Advanced search options

Advanced Search Options 🞨

Browse by author name (“Author name starts with…”).

Find ETDs with:

in
/  
in
/  
in
/  
in

Written in Published in Earliest date Latest date

Sorted by

Results per page:

Sorted by: relevance · author · university · dateNew search

You searched for +publisher:"Universiteit Utrecht" +contributor:("Stafleu, F. R."). Showing records 1 – 2 of 2 total matches.

Search Limiters

Last 2 Years | English Only

No search limiters apply to these results.

▼ Search Limiters


Universiteit Utrecht

1. Spelbrink, A.L.L. the justification of animal experiments: the truth behind the benefits.

Degree: 2009, Universiteit Utrecht

The main argument for justifying the use of animals in research for human purposes is because animal experiments benefit humans. This thesis is a literature study about the justification of the use of animals in research experiments with the focus on the benefits of the experiments. These benefits need to be considered before the animal experiments are performed; ethical committees need to approve the use of animals in the experiments. These committees will compare the discomfort of the animals in the experiments with the potential benefits of the experiments. When these potential benefits are overruling the costs of the experiments, i.e. the discomfort of the animals, the use of animals is justified and the experiments will be approved. To determine on forehand whether the benefits are substantial higher than the costs, the ethical committees have to analyse the scientific validity of the experiment by setting and following specific criteria. However, even when the experiment is found scientifically valid, it is uncertain whether the results will be the expected results. With an evaluation of the results, the immediate and the long term results of the animal experiments can be determined, in other words, the contribution of animal experiments to medical science. Systematic reviews may provide an overview of the published animal experiments and help to determine the contribution of animal experiments to medical science. However, unexpected or negative results are often not published. To determine the relative relevance of animal experiments for humans, the unexpected and unpublished results of animal experiments should also be taken into account. A proper comparison of the results of animal experiments and the corresponding clinical trials help to determine the contribution of animals in research to medical science as well. However, there are plenty of examples that show that systematic reviews of animal experiments are not conducted properly or that the systematic reviews are not evaluated before the clinical trials start. For those examples, it is unsure whether the use of animals was necessary or that animal lives were spilled. The real contribution of the benefits of animal experiments to medical science is therefore hard to determine. In conclusion, the benefits of animal experiments are important in justifying the use of animals in research for human purposes. Without the potential benefits, no animal experiment will be approved and no research will be performed. However, the benefits are hard to determine on forehand and can be hard to evaluate afterwards. Therefore, the contribution of the use of animals is difficult to determine. Using animals in research for human purposes is and probable always will be an unsolved dilemma, mostly because the benefits on one hand have contributed a lot to medical science but on the other hand can never be controlled and absolutely assured in future experiments. Advisors/Committee Members: Stafleu, F. R..

Subjects/Keywords: Geneeskunde; Justification; animal experiments; benefits

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Spelbrink, A. L. L. (2009). the justification of animal experiments: the truth behind the benefits. (Masters Thesis). Universiteit Utrecht. Retrieved from http://dspace.library.uu.nl:8080/handle/1874/31948

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Spelbrink, A L L. “the justification of animal experiments: the truth behind the benefits.” 2009. Masters Thesis, Universiteit Utrecht. Accessed April 26, 2019. http://dspace.library.uu.nl:8080/handle/1874/31948.

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Spelbrink, A L L. “the justification of animal experiments: the truth behind the benefits.” 2009. Web. 26 Apr 2019.

Vancouver:

Spelbrink ALL. the justification of animal experiments: the truth behind the benefits. [Internet] [Masters thesis]. Universiteit Utrecht; 2009. [cited 2019 Apr 26]. Available from: http://dspace.library.uu.nl:8080/handle/1874/31948.

Council of Science Editors:

Spelbrink ALL. the justification of animal experiments: the truth behind the benefits. [Masters Thesis]. Universiteit Utrecht; 2009. Available from: http://dspace.library.uu.nl:8080/handle/1874/31948


Universiteit Utrecht

2. Faber, L. The justification and responsibility of researchers in the ethical assessments of animal experiments.

Degree: 2013, Universiteit Utrecht

In the Netherlands, all animal experiments involving vertebrate animals must be approved by an accredited Animal Ethics Committee (AEC, or, in Dutch: DEC). Researchers who are planning to carry out an animal experiment, need to submit an inquiry form to the DEC. The information in the inquiry form will be used by the DEC to decide if an animal experiment may be carried out. Since the end of 2011, the DEC Utrecht has added a new section to its inquiry form. In this section, the researcher is being asked to make his own ethical assessment of the experiment. This new section has been added to the inquiry form in order to promote the researcher’s awareness of the importance of the wellbeing of the involved animals and to let him critically think about the ethical aspects of the planned experiment. The goal of this study was to determine, based on literature, what should be included in the researcher’s ethical assessment and to compare this to what researchers themselves had filled in. A scoring sheet was created to quantify to what extent the researcher’s own ethical assessments complied with what should minimally be in it. Only a very small amount of the ethical assessments (5%) complied with the criteria of what minimally should be in it. This could be due to the fact that all aspects that should be in the ethical assessment already need to be mentioned elsewhere in the inquiry form: the researcher might not feel the need to explicitly mention these aspects again. Also, clear directions for what should be in the own ethical assessment are missing in the form. The addition of the ‘own ethical assessment’ is an improvement of the inquiry form in the way that it makes an appeal to the responsibility of the researcher. Ultimately, it is the DEC that decides if an experiment can be judged as ethically acceptable, but with the ‘own ethical assessment’ we place part of the responsibility with the researcher. The inquiry form of the DEC Utrecht could be further improved by implementing clear directions of what should be in the own ethical assessment of researchers. This would probably significantly decrease the current discrepancy between what should be in the ethical assessment and what researchers fill in themselves. Advisors/Committee Members: Stafleu, F. R..

Subjects/Keywords: Bio ethics; ethical assessment; animal experiment; justification; animal ethics committee

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Faber, L. (2013). The justification and responsibility of researchers in the ethical assessments of animal experiments. (Masters Thesis). Universiteit Utrecht. Retrieved from http://dspace.library.uu.nl:8080/handle/1874/280010

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Faber, L. “The justification and responsibility of researchers in the ethical assessments of animal experiments.” 2013. Masters Thesis, Universiteit Utrecht. Accessed April 26, 2019. http://dspace.library.uu.nl:8080/handle/1874/280010.

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Faber, L. “The justification and responsibility of researchers in the ethical assessments of animal experiments.” 2013. Web. 26 Apr 2019.

Vancouver:

Faber L. The justification and responsibility of researchers in the ethical assessments of animal experiments. [Internet] [Masters thesis]. Universiteit Utrecht; 2013. [cited 2019 Apr 26]. Available from: http://dspace.library.uu.nl:8080/handle/1874/280010.

Council of Science Editors:

Faber L. The justification and responsibility of researchers in the ethical assessments of animal experiments. [Masters Thesis]. Universiteit Utrecht; 2013. Available from: http://dspace.library.uu.nl:8080/handle/1874/280010

.