TY - JOUR
KW - animal welfare
KW - Decision making
KW - European Union
KW - Research Design
KW - Research ethics
KW - Scientists
KW - Survey research
KW - Veterinarians
AU - Aoife Milford
AU - Eva De Clercq
AU - Edwin Louis-Maerten
AU - Lester D. Geneviève
AU - Bernice S. Elger
AB - Objectives 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. Methods A systematic search of empirical literature published between 01.12.2012 and 03.06.2024 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, was performed. Results 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. Conclusion The findings prompt pragmatic strategies to improve the decision making process of Animal ethics committees. Registration The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) with the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB
BT - PLOS ONE
DA - Mar 17, 2025
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0318570
IS - 3
LA - en
N2 - Objectives 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. Methods A systematic search of empirical literature published between 01.12.2012 and 03.06.2024 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, was performed. Results 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. Conclusion The findings prompt pragmatic strategies to improve the decision making process of Animal ethics committees. Registration The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) with the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB
PY - 0
EP - e0318570
T2 - PLOS ONE
TI - How animal ethics committees make decisions – a scoping review of empirical studies
UR - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318570
VL - 20
Y2 - 2025-04-09
SN - 1932-6203
ER -