Ostensibly high scientific standards and the promise of short-term benefits are significant challenges for animal research
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anon., (2016). White Paper: Tierversuche in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft; Animal Research in the Max Planck Society, 60 pp. Munich, Germany: Max-Planck Gesellschaft. Available at: https://www.mpg.de/10882259/MPG_Whitepaper.pdf (Accessed 15.03.17).
2.
Anon., (2010). Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European UnionL276, 20.10.2010, 33–79.
3.
RussellW.M.S., & BurchR.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238 pp. London, UK: Methuen.
4.
VogtL., ReichlinT.S., NathuesC., & WürbelH. (2016). Authorization of animal experiments is based on confidence rather than evidence of scientific rigor. PLoS Biology, 14(12), e2000598.
5.
ReichlinT.S., VogtL., & WürbelH. (2016). The researcher's view of scientific rigor — Survey on the conduct and reporting of in vivo research. PLoS One, 11(12), e0165999.
6.
ImbodenM.D. (2011). In Güterabwägung bei der Bewilligung von Tierversuchen, pp. 53–57, Zurich, Switzerland: Collegium Helveticum.
7.
JoffeR.A., BaraM., AntonN., & NobisN. (2016). Expectations for the methodology and translation of animal research: A survey of the general public, medical students and animal researchers in North America. ATLA44, 361–381.
8.
Anon., (2017). Tierversuche verstehen: Eine Information sinitiative der Wissenschaft. Available at: https://www.tierversuche-verstehen.de/ (Accessed 23.03.17).
