Abstract
Simple SummaryInnovation and research to advance animal welfare, particularly that of companion animal species, can present unique ethical challenges, and there are presently gaps in support and independent oversight structures for ethical decision-making. This commentary details key gaps and one organization’s creation of an Ethical Review Board and structure for ethical review to help address them.To date, independent ethical oversight of many companion animal welfare initiatives has been limited and, in some instances, inadequate. Beyond a blurred line between “innovation” and “research,” the nature of the work conducted in animal welfare projects is often poorly aligned with established institutional ethical review structures, which are designed for research involving humans or research involving animals and are also focused on industry and academic institutions. This commentary details the struggle of one United States-based nonprofit organization to find ethical guidelines and support for conducting non-traditional field-based animal welfare studies, and subsequent experience establishing an Ethical Review Board to evaluate organizational initiatives. The commentary discusses member selection, materials and processes, and lessons and learnings from the creation and use of an Ethical Review Board. Sharing content of the ethical review process, as well as challenges and learnings from it, is intended to support other organizations and individuals seeking to ensure that innovation for animal welfare consistently meets high ethical standards.
Highlights
It is hoped that sharing content of the ethical review process, as well as challenges and learnings from it, will support other organizations and individuals seeking to ensure that innovation for animal welfare meets high ethical standards
In response to the “gaps” in ethical guidance identified as part of the two projects described above, Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs (ACC&D) published a guide, Ethical decision-making: Practical guidance &
While there are certainly differences between companion animal welfare initiatives and clinical studies conducted by a veterinary practice, there are ample ways in which ethical considerations might overlap
Summary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. There would be value in having flexibility to accommodate research involving various levels of invasiveness and risk to the wellbeing of animal participants This commentary details one United States-based organization’s struggle to find ethical guidelines and support for conducting non-traditional field-based animal welfare studies, as well as our experience establishing an Ethical Review Board (ERB) to evaluate organizational initiatives. It is hoped that sharing content of the ethical review process, as well as challenges and learnings from it, will support other organizations and individuals seeking to ensure that innovation for animal welfare meets high ethical standards The content of this Commentary is adapted from Ethical decision-making: Practical guidance & toolkits on ethical decision-making and considerations for field projects targeting dogs and cats [10].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
