Institutional animal care and use committees: A flawed paradigm or work in progress?

Ethics and Behavior 7 (4):329 – 336 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In his challenging article, Steneck (1997) criticized the creation of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) system established by the 1985 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. He saw the IACUC review and approval of biomedical and behavioral research with animals as an unnecessary "reassignment" of duties from existing animal care programs to IACUC committees. He argued that the committees are unable to do the work expected of them for basically three reasons: (a) the membership lacks the expertise in matters relevant to animal research and care, (b) there exists an inherent and disabling conflict of interest, and (c) the committee's operational base of authority is alien to academic culture and violates essential aspects of academic freedom. In addition, he found that the system is burdensome, requiring enormous expenditures of time and money that inappropriately diverts resources away from the business of scientific discovery. We dispute several aspects of Steneck's historical account and the coherence of his proposals. We believe his proposals, if followed, would be a step back into a failed past.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 97,244

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The IACUC handbook.Jerald Silverman, Mark A. Suckow & Sreekant Murthy (eds.) - 2014 - Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
26 (#697,787)

6 months
9 (#700,914)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?