Prior ethical review of animal versus human subjects research

E. Prentice, A. Jameton, D. Antonson, Irving H Zucker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

During the last decade the animal rights movement has garnered widespread support that now threatens the existence of animal research. Current public sentiment demands researcher accountability and documentation of the potential value of animal research that was largely assumed in the past. One way this can be accomplished is through prior review and approval of animal research protocols by the federally mandated institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). IACUCs, however, face more difficutly in arriving at consistent and ethically correct decisions than human subject review committees or institutional review boards (IRBs). This article explains why and draws a comparison between animal and human subjects review.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)695-697
Number of pages3
JournalInvestigative Radiology
Volume23
Issue number9
StatePublished - Jan 1 1988

Fingerprint

Ethical Review
Animal Care Committees
Animal Rights
Research
Research Ethics Committees
Social Responsibility
Advisory Committees
Documentation
Research Personnel

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Prentice, E., Jameton, A., Antonson, D., & Zucker, I. H. (1988). Prior ethical review of animal versus human subjects research. Investigative Radiology, 23(9), 695-697.

Prior ethical review of animal versus human subjects research. / Prentice, E.; Jameton, A.; Antonson, D.; Zucker, Irving H.

In: Investigative Radiology, Vol. 23, No. 9, 01.01.1988, p. 695-697.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Prentice, E, Jameton, A, Antonson, D & Zucker, IH 1988, 'Prior ethical review of animal versus human subjects research', Investigative Radiology, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 695-697.
Prentice E, Jameton A, Antonson D, Zucker IH. Prior ethical review of animal versus human subjects research. Investigative Radiology. 1988 Jan 1;23(9):695-697.
Prentice, E. ; Jameton, A. ; Antonson, D. ; Zucker, Irving H. / Prior ethical review of animal versus human subjects research. In: Investigative Radiology. 1988 ; Vol. 23, No. 9. pp. 695-697.
@article{5c6cb3b6ffee4859b120b42a1ae70b6f,
title = "Prior ethical review of animal versus human subjects research",
abstract = "During the last decade the animal rights movement has garnered widespread support that now threatens the existence of animal research. Current public sentiment demands researcher accountability and documentation of the potential value of animal research that was largely assumed in the past. One way this can be accomplished is through prior review and approval of animal research protocols by the federally mandated institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). IACUCs, however, face more difficutly in arriving at consistent and ethically correct decisions than human subject review committees or institutional review boards (IRBs). This article explains why and draws a comparison between animal and human subjects review.",
author = "E. Prentice and A. Jameton and D. Antonson and Zucker, {Irving H}",
year = "1988",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "695--697",
journal = "Investigative Radiology",
issn = "0020-9996",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prior ethical review of animal versus human subjects research

AU - Prentice, E.

AU - Jameton, A.

AU - Antonson, D.

AU - Zucker, Irving H

PY - 1988/1/1

Y1 - 1988/1/1

N2 - During the last decade the animal rights movement has garnered widespread support that now threatens the existence of animal research. Current public sentiment demands researcher accountability and documentation of the potential value of animal research that was largely assumed in the past. One way this can be accomplished is through prior review and approval of animal research protocols by the federally mandated institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). IACUCs, however, face more difficutly in arriving at consistent and ethically correct decisions than human subject review committees or institutional review boards (IRBs). This article explains why and draws a comparison between animal and human subjects review.

AB - During the last decade the animal rights movement has garnered widespread support that now threatens the existence of animal research. Current public sentiment demands researcher accountability and documentation of the potential value of animal research that was largely assumed in the past. One way this can be accomplished is through prior review and approval of animal research protocols by the federally mandated institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). IACUCs, however, face more difficutly in arriving at consistent and ethically correct decisions than human subject review committees or institutional review boards (IRBs). This article explains why and draws a comparison between animal and human subjects review.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023687376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023687376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 695

EP - 697

JO - Investigative Radiology

JF - Investigative Radiology

SN - 0020-9996

IS - 9

ER -