Current concepts of Harm–Benefit Analysis of Animal Experiments – Report from the AALAS–FELASA Working Group on Harm–Benefit Analysis – Part 1

Brønstad, Aurora; Newcomer, Christian E.; Decelle, Thierry; Everitt, Jeffrey I.; Guillén, Javier; Laber, Kathy

doi:10.1177/0023677216642398

Cited by 103 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This report thus contributes to evolving processes for the development of HBA 2,3 . Some ASC report recommendations are targeted to the regulation of animal research in the UK, but the principles underpinning this report have relevance for other processes of HBA.…”

Section: Harm-benefit Analysis: Opportunities For Enhancing Ethical Rmentioning

confidence: 62%

Harm-Benefit Analysis: opportunities for enhancing ethical review in animal research

Davies

2018

Lab Anim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Harm-benefit Analysis: Opportunities For Enhancing Ethical Rmentioning

confidence: 62%

Harm-Benefit Analysis: opportunities for enhancing ethical review in animal research

Davies

2018

Lab Anim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although the root cause for the dissatisfaction among DLAR veterinarians with the frequency of PAM audits was not assessed, we speculate that these veterinarians felt that the PAM resources would have been better placed on higher risk protocols (e.g., invasive procedures, etc.) that would align with the recent emphasis on harm-benefit analysis in biomedical research using animals (24)(25)(26), and, similarly to information provided by Silverman et al (21), the DLAR veterinarians have daily Figure 6. Comparing the perceived value in modifying IACUC processes by role in the animal care and use program.…”

Section: Pi Respondents: Value In Modifying Iacuc Processesmentioning

confidence: 65%

Assessing the satisfaction and burden within an academic animal care and use program

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although animal research requires adherence to various regulations and standards, the manner in which compliance is maintained and the degree of additional constraints varies between institutions. Regulatory burden, particularly if institutionally imposed, has become a concern for institutions as increased regulatory expectations result in decreased resources available for research efforts. Faculty, research staff, and support staff engaged in animal research were surveyed to determine what institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) processes were considered burdensome, the perceived value of some suggested modifications, and satisfaction with the IACUC administrative office and the animal resource unit. Although the results revealed overwhelming satisfaction with the IACUC administrative office and the animal resource unit, several IACUC processes were deemed burdensome, and therefore there would be value in modifying IACUC processes. When comparing the value of modifying IACUC processes, different groups within the animal care and use program (ACUP) tended to have different responses on many of the topics. This survey identified several perceived burdensome IACUC processes that would likely benefit individuals if modified. In today's environment of shrinking budgets for biomedical research, minimizing regulatory burden-particularly unnecessary, self-imposed burden-in the ACUP is particularly important to ensure that costs, time, and effort are appropriate to achieve animal welfare and quality of research endeavors.-Norton, J. N., Reynolds, R. P., Chan, C., Valdivia, R. H., Staats, H. F. Assessing the satisfaction and burden within an academic animal care and use program.

show abstract

“…Over the years, at least three formal working groups have been established to formulate explicit guidelines [13][14][15]. The working groups addressed the issues at length in their reports and discussed several models and algorithms for HBA.…”

Section: Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The research program is evaluated according to the well-established ethical principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (the three Rs [20]). In parallel, the potential or expected benefits of the research aims are evaluated and this, in turn, modulates the ethical criteria [14]. If the score is low, the threshold is raised, making it more difficult to approve.…”

Section: Hba May Compromise Scientific Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harm-Benefit Analysis May Not Be the Best Approach to Ensure Minimal Harms and Maximal Benefits of Animal Research—Alternatives Should Be Explored

Gutfreund

2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using animals in scientific research is commonly justified on the utilitarian basis that the benefits of scientific progress to human health and society exceed by far the harm inflicted on animals. In an attempt to ensure that this is indeed the case for every research project, legislation and guidelines increasingly demand the application of harm-benefit analysis (HBA) as part of the approval process of animal research protocols. The ethical principle of HBA asserts that the costs of an action should be weighed against the expected benefits. Any action that may inflict harm can only be approved if it is associated with a greater benefit. This principle is intuitively appealing but how to use it as a practical rule for ethical decisions is a difficult question. The main difficulty is that the future benefits of most scientific research are unmeasurable, unpredictable and are not manifested at the level of the individual project. Applying HBA in such cases may impede scientific progress by inducing a bias against basic research. Moreover, it can lead to the toleration of unnecessary harm to animals in research. Given these caveats of HBA, I call policy-makers to reconsider the place of HBA in animal research. Instead, I support an alternative guideline which is based on replacing the HBA principle (that the expected benefits of the research must exceed the harms caused to the animals) with two independent but mutually necessary principles: (1) any research using an animal must carry a benefit for society and (2) the harm inflicted to an animal in an experiment must be minimal and scientifically justified. I argue that rigorous harm-analysis, which is not weighted against obscure benefits, can increase the over-all benefits of research while reducing the harms to animals.

show abstract

Current concepts of Harm–Benefit Analysis of Animal Experiments – Report from the AALAS–FELASA Working Group on Harm–Benefit Analysis – Part 1

Cited by 103 publications

References 34 publications

Harm-Benefit Analysis: opportunities for enhancing ethical review in animal research

Harm-Benefit Analysis: opportunities for enhancing ethical review in animal research

Assessing the satisfaction and burden within an academic animal care and use program

Harm-Benefit Analysis May Not Be the Best Approach to Ensure Minimal Harms and Maximal Benefits of Animal Research—Alternatives Should Be Explored

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About