The common-held belief is that the ethical appraisal of protocols ensures good practice in animal-based research, but a large number of ethically approved studies allow animals to endure avoidable and severe suffering
References
1.
RussellW.M.S., & BurchR.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238 pp. London, UK: Methuen.
2.
SmythD.H. (1978). Alternatives to Animal Experiments, 218 pp. London, UK: Scolar Press.
3.
BallsM. (2005). Alternatives to animal experiments: Serving in the middle ground. AATEX11, 4–14.
4.
FestingS., & WilkinsonR. (2007). The ethics of animal research. EMBO Reports8, 526–530.
5.
SmithJ.A., van den BroekF.A., MartorellJ.C., HackbarthH., RuksenasO., & ZellerW. FELASA Working Group on Ethical Evaluation of Animal Experiments (2007). Principles and practice in ethical review of animal experiments across Europe: Summary of the report of a FELASA working group on ethical evaluation of animal experiments. Laboratory Animals41, 143–160.
6.
VoipioH-M., KalisteE., HirsjärviP., NevalainenT., & Ritskes-HoitingaM. (2004). Nordic-European workshop on ethical evaluation of animal experiments. Workshop report on the cost–benefit principle in Hanasaari, Helsinki, Finland, 7-9 November 2003. Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science31, 251–267.
7.
FrancoN.H., & OlssonI.A.S. (2012). “How sick must your mouse be?” — An analysis of the use of animal models in Huntington's disease research. ATLA40, 271–283.
8.
FrancoN.H., Correia-NevesM., & OlssonI.A.S. (2012). Animal welfare in studies on murine tuberculosis: Assessing progress over a 12-year period and the need for further improvement. PLoS One7, e47723.
9.
OECD (2000). Guidance Document on the Recognition, Assessment and Use of Clinical Signs as Human Endpoints for Experimental Animals Used in Safety Evaluation, OECD Series on Testing and Assessment: No. 19, 39 pp. [doi: 10.1787/9789264078376-en] Paris France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
10.
HagelinJ., HauJ., & CarlssonH-E. (2003). The refining influence of ethics committees on animal experimentation in Sweden. Laboratory Animals37, 10–18.
11.
FrancoN.H., Correia-NevesM., & OlssonI.A.S. (2012). How “humane” is your endpoint? — Refining the science-driven approach for termination of animal studies of chronic infection. PLoS Pathogens8 (1), e1002399.
12.
VargaO., HansenA.K., SandøeP., & OlssonI.A.S. (2010). Improving transparency and ethical accountability in animal studies: Three ways to link ethical approvals to publications. EMBO Reports11, 500–503.
13.
OsbornN., PhillipsB., & WestwoodK. (2010). Journal editorial policies as a driver for change —Animal welfare and the 3Rs. In Proceedings of New Paradigms in Laboratory Animal Science — A Joint FELASA/Scand-LAS Symposium, Helsinki, Finland 2010 (ed. KalisteE.), pp. 18–23. Ipswich, UK: FELASA (Federation of Laboratory Animal Science Associations).
14.
RussellW.M.S. (2005). The Three Rs: Past, present and future. Animal Welfare14, 279–286.
