比较美国和欧盟学术动物项目:资金。

IF 1.3 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES Laboratory Animals Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-20 DOI:10.1177/00236772231152749
Patricia Preisig, James D Macy, Jann Hau
{"title":"比较美国和欧盟学术动物项目:资金。","authors":"Patricia Preisig, James D Macy, Jann Hau","doi":"10.1177/00236772231152749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Yale Animal Resource Cost and Benchmarking survey, conducted in United States (US) academic animal research/resource centres (ARC), was modified to capture similar information in European Union (EU) (including the non-EU countries Switzerland and the United Kingdom) academic ARCs, who are members of the League of European Research Universities (LERU). Participating institutions came from Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Scotland, Spain and Switzerland. Survey data analysis suggests that (a) per diem rates have similar compositions in LERU and US programs, with >50% of the rates dedicated to recovering salary and fringe, followed by supplies (∼25%), facility costs (∼10%) and other expenses (∼15%); (b)  ∼60% of US and LERU programs under-recover mouse care costs; (c) on average, LERU programs have a small positive net-operating balance, while US programs average a large deficit; (d) in LERU programs <50% of institutions fund the animal program deficit, while in US programs almost 100% of such deficits are covered by the institution; and (e) when setting per diem rates, both US and LERU programs rank cost accounting as the most influential factor. Both US and LERU programs are reluctant to raise per diem rates to the extent required to recover costs and, thus, continue to under-recover costs, resulting in the animal program being 'caught in the middle' between the competing financial challenges of investigator 'affordability' and the animal program's fiduciary responsibility to the institution.</p>","PeriodicalId":18013,"journal":{"name":"Laboratory Animals","volume":" ","pages":"138-148"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing United States and European Union academic animal programs: Finances.\",\"authors\":\"Patricia Preisig, James D Macy, Jann Hau\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00236772231152749\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Yale Animal Resource Cost and Benchmarking survey, conducted in United States (US) academic animal research/resource centres (ARC), was modified to capture similar information in European Union (EU) (including the non-EU countries Switzerland and the United Kingdom) academic ARCs, who are members of the League of European Research Universities (LERU). Participating institutions came from Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Scotland, Spain and Switzerland. Survey data analysis suggests that (a) per diem rates have similar compositions in LERU and US programs, with >50% of the rates dedicated to recovering salary and fringe, followed by supplies (∼25%), facility costs (∼10%) and other expenses (∼15%); (b)  ∼60% of US and LERU programs under-recover mouse care costs; (c) on average, LERU programs have a small positive net-operating balance, while US programs average a large deficit; (d) in LERU programs <50% of institutions fund the animal program deficit, while in US programs almost 100% of such deficits are covered by the institution; and (e) when setting per diem rates, both US and LERU programs rank cost accounting as the most influential factor. Both US and LERU programs are reluctant to raise per diem rates to the extent required to recover costs and, thus, continue to under-recover costs, resulting in the animal program being 'caught in the middle' between the competing financial challenges of investigator 'affordability' and the animal program's fiduciary responsibility to the institution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laboratory Animals\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"138-148\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laboratory Animals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772231152749\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laboratory Animals","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772231152749","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国学术动物研究/资源中心(ARC)进行的耶鲁大学动物资源成本和基准调查进行了修改,以获取欧洲研究型大学联盟(LERU)成员、欧盟(EU)(包括非欧盟国家瑞士和英国)学术动物研究中心的类似信息。参与机构来自丹麦、英国、芬兰、法国、德国、爱尔兰、意大利、荷兰、苏格兰、西班牙和瑞士。调查数据分析表明,(a)在LERU和美国项目中,每日津贴率的构成相似,50%以上用于收回工资和福利,其次是用品(~25%)、设施成本(~10%)和其他费用(~15%);(b) ∼60%的美国和LERU项目低于恢复小鼠护理成本;(c) 平均而言,LERU项目的净运营余额为正,而美国项目的平均赤字为大;(d) 在LERU程序中
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing United States and European Union academic animal programs: Finances.

The Yale Animal Resource Cost and Benchmarking survey, conducted in United States (US) academic animal research/resource centres (ARC), was modified to capture similar information in European Union (EU) (including the non-EU countries Switzerland and the United Kingdom) academic ARCs, who are members of the League of European Research Universities (LERU). Participating institutions came from Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Scotland, Spain and Switzerland. Survey data analysis suggests that (a) per diem rates have similar compositions in LERU and US programs, with >50% of the rates dedicated to recovering salary and fringe, followed by supplies (∼25%), facility costs (∼10%) and other expenses (∼15%); (b)  ∼60% of US and LERU programs under-recover mouse care costs; (c) on average, LERU programs have a small positive net-operating balance, while US programs average a large deficit; (d) in LERU programs <50% of institutions fund the animal program deficit, while in US programs almost 100% of such deficits are covered by the institution; and (e) when setting per diem rates, both US and LERU programs rank cost accounting as the most influential factor. Both US and LERU programs are reluctant to raise per diem rates to the extent required to recover costs and, thus, continue to under-recover costs, resulting in the animal program being 'caught in the middle' between the competing financial challenges of investigator 'affordability' and the animal program's fiduciary responsibility to the institution.

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
Laboratory Animals
Laboratory Animals 生物-动物学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The international journal of laboratory animal science and welfare, Laboratory Animals publishes peer-reviewed original papers and reviews on all aspects of the use of animals in biomedical research. The journal promotes improvements in the welfare or well-being of the animals used, it particularly focuses on research that reduces the number of animals used or which replaces animal models with in vitro alternatives.
期刊最新文献
Cardiorespiratory, hemodynamic, and sedative effects of dexmedetomidine in sheep. Management of zoonoses in research institutions - lessons learned from a Coxiella burnetii outbreak case. An innovative approach for health and safety training and occupational health program annual enrollment for laboratory animal care and use personnel. Extended oxygen supplementation after thoracotomy in rats may improve welfare. Animal researchers' views on the publication of negative results and subsequent policy adoptions.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1