ilar-34-1-S1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39145607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The purpose of this case study is to illustrate how a conscientious Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) tackles a controversial procedure and arrives at a decision. It concludes with a note describing how case studies can be used for training purposes. In order to maintain anonymity, only details relating to humane considerations are described. A protocol involving prolonged and repeated water deprivation of monkeys recently came before an IACUC. The protocol involved adult rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatto, performing visual discrimination tasks as part of a project investigating the development and alleviation of strabismus in children. The monkeys were deprived of water for 22 out of every 24 hours for each of the 5 test days in any 1 week. After the 22-hour water deprivation period, each animal was placed in a restraint chair and tested for a period of 1 to VA hours. During the test period, one drop of water was given as a reward each time the monkey performed a required task. During the remaining 45 to 60 minutes of the 24-hour period, the animals were allowed as much water as they needed. On the 6 and 7 day of the week, the animals were also allowed free access to water. The cycle was then repeated. The IACUC was uncomfortable about the water deprivation aspects of the study but did not question other aspects of the protocol. Committee members thought that the monkeys were being subjected to undue suffering. They questioned whether such a long period as 22 hours water deprivation was either necessary for the protocol or tolerable for the animal. The committee required the work to be stopped temporarily while additional information was sought.
{"title":"Prolonged water deprivation: a case study in decision making by an IACUC.","authors":"F. B. Orlans","doi":"10.1093/ILAR.33.3.48","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ILAR.33.3.48","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this case study is to illustrate how a conscientious Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) tackles a controversial procedure and arrives at a decision. It concludes with a note describing how case studies can be used for training purposes. In order to maintain anonymity, only details relating to humane considerations are described. A protocol involving prolonged and repeated water deprivation of monkeys recently came before an IACUC. The protocol involved adult rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatto, performing visual discrimination tasks as part of a project investigating the development and alleviation of strabismus in children. The monkeys were deprived of water for 22 out of every 24 hours for each of the 5 test days in any 1 week. After the 22-hour water deprivation period, each animal was placed in a restraint chair and tested for a period of 1 to VA hours. During the test period, one drop of water was given as a reward each time the monkey performed a required task. During the remaining 45 to 60 minutes of the 24-hour period, the animals were allowed as much water as they needed. On the 6 and 7 day of the week, the animals were also allowed free access to water. The cycle was then repeated. The IACUC was uncomfortable about the water deprivation aspects of the study but did not question other aspects of the protocol. Committee members thought that the monkeys were being subjected to undue suffering. They questioned whether such a long period as 22 hours water deprivation was either necessary for the protocol or tolerable for the animal. The committee required the work to be stopped temporarily while additional information was sought.","PeriodicalId":73337,"journal":{"name":"ILAR news","volume":"33 3 1","pages":"48-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1991-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ILAR.33.3.48","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60970202","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"WKY Fatty Rat as a Model of Obesity and Non-insulin-dependent Diabetes Mellitus.","authors":"Richard G Peterson, Leah A Little, Mary-Ann Neel","doi":"10.1093/ilar.32.3.13","DOIUrl":"10.1093/ilar.32.3.13","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73337,"journal":{"name":"ILAR news","volume":"32 3","pages":"13-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1990-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793032/pdf/ilar-32-3-13.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39145606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Animals as beneficiaries of biomedical research originally intended for humans.","authors":"Franklin M Loew","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73337,"journal":{"name":"ILAR news","volume":"30 4","pages":"13-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10511691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ILAR.34.1-2.15","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":0.0,"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":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60970737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：