I The institutional review board is an impediment to human research: the result is more animal-based research

被引：7
作者：
Rice M.J. [1 ]
机构：
[1] Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610-0254
来源：
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine | / 6卷 / 1期
关键词：
Alimentary Canal; Cricoid Pressure; Academic Misconduct; Central Institutional Review Board; European Public Assessment Report;
D O I：
10.1186/1747-5341-6-12
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Biomedical research today can be generally classified as human-based or nonhuman animal-based, each with separate and distinct review boards that must approve research protocols. Researchers wishing to work with humans or human tissues have become frustrated by the required burdensome approval panel, the Institutional Review Board. However, scientists have found it is much easier to work with the animal-based research review board, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Consequently, animals are used for investigations even when scientists believe these studies should be performed with humans or human tissue. This situation deserves attention from society and more specifically the animal protection and patient advocate communities, as neither patients nor animals are well served by the present situation. © Rice; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 164 条
  • [1] Mukerjee M., Book Review of Speaking for the Animals, Scientific American, pp. 96-97, (2004)
  • [2] Shanks N., Greek R., Animal Models in Light of Evolution, (2009)
  • [3] Goodrich M., Berbule K., Conklin T.H.S., Osborne D., Rats/Mice/and Birds Database: Researchers, Breeders, Transporters, and Exhibitors. A Database Prepared by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress under an Interagency Agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Book Rats/Mice/and Birds Database: Researchers, Breeders, Transporters, and Exhibitors. A Database Prepared by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress under
  • [4] Rowan A., Of Mice, Models, and Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research (Suny Series, American Social History), (1984)
  • [5] Aping Science: A Critical Analysis of Research at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Aping Science: A Critical Analysis of Research at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, (1995)
  • [6] Shapiro K., Animal Model Research. The Apples and Oranges Quandry, ATLA, 32, pp. 405-409, (2004)
  • [7] Greek R., Greek J., Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?, Philos Ethics Humanit Med, 5, (2010)
  • [8] Shanks N., Greek R., Greek J., Are animal models predictive for humans?, Philos Ethics Humanit Med, 4, (2009)
  • [9] LaFollette H., Shanks N., Brute Science: Dilemmas of animal experimentation, (1996)
  • [10] Shanks N., Greek R., Nobis N., Greek J., Animals and Medicine: Do Animal Experiments Predict Human Response?, Skeptic, 13, pp. 44-51, (2007)
12345678910