My contribution to FRAME's 40th Anniversary meeting started by looking back: offering some reflections on the benefits and difficulties of engaging in wide-ranging dialogue on laboratory animal issues, largely based on experience with two forums — both of which have involved FRAME. Drawing on this discussion, I then looked forward: arguing that such dialogue now has an especially important role to play in developing strategies to replace (and reduce or avoid) the use of animals in research.
SmithJ.A. & BoydK.M. (eds) (1991). Lives in the Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research, 352pp. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
GriffinG. (1992). Book Review: Lives in the Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research. ATLA20, 178–179.
3.
BoydK.M. (1999). Bringing both sides together. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics8, 43–45.
4.
Boyd Group (1995). Ethical Review of Research Involving Animals: A Role for Institutional Ethics Committees, 9pp. Southsea, Hants., UK: The Boyd Group. Available at: http://www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk/ethicscomms.htm (Accessed 08.10.09).
5.
JenningsM. (1994). Ethics Committees for Laboratory Animals: A Basis for their Composition and Function, 12pp. Horsham, Sussex, UK: RSPCA.
Boyd Group (1998) The Use of Animals for Testing Cosmetics: A Discussion Paper, 13pp. Southsea, Hants., UK: The Boyd Group. Available at: http://www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk/cosmetics.htm (Accessed 08.10.09).
9.
Boyd Group (2002). The Use of Animals in Testing Household Products: A Discussion Paper and Statement of Principle, 22pp. Published by UFAW on behalf of The Boyd Group. Wheathampstead, Herts., UK: UFAW. Available at: http://www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk/householdproducts.pdf (Accessed 08.10.09).
10.
SmithJ.A. & BoydK.M. (eds) (2004). Boyd Group Papers on The Use of Non-human Primates in Research and Testing, 59pp. Published by the British Psychological Society on behalf of The Boyd Group. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society. Available at: http://www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk/primatespapers.htm (Accessed 08.10.09).
11.
SmithJ.A. and JenningsM. (eds) (2004). Categorising the Severity of Scientific Procedures on Animals, 45pp. Published by the RSPCA on behalf of the Boyd Group and the RSPCA Research Animals Department. Horsham, Sussex, UK: RSPCA. Available at: http://www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk/severity_report.pdf (Accessed 08.10.09).
Commission of the European Communities (2008). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes (General context, paragraph 6). COD 2008/0211. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/proposal_en.htm (Accessed 08.10.09).
17.
FestingS. (2008). Animal experimentation: the need for deliberation and challenge. ATLA36, 1–4.
18.
HolmesA.M., RuddJ.A., TattersallF.D., AzizQ. & AndrewsP.L.R. (2009). Opportunities for the replacement of animals in the study of nausea and vomiting. British Journal of Pharmacology157, 865–880.
19.
National Research Council of the National Academies (2007). Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy, 196pp. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press.
