You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Ethics abstract
Animals in medical training and research: transforming perceptions in medical schools, India
  1. A A Khobragade1,
  2. K B Thakkar1,
  3. G V Billa2,
  4. S B Patel1,
  5. B N Vallish1,
  6. S Kosale1
  1. 1Department of Pharmacology, Grant Medical College and Sir J J Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, India
  2. 2Department of Pharmacology, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr Karan B Thakkar, Department of Pharmacology, Grant Medical College and Sir J J Group of Hospitals, Mumbai 400008, India; karan_thkkr{at}hotmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-101165

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Experimental research on animals has been guided by principles of the three Rs: reduction, refinement and replacement.1 Recently the fourth R—rehabilitation—has also been incorporated to enhance the welfare of animals that are used in research. With growing scientific curiosity and increasing research, animal use has anything but reduced despite the fact that modern technology has brought to fore many alternatives to animal use.2 ,3 There are many arguments for and against animal use. In India, there has been a proposal to ban the use of animals for training and academic purposes, as reported in two major daily newspapers. This has evoked mixed reactions from the scientific community. We conducted this study to assess the awareness, attitudes and practices regarding the use of animals and their alternatives, in medical training and research amongst medical teachers and students.

    Study design

    A …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AAK: topic selection and conceptualisation; substantial contributions to conception and design; revising the article critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published. KBT: designing the data collection tool, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the article and revising it critically for important intellectual content; proof reading; final approval of the version to be published. GVB: analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the article and revising it critically for important intellectual content; proof reading; final approval of the version to be published. SBP: revising the article critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published. BNV: data analysis; final approval of the version to be published. SK: data analysis; final approval of the version to be published.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval Institutional Ethics Committee.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles

    • The concise argument
      The making of medical ethics
      Kenneth Boyd
      Journal of Medical Ethics 2013; 39 661-661 Published Online First: 15 Oct 2013. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101856