How animal ethics committees make decisions - a scoping review of empirical studies.
<h4>Objectives</h4>The aim of the scoping review is to explore the decision-making process for the evaluation of animal research proposals within Animal Ethics Committees (AEC) and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC), and to critically summarize the available empirical l...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318570 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850183263244517376 |
|---|---|
| author | Aoife Milford Eva De Clercq Edwin Louis-Maerten Lester D Geneviève Bernice S Elger |
| author_facet | Aoife Milford Eva De Clercq Edwin Louis-Maerten Lester D Geneviève Bernice S Elger |
| author_sort | Aoife Milford |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Objectives</h4>The aim of the scoping review is to explore the decision-making process for the evaluation of animal research proposals within Animal Ethics Committees (AEC) and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC), and to critically summarize the available empirical literature on the different factors influencing, or likely to influence, decision-making by AECs when evaluating animal research proposals.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of empirical literature published between 01.12.2012 and 03.06.2024 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, was performed.<h4>Results</h4>Twelve papers were included in the final results, four of which were quantitative, five qualitative, and three were mixed methods. Qualitative content analysis revealed deficits in the assessment of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction or Refinement) or the weighing of harms and benefits. Factors related to the review process, applicants, and committees were found to influence this process.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The findings prompt pragmatic strategies to improve the decision making process of Animal ethics committees.<h4>Registration</h4>The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) with the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-1c468ddfbd7f4db68caf163fd0329d51 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-1c468ddfbd7f4db68caf163fd0329d512025-08-20T02:17:25ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032025-01-01203e031857010.1371/journal.pone.0318570How animal ethics committees make decisions - a scoping review of empirical studies.Aoife MilfordEva De ClercqEdwin Louis-MaertenLester D GenevièveBernice S Elger<h4>Objectives</h4>The aim of the scoping review is to explore the decision-making process for the evaluation of animal research proposals within Animal Ethics Committees (AEC) and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC), and to critically summarize the available empirical literature on the different factors influencing, or likely to influence, decision-making by AECs when evaluating animal research proposals.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of empirical literature published between 01.12.2012 and 03.06.2024 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, was performed.<h4>Results</h4>Twelve papers were included in the final results, four of which were quantitative, five qualitative, and three were mixed methods. Qualitative content analysis revealed deficits in the assessment of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction or Refinement) or the weighing of harms and benefits. Factors related to the review process, applicants, and committees were found to influence this process.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The findings prompt pragmatic strategies to improve the decision making process of Animal ethics committees.<h4>Registration</h4>The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) with the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318570 |
| spellingShingle | Aoife Milford Eva De Clercq Edwin Louis-Maerten Lester D Geneviève Bernice S Elger How animal ethics committees make decisions - a scoping review of empirical studies. PLoS ONE |
| title | How animal ethics committees make decisions - a scoping review of empirical studies. |
| title_full | How animal ethics committees make decisions - a scoping review of empirical studies. |
| title_fullStr | How animal ethics committees make decisions - a scoping review of empirical studies. |
| title_full_unstemmed | How animal ethics committees make decisions - a scoping review of empirical studies. |
| title_short | How animal ethics committees make decisions - a scoping review of empirical studies. |
| title_sort | how animal ethics committees make decisions a scoping review of empirical studies |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318570 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT aoifemilford howanimalethicscommitteesmakedecisionsascopingreviewofempiricalstudies AT evadeclercq howanimalethicscommitteesmakedecisionsascopingreviewofempiricalstudies AT edwinlouismaerten howanimalethicscommitteesmakedecisionsascopingreviewofempiricalstudies AT lesterdgenevieve howanimalethicscommitteesmakedecisionsascopingreviewofempiricalstudies AT berniceselger howanimalethicscommitteesmakedecisionsascopingreviewofempiricalstudies |