ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2017
Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2020Pooled it
- Institutional animal care and use committees and the challenges of evaluating animal research proposals.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Review
- Article
- Animal Research Regulation: Improving Decision-Making and Adopting a Transparent System to Address Concerns around Approval Rate of Experiments.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Protecting Canada's Lab Animals: The Need for Legislation.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Comparing human and mouse salivary glands: A practice guide for salivary researchers.Oral diseases · 2019Review
- Tough decisions about protocol review.Lab animal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Decisions about the appropriate use of animals in research are largely made by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). Several commentators claim that scientists exert excessive influence on IACUC decisions. We studied 87 protocol reviews from 10 IACUCs to assess whether any group of participants appeared to dominate the protocol discussions. Audio recordings of the meetings were coded to capture the topics of the discussions. We found that animal research scientists made the largest total number of topic mentions while community members made the fewest. On a per person basis, chairpersons and attending veterinarians made the most mentions. Scientists presented the largest number of protocols, and the subsequent discussions tended to contain the same topics mentioned in the presentations. The large number of protocols presented by scientists and their total number of comments made during protocol discussions suggest that scientists may significantly influence IACUC decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.