ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2025
Animals in Teaching and Research in the Americas: Analysis of Legislation.
Article in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of animals in teaching and research dates back over 2,000 y BCE. However, animal protection laws and regulatory agencies only emerged in the 19th century CE. This study provides a qualitative comparative analysis of legislation related to the use of animals in teaching and research activities across 35 American countries. The research evaluated key aspects, including the direct or indirect constitutional recognition of animal protection, the presence of specific or general laws, the establishment and regulation of animal care and use committees, adherence to the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) principle, and requirements for facilities, animal care, and personnel. The results revealed significant heterogeneity in regulatory frameworks, with only a few countries having specific laws (8 out of 35), while most rely on general animal protection laws (32 out of 35), with or without specific provisions on the subject. Animal care and use committees, despite their importance, are not universally mandatory, and their regulatory structures vary widely, with legislation explicitly regulating them found in only 9 of the 35 countries analyzed. The 3Rs principle is present in most countries, with "refinement" being the most commonly observed, followed by "replacement" and "reduction." In addition, legal provisions regarding requirements for facilities, housing and care of animals, and personnel responsible for their use and welfare were largely absent in the legislation analyzed, often supplemented by nonmandatory international guidelines. This study highlights the need for standardized regulations that can help achieve animal welfare, maintain ethical practices, and promote greater consistency in oversight mechanisms across the Americas.
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.