Section: Animal Science
Topic: Applied biological sciences, Political sciences

Ensuring ethical animal welfare research: Are more ethics review committees the solution?

10.24072/pcjournal.310 - Peer Community Journal, Volume 3 (2023), article no. e73.

Get full text PDF Peer reviewed and recommended by PCI

[This article has no abstract]

Published online:
DOI: 10.24072/pcjournal.310
Type: Opinion, perspective
Keywords: ethics review; animal welfare science; harm-benefit analysis; ethics review committees; ethics approval; national regulations;
Nielsen, Birte L. 1; Golledge, Huw D. R. 1; Chou, Jen-Yun 2, 3; Camerlink, Irene 4; Pongrácz, Péter 5; Ceballos, Maria Camila 6; Whittaker, Alexandra L. 7; Olsson, I. Anna S. 8

1 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), The Old School, Wheathampstead, United Kingdom
2 Pig Development Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Ireland
3 Institute of Animal Welfare Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria
4 Department of Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Institute of Genetics and Animal Biotechnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Jastrzebiec, Poland
5 Department of Ethology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
6 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
7 School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia
8 I3S – Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
License: CC-BY 4.0
Copyrights: The authors retain unrestricted copyrights and publishing rights
     author = {Nielsen, Birte L. and Golledge, Huw D. R. and Chou, Jen-Yun and Camerlink, Irene and Pongr\'acz, P\'eter and Ceballos, Maria Camila and Whittaker, Alexandra L. and Olsson, I. Anna S.},
     title = {Ensuring ethical animal welfare research: {Are} more ethics review committees the solution?},
     journal = {Peer Community Journal},
     eid = {e73},
     publisher = {Peer Community In},
     volume = {3},
     year = {2023},
     doi = {10.24072/pcjournal.310},
     language = {en},
     url = {}
AU  - Nielsen, Birte L.
AU  - Golledge, Huw D. R.
AU  - Chou, Jen-Yun
AU  - Camerlink, Irene
AU  - Pongrácz, Péter
AU  - Ceballos, Maria Camila
AU  - Whittaker, Alexandra L.
AU  - Olsson, I. Anna S.
TI  - Ensuring ethical animal welfare research: Are more ethics review committees the solution?
JO  - Peer Community Journal
PY  - 2023
VL  - 3
PB  - Peer Community In
UR  -
DO  - 10.24072/pcjournal.310
LA  - en
ID  - 10_24072_pcjournal_310
ER  - 
%0 Journal Article
%A Nielsen, Birte L.
%A Golledge, Huw D. R.
%A Chou, Jen-Yun
%A Camerlink, Irene
%A Pongrácz, Péter
%A Ceballos, Maria Camila
%A Whittaker, Alexandra L.
%A Olsson, I. Anna S.
%T Ensuring ethical animal welfare research: Are more ethics review committees the solution?
%J Peer Community Journal
%D 2023
%V 3
%I Peer Community In
%R 10.24072/pcjournal.310
%G en
%F 10_24072_pcjournal_310
Nielsen, Birte L.; Golledge, Huw D. R.; Chou, Jen-Yun; Camerlink, Irene; Pongrácz, Péter; Ceballos, Maria Camila; Whittaker, Alexandra L.; Olsson, I. Anna S. Ensuring ethical animal welfare research: Are more ethics review committees the solution?. Peer Community Journal, Volume 3 (2023), article  no. e73. doi : 10.24072/pcjournal.310.

PCI peer reviews and recommendation, and links to data, scripts, code and supplementary information: 10.24072/pci.animsci.100197

Conflict of interest of the recommender and peer reviewers:
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.

[1] Bateson, P. Ethics and Behavioral Biology (Advances in the Study of Behavior), Volume 35, Elsevier, 2005, pp. 211-233 | DOI

[2] Brønstad, A.; Newcomer, C. E.; Decelle, T.; Everitt, J. I.; Guillen, J.; Laber, K. Current concepts of Harm–Benefit Analysis of Animal Experiments – Report from the AALAS–FELASA Working Group on Harm–Benefit Analysis – Part 1, Laboratory Animals, Volume 50 (2016) no. 1_suppl, pp. 1-20 | DOI

[3] Chambers, C. D.; Tzavella, L. The past, present and future of Registered Reports, Nature Human Behaviour, Volume 6 (2021) no. 1, pp. 29-42 | DOI

[4] Degrazia, D. The Ethics of Animal Research: What Are the Prospects for Agreement?, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Volume 8 (1999) no. 1, pp. 23-34 | DOI

[5] The European parliament and the Council of The European Union Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, Official Journal of the European Union (

[6] Gloy, V.; McLennan, S.; Rinderknecht, M.; Ley, B.; Meier, B.; Driessen, S.; Gervasoni, P.; Hirschel, B.; Benkert, P.; Gilles, I.; Von Elm, E.; Briel, M. Uncertainties about the need for ethics approval in Switzerland: a mixed-methods study, Swiss Medical Weekly, Volume 150 (2020) no. 3334 | DOI

[7] Goodyear-Smith, F.; Lobb, B.; Davies, G.; Nachson, I.; Seelau, S. M. International variation in ethics committee requirements: comparisons across five Westernised nations, BMC Medical Ethics, Volume 3 (2002) no. 1 | DOI

[8] Harries, U. J.; Fentem, P. H.; Tuxworth, W.; Hoinville, G. W. Local research ethics committees. Widely differing responses to a national survey protocol, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, Volume 28 (1994) (

[9] Hearnshaw, H. Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study, BMJ, Volume 328 (2004) no. 7432, pp. 140-141 | DOI

[10] Katsnelson, A. Arriving again: 10 years on, ARRIVE 2.0 offers a simplified set of reporting guidelines, Lab Animal, Volume 49 (2020) no. 10, p. 267-267 | DOI

[11] Laber, K.; Newcomer, C. E.; Decelle, T.; Everitt, J. I.; Guillen, J.; Brønstad, A. Recommendations for Addressing Harm–Benefit Analysis and Implementation in Ethical Evaluation – Report from the AALAS–FELASA Working Group on Harm–Benefit Analysis – Part 2, Laboratory Animals, Volume 50 (2016) no. 1_suppl, pp. 21-42 | DOI

[12] Lakens, D. Is my study useless? Why researchers need methodological review boards, Nature, Volume 613 (2023) no. 7942, p. 9-9 | DOI

[13] Mohr, B. J.; Souilem, O.; Abdussamad, A. M.; Benmouloud, A.; Bugnon, P.; Chipangura, J. K.; Fahmy, S. R.; Fourie, T.; Gaafar, K.; Jillani, N. E.; Kantyok, J. T.; Martin, L. F.; Mokopasetso, M.; Mugisha, L.; Nyachieo, A.; Lewis, D. I. Sustainable education and training in laboratory animal science and ethics in low- and middle-income countries in Africa – challenges, successes, and the way forward, Laboratory Animals, Volume 57 (2022) no. 2, pp. 136-148 | DOI

[14] Olsson, I. A. S.; Franco, N. H.; Weary, D. M.; Sandøe, P. The 3Rs principle–mind the ethical gap!, ALTEX Proceedings (Proceedings of WC8), Volume 1/12 (2011) (

[15] Olsson, I. A. S.; Nielsen, B. L.; Camerlink, I.; Pongrácz, P.; Golledge, H. D.; Chou, J.-Y.; Ceballos, M. C.; Whittaker, A. L. An international perspective on ethics approval in animal behaviour and welfare research, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 253 (2022) | DOI

[16] Percie du Sert, N.; Ahluwalia, A.; Alam, S.; Avey, M. T.; Baker, M.; Browne, W. J.; Clark, A.; Cuthill, I. C.; Dirnagl, U.; Emerson, M.; Garner, P.; Holgate, S. T.; Howells, D. W.; Hurst, V.; Karp, N. A.; Lazic, S. E.; Lidster, K.; MacCallum, C. J.; Macleod, M.; Pearl, E. J.; Petersen, O. H.; Rawle, F.; Reynolds, P.; Rooney, K.; Sena, E. S.; Silberberg, S. D.; Steckler, T.; Würbel, H. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0, PLOS Biology, Volume 18 (2020) no. 7 | DOI

[17] Petkov, C. I.; Flecknell, P.; Murphy, K.; Basso, M. A.; Mitchell, A. S.; Hartig, R.; Thompson-Iritani, S. Unified ethical principles and an animal research ‘Helsinki’ declaration as foundations for international collaboration, Current Research in Neurobiology, Volume 3 (2022) | DOI

[18] Pierret, P.; Jiguet, F. The potential virtue of garden bird feeders: More birds in citizen backyards close to intensive agricultural landscapes, Biological Conservation, Volume 222 (2018), pp. 14-20 | DOI

[19] Russell, W. M. S.; Burch, R. L. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, 1959 (

[20] Samet, L.; Vaterlaws-Whiteside, H.; Upjohn, M.; Casey, R. Status of instrument development in the field of human-animal interactions and bonds: ten years on, Society & Animals (2023) (published online ahead of print 2023) | DOI

[21] Sandøe, P.; Franco, N. H.; Lund, T. B.; Weary, D. M.; Olsson, A. Harms to animals – can we agree on how best to limit them? , ALTEX Proceedings, Volume 4, 2015 (

[22] Smith, A. J.; Clutton, R. E.; Lilley, E.; Hansen, K. E. A.; Brattelid, T. PREPARE: guidelines for planning animal research and testing, Laboratory Animals, Volume 52 (2017) no. 2, pp. 135-141 | DOI

[23] Whicher, D.; Wu, A. W. Ethics Review of Survey Research: A Mandatory Requirement for Publication?, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Volume 8 (2015) no. 6, pp. 477-482 | DOI

Cited by Sources: