Assigning ethical weights to clinical signs observed during toxicity testing

Ringblom, Joakim; Törnqvist, Elin; Hansson, Oskar; Rudén, Christina; Öberg, Mattias

doi:10.14573/altex.1512211

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We were also interested in problems associated with practicing the harm–benefit assessment. In the EU, this is the prescribed model for ethical evaluation of animal research, and our specific focus was on how the informants perceived this model in relation to, on the one hand, the outspoken scientific context and, on the other, wider ethical concerns not possible to cover in this model, such as animal integrity, animal rights and how to assess ethical values (see Ringblom, et al [ 45 ] for the latter).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In summary, seemingly conflicting perspectives exist on what is and should be guiding when it comes to our moral and ethical decision-making. Literature also indicates that the ethical harm–benefit model most commonly used might be flawed and too narrow to fit all relevant ethical aspects in AEC project evaluations [ 20 , 26 , 32 , 45 ]. We thus regard it worth considering in some detail how members of the AECs handle the often perceived incommensurability between reason and emotion, science and ethics, objectivity and subjectivity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees

Tjärnström

Weber

Hultgren

et al. 2018

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryIn the EU, research projects using animals must be evaluated and approved by an ethical committee prior to start to balance potential harm to the animals with potential benefit to humans, in order to ensure moral standards, scientific validity, and public trust. However, different levels of knowledge among committee members, different views on which ethical aspects are relevant, member hierarchies, and a discrepancy between prevailing scientific norms of objectivity and the necessary conditions of a proper ethical evaluation makes it challenging. If applications are not properly evaluated, this can cause distrust in the ethics committees by society. We analyzed the role of scientific norms among Swedish committee members, application of the harm–benefit model, and the role of emotions in the ethical decision-making process. Researchers and chairpersons were most positive, whereas laypersons from animal welfare organizations were most negative. Laypersons more often felt emotionally engaged in the evaluation, but also that they felt they had less influence. We argue that the prevailing scientific norms are preventing necessary conditions for sound ethical evaluation consideration by excluding some members from the discourse. We propose that alternative models for ethical decision-making could contribute to an improved process and hence meet public trust.AbstractEthical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory within the EU and other countries. However, the evaluation process has been subject to criticism, e.g., that the committees are not balanced or democratic enough and that the utilitarian weighting of harm and benefit that is normally prescribed is difficult to carry out in practice. In this study, members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) completed a survey aiming to further investigate the decision-making process. We found that researchers and animal laypersons make significantly different ethical judgments, and hold disparate views on which ethical aspects are the most relevant. Researchers were significantly more content than laypersons with the functioning of the committees, indicating that the ethical model used suited their preferences better. We argue that in order to secure a democratic and proper ethical evaluation, the expectations of a scientific discourse must be acknowledged, while giving room for different viewpoints. Further, to fulfil the purpose of the project evaluations and meet public concern, the functions of the different AEC member categories need to be clarified. We suggest that one way of achieving a more thorough, balanced and inclusive ethical evaluation is to allow for more than one model of ethical reasoning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees

Tjärnström

Weber

Hultgren

et al. 2018

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to evaluate strategies for experimental design involving research animals there is a need of new tools and concepts to investigate if it is more ethically and scientifically efficient to use many animals at lower doses with subtle effects or few animals at higher doses with clear effects. One example is the use of ethical weights for clinical signs and symptoms in rodents that was recently investigated by trade‐off interviews with members of animal ethics committees …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Distribution of Animals between Dose Groups on Estimated Benchmark Dose and Animal Welfare for Continuous Effects

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The benchmark dose (BMD) approach is increasingly used as a preferred approach for doseeffect analysis, but standard experimental designs are generally not optimized for BMD analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the use of unequally sized dose groups affects the quality of BMD estimates in toxicity testing, with special consideration of the total burden of animal distress. We generated continuous dose-effect data by Monte Carlo simulation using two dose-effect curves based on endpoints with different shape parameters. Eighty-five designs, each with four dose groups of unequal size, were examined in scenarios ranging from low-to high-dose placements and with a total number of animals set to 40, 80, or 200. For each simulation, a BMD value was estimated and compared with the "true" BMD. In general, redistribution of animals from higher to lower dose groups resulted in an improved precision of the calculated BMD value as long as dose placements were high enough to detect a significant trend in the dose-effect data with sufficient power. The improved BMD precision and the associated reduction of the number of animals exposed to the highest dose, where chemically induced distress is most likely to occur, are favorable for the reduction and refinement principles. The result thereby strengthen BMD-aligned design of experiments as a means for more accurate hazard characterization along with animal welfare improvements.

show abstract

Any behavioral change may have physiological significance: Benign neglect in tier I neurotoxicity testing

Gauvin

Zimmermann

2021

Current Opinion in Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assigning ethical weights to clinical signs observed during toxicity testing

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees

Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees

Influence of Distribution of Animals between Dose Groups on Estimated Benchmark Dose and Animal Welfare for Continuous Effects

Any behavioral change may have physiological significance: Benign neglect in tier I neurotoxicity testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About