Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSilverman, Jerald
dc.contributor.authorBaker, Stephen P.
dc.contributor.authorLidz, Charles W.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:28.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:10:37Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:10:37Z
dc.date.issued2012-10-01
dc.date.submitted2013-03-28
dc.identifier.citationLab Anim (NY). 2012 Oct;41(10):289-94. doi: 10.1038/laban1012-289. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/laban1012-289" target="_blank">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn0093-7355 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/laban1012-289
dc.identifier.pmid22992507
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/46086
dc.description.abstractSupport for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) varies among those in animal use-related professions. The authors designed and carried out an anonymous survey to solicit opinions on the structure and organizational functions of IACUCs. They found that most respondents believed a single, institution-based IACUC was an appropriate venue for institutional approval of animal care and use, that their IACUCs represented their institutions' constituencies and that the unaffiliated IACUC members adequately represented their surrounding communities. Respondents believed that members came prepared for IACUC meetings, and a majority agreed that full committee reviews were more thorough than designated member reviews. The quality of veterinary care for animals was deemed to be very good. Participants reported that the status of the person submitting an animal use protocol, the perceived monetary value of a grant associated with a protocol and pressure for a rapid protocol review did not alter the quality of the protocol review. On many of the survey items, opinions of IACUC members differently significantly from those of non-members, and opinions of non-member IACUC administrators differed from those of IACUC chairpersons, perhaps owing to differences in responsibilities and perceived status.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=22992507&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/laban1012-289
dc.subject*Animal Care Committees
dc.subjectAnimal Welfare
dc.subjectAnimals
dc.subject*Attitude
dc.subjectCommittee Membership
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectGuideline Adherence
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectQuestionnaires
dc.subjectSelf-Assessment
dc.subjectUnited States
dc.subjectAnimal Sciences
dc.subjectBioethics and Medical Ethics
dc.subjectLaboratory and Basic Science Research
dc.titleA self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, part 2: structure and organizational functions
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleLab animal
dc.source.volume41
dc.source.issue10
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/psych_pp/624
dc.identifier.contextkey3968643
html.description.abstract<p>Support for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) varies among those in animal use-related professions. The authors designed and carried out an anonymous survey to solicit opinions on the structure and organizational functions of IACUCs. They found that most respondents believed a single, institution-based IACUC was an appropriate venue for institutional approval of animal care and use, that their IACUCs represented their institutions' constituencies and that the unaffiliated IACUC members adequately represented their surrounding communities. Respondents believed that members came prepared for IACUC meetings, and a majority agreed that full committee reviews were more thorough than designated member reviews. The quality of veterinary care for animals was deemed to be very good. Participants reported that the status of the person submitting an animal use protocol, the perceived monetary value of a grant associated with a protocol and pressure for a rapid protocol review did not alter the quality of the protocol review. On many of the survey items, opinions of IACUC members differently significantly from those of non-members, and opinions of non-member IACUC administrators differed from those of IACUC chairpersons, perhaps owing to differences in responsibilities and perceived status.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathpsych_pp/624
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Animal Medicine
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Psychiatry
dc.source.pages289-94


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record