The ethical dimension in published animal research in critical care: The dark side of our moon

5Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The replacement, refinement, and reduction (3Rs) guidelines are the cornerstone of animal welfare practice for medical research. Nowadays, no animal research can be performed without being approved by an animal ethics committee. Therefore, we should expect that any published article would respect and promote the highest standard of animal welfare. However, in the previous issue of Critical Care, Bara and Joffe reported an unexpected finding: animal welfare is extremely poorly reported in critical care research publications involving animal models. This may have a significant negative impact on the reliability of the results and on future funding for our research. The ability of septic shock animal models to translate into clinical studies has been a challenge. Therefore, every means to improve the quality of these models should be pursued. Animal welfare issues should be seen as an additional benefit to achieve this goal. It is therefore critical to draw conclusions from this study to improve the standard of animal welfare in critical care research. This has already been achieved in other fields of research, and we should follow their example. © 2014 Huet and de Haan; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Huet, O., & de Haan, J. B. (2014, March 13). The ethical dimension in published animal research in critical care: The dark side of our moon. Critical Care. BioMed Central Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc13766

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free