Silverman Jerald, Lidz Charles W, Clayfield Jonathan, Murray Alexandra, Simon Lorna J, Maranda Louise
1 UMass Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
2 UMass Medical School, Shrewsbury, MA, USA.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017 Oct;12(4):209-216. doi: 10.1177/1556264617717827. Epub 2017 Jun 29.
Decisions about the appropriate use of animals in research are largely made by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). Several commentators claim that scientists exert excessive influence on IACUC decisions. We studied 87 protocol reviews from 10 IACUCs to assess whether any group of participants appeared to dominate the protocol discussions. Audio recordings of the meetings were coded to capture the topics of the discussions. We found that animal research scientists made the largest total number of topic mentions while community members made the fewest. On a per person basis, chairpersons and attending veterinarians made the most mentions. Scientists presented the largest number of protocols, and the subsequent discussions tended to contain the same topics mentioned in the presentations. The large number of protocols presented by scientists and their total number of comments made during protocol discussions suggest that scientists may significantly influence IACUC decision making.
关于在研究中适当使用动物的决策主要由机构动物护理与使用委员会(IACUCs)做出。一些评论家声称科学家对IACUC的决策施加了过大的影响。我们研究了来自10个IACUC的87份方案审查,以评估是否有任何一组参与者似乎主导了方案讨论。会议的音频记录被编码以捕捉讨论的主题。我们发现动物研究科学家提及的主题总数最多,而社区成员提及的最少。按人均计算,主席和在场兽医提及的最多。科学家提交的方案数量最多,随后的讨论往往包含在展示中提到的相同主题。科学家提交的大量方案以及他们在方案讨论期间发表的评论总数表明,科学家可能会对IACUC的决策产生重大影响。