Ormandy Elisabeth H, Weary Daniel M, Cvek Katarina, Fisher Mark, Herrmann Kathrin, Hobson-West Pru, McDonald Michael, Milsom William, Rose Margaret, Rowan Andrew, Zurlo Joanne, von Keyserlingk Marina A G
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden.
Animals (Basel). 2019 Aug 29;9(9):622. doi: 10.3390/ani9090622.
In November 2013, a group of international experts in animal research policy (n = 11) gathered in Vancouver, Canada, to discuss openness and accountability in animal research. The primary objective was to bring together participants from various jurisdictions (United States, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom) to share practices regarding the governance of animals used in research, testing and education, with emphasis on the governance process followed, the methods of community engagement, and the balance of openness versus confidentiality. During the forum, participants came to a broad consensus on the need for: (a) evidence-based metrics to allow a "virtuous feedback" system for evaluation and quality assurance of animal research, (b) the need for increased public access to information, together with opportunities for stakeholder dialogue about animal research, (c) a greater diversity of views to be represented on decision-making committees to allow for greater balance and (d) a standardized and robust ethical decision-making process that incorporates some sort of societal input. These recommendations encourage aspirations beyond merely imparting information and towards a genuine dialogue that represents a shared agenda surrounding laboratory animal use.
2013年11月，一群动物研究政策方面的国际专家（共11人）齐聚加拿大温哥华，讨论动物研究中的开放性与问责制。主要目标是召集来自不同司法管辖区（美国、瑞典、澳大利亚、新西兰、德国、加拿大和英国）的与会者，分享有关研究、测试和教育中所用动物管理的做法，重点是遵循的管理流程、社区参与方法以及开放性与保密性之间的平衡。在论坛期间，与会者就以下方面的必要性达成了广泛共识：（a）基于证据的指标，以建立一个用于动物研究评估和质量保证的“良性反馈”系统；（b）增加公众获取信息的机会，以及让利益相关者就动物研究进行对话的机会；（c）决策委员会要有更多样化的观点代表，以实现更大的平衡；（d）一个标准化且稳健的道德决策过程，纳入某种社会投入。这些建议鼓励的不仅仅是传递信息，而是朝着真正的对话迈进，这种对话代表了围绕实验动物使用的共同议程。
