Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Institutional animal care and use committees: a flawed paradigm or work in progress?

John P Gluck, F Barbara Orlans

    Ethics & Behavior
    |January 1, 1997
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Harry Harlow: Lessons on explanations, ideas, and mentorship.

    American journal of primatology·2020
    Same author

    Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Legal requirements and ethical duties.

    Lab animal·2016
    Same author

    Evolution of universal review and disclosure of MRI reports to research participants.

    Brain and behavior·2016
    Same author

    Stakeholder Opinions And Ethical Perspectives Support Complete Disclosure Of Incidental Findings In MRI Research.

    Ethics & behavior·2016
    Same author

    The ethical challenges of animal research.

    Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2015
    Same author

    Rethinking the ethics of research involving nonhuman animals: introduction.

    Theoretical medicine and bioethics·2014
    Same journal

    Incidental Genetic Findings Discovered During Autopsy: An Ethical Analysis of Patient Confidentiality Post-Mortem.

    Ethics & behavior·2025
    Same journal

    Ethical considerations for the use of ecological momentary assessment in non-suicidal self-injury research.

    Ethics & behavior·2025
    Same journal

    Addressing Fraudulent Responses in Quantitative and Qualitative Internet Research: Case Studies from Body Image and Appearance Research.

    Ethics & behavior·2025
    Same journal

    Research ethics education needs assessment in Serbian medical researchers.

    Ethics & behavior·2025
    Same journal

    Aligning values with standards: a comparison of professional values in Continuing Education standards.

    Ethics & behavior·2024
    Same journal

    Implementation of a Risk Reduction Protocol in Youth Violence Research.

    Ethics & behavior·2024
    See all related articles

    This article critiques the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) system, arguing its proposed reforms would hinder scientific progress and animal welfare oversight.

    Area of Science:

    • Veterinary Science
    • Bioethics
    • Research Policy

    Background:

    • Critique of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) system established by the 1985 Animal Welfare Act amendments.
    • Steneck's arguments against IACUCs cite lack of expertise, conflicts of interest, and violation of academic freedom.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To dispute Steneck's historical account and proposals regarding the IACUC system.
    • To argue against the proposed reforms, asserting they would be detrimental to animal research and oversight.

    Main Methods:

    • Critical analysis of Steneck's (1997) arguments.
    • Rebuttal of claims regarding IACUC expertise, conflicts of interest, and impact on academic freedom.
    • Historical and policy-based counter-argumentation.
    Keywords:
    Animal Welfare ActBiomedical and Behavioral Research

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • Steneck's criticisms of IACUCs are deemed unfounded and his proposals counterproductive.
    • The current IACUC system, despite potential burdens, is presented as essential for ethical animal research.
    • Reforms suggested by Steneck are viewed as a regression to less effective oversight models.

    Conclusions:

    • The authors strongly disagree with Steneck's assessment of the IACUC system.
    • Implementing Steneck's proposals would represent a significant step backward in animal research ethics and oversight.
    • The IACUC system is defended as a necessary component of responsible scientific conduct involving animals.